McClatchy DC has the story Yellen Grilled in First Testimony as Fed Chief. Chairman of the House committee, Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, got his comeupance.

But when pressed by Hensarling on why growth has been so sluggish, Yellen reminded him that the Republican fools in Congress refused to use the only effective tool, fiscal policy, to solve this problem. They dropped the problem in the Fed’s lap. The only tool that the Fed had at its disposal to deploy was one that has been known to be ineffective since the depression of the 1930s.

As it turns out, the outcome of deploying this policy is exactly what was predicted, but the Republicans refuse to budge. Not only that, but the Republicans have convinced Obama to reduce the deficit which only works against what the Fed was trying to do.

If the Republicans would let the government use money wisely to buy needed infrastructure at a time when costs are low, the economic problem would be cured rapidly and we would have bought infrastructure on the cheap.

With the current Republican policy, if we ever get out of this recession, we will be left with our infrastructure in a shambles at a time when fixing them will be very expensive in a robust economy.

The beauty of a country that is sovereign in its own currency, such as the USA, is that it can always afford to buy goods and services denominated in its own currency when they are not being put to use in the private sector. What a shame to waste this well designed situation.

Oops!, I only dreamed the above response.  The real excerpt from the article is:

But when pressed by Hensarling on why growth has been so sluggish, Yellen reminded that “these are very unusual times” that required creative approaches since the main tool, low interest rates, cannot go lower than zero.

You know that if Elizabeth Warren had been testifying, her response would be a lot closer to what I wrote than what Yellen actually said.  One of the foci of the Warren campaign for the Senate was to point out how woefully we were under-investing in our infrastructure compared to the countries that were out-competing us in international trade.

Gawker.com has the article by William Warwick, Woody Allen Is Not a Monster. He Is a Person. Like My Father.

I admire Woody for rejecting Hollywood awards culture and consistently churning out reasonably watchable films. (Though I didn’t care much for Blue Jasmine; I prefer Match Point, which I suspect is closer to a darkness of which Woody is a part.)

Yet I know too that Dylan Farrow is telling the truth. And it makes me sick to witness the vile double standard by which our society measures abuse survivors – questioning their credibility based on their behavior, when that behavior is likely the result of the trauma they have endured. Who in the world finds it plausible that Dylan was an emotionally disturbed kid who concocted a false memory from her inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality, rather than a kid who had been systematically traumatized within the sanctity of an otherwise reasonably stable home and so could not fully integrate the experience?

We don’t really just condemn the sexualization of children. Instead, we condemn the very existence of child abuse altogether. It’s as if the crime includes being victimized by it, or responsible for bringing it into the light. We take an ontological roach spray to the whole event, either denying its status in reality altogether, or competing with one another to proclaim the most exquisite forms of torture for the perpetrators. I can’t count how many times I’ve seen the most strident liberal break character to loudly call for the prison rape of perpetrators.

I post this article because it is thought provoking about the topic.  It comes from someone who has lived the experience and has figured out a way to come to terms with it.

I still won’t go to Woody Allen movies or watch any of his public appearances.  If he publicly repented, I don’t know if that would change my mind.

Naked Capitalism has the story How Obamacare Raids the Assets of Low-Income Older Americans.

One feature of Obamacare that Lambert Strether has mentioned in passing in his posts is that individuals over 55 who are enrolled in Medicaid are subject to having expenses like being in a long-term care facility, home services, and related drugs and prescriptions clawed back from their estates.

If Medicaid is to be part of the new Government Health Insurance plan, then it ought to be considered insurance. Typically, insurance pays for expenses that would be financially catastrophic if they should occur. Depending on what your heirs had to give up to support you in life, the loss of your estate to pay for things that you were “insured” for instead of covering the sacrifices of your heirs can be considered financially catastrophic.

Yes, this is a complicated issue, but the government should no more participate in handing poverty down through generations than it should participate in handing wealth down through generations.

If we are not ready for “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”, then I also think we are not ready for “From each according to what’s in it for himself, to each according to what his wealth allows him to protect.”