patrick.net

the afflicted countries were saddled with crippling public and private debt AND governments deficit was 40% or more of its annual budget. But the U.S. is expecting a different result, right?
A lot of that private debt is being repudiated (one loan at a time!) Thanks to securitization, much of the pain will be felt in far off lands.

The Obama Administrations own vastly - understated federal budget for 2009 admits that deficit spending for the first time in U.S. history amounts to 40.1% of the budget. In addition, the government "cooks" the books and the 2009 budget is loaded with false funding assumptions and other gimmicks that hide true spending...so the true amount is probably much greater than 40.1% already.

But the currency crisis is deeper. By the Fed's own imperfect and begrudgingly - given statistics, the Fed's have printed $2.40 (out of thin air) for every $1.00 that existed when the financial crisis began in 2007. Inflation is poised to repeat itself, on steroids. That's because our money is not sound. Its not backed by anything therefore it has no value (kinda like monopoly money).

One nation under debt. The Congressional Budget office has projected the Federal debt will hit 82% of GDP over the next 10 years. And that's before health care "reform" and cap & trade. Massive unfunded Social Security and Medicare obligations loom on the horizon while Washington has shown no inclination to restrain spending growth. There is no alternative but to inflate. LOOK OUT !! Hyperinflation dead ahead!

I'm hoping Obama promises some bailout money to keep Air America on the air. America needs comic relief in tough times like these.

Ray/Honest Abe--

Could you please provide links or data to support your statements about the debt % of GDP?? Here's what the cbo says on their website. We're at 8% now, and it improves to 2% in a couple of years. Where are you getting 40% going up (?) to 80%?? I've never seen anything remotely close to that.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9957/OutlookSlidesForHearing.pdf

Honest Abe says

Its not backed by anything therefore it has no value (kinda like monopoly money).

It's primary value is satisfying income tax debt to Uncle Sam.

Hyperinflation isn't going to solve the Medicare and FICA issues coming later this decade. Quite the opposite in fact.

I agree with you that budgeting is in a parlous state. If we can sunset the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest quintile then we'll partially back on track. After that, we're going to need to cut defense spending in half, but I don't think that's doable in the current political and employment climate.

There's plenty of money around, the problem is only the rich people have it now.

tatupu70 says

Ray/Honest Abe–
Could you please provide links or data to support your statements about the debt % of GDP?? Here’s what the cbo says on their website. We’re at 8% now, and it improves to 2% in a couple of years. Where are you getting 40% going up (?) to 80%?? I’ve never seen anything remotely close to that.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9957/OutlookSlidesForHearing.pdf

TAT your 8% figure is deficit spending to GDP. The figure that Abe is trying to quote is the deficit/outlays or deficit spending as a percent of total federal spending. In your link it has this at around 1/3. 40% is a GENEROUS roundup from 33% though. I wouldn't mind an explanation of this rounding.

If 40% deficit to total spending spells doom, then most of the countries in the world are screwed I guess. May as well just kill ourselves now.

If anyone is serious about fixing the deficit, then they have to recognize some basic facts:

For 2010, the total amount of defense spending will exceed the total amount of income tax collected. This includes the base $680B being requested by the DoD, and the estimated $350B being requested for supplemental funding in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The remaining budget is almost entirely Social Security and Medicare.

Social Security is funded (at least in theory...) independently of everything else, and fixing it is a simple matter of adjusting retirement ages, payouts, or payroll taxes. 99% of social security is simply giving cash to retirees, so there isn't really any fat to cut or anything else.

Medicare is, of course, the other big issue, and nothing is really being done about it, because our political system is broken and we can't even have a simple up / down vote on the problem.

So, realistically, you have to cut the military dramatically. Existing Iraq and Afghanistan is the best way to do this, though ceasing to fund ridiculous cold war era equipment would also help. Seriously guys, countries that have nukes will NEVER be in a conventional war.

