The noted non-liberals at factcheck.org find an anti-minimum wage hike ad's claims of job loss misleading. It's an entertaining and informative article -- I did not know the origin of the phrase "weasel words" until today! -- and lays out the parts of the CBO report the ad somehow didn't include, such as the part where almost a million families escape poverty, and the part where everyone who currently makes up to six times the poverty level makes more money. But the ONE MILLYUN JOBZ GONE FOREVAH!!!! number is also a scare number, simple and plain. The CBO report stated that a $10.10/hour minimum wage might cause job losses ranging from "very slight" to 1,000,000 jobs over 10 years. But even if we take the high number, one million jobs lost over 10 years equals 100,000 per year, or around 8,333 jobs per month, and even during this rather weak recovery, the economy has added over 185,000 per month since October 2010. So I presume that, unless some utter idiot/asshole/both becomes President in 2016, people making at least $10.10/hour will not break our economy. I mean, people do remember that banks broke the economy in 2008, right?
Speaking of which, Dean Baker asks "What Problem is Privatizing Fannie and Freddie Supposed to Solve?" I guess if you're one of the benighted souls who still think Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (and not the banksters) crashed the economy in 2008, you of course would rather see Big Gummint functions handled by private corporations, although, as Mr. Baker points out, no law prevents private corporations from issuing mortgage-backed securities. So along comes a "bipartisan" Senate bill aiming not only to disband Fannie and Freddie, but to guarantee 90 percent of any investment in a mortgage-backed security issued by a bankster. Will the banksters will pack their securities with utter crap, knowing that they won't lose more than 10 percent of their money if they fail? You don't need a Magic 8-ball to answer that one, especially if you can remember how much they gamed the system when investors could in theory lose 100 percent of their money. Conservatives might also like to explain how government covering investors' bad bets -- or indeed, government encouraging those bets -- exemplifies "free market" principles.
Finally, South Dakota Republican Senate candidate Annette Bosworth -- currently an underdog to former two-term Governor Mike Rounds in the June 3 Republican primary -- suggests that we should treat food stamp recipients like the animals the National Park Service tells us not to feed, because they become "dependent" on the "handouts." We could give her a few "lessons in irony" ourselves, starting with her apparent support of (or, at least, abject failure to condemn) a Big Gummint Park Service ensuring that animals have a habitat in which they're able to feed themselves. But doesn't she know that handing out red meat to primary voters means they'll grow "dependent on the handouts" and might "never learn to take care of themselves"? Of course she does -- this is her significance move, after all, how she serves notice to knuckle-draggers that she's one of them, and also how she serves notice to the Republican establishment that she's willing to beat up on the helpless. But I wonder how many supporters of Rick Weiland, who would be her Democratic opponent if she triumphs in the primary, are contributing to Dr. Bosworth right now.