Cogitamus

Monday Open Thread

1996 sends a song forward in time for 2011:

 

 

So what's on your minds today?

Saturday Open Thread and Budget Discussion

 

"Sex Machine" - James Brown

In which James Brown concisely describes the Republican's governing philosophy:

The way I like it, is the way it is,
I got mine, don't worry 'bout his

So quite a bit about the budget deal seems to remain shrouded in mystery.  I'm not quite sure what to think.  I know that l-t c and a couple of our friends here have expressed disgust with the Democrats.  However, I am not sure if the deal they got isn't about as good as could be expected given the correlation of forces here.

Yes, the Republicans only hold one house of Congress -- but they do so solidly.  The House is an easy place to work with a majority and when you've got one that is full on wingnut as is the case here, it gives you an unusual amount of leverage.  Because basically they were going to get cuts or they were going to shut the government down -- they may not have been comfortable shutting it down over Planned Parenthood or abortion rights -- things that the American public writ large would have found absurd.  But let's say Obama had stuck to an insistence on level funding -- in such an instance, who wins the PR battle over a shutdown?  I'm uncertain.

The Senate Democrats, as we all know, are not what you would call the gutsiest group in the universe.  With 23 seats in play in 2012, many of them in red or marginal states, I don't know how much fortitude one could realistically respect.  People like McCaskill and Tester have to be nervous about their prospects at this point.  I am uncertain how they would do the calculus on this issue.

From the White House's perspective, I think Obama has two things to consider -- first, that a shutdown would be a terrible thing for the economy right now, especially were it to become prolonged.  The fragile recovery seems to be getting a toehold, with job growth heading towards a respectable if inadequate rate and the markets displaying some level of confidence.  This is the single most important factor for the 2012 election, so you can't blame either the President or the Dems generally for viewing a shutdown with potential alarm.  (Again, this is asymmetrical warfare -- the Republicans don't care if the economy slides further -- they figure, probably rightly that they won't take the blame -  see e.g. election of 2010.)  The second thing, of course, for Obama is his own image with the public writ large.  He obviously sees great value in being viewed as the reasonable man, the guy willing to compromise and do what's good for the country.  This is frustrating to activists, but based on Clinton's experience in 195-96, I don't think we can reasonably suggest that he is wrong to think this way.

Where the Republicans tried to overreach was not so much in money -- they will do that in 2012 for sure -- but in terms of trying to leverage a host of their pet issues -- Planned Parenthood defunding, handcuffing the EPA, etc. -- that do not command majority support and which would be seen pretty clearly by the public as unreated to any alleged budget crisis.  This allowed Obama and Harry Reid to stand firm on the riders, where they didn't on the money.  (I think Reid also felt a debt of gratitude toward Planned Parenthood, which stood resolutely and actively by him in his recent and difficult re-election bid, and was willing to fight tooth and nail for them -- he is that kind of guy.  Evidently Biden was pretty stand up on this fight as well.)

Don't get me wrong -- the cuts are a mistake as a matter of policy.  If anyting, the government should be spending more and it certainly shouldn't be cutting back on aid to the poor in this environment.  But I'm not confident I know what the optimal number was in terms of the politics of the moment.  The cuts agreed to should also be kept in some perspective -- although $38 billion is a whole lot of money, it constitutes a little bit more than 1% of the overall budget.

I am curious to hear what people think could have been done better here -- what number could have been an effective stopping point or what different tactics might have yielded a better result?  One approach might have been for the President to say he wasn't going to accept any cuts, but I am skeptical that this would have worked.  Any other thoughts? 

It's an open thread as well.  Anything besides shutdown fever got your attention?   

   

Well Shuck My Corn And Call Me Bubba

Looks like they managed to do it.  Ironically, this means that a government contractor will not be closing a rather large deal with my wife tomorrow morning, since they will need to keep doing their work for the government and won't have time for training until the fall or something.  Oh well.

It's been interesting, to say the least, to see GOP Presidential hopefuls like Huckabee and Bachmann push for a deal to be made.  They, especially Bachmann, don't want to have the blame for the shutdown on their campaign's shoulders. 