You also have to fix medicare somehow. You could unwind it (fuck the elderly!), you could make a national program (commies!), or you could try some other approach. You can't just ignore things and pretend like the status quo is going to work, and you can't pretend like there's one single solution that's going to solve it.

And, well, that's it. Aside from interest on the debt (and one-time bailouts and the like), the entire rest of the budget is less than 15% of the total. You could drop that number all the way to zero (who needs courts or research grants anyway?), but you'd still be facing a half-trillion dollar deficit.

Defense, Social Security, Medicare. If you're not willing to seriously deal with all three of these programs, you can't possibly touch the deficit, and you're either naive or intentionally misleading people if you claim otherwise.

^ couldn't have said it better

Kevin says

If anyone is serious about fixing the deficit, then they have to recognize some basic facts:
For 2010, the total amount of defense spending will exceed the total amount of income tax collected. This includes the base $680B being requested by the DoD, and the estimated $350B being requested for supplemental funding in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The remaining budget is almost entirely Social Security and Medicare.

Aren't you missing a few expenditures? Interesting you failed to mention foreign aid (including embassies, staff, etc.), welfare programs, employment for literally millions of federal employees not connected in any way to "Social Security and Medicare." How about the billions allocated for thousands of earmarks attached to bills, etc. etc etc. ?
Kevin says

Social Security is funded (at least in theory…) independently of everything else, and fixing it is a simple matter of adjusting retirement ages, payouts, or payroll taxes. 99% of social security is simply giving cash to retirees, so there isn’t really any fat to cut or anything else.

You fail to mention that Social Security and Medicare surplus funds have been stolen by every administration since LBJ. That stolen money ($300 Billion per year) is used to finance general fund spending programs. When SS was initiated, the worker to beneficiary ratio was approximately 35 - 1. It is now about 3 – 1, and shrinking. The surplus was designed to factor in future diminishing ratios. That surplus is gone and does not exist. Instead, we now have in its place special T-Bill IOUs that by law cannot be sold, in other words, worthless pieces of paper. Isn't it great how well government works?

Kevin says

Medicare is, of course, the other big issue, and nothing is really being done about it, because our political system is broken and we can’t even have a simple up / down vote on the problem.

Obama has stated there are hundreds of billions in waste and fraud in this program. Do you think it might be a nice idea if the government did something about that? If not, why not?

RayAmerica says

’t you missing a few expenditures? Interesting you failed to mention foreign aid (including embassies, staff, etc.), welfare programs, employment for literally millions of federal employees not connected in any way to “Social Security and Medicare.” How about the billions allocated for thousands of earmarks attached to bills, etc. etc etc. ?

Nope--he's not. Because all of those expenditures you mention are negligable to the overall budget. Get rid of all of it and you'd still have roughly the same deficit. Cutting military spending is the only way to balance the budget.

RayAmerica says

Obama has stated there are hundreds of billions in waste and fraud in this program. Do you think it might be a nice idea if the government did something about that? If not, why not?

Ray--either you are really dense or you are purposely misleading. Because Obama stated his estimate of waste and fraud in Medicare during his speech announcing his plans for combating this waste. So, I'm not sure how you couldn't be aware of his plan if you are able to quote his fraud numbers...

tatupu70 says

So, I’m not sure how you couldn’t be aware of his plan if you are able to quote his fraud numbers…

It's not that he's unaware of a plan, he just chooses to view the world as them against us. Some people need someone to fight against. Unfortunately, several of them parked here.

RayAmerica says

Liberalism hasn’t been “faring” very well lately. Huge percentage voter swings from Democratic victories in 2008 in Virginia, New Jersey & Massachusetts to recent GOP victories illustrate that point. To the dismay of many liberals, Obama has also moved more towards the center.

The Democrats still have a huge majority, just not the super-majority that's filibuster proof. There's the old joke - if Obama were to get out of a boat and walk on top of the water to the shore, the headlines would read, "Obama can't swim."

