Today’s “Modern” Sex Ed

There is such a thing as trying to turn the tide on a trend you don’t like, and then there’s willful ignorance of real life. The Religious Right in this country doesn’t like what it sees as the loosening of sexual mores. And, like many people in many situations, they seem to believe that if we just don’t talk about it, it will go away. Or something… Actually, I guess what they really believe is that by screaming loud enough and long enough they can actually get the horse back in the barn. Witness: abstinence-only sex education.

To call such a thing “sex education” is frankly a lie. Really, we’re talking about teaching sexual morality — but only the version approved by the Religious Right. Abstinence-only programs continue to gain ground across the country, even through current admin policies, despite the fact that they don’t work. Two recent news stories help illustrate this.

Erin Bouquin, New Mexico’s chief medical officer, said she was asked to resign after she promoted condom use in a TV interview as a way to slow the growth of sexually transmitted diseases among teenagers…..

New Mexico has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the nation, according to the Guttmacher Institute. (Think Progress - emphasis mine)

The highest teen pregnancy rate in the nation and the chief medical officer in the state is forced to resign after suggesting condoms. Why? New Mexico’s Republican Governor Susana Martinez favors abstinence-only education.

Under a new law in Mississippi, school districts must decide by the end of June whether they’ll teach an abstinence-only version of sex ed or whether they’ll teach abstinence-plus, which includes information about contraception. Several schools around Jackson have chosen abstinence-only, to the dismay of one Democratic state lawmaker who hoped schools would start talking about the facts of life as it’s actually lived. The state says 61 percent of its adolescents are sexually active, 15 points higher than the national average. (The Maddow Blog – emphasis mine)

61% of adolescents are sexually active and policy-makers in the state actually believe abstinence-only education will help? Sorry, but that horse is out of the barn. This is simply stupid policy. No amount of abstinence education is going to stop young people from having sex — like it or not.

What abstinence education does achieve, however, is a stigmatizing effect, making young people less likely to seek good information and contraception. So if the goal of the program is more teenage mothers, we’ve got a winner.

Oddly (or perhaps sinisterly on purpose?), this effort is using our educational system to create a problem that can only come back and damage our educational system. Children who have children have a very low probability of escaping poverty. Poverty, in turn, helps to create more teenage mothers, which keeps the cycle going. And poverty, not teachers, or tests, or anything else education “reformers” want to point to, is the biggest obstacle to educational achievement.

For all the frantic talk about what’s best for the children, the Religious Right is sure doing its best to condemn an awful lot of them to lives of poverty and struggle.  No matter what your religious inclinations, is a little premarital sex really so bad that they deserve that?

by Matt Bors

In case you’ve been wondering why that nice Mitt Romney has a problem with women voters, here’s a perfect illustration. We’ve already had to endure the spectacle of Mitt being unable to answer whether or not he would have signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act had he been president at the time. Now Mitt is again dodging the question of fair pay.

The Senate is expected to soon bring the Paycheck Fairness Act up for a vote again. The last time around in 2010, Republicans filibustered it to death; but this year, their problem with female voters makes the outcome a little more uncertain. Naturally, the GOP’s presumptive leader should have an opinion?

The very conservative Washington Times thought so, too — but they can’t get an answer out of Mitt:

Business groups are opposed to the new legislation, saying it would create a legal morass — but Mr. Romney, the GOP’s presumptive presidential nominee, has been silent.

His campaign didn’t respond to five messages left over the past week seeking his stance on the Paycheck Fairness Act. In April, when he was fending off questions about his stance on women’s compensation, his campaign would only say he “supports pay equity” but would not say any more about the new legislation. (emphasis mine)

Perhaps Mitt is hoping to remain silent until after the vote, and then hopes it will go away as an issue, but I doubt he’ll be so lucky. Sooner or later, Romney’s going to have to publicly answer whether he stands with “business” or women. My guess? He’ll half-heartedly mouth some platitudes about fairness for women (that the “market” can be trusted to fix) after  the vote is done. (Presumably with other Republicans defeating the bill for him.)