But I really think that this deal is as much about Boehner doing everything in his power to become an effective Speaker of the House rather than the impotent fool he's been shown to be so far.  What remains to be seen is whether he managed to get his caucus in line or if he's going to rely on the Democrats to save his ass again.  No matter the outcome tonight, though, he's amost assured to become the most ineffective, weak Speaker the House has ever seen.  His inability to keep his caucus in line is going to become worse for him as time goes on, and will hamper the GOP's messaging in 2012.  Well done, teabaggers.

Friday Open Thread

 

"Don't Worry About the Government" - Talking Heads

I see the states, across this big nation
I see the laws made in Washington, D.C.
I think of the ones I consider my favorites
I think of the people that are working for me

Some civil servants are just like my loved ones
They work so hard and they try to be strong

This song kind of picked itself.

- I was furious to hear a report on Marketplace in which the reporter kept claiming that the problem was that the "Tea Party Caucus" couldn't just go along with business as usual -- it needed to have bigger cuts.  The actual story is that the right wing crazies -- who are all only distinguishable by degree -- are not only insisting on draconian cuts, but they are insisting on capitulation on virtually every social issue out there, especially family planning.  The zombie lie that tea partiers don't care about social issues is maddening.  It's what they care most about.  Really.

- Very disheartening news on the vote count in Wisconsin.  And just a tad suspicious sounding as well.  As Steve Benen notes, can you imagine what Fox News would be like this morning if the shoe were on the other foot?   

- As oddjob pointed out in a thread below, you would really have a hard time overstating just how retrograde are the views of huge chunks of the Republican constituency. 

- One additional thought since I posted: In any normal political world, wouldn't John Boehner be taking the deal, declaring victory, and crowing about his accomplishment?  Instead, you've got upside down world, where a bunch of freshmen Republican House members are controlling their own speaker, the President, and the Senate.  It's pretty amazing what you can accomplish when you just don't give a fuck about governance or anything else.  But contra the Beltway pundits, there is nothing "adult" or "serious" about it.          

Jesus, what other horrible things are happening?

Base in your Face

This post by Glenn Greenwald, denouncing the Obama Administration's decision to capitulate to pressure and try Khalid Sheikh Mohammad before a military tribunal rather than in a civilian court, claiming that it represents yet another "kick in the teeth" of the Democratic Party base, suffers from the usual weaknesses that characterize his work in the arena of politics and, in particular, political strategy.  It is based on a couple of erroneous premises that are often seen in parts of the lefty blogosphere -- first, that Greenwald and his ideological fellow travelers constitute the "base" of the Democratic Party and second, that the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is in some way an issue that moves the base of the Party.

Let's be clear -- the base of the Democratic Party is African Americans, union members, single women, and, more and more, Hispanics.  Yes, the netroots plays an increasingly important role as fund raiser, alternative media voice, and message conveyer -- but even in that community, Greenwald's civil liberties purism is but a small subset of myriad motivating concerns. 

I am in favor of trying KSM in a civilian court.  I think the opposition to having his trial in a federal court in New York is hysterical and ill-advised.  But let's review -- KSM is not an American citizen, he was not arrested in the U.S., and his legal status is less than crystal clear.  The manner in which he is tried is not likely to have significant precedential impact on American criminal justice -- despite the fairly over-the-top, slippery slope arguments uncharacteristically advanced by Dahlia Lithwick.    

But the bottom line is that the core concerns of the real base of the Democratic Party have little to do with KSM's treatment.  For Obama to spend substantial political capital to try him in NYC would be a bad bet. 

The Republican Party is a homogeneous organization -- its adherents are overwhelmingly white, Christian, and very, very conservative.  Self-identified conservatives constitute roughly 40% of the American electorate.     The base is the party. 

The Democratic Party is the opposite -- diverse, diffuse, and with a much broader ideological spectrum.  Self-identified liberals constitute about 20% of the electorate.  Those for whom civil liberties are their primary focus is a smaller group still.  Those for whom the legal treatment of KSM constitute a major focus is far smaller still -- microscopic even.  To suggest that the decision regarding his trial is kicking the base in the teeth is to engage in delusional, solipsistic thinking.  

Bless us with Righteous Anger

 

"There was a time in this country . . ." - Invocation by Father Cletus Kiley to the Building and Construction Trades Department's Legislative Conference, April 5, 2011 here in Washington.  This reminded me of why I've always had a soft spot for the social justice strand of Catholicism.  Anyway, it's pretty impassioned stuff -- you don't often see someone get a curtain call for an invocation.