Meanwhile they crow victory for everything their pundit masters instruct them to, all the while claiming to think for themselves. This type of groupthink has propelled the pundits to incredible wealth at their expense. People have spent huge amounts on their books, attending "spontaneous" tea parties, etc.

tatupu70 says

Ray–either you are really dense or you are purposely misleading. Because Obama stated his estimate of waste and fraud in Medicare during his speech announcing his plans for combating this waste. So, I’m not sure how you couldn’t be aware of his plan if you are able to quote his fraud numbers…

Obama quoted the waste and fraud figures, not me. As for the fraud, my point is this: if he knows about the fraud, why isn't he moving to stop it NOW? The last I checked, fraud is against the law. Where's Obama's Justice Department on this matter? Probably the same place where they were regarding the Black Panthers intimidating voters in Philadelphia on the 2008 election day ... nowhere.

elliemae says

The Democrats still have a huge majority

You'd never know it by listening to Obama's State of the Union speech. He has a huge majority in the Senate, ample majority in the House, and yet he cries like a baby about GOPers not willing to go with his agenda. What about the Democrats? Are they rejecting his agenda too?

RayAmerica says

Obama quoted the waste and fraud figures, not me. As for the fraud, my point is this: if he knows about the fraud, why isn’t he moving to stop it NOW? The last I checked, fraud is against the law. Where’s Obama’s Justice Department on this matter? Probably the same place where they were regarding the Black Panthers intimidating voters in Philadelphia on the 2008 election day … nowhere

I understood your point. Clearly you don't understand mine. He IS doing it NOW. Are you under the impression that he can just give an executive order and all fraud stops? You have to set up systems to detect and weed out the improper claims--which is happening.

The bigger question is why wasn't this done over the last 8 years??

RayAmerica says

You’d never know it by listening to Obama’s State of the Union speech. He has a huge majority in the Senate, ample majority in the House, and yet he cries like a baby about GOPers not willing to go with his agenda. What about the Democrats? Are they rejecting his agenda too?

Because the Republicans have made it plain that they will fillibuster any important legislation, the effective minimum majority in the Senate is 60--so Democrats really have never had a majority. Lieberman is an Independent--bought and owned by corporate America.
The GOP has made the decision that they care more about politics than about the future of the US. Which is very unfortunate for us.

tatupu70 says

understood your point. Clearly you don’t understand mine. He IS doing it NOW. Are you under the impression that he can just give an executive order and all fraud stops? You have to set up systems to detect and weed out the improper claims–which is happening.

I haven't read anything in the way of major fraud busts since Obama's Justice Department took over, have you? I anxiously await your response (minus the talking points, spin, etc.).

tatupu70 says

Because the Republicans have made it plain that they will fillibuster any important legislation, the effective minimum majority in the Senate is 60–so Democrats really have never had a majority.

Very comical observation. Please continue to post. You provide much needed relief. I stopped laughing … back to serious business. When was the last time the GOP blocked Democratic legislation via the filibuster? AGAIN (it seems I need to repeat myself when dealing with you) the Democrats and Obama enjoy a very large majority, i.e. VETO PROOF, and yet, Obama cries that he can't get anything done. It is obvious to anyone with half a brain that Obama can't get his own party to come on board the SS Obamic. His own party politicos realize this ship has hit the iceberg and they're heading for the lifeboats. I expect more to be jumping off the bridge into the icy waters. LOOK OUT BELOW !! LOL

RayAmerica says

I haven’t read anything in the way of major fraud busts since Obama’s Justice Department took over, have you? I anxiously await your response (minus the talking points, spin, etc.).

I'm laughing too. I doubt they announce fraud "busts". This isn't the DEA, you know.

RayAmerica says

When was the last time the GOP blocked Democratic legislation via the filibuster?

