Unless I'm missing something, I have to take exception to Josh Marshall's take on Senate Republicans' promotion of a payroll tax holiday, which would essentially relieve employees from their contribution to Medicare and Social Security and employers from those and unemployment insurance. This would net employees an instant 8.3% raise, according to James Galbraith, in his piece, "Stimulus is For Suckers...", which neating identifies the recovery efforts that give the taxpayers the most bang for the buck. (As an ex-Small Business Owner, I should know what the break is for the employer, but it has gone into the black hole where most of calculus is hiding.) 

Galbraith produces a really compelling chart that identifies the estimated return on investment for each dollar "spent" by the government/taxpayer. [Since I was unable to insert the image of the chart, I highly recommend riding the link and then popping over to the second page of the article to see the chart.]

According to Galbraith, a Payroll Tax Holiday would return $1.29 per $1, placing it 5th among the 13th options he charts. The four options that outperform the Payroll Tax holiday (by return per dollar "invested"?

1. Food Stamps ($1.73)
2. Extended Unemployment Benefits ($1.64)
3. Infrastructure ($1.59)
4. Aid to States ($1.36)

One more option has a decent return:

1. Refundable Tax Rebate

The next two options are basically break-even:

1. Across the board tax cut ($1.03)
2. Non-refundable tax rebate ($1.02)

And he wraps up with five frequently mentioned options that don't perform nearly as well:

1. Extending the AMT patch ($.48)
2. Making diveident and capital gains tax cuts permanent ($.37)
3. Corporate tax cut ($.30)
4. Making Bush income tax cuts permanent ($.29)
5. Accelerated depreciation ($.27)

One problem I have with article is that Galbraith's five recommendations don't exactly line up with the items he charts:

1. "First, we must fix housing. We need, as in the 1930s, a Home Owners' Loan Corporation to restructure failed mortgages on sustainable terms."
2. "Second, we must backstop state and local governments with federal funds." (Aid to states, #4 on the chart). 
3. "Third, we should support the incomes of the elderly, whose nest eggs have been hit hard by the stock market collapse... The best way is to increase Social Security benefits." (By as much as 30%).
4. "Fourth, we should cut taxes on working Americans." (Here's where he recommends the Payroll Tax Holiday approach, #5 on the chart).
5. "Finally, we must change how we produce energy, how we consume it, and above all how much greenhouse gas we emit." (No doubt this relates to Infrastructure on the chart, #3). 

Despite what I see hear as a bit of a disconnect--why doesn't he recommend right out of the gate either #1 or #2 from the chart, the apparent, no-brainer, low hanging fruit of food stamps and extended unemployment benefits???--I highly recommend this quick-read examination of what should be done for what ails the economy.

Back to Josh Marshall's piece, then, "That's Original", currently on the front page, again, unless I'm, in Bush-speak, "misunconnecting" the dots properly, the Republican Senate proposal is actually the same as Galbraith's recommendation #4, which has the 5th highest ROI ($1.29) on his chart.

The disconnect between Marshall's response and mine may lie here: I assume the Republicans mean to continue to fund Social Security and Medicare from the Treasury for the duration of the holiday, as Galbraith suggested. I make this assumption because the topic, as I understand it, is being discussed in the context of how to allocate government investments in economic recovery. Perhaps this is where I'm wrong and Josh is right?

Extensive re-districting in 2001 led to several Democratic losses and a tough field for competition going forward. Also, with the reflexive authoritarianism that upheld Bush's popularity here well into 2006, challenges have been tough. Republicans currently outnumber Democrats 21 to 8 in the State Senate.

Fortunately, 2008 should be different. Concern over the economy and the housing crisis has finally hit Utah. Also, the public responded to the legislature's effort to force a school voucher bill upon us with a 70% defeat via public referendum. The bill was vigorously supported by the vast majority of Republicans, many of whom are now vulnerable. There are also, of course, a number of ethics cases.

Democratic candidates are involved in 14 Senate races this year (the popular Republican Senate President is running un-challenged in his deep red district, the 15th office up for re-elcetion). 9 of the 14 contests involve Republican incumbents, 3 are open Republican seats and the last 3 are open Democratic seats. All in all, Democrats have 12 to gain vs. 3 to lose on the table.

In Salt Lake County, the most populous & diverse in the state, Democrats hold 7 of 12 Senate seats; 7 of the 8 seats they hold overall in the state.

5 of those 12 Salt Lake County seats are up for grabs: 2 open Democrat seats and 3 Repub incumbent seats. All five of these seats are hotly contested & well within the reach of the Democratic candidates, if they raise enough money.