The GOP Refuses To Pay Our Soldiers

Unless we see the political equivalent of winning Powerball while scoring a soccer hat-trick on an 80-yard pass by the WR as the buzzer sounds in the bottom of the 9th inning, the Federal Government will soon shut down.  Millions of people will go on an unwanted, indefinite and most-importantly unpaid holiday.  A couple million more - those in the military, the FBI, the Coast Guard, the Border Patrol and other 'essential' personnel, will continue to do their jobs while getting, depending on the length of the shutdown, possibly half a paycheck or none at all for the duration.

Soldiers are not, in terms of human worth, more valuable than even an IRS auditor.  But the Right fetishizes them even as they do everything they can to hurt them, so let's consider the plight of a soldier and his or her family, especially those in combat situations.

Enlisted soldiers in the US military don't make a whole lot of money.  Being part of a socialized system, they do get many things provided by the government - housing, medical care, even meals.  They can purchase consumer goods for reduced prices at government-run stores, things like that.  But they don't make much money, and an awful lot of them have families.

For example, an E-1 (private, airman basic, seaman recruit) makes $1447/month.  At the end of a 4-year stint, an E-6 (staff sergeant, tech sergeant, petty officer 1st class) will make all of $2,690.70/mo.  Those who make it a career and do well with promotions can top out, after 26 years and no further room for advancement, at $6,129.90.  Most of our enlisted men and women, of course, do not make nearly that much.

They already live paycheck-to-paycheck, and their financial difficulties are why so many predatory payday loan businesses spring up around military bases.  For the Republicans, you see, it's not enough to send America's young men and women on counterproductive, sometimes illegal foreign adventures where they are injured or killed.  Now they also apparently need to make sure that these same young men and women are unable to feed their families or pay their bills.

Because while Democratic politicians are also far too willing to send our troops into harm's way, they at least are willing to continue paying them for it - never mind that it's Democrats who provide our soldiers with pay raises and increased medical benefits.

So while the government is shut down, do what you can to spread the word that first of all, the Democrats didn't shut it down.  It's just common sense that the party of government wouldn't be the one to shut the whole thing down.  Secondly, the Republican party is knowingly and intentionally depriving our soldiers of the paychecks due them.  Write letters to the editor, talk to people you know.  We all need to do our part to make sure that the average low-information American numbskull actually hears what is really going on.

Priorities

Let's talk about Idaho for a bit. . .

Out of a population of 1.5 million

- 15%, or 234,100 are uninsured.

- The unemployment rate is almost 10%, which is about 150,000.

- 13.7% of Idahoans live in poverty, or 195,000 people.

-"66,628 Idaho children (16.3%) are food insecure"

None of this is to suggest that Idaho is worse off than just about anywhere else in the USA right now.  In fact, it's substantially better there than in quite a few other states.  No, the point is to provide some context to the Idaho State House declaring

the state's wolves a "disaster emergency" -- akin to a flood or wildfire -- and gives the governor broad powers to eliminate them.

The legislation says the state's estimated 800 wolves are compromising public safety, destroying herds of big-game animals like elk and damaging hunting and agricultural industries.

Under existing Idaho law, a state of emergency allows the governor to marshal his police powers to lessen the impact of a declared threat.

"Folks, there is an emergency," House Speaker Lawerence Denney said during debate on the bill.

Eight hundred wolves - that's an eight followed by two rather lonely zeros - are a "disaster emergency."  This despite the fact that harvest - that is, hunting by humans - was the leading cause of death in Idaho's elk in 6 out of 11 zones, with predation from mountain lions either equaling or exceeding wolves in two more.  This means that out of 11 zones for elk, wolves were the leading cause of death in only 3 of them.  This is a "disaster emergency."

Wolves are a "disaster emergency" even though the winter of 1996-1997 caused thousands of elk deaths, even though "in some other areas elk are so numerous they are causing trouble for landowners."

Even if 800 wolves could credibly be called a "disaster emergency" for 100,000 elk, any human being with an ounce of concern for their fellow human beings - as opposed to their obsession with their own personal hobbies - would worry more about granting Governor Butch Otter (no, really) wide discretionary powers to deal with the hundreds of thousands of poor, hungry, uninsured Idahoans.