They didn't have to--the threat was enough. But, you're right about one thing--too many members of Congress are bought and paid for by corporate America and they make it very difficult to get any meaningful legislation through that hurts corporate interests. That's why the recent Supreme Court decision is just disgraceful. Looks like Congressmen aren't the only people who can be bought by Corporate America. It's only going to get worse from here on out...

tatupu70 says

RayAmerica says
When was the last time the GOP blocked Democratic legislation via the filibuster?
They didn’t have to–the threat was enough. But, you’re right about one thing–too many members of Congress are bought and paid for by corporate America and they make it very difficult to get any meaningful legislation through that hurts corporate interests.

So, do I take this to mean that it's not the filibuster that's blocking Obama's Democratic sponsored legislation, but dirty, rotten, filthy, crooked Democrat politicians that are filling their pockets with corporate money? Here all along I was led to believe it was the mere threat of some longwinded talking by a bunch of old Republicans. You really do learn something new every single day.

tatupu70 says

It’s only going to get worse from here on out…

but like you said in another thread,

You will enjoy the ride.

RayAmerica says

So, do I take this to mean that it’s not the filibuster that’s blocking Obama’s Democratic sponsored legislation, but dirty, rotten, filthy, crooked Democrat politicians that are filling their pockets with corporate money? Here all along I was led to believe it was the mere threat of some longwinded talking by a bunch of old Republicans. You really do learn something new every single day.

Sorry--I thought I was pretty clear in my previous posts. There is 1 Independent Senator from Connecticut that is on the payroll of Big Pharma that blocked any reasonable bill coming from the Senate. Calling him a Democrat is quite a stretch as he openly supported the Republican candidate for President in the last election.

So, it was a combination of the threat of a fillibuster from Republicans, the realization that Democrats never really had a fillibuster proof majority, and the fact that the Republicans would rather play politics than actually work to help America, of course.

AdHominem says

tatupu70 says
It’s only going to get worse from here on out…
but like you said in another thread,
You will enjoy the ride.

touche.

Kevin says

You also have to fix medicare somehow

It would have been nice if the party of "fiscal responsibility" would have included a funding mechanism for Medicare Part D. What part of Medicare Part D (pushed through by the Republicans, in a wholly Republican controlled gov't, during a time of budget deficits) isn't Socialism and more gov't intrusion in people's lives?

Both parties are morally bankrupt, and both are equally ineffectual at governing. They've both had majorities, and neither party even with majorities has managed to do anything to correct the path of our country to a sustainable and prosperous future. Both parties have sold out the American future for short-term political gain and campaign contributions from lobbyists.

Some people who dislike Air America can be happy it is in bankruptcy. Investors funded a business (Air America) that failed and is now making its way through the system. Fine, how about you all stop banking with B of A, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Chrysler, General Motors, AIG, Fannie and Freddie since those companies were bailed out by our government instead of following the prescribed path through bankruptcy?

Oh, I forgot, they were all bailed out in 2008 by the Bush administration...... so, bailouts by the gov't: good or bad?

Quit kvetching and put your money and votes where your mouth is. Sell your American (GM/Chrysler) vehicle, pay off your mortgage, and move your bank accounts to a local community bank or credit union.

RayAmerica says

Kevin says

If anyone is serious about fixing the deficit, then they have to recognize some basic facts:

For 2010, the total amount of defense spending will exceed the total amount of income tax collected. This includes the base $680B being requested by the DoD, and the estimated $350B being requested for supplemental funding in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The remaining budget is almost entirely Social Security and Medicare.

Aren’t you missing a few expenditures? Interesting you failed to mention foreign aid (including embassies, staff, etc.), welfare programs, employment for literally millions of federal employees not connected in any way to “Social Security and Medicare.” How about the billions allocated for thousands of earmarks attached to bills, etc. etc etc. ?

No, all the rest of that spending is 15% of the budget (well, actually 12% for 2010). Look it up. You think cutting 12% of the budget is going to help when we're 40%+ over budget?

Kevin says

Social Security is funded (at least in theory…) independently of everything else, and fixing it is a simple matter of adjusting retirement ages, payouts, or payroll taxes. 99% of social security is simply giving cash to retirees, so there isn’t really any fat to cut or anything else.