It costs $50,000 to $250,000 to mount a highly competitive State Senate campaign in Utah, depending on the district. That's cheap in most places, but a lot of money in most districts here.

There are several interesting races outside Salt Lake County, including one in the middle of the state (near the infamous Crandall Mine), one up north in the Weber State University area, and another south of Provo.

That makes 8 key races. Five inside Salt Lake County, 3 outside. If we win half of these races, the Democrats will be within 3 seats of a majority in the Senate (15).

Striving for this goal is not only important for its impact on public policy decisions, but also because re-districting will be coming around again after the 2010 census, in 2011.

If we can get to 12 seats this year, then pick up a few more in 2010, we should be able to avert the threat of updated gerrymandering.

The following ActBlue page describes the candidates in these 8 races further. Like Obama, these candidates are going to need plenty of donations of $100 or more, but even $10 or $20 helps. Also, each donation, no matter what size (even $5), pops the page up onto ActBlue's main list of fundraising pages, which includes a list of pages receiving "Most Recent Contributions," giving it more exposure.

Utah thanks you for any help you can provide.

http://www.actblue.com/...

Extensive re-districting in 2001 led to several Democratic losses and a tough field for competition going forward. Also, with the reflexive authoritarianism that upheld Bush's popularity here well into 2006, challenges have been tough. Republicans currently outnumber Democrats 21 to 8 in the State Senate.

Fortunately, 2008 should be different. Concern over the economy and the housing crisis has finally hit Utah. Also, the public responded to the legislature's effort to force a school voucher bill upon us with a 70% defeat via public referendum. The bill was vigorously supported by the vast majority of Republicans, many of whom are now vulnerable. There are also, of course, a number of ethics cases.

Democratic candidates are involved in 14 Senate races this year (the popular Republican Senate President is running un-challenged in his deep red district, the 15th office up for re-elcetion). 9 of the 14 contests involve Republican incumbents, 3 are open Republican seats and the last 3 are open Democratic seats. All in all, Democrats have 12 to gain vs. 3 to lose on the table.

In Salt Lake County, the most populous & diverse in the state, Democrats hold 7 of 12 Senate seats; 7 of the 8 seats they hold overall in the state.

5 of those 12 Salt Lake County seats are up for grabs: 2 open Democrat seats and 3 Repub incumbent seats. All five of these seats are hotly contested & well within the reach of the Democratic candidates, if they raise enough money.

It costs $50,000 to $250,000 to mount a highly competitive State Senate campaign in Utah, depending on the district. That's cheap in most places, but a lot of money in most districts here.

There are several interesting races outside Salt Lake County, including one in the middle of the state (near the infamous Crandall Mine), one up north in the Weber State University area, and another south of Provo.

That makes 8 key races. Five inside Salt Lake County, 3 outside. If we win half of these races, the Democrats will be within 3 seats of a majority in the Senate (15).

Striving for this goal is not only important for its impact on public policy decisions, but also because re-districting will be coming around again after the 2010 census, in 2011.

If we can get to 12 seats this year, then pick up a few more in 2010, we should be able to avert the threat of updated gerrymandering.

The following ActBlue page describes the candidates in these 8 races further. Like Obama, these candidates are going to need plenty of donations of $100 or more, but even $10 or $20 helps. Also, each donation, no matter what size (even $5), pops the page up onto ActBlue's main list of fundraising pages, which includes a list of pages receiving "Most Recent Contributions," giving it more exposure.

Utah thanks you for any help you can provide.

http://www.actblue.com/...

Extensive re-districting in 2001 led to several Democratic losses and a tough field for competition going forward. Also, with the reflexive authoritarianism that upheld Bush's popularity here well into 2006, challenges have been tough. Republicans currently outnumber Democrats 21 to 8 in the State Senate.

Fortunately, 2008 should be different. Concern over the economy and the housing crisis has finally hit Utah. Also, the public responded to the legislature's effort to force a school voucher bill upon us with a 70% defeat via public referendum. The bill was vigorously supported by the vast majority of Republicans, many of whom are now vulnerable. There are also, of course, a number of ethics cases.

Democratic candidates are involved in 14 Senate races this year (the popular Republican Senate President is running un-challenged in his deep red district, the 15th office up for re-elcetion). 9 of the 14 contests involve Republican incumbents, 3 are open Republican seats and the last 3 are open Democratic seats. All in all, Democrats have 12 to gain vs. 3 to lose on the table.