Again, however, it's not that Idaho's conservatives are any worse than those in other states.  Millions of Americans are unemployed, are hungry, are sick and cannot see a doctor - why, you could even say that they have trouble clothing themselves, and that we have millions of people languishing in prison cells who would be better served, and who would better serve society, if they received some treatment, some education or job training.  Yet conservatives, when they can be bothered to think about such things at all, consistently offer nothing but intentional efforts to make things worse, not better. 

This morning, at least 66,000 children in Idaho woke up hungry and will most likely go to bed hungry.  At least school is in session, so many of them have a chance of a meal for lunch, perhaps even a breakfast.  But these are children, and they are hungry.  Their hunger will cause them to be sick, to get poor grades in school, to act out and become 'discipline problems."  Their hunger will, for some of them, lead directly to troubles with the law.

All the while, a bunch of overpaid, overfed white men will work feverishly to let their governor use police officers to go hunt some fucking wolves so that other overfed white men can kill at least as many animals this year as they have in past years, many of them letting the carcasses rot while they fill their homes with the preserved and enhanced heads.

Maybe we can convince them that only liberals like the color orange. . .

Thursday Open Thread

 

"The Boy with the Thorn in his Side" - The Smiths

One of my favorite guitar riffs ever -- and so much powerful live than in the studio version.

- The Federal Work Force as Political Plaything - One of the most infuriating aspects of the likely shutdown of the government -- besides its sheer waste -- is the cavalier way in which the federal workforce is treated.  Basically these people are left completely in the dark in this process, have no input or say in what will happen to them, and may have to go some indeterminate amount of time without a paycheck.  It's really quite outrageous.  And in DC, a good many of these folks are single mothers and the primary breadwinners in their homes.  Why would anyone think it is reasonable to treat people in this fashion?

- More demographics -- Yes, I am obsessed with this topic.  Another interesting article in the Post about the fact that a majority of children in the U.S. will be minorities before the decade is over.  The number of white children in the United States declined by 4.3 million between 2000 and 2010, while the number of Hispanic and Asian children grew by 5.5 million.  One in five students in the U.S. is Latino -- one in four if you look only at kindergarteners.  White children are now a minority in ten states and the number of white children declined in 46 of the 50 states.  The median age for whites is now 41, while it is 35 for Asians and 27 for Latinos.  All of the growth in the nation's child population for the decade was attributable to minorities.     And yes, as a white guy, I can admit that given the voting behavior of my demographic brethren, I am totally looking forward to the declining percentage of the population attributable to my kind.  Some day the Republican Convention will be held in a nursing home in Salt Lake City.  

- Whenver the subject turns to budgets, taxes, deficits, and entitlements, Andrew Sullivan reminds me of what a douche bag he is at heart.  No, Andrew, we don't really need to cut $4 trillion in spending in the upcoming years.  And yes, we can pay higher taxes and not suffer a catastrophe.  And no, the U.S. is nothing like Greece or Spain or Portugal.  Jesus, he is just another, like David Brooks, who thinks the suffering of others is redemptive for society.   

- Women with balls - We should have Nancy Pelosi and Deborah Wasserman Schultz handle the messaging in response to brave, brave Paul Ryan's very serious proposal.

What have you done to help make white men obsolete today?  Me, I've grown a day older and eaten barbecue and chocolate cake.  All in a good cause.

Wednesday Open Thread and Thoughts on Wisconsin

 

"Gone Daddy Gone" - The Violent Femmes (Wisconsin's own)

Wow, I stayed up way too late reviewing the election results for the Supreme Court position in Wisconsin.  Looks like we have a few more days before the end result is known.  Although I was disappointed that Kloppenburg did not win an outright victory, I have to say that we should be pretty pleased with the result, especially if she ekes out a victory here.   Incumbent Republican Justice David Proesser had easily won the non-partisan primary in February, garnering 55% of the vote to Kloppenburg's 28% -- to go from this margin a matter of weeks ago to a dead heat is a pretty impressive accomplishment.  And although the voter turnout was very impressive for this kind of election -- somewhere in the 33% range -- this is not normally the kind of turnout that works for Democrats.  In 2008, by contrast, Obama won a landslide victory in Wisconsin when just under 71% of eligible voters turned out.  When Scott Walker won the governorship in November 2010, turnout was right around 50%.  [Update:  Kloppenburg has pulled ahead by a whopping 311 votes.] 