You fail to mention that Social Security and Medicare surplus funds have been stolen by every administration since LBJ. That stolen money ($300 Billion per year) is used to finance general fund spending programs. When SS was initiated, the worker to beneficiary ratio was approximately 35 - 1. It is now about 3 – 1, and shrinking. The surplus was designed to factor in future diminishing ratios. That surplus is gone and does not exist. Instead, we now have in its place special T-Bill IOUs that by law cannot be sold, in other words, worthless pieces of paper. Isn’t it great how well government works?

That's what the "at least in theory" part was, dude. I know full well where we go wrong with SS, but that doesn't change the fundamental components of the budget.

Kevin says

Medicare is, of course, the other big issue, and nothing is really being done about it, because our political system is broken and we can’t even have a simple up / down vote on the problem.

Obama has stated there are hundreds of billions in waste and fraud in this program. Do you think it might be a nice idea if the government did something about that? If not, why not?

Absolutely they should do something about waste -- but removing "hundreds of billions" of a $1.5T program isn't going to fix it, much like cutting "pork barrel spending" isn't going to fix the overall budget. Ignoring the 3 big pieces of the budget because we want to pretend that it's welfare and college loans that are using up all of our tax dollars is just fucking stupid.

The US gov't is on the path outlined in the previous post, that seem clear to me.

So long as we're unwilling to consider "federal defense" reductions we're gonna be broke. We enjoyed a "peace-time dividend" after the cold war ended but 2 unfunded wars through most of the past decade is something we're gonna be paying back for a LONG time, and that's after we achieve and annual budget balance which doesn't seem on the horizon either.

I can see 1 more year of heavy federal fiscal stimulus spending, but then I think we need to establish pay-go and a deficit ceiling in fiscal 2011 of 1/2 of 2010's deficit, and then in 2012 get to a balanced budget whether the economy has recovered or not.

The only "good" think about deficit spending is that it depresses the Dollar, helping exports and slows the wealth/Dollar outflow to China and the "oil guys who hate us" in the middle east. We don't really need deficit spending to weaken the Dollar though, we just have to print more Dollars and drop them from helicopters. The more Dollars in existence, the less they're worth.

Whether you argue whether they love us or hate us in the oil exporting countries, my point is that we're shipping our wealth to them. I don't feel that's in our national interest.

I support fuel economy and domestic sources of energy. In my mind that means EV, or partial EV such as GM Volt, Prius, Nissan Leaf, or domestically sourced NG such as the Civic GX. At least if you're talking EV or partial EV we have a few lifetimes of US coal to burn in power plants. Our coal, our power, and the oil countries can piss-off.

Plenty of fleet buses now run on CNG, basically the same internal combustion engine. Cleaner emissions than gas/diesel too.

Basically I'd hate to drill here/drill now, then have nothing left and be at the COMPLETE mercy of other nations. I think we need to keep some petroleum resources in ground as a strategic stockpile for the decades ahead. We'll need that petroleum just for basic engine oil and lube grease if nothing else for the EV/CNG/hybrid vehicles we'll still be driving and for the aircraft fuel we'll still want to have.

Just as with investing, diversification helps protect you from one asset class (energy source) going through wild speculation and crashes. I wish I'd had/have an old Toyota Rav4 EV when gas was $4/gallon. When I decide to upgrade from my '03 Accord I'll probably get a full EV/hybrid/CNG vehicle for the daily driving and keep the old '97 4Runner for the rare hauling/towing needs. Here in TX my electricity is .06 Kwh delivered, about 1/3 what it was in California. Full/partial electric drive train means I don't have to care as much about the price of oil, and if the local power plants get uppity on their prices I can buy some dang solar panels for my backyard and then the utility can piss-off like the oil countries.

Besides petroleum resources TX has the #2 state position for potential wind energy. There's a whole lot of wind on the west Texas plains, and we don't have to pay anyone from some oil country for that wind.