Romney told Fox News that he has a three step plan to achieve his goal of mediocrity:

1. Get rid of Obamacare
2. Drill here, drill now – oil, gas, coal!
3. Tackle the deficit (read: austerity)

Naturally, these are exactly what one would expect any Republican to say when appearing on Fox News — but let’s assume that Mitt really means it. The Romney plan for ‘Restoring Our Future’ would be a) a return to a failed health care system; b) continued reliance on fossil fuels; and c) austerity — because it’s working so well in Europe!

Taking these one by one:

1. Romney claims Obamacare is hurting small businesses, preventing them from hiring. The truth is that the ACA exempts businesses with less than 50 employees, and provides tax credits to help cover the cost of employer premium contributions. Simply put: Obamacare is not preventing hiring. When the economy creates demand, employers will hire.
2. Romney not only claims that drilling domestically for oil, natural gas and coal will create jobs in the energy industry – he claims this will somehow bring long-ago outsourced manufacturing jobs back home. Yes, energy production will create jobs – but not enough to greatly impact nation-wide unemployment numbers; and there is absolutely no justification for his manufacturing claims. Besides, this is not truly an area of disagreement between Romney and Obama.
3. This is the big problem for Romney. The same CBO that predicts his unemployment rate is easily achievable also says the US version of austerity (the ‘fiscal cliff’ we risk plunging from in early 2013) will lead to recession. We see no indication from Romney that he would do anything to avert such a disaster.

If this is indeed the scenario we could expect from a President Romney, 6% unemployment really would be a miracle. Maybe by the time we get to the debates, Romney will have some real policy positions, and not just re-heated GOP talking points. Here’s hoping.

Alan Simpson, the most avuncular-looking Mean Girl in Washington, is back at it again. He fired off a letter to the California Alliance of Retired Americans, months after making an appearance in the Golden State that included a protest by this group. It was clearly eating at his soul so much that he had to “set ‘em straight” on how they should shut up and take the reduction of future Social Security benefits for all Americans with some more dignity and grace:

“Your little flyer entitled “Bowles! Simpson! Stop using the deficit as a phony excuse to gut our Social Security!” is one of the phoniest excuses for a “flyer” I have ever seen. You use the faces of young people, who are the ones who are going to get gutted while you continue to push out your blather and drivel. My suggestion to you — an honest one — read the damn report. The Moment of Truth — 67 pages, and then tell me if we’re not doing the right thing with Social Security. What a wretched group of seniors you must be to use the faces of the very people that we are trying to save, while the “greedy geezers” like you use them as a tool and a front for your nefarious bunch of crap. You must feel some sense of shame for shoveling out this bulls**t. ” (FDL)

Yes, it’s hilarious to see Mr. “Get off my lawn!” screaming at his fellow “geezers”. He’s a jerk. This is not news. After all, he’s best know as the man who referred to Social Security as a “milk cow with 310 million tits” and has called senior citizens the “greediest generation.”  And yet, President Obama named him to head up a commission to deal with that milk cow.

Now, Simpson would have us believe that he is attacking these “greedy geezers” so that he can save Social Security for the senior citizens of the future.  He will not see young people’s future “gutted”! Not surprisingly, this is demonstrably untrue.

If we take a look at the actual recommendations of the Bowles-Simpson plan, we learn that Simpson is not in any way prepared to ask wealthy earners to pay FICA taxes beyond the level they do today (currently capped at $110,100.) In fact, most of Social Security’s “problem” could be easily fixed with this simple adjustment.)

Instead, what does Simpson propose? The Bowles-Simpson plan would cut Social Security benefits nearly as deeply as those that would be forced by the shortfall in 2033 if we do nothing at all.  According to an analysis of the plan, middle-class workers with average earnings over the course of their careers would see a 22% cut in benefits by 2080, not significantly different from the 23.5% cut in benefits these workers would face if we do nothing.

Notwithstanding Simpson’s crocodile tears for young people, under the Bowles-Simpson plan, if someone who is born in 2015 retires at age 65 with a middle-class income in 2080, Social Security will replace only 28 percent of their pre-retirement earnings. By contrast, a 65-year old who retired in 1980 replaced 49 percent of pre-retirement earnings. (EPI)

So much for “saving” Social Security.