[Further Update:  It appears that on the basis of the counting of all regularly cast ballots, that Kloppenburg has won a narrow, but nonetheless impressive, victory.  Absentee ballots evidently still need to be counted and a recount is almost certain to follow -- but if the result stands, it will represent only the fifth time in 160 years that a Wisconsin Supreme Court justice has been unseated.]

In Milwaukee, where Scott Walker had been a three term County Executive, the Democratic candidate won in a landslide yesterday by a 60-40 margin. 

I think what is happening here is illustrative of a phenomenon that I predict will plague the Republicans in the 2012 elections -- the dangerous business of believing your own bullshit and attributing too much policy-specific significance to a given electoral victory.  People did not, in 2010, vote for eliminating collective bargaining rights or abolishing Medicare or Medicaid or even repealing the Twentieth Century -- people voted (or didn't vote) based on a generalized frustration with unemployment and, in some instances, ironically, to protect Medicare.  Nonetheless, the Republicans have gotten way out on a fucking limb in response to their good fortune at the polls (with about 40% of the electorate voting) and decided to go balls to the wall with this extraordinarily right wing and ideologically dogmatic program. 

The genius behind previous Republican successes -- and particularly as epitomized by the Reagan and Bush 43 Administrations was to talk small government without ever actually delivering it.  All rhetoric and no substance was an extremely effective formula.  The central insight of the Rove-Bush strategy was to see Republican electoral weaknesses and try to remedy them -- by enacting Medicare Part D, a huge unfunded entitlement expansion (with the added bonus of being a huge corporate giveaway as well) and attempting immigration reform, a sop to both the Hispanic community and to the employers looking for low wage labor.  Reagan, of course, oversaw deals to keep both Social Security and Medicare solvent, both of which included major tax increases.  This kind of electoral pragmatism, however, is verboten in the Republican world of today.  John Galt is not a fucking trimmer.   

And so we are going to see what it means for a major party to proceed behind a truly Hobbesian program.  The Democrats largely need to just stand their ground -- I know not the easiest thing for them -- and make the Republicans fully own their radical program, starting first and foremost with the attempt to abolish Medicare.  I predict the GOP will be quickly educated about the fact that people want speeches about small government, not actual small government.        

My Name is Yon Yonson, I Come from Wisconsin

I have the feeling that when the 2012 election becomes the fourth consecutive wave election -- once again in favor of the Democrats -- two men from Wisconsin will stand out as the catalysts -- Scott Walker and Paul Ryan. 

Walker, through his ham-handed efforts to crush public employees' unions, is going to (along with his fellow clowns Republican governors in Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan) have helped delivered a substantial chunk of the white working class in the industrial mid-west to the Democrats.  In so doing, he will have taken groups like firefighters and policemen -- groups that I would guess tend to slightly favor Republicans -- and given them a powerful incentive to vote Democratic.  Because members of the police and fire services really do value their collective bargaining agreements, their pensions, and their perks.  They often do difficult and dangerous work -- and they don't appreciate being treated as parasites.

But just when Walker looked like the Democrats MVP -- the election today for Wisconsin Supreme Court is now neck and neck, after the incumbent Republican had won the first round election by two to one -- enter brave, brave Paul Ryan, a man of courage, rectitude, a real inside the Beltway crowd pleaser, and total fucking idiot.  Paul Ryan wouldn't be content with just alienating vast swaths of public employees.  Courageous Paul Ryan decided that what the American people were really clamoring for was the elimination of Medicare -- because really, what 65-year old (or soon to be 65-year old) wants secure, lifelong health coverage with federally prescribed benefits and no insurance company coming between you and your doctor?  John Galt don't want no stinkin' Medicare.  Sadly for Paul Ryan (and all those Republicans who are inexplicably jumping on the Ryan bandwagon), though, everyone else does. 