The ultimate answer to your question? Yes, I support drilling here, and keeping it in the ground until we damn well need it instead of pissing it away today.

staynumz says

Our country is huge, this isnt england. There is plenty of oil off our waters and inland to supply our needs. We should aggresively get it when and where we can.

Um, no there isn't. I hate to break this to you, but there is no correlation between the size of a country and the amount of oil under its land.

staynumz says

Um, so your argument is there isnt any oil under us?? There is oil there. Are we getting it? or just sending a lot of money to places that are, believe it or not, WORSE than Exxon?

Your logic needs a little work. You said:
staynumz says

There is plenty of oil off our waters and inland to supply our needs.

And I said--no there isn't. And I'm right. There is NOT enough oil off our waters and inland to supply our needs. But, I'm in no way saying that there isn't any oil under us. Of course there is. I drive by producing wells every time I vist my hometown. But the US uses A LOT of oil... The amount of oil that is off limiits from drilling right now is a drop in the ocean.

I'm in Longview, Texas. Natural Gas land, wells and pipelines everywhere. Sanest thing for me here a natural gas vehicle like the Civic GX.

Second, being a southern latitude state with lots of natural gas fired utility electricity (cheap), an EV or plug-in hybrid makes more sense than a traditional gas vehicle.

Not sure where you live, but how much oil are you sitting directly on top of? Or are you going to need to transport it in from somewhere else?

And to answer your question, there's lots of oil here in TX too. To make you feel good I'll point out that the oil well owners are pumping here when prices are up (maximizing profits). The higher oil prices go, the more old pumps they turn back on. When prices go back down, marginal wells are turned off.

Basically, I don't see how oil prices are really ever going down much from where we are today unless we have a serious global depression and nobody has a job to drive to.

staynumz says

You said the size of the country does not determine how much oil there is. And I never said that, but whatever

OK--so what did you mean by this statement?

staynumz says

Our country is huge, this isnt england.

staynumz says

Open everything up to drilling, not just what is not “off limits” and there is plenty to satisfy our needs.

What exactly do you mean by "not just what is "off limits"? If it's not off-limits, then presumably it is open for drilling, right?

In any event, there is not enough currently recoverable oil reserves to come remotely close to satsifying US demand. In 2007, the US produced ~5MM barrels/day and consumed 20.7MM barrels/day of petroleum products. The amount of oil in ANWR is estimated to be between 0.5 and 1.0MM barrels/day during its peak production years. So, that would change our deficit from 15MM barrels/day to between 14 and 14.5MM barrels/day. Obviously not enough to satisfy our demand.

Is there somewhere else that you think we should be drilling that we aren't?

staynumz says

Open everything up to drilling, not just what is not “off limits” and there is plenty to satisfy our needs.

Simply not true. Drill every square inch and we won't produce enough oil for current demand. Do you have any clue whatsoever what drilling entails anyway? You don't just say drill a hole here and oil gushes out. It's complicated, risky, and won't happen unless there is a very strong possibility of a payoff. Many of the fields coming on line around the world are very deep, very hard to drill, and will produce oil that expensive by historical standards. Oil fields in the future will be even more difficult and expensive.

The cheap to produce oil is long gone. As the progressively more expensive to produce oil drives up the price demand will cut back , energy usage will become more efficient, and alternatives will come on line. The whole idea that the world will run out of oil is just stupid.

staynumz says

Absolutely. Drill anywhere and everywhere. Environmentalist have effectively closed off large areas of drillable land. Look no further than off the coast of CA. Open up every “national park” (which is just a huge land grab anyway) to exploration and lets see the oil guys find that stuff.

I'm pretty sure that we know where the oil is under our land. There is no exploration needed anymore... There are no large oil deposits yet to be discovered under land in the US...

Do you really think that we could supply enough oil to meet our needs?? If so, you really need to do a little more research....

staynumz says

tatupu70 says

staynumz says

Open everything up to drilling, not just what is not “off limits” and there is plenty to satisfy our needs.