The spending binge that never was. (Courtesy of WSJ MarketWatch)

As you can see from the chart to the right, government spending under Obama, including his signature stimulus bill, is rising at a 1.4% annualized pace — slower than at any time in nearly 60 years.  The big surge in federal spending happened in fiscal 2009, before Obama took office. Since then, spending growth has been relatively flat. Here are the facts, via the Wall Street Journal:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion. • In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

So this is great news, right? One of the primary attacks on President Obama turns out to be unsupportable by the facts. Woo hoo!

Sure, it’s great if all you care about is scoring a political point. But if you actually care about a healthy US economy and about a robust recovery which benefits all Americans, not just those at the top, it’s pretty dismal news. The lack of government spending following the deepest and most prolonged downturn since the Great Depression is a key factor in the painfully slow recovery.

How bad is it? As the WSJ piece points out, “Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.” The author goes on to explain that this is worse than it implies, because once you account for inflation and population growth, on a per capita basis, spending is actually down.  And the Democrats are gleefully prancing about, just about thrilled to death to have this vindication. sigh

This is just a rehash of what Michael Linden put together for the Center for American Progress. And it serves the same purpose – to “bust the myth” from conservatives that Obama has presided over growth in federal spending. But of course, that feeds another myth, that such restraint is a wise course in the midst of an economic recession. We know that the opposite is true, based on all the available evidence in virtually every country in the world. Just today, the head of the IMF is begging Britain to take advantage of their low borrowing costs and use fiscal stimulus to kickstart their economy.

Our borrowing costs are just as low. And so if you want to explain the sluggish recovery in the US, if you want to explain the suffering of millions of people through elevated unemployment going on its fourth year, you can use the exact same statistics and give the exact same answer – because under Obama, growth in government spending is “at the lowest level in nearly 60 years.” (David Dayen, FDL — emphasis mine)

Before I get a bunch of nasty comments about me undermining our beloved POTUS, I’m not laying all the blame at Obama’s feet. Certainly as leader of the both the nation and the party, Obama deserves blame; but the entire Democratic Party and their inability to move legislation that makes for tough campaigns but good policy are on the hook for this.

Romney: taking credit for doing nothing since 1947

Super job-creator Mitt Romney has boldly predicted that if he becomes president, the unemployment rate will reach a spectacularly low 6% by 2016! “But wait,” you say, “didn’t he just say something a couple weeks ago about anything over 4% being unacceptable?” Why, yes – yes,  he did — but you don’t expect him to keep track of everything he says, do you?? He’s running for president, for pete’s sake!

Funny thing about this particular campaign promise: the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicts that will be the unemployment rate anyway, with or without Romney. I’m starting to think that if the sun rises tomorrow, Romney will be taking credit for it.

Best case scenario, they hope for success before the GOP convention in Tampa, when they will otherwise be fatally tied to Mitt Romney for this cycle. Assuming this may be too ambitious, researchers are working on back-up plans to “upgrade” Romney through accelerated mutation enhanced with extracted Reagan DNA. Who says the GOP hates Science?

A tweet from Slate’s Dave Weigel  a few minutes ago has alerted me to an interesting twist in the tale of Arizona birtherism gone wild.

I recently thought about, and decided against,  a post detailing the announcement by Arizona Secretary of  State Ken Bennett that it’s ‘possible’ Obama won’t be on the ballot in November. My gut tells me that Bennett wants to be Governor in 2014, so he decided to float this cockamamie idea to burnish his wing-nut bona fides.

Even if Bennett turned out to not be bluffing and made that call – the case would undoubtedly end up in at the US Supreme Court. And — despite left-wing nightmare scenarios — there are simply not five votes to sustain such a ruling. (The court has repeatedly declined to even review birther cases, and not a single ballot challenge case has forced the issue upon them. Besides, say what you will about Thomas and Alito, and maybe Scalia, but you’re not going to see Chief Justice Roberts or Anthony Kennedy destroy their legacies over birtherism.)  So I decided the issue is going nowhere, chalked it up to political posturing, and moved on.

But… … it turns out that Secretary of State Bennett is also co-chair of the presidential bid by Republican Mitt Romney… … Now that’s interesting.