In Salt Lake County, the most populous & diverse in the state, Democrats hold 7 of 12 Senate seats; 7 of the 8 seats they hold overall in the state.

5 of those 12 Salt Lake County seats are up for grabs: 2 open Democrat seats and 3 Repub incumbent seats. All five of these seats are hotly contested & well within the reach of the Democratic candidates, if they raise enough money.

It costs $50,000 to $250,000 to mount a highly competitive State Senate campaign in Utah, depending on the district. That's cheap in most places, but a lot of money in most districts here.

There are several interesting races outside Salt Lake County, including one in the middle of the state (near the infamous Crandall Mine), one up north in the Weber State University area, and another south of Provo.

That makes 8 key races. Five inside Salt Lake County, 3 outside. If we win half of these races, the Democrats will be within 3 seats of a majority in the Senate (15).

Striving for this goal is not only important for its impact on public policy decisions, but also because re-districting will be coming around again after the 2010 census, in 2011.

If we can get to 12 seats this year, then pick up a few more in 2010, we should be able to avert the threat of updated gerrymandering.

The following ActBlue page describes the candidates in these 8 races further. Like Obama, these candidates are going to need plenty of donations of $100 or more, but even $10 or $20 helps. Also, each donation, no matter what size (even $5), pops the page up onto ActBlue's main list of fundraising pages, which includes a list of pages receiving "Most Recent Contributions," giving it more exposure.

Utah thanks you for any help you can provide.

http://www.actblue.com/...

Dear Chairman Dean,

Dear Chairman Dean,

Dear Chairman Dean,

It is none of our business how the Clintons as a family dealt with the Lewinsky affair. It is none of our business how Chelsea personally feels about the affair or how it has affected her relationships with Hillary and Bill. And in certain countries in Europe, for example, the affair would not have been a scandal, much less a grave matter of state, at all at the time and thus of even less import today. 

But this is America and, unfortunately, it did matter greatly--after all it led to perjury and impeachment--and therefore it does matter still.

Why?

Hillary is contending for the Democratic Party nomination for President of the U.S. If successful, she would represent the party in contention for the office itself. If successful once more, she would then represent the Democrat Party (as well as the whole nation), as a Democratic President. At each stage it is not only Hillary and those who unconditionally support her that are invested in her success. At a minimum, the rest of the party is invested, even those who may not support her. At a maximum, if she were to succeed, the entire nation and arguably the entire world is invested in her success.

In that context, then, Bill Clinton's sexual behavior is of vital importance. A new sex scandal during her nomination effort, her election campaign or her administration would have enormous impact. It would no doubt kill her nomination or election bids. It would cripple her administration, much as it crippled her own.

Setting aside the salacious nature and the aspects of it that are personal to the Clintons, why is it that a matter of such significant public import taboo?

Dear Howard Dean,

I was a fan of yours. I never understood what the big deal was with "the scream". I was glad to see you take over the party chairmanship. But now, well, here's what I have to say:

You have completely abdicated any and all leadership in this, the most important DNC activity: the Presidential primary.

Why bother establishing a rule and declaring a penalty if you have no intention of enforcing it?

Couldn't you have foreseen that states would challenge your rule, then have declared a penalty you would have been willing to enforce?

While the fault lies with the states for breaking the rules, a fault lies with you as well for completely mismanaging this process and putting the primary, election and party in jeopardy.

How dare you punt the resolution to the candidates, as if they are likely to agree to solution.

How dare you punt the resolution of your ruling to the credential committee after correctly acknowledging that a delay until the August convention would be disastrous for the party, as it was in 1976 (for Gerald Ford) and 1980 (for Jimmy Carter).

If you want to seat delegates without looking like a fool and encouraging other states to ignore your rules in the future: seat half of them 50/50. You have to penalize these states and you can't count the votes of primaries that were disqualified in advance. Even Hillary acknowledged those votes would not count, both before and after the primaries were held.

Absent a valid campaign and vote, on what rational basis could an apportionment of anything other than 50/50 be justified?

I had no idea that you would disappoint us in such a manner on such a monumental occasion. If you are truly going to leave it to others to fix your blunder in the manner being reported, if you truly have nothing of value to offer at this of all times, please step down and let a leader take over. Otherwise, there should be a movement to unseat you.

You nailed it.

In addition, as Olbermann suggested Thursday night, in a discussion with Howard Fineman, I believe, Hillary's argument suggests that Laura Bush might make a good candidate.

And when do party leaders begin to call out Hillary for endorsing McCain in her selfish effort to carve Obama out of the race?