What exactly do you mean by “not just what is “off limits”? If it’s not off-limits, then presumably it is open for drilling, right?

In any event, there is not enough currently recoverable oil reserves to come remotely close to satsifying US demand. In 2007, the US produced ~5MM barrels/day and consumed 20.7MM barrels/day of petroleum products. The amount of oil in ANWR is estimated to be between 0.5 and 1.0MM barrels/day during its peak production years. So, that would change our deficit from 15MM barrels/day to between 14 and 14.5MM barrels/day. Obviously not enough to satisfy our demand.

Is there somewhere else that you think we should be drilling that we aren’t?

Absolutely. Drill anywhere and everywhere. Environmentalist have effectively closed off large areas of drillable land. Look no further than off the coast of CA. Open up every “national park” (which is just a huge land grab anyway) to exploration and lets see the oil guys find that stuff.

Will it be expensive? of course. But that is money that stays in country.

Companies like Exxon know where almost all of the world's oil is. Regardless of how much oil there is in the pacific or ANWR, they're not going to touch it while there's oil that is practically leaking out of the ground in the middle east.

Why do you think these people don't even bother lobbying for opening up these areas for drilling in the first place?

The "fairness doctrine" would require that any news coverage of, say, holocaust memorials would require equal time for holocaust revisionists and deniers... Amazingly enough, Canada, the utopia of American socialism, openly prohibits such politically undesirable ideas.

In any case, the fairness doctrine is moot for a variety of reasons (along with much of the FCC's overall content prohibition model). There is no "shortage" of radio channels in the AM spectrum. On the contrary, it's usually wide open because only talk radio found a way to make a profit on it. If it wasn't for talk radio, it probably would have been dismantled like the Citizens' Band and Ham radio. If the FCC wanted more political expression, they could simply lower the price of radio licenses to encourage more stations to fill the medium.

Next, PBS is notoriously left leaning yet they make no effort to provide "equal", balanced coverage.

LOL, I think you'd have a hard time finding a more centrist station for reporting than NPR. While Air America was the 'liberal' talk show, and Rush, etc are the 'conservative' talk shows, NPR discusses both sides and in every instance I can think of has guests from opposing viewpoints. As opposed to cross-fire, etc tv shows where commentators and guests just yell at each other (which makes for some decent video, but little depth), NPR commentators and guests are able to have a back and forth discussion and provide some depth to a topic. NPR isn't leftist, it's centrist.

Same thing for the Democrats, they're more centrist than Republicans but I argue they're BOTH right of center. Certainly the Democrats aren't leftists (or at least only comparatively to the Republicans). Off to the true left of center you have Libertarians and way off to the left counter-balancing Republicans you have the Green party.

Something like
---•--------•----*----•-------•---
Greens Libertarians Democrats Republicans

To support my point I'll just suggest you consider whether Libertarians or Greens would have bailed out Wall Street....

There's more than just Black and White in this country, and just because the far fringe (anarchists, Nazis) doesn't/don't have the organization to put together viable parties and candidates doesn't mean the majority of people actually agree with Republicans and/or Democrats. Proof? Congress is FILLED with Republicans and Democrats (and the odd Independent). Congress's approval rating is something like 26% according to recent polls[1]. Conclusion = 66% of the people polled[1] are pissed off at BOTH the Democrats and Republicans because they're broken. Need more proof, how about the fact that only about half of eligible voters turn up in non-presidential election years to vote? The 2008 Presidential election was the best turnout in 2 GENERATIONS of Americans and even so more than 1/3 of eligible Americans didn't vote! [2]

Give the electorate ranked choice voting and we'd start to see a more representative political profile emerge, and I don't think it'd favor our existing 2 political parties.

[1] realclearpolitics.com/polls/
[2] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008#Turnout

ErikK says

Give the electorate ranked choice voting and we’d start to see a more representative political profile emerge, and I don’t think it’d favor our existing 2 political parties.

I like the cut of your jib, erikK. This is a GREAT idea.