I gather from Weigel’s tweet, that he is attempting to get a response to this information, and that one has so far not been forth-coming. But it’s important to remember that it is the Secretary of State who is responsible for conducting fair elections. In fact, prior to this year, Bennett has held the position that it would be inappropriate for a Secretary of State to endorse a candidate for office in an election which he oversees. Apparently, political ambitions have forced some different calculations for Mr. Bennett this year.

Update: Bennett has now announced that he’s withdrawing the threat that Obama may not appear on the Arizona ballot. Still, the fact that we went through any of this, and that he remains co-chair of Romney’s campaign, tells us that things are definitely a little crazy in Arizona.

First there was the bizarre declaration that Russia is “without question our number one geopolitical foe” and the op-ed about China which Foreign Policy’s  Dan Drezner so aptly described as reading like it was composed by the Hulk. (See: Romney SMASH China!) Now, we have his Chicago Tribune op-ed on NATO which is not merely stupid, but hilariously nonsensical, too.

From Mitt’s post, my comments in red:

NATO has kept the peace in Europe for more than six decades. But today, the alliance is at a crossroads. It is time to speak candidly about the challenges facing the United States and our allies and how to rise to them….

Yes! Speak candidly – good start! Go on…

While military underinvestment is an old problem for NATO, a lack of American leadership on the issue is an alarming new development. Instead of working to strengthen NATO, the Obama administration has taken actions that will only undermine the alliance…

Yes, from here he goes ahead and blames Obama for the bipartisan spending cuts …

Last year, President Obama signed into law a budget scheme that threatens to saddle the U.S. military with nearly $1 trillion in cuts over the next 10 years. President Obama’s own defense secretary, Leon Panetta, has called cuts of this magnitude “devastating” to our national security. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has plainly said that such a reduction means “we would not any longer be a global power.” Despite these warnings, the Obama administration has pledged to veto an attempt to replace these cuts with savings in other areas…

With the United States on a path to a hollow military, we are hardly in a position to exercise leadership in persuading our allies to spend more on security. And in fact the Obama administration has failed to exercise such leadership. Quite the contrary; a multiplier effect has set in: The administration’s irresponsible defense cuts are clearing the way for our partners to do even less….

As has been pointed out elsewhere, not only is Obama not singularly responsible for those cuts, a great deal of those cuts are made with “real buy in” from the military’s top brass…

At this moment of both opportunities and perils — an Iranian regime with nuclear ambitions, an unpredictable North Korea, a revanchist Russia, a China spending furiously on its own military, to name but a few of the major challenges looming before us — the NATO alliance must retain the capacity to act.

Whoa, there!

1) North Korea and China? What does that have to do with NATO?

2) A “revanchist Russia”? Does he just want to prove he knows the word? Because I do not think that he does. Then again, I guess it dovetails with his equally incoherent earlier statements on Russia…

As president, I will work closely with our partners to bolster the alliance. In that effort, words are not enough.

I will reverse Obama-era military cuts. I will not allow runaway entitlement spending to swallow the defense budget as has happened in Europe and as President Obama is now allowing here.

Finally, we get to Romney’s biggest problem: he contends that our NATO allies have forgone their military needs in favor of, as he puts it, “ever more generous welfare states.” He then says that what NATO needs is a serious dose of leadership from the US! Instead of doing the same and reducing our own military budget, we should double down and lead by example.

Except… the reason our NATO allies haven’t been spending on defense the way we have is that they haven’t had to — because we have. There’s actually a whole body of knowledge out there on the economic realities of military alliances. Mitt Romney either isn’t aware of this, or just expects that you aren’t aware of this.  But you don’t have to be, you only need to think about it: if one super-power is spending beaucoup bucks on military build-up, what incentive is there for others in the alliance to do the same?

Moreover, the US has been out-spending all our allies combined on defense for decades — while they’ve all-the-while been cutting back on defense and investing it their dreaded “welfare states”. Why would things suddenly change just because Mitt Romney was in the White House?

Honestly, the more I hear of Romney’s “foreign policy”,  the more confused I become. I can’t decide if he’s just pushing the military spending  thing because he wants to benefit the likes of Halliburton, Lockheed Martin, Northrup-Grumman, etc… or  if he just thinks he’s saying what a “tough guy” Republican should say.

Via: Best Online Colleges