Older white people have become the core constituency of the Republican Party.  As I noted the other day, these were people who voted massively for the Republicans in large part because they misunderstood the nature of the "cuts" to Medicare under PPACA -- misunderstandings that were fueled, of course, by Republican misinformation.   And now the Republicans appear to be ready to eliminate Medicare altogether.  (Despite the claims that Medicare would be phased out over ten years, I cannot believe that current recipients would feel very secure about being the last eligible cohort.)

And whites between the ages of 45 and 65 -- the second most reliable GOP constituency -- are looking at Medicare disappearing just before they retire or being the last group on the life boats before the ship goes down.  Again, I predict, this is not a winner.

Now the reality is that brave, brave Sir Paul's proposal is never going to be enacted,  Not as long as the Democrats control the Senate and the White House.  This is not a difficult call even for a party that has lacked ideological clarity to a maddening degree.  When Max Baucus and Kent Conrad step up and declare something like this a non-starter, I think it's fair to say that David Brooks' heavy breathing will be for naught.  But I am guessing that the Democrats have gotten the most important talking point for the 2012 election -- the Republicans are the party seeking to eliminate Medicare.  Rinse. Repeat. Win.      

We Need The Whole Truth About Ryan's Budget

Max Baucus departs from the standard Democratic playbook:

"Independent experts agree the House Plan would make deep cuts to the Medicare benefits seniors count on," said Baucus. "It would end Medicare as we know it and funnel Medicare dollars directly into private insurance companies' pockets. Under the House plan, seniors' coverage would be cut drastically, benefits would no longer be guaranteed and seniors' costs would skyrocket. We can't allow the House to balance the budget on the backs of seniors and we won't—not on my watch."

This is good, but we of course need more.  The reason we need more is because there is simply so much more to Ryan's plan that needs to be attacked.  Consider how the plan not only cuts taxes on the richest Americans, but raises taxes on every American making less than $127,769/year.

It's all-out class warfare - they're not even trying to hide it anymore.  Even George W. Bush was willing to throw a few hundred bucks to the proles to distract them from the tens of thousands he was giving to the rich.  But now the GOP's hatred of the poor is so strong that they'll actually risk their 'tax-cutting' image by raising taxes on just about everyone in the country.  What they're betting on is a complacent and complicit press - not a big risk, of course - and Democratic unwillingness to go on the attack.  It's the latter bet they need to lose.

What's also missing and desperately needed in this debate is the fact that Social Security and Medicare are not funded by income taxes.  That is to say,

SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE ARE NOT FUNDED BY INCOME TAXES.

They are funded by a payroll tax.  This payroll tax is already not paid on wages earned in excess of $106,800.  This payroll tax is already higher - ~15% of gross income when employer contributions are included - than virtually every American pays in income tax.  This payroll tax means that Social Security and Medicare have a separate revenue stream from every other part of the federal government.  These programs are funded separately from Defense, from Education, from Interior, and most importantly they are funded, IN FULL, by the very people who are counting on those programs the most.

The idea that Social Security, even Medicare, might run out of money is a despicable lie.  These programs have not only been fully funded, but funded in excess for decades now.  The only reason that anyone is able to talk about them going "broke" is because politicians from both parties have treated these funds as their piggy bank for everything from agricultural subsidies to multinational corporations to waging needless wars to building jets that don't work and the military doesn't want. 

The government of the United States of America has collected 15% of every paycheck from its poorest citizens, telling them that the money would go toward a retirement and health insurance fund for when they turn 65.  Then this same government has spent that money on various schemes intended to line the pockets of the superrich.  If the Tea Party wants to talk about taxation as theft, they need look no further than what has been done with payroll taxes.

This is the message that Americans need to hear.  This is what they need to understand - that Paul Ryan is proposing the reduction and ultimate abolishing of Medicare simply so that there is more money available for him to give to the superrich.  He would still be a horrible human being if his proposed budget included a reduction of paryoll taxes.  But of course there is no such reduction.

Backlash Blues

Well, back pain is not fun.  Back pain that happens with no apparent reason is less fun, and it's even less fun than that for the pinky and ring fingers on my left hand to go numb.  Then the muscle relaxant I get put on causes me to retain about 10lbs of water or piss or whatever in a week.

Yuck.  But I'm still pretty healthy, I have enough to eat and whenever I'm sick I just up and go to the doctor that has been treating my family for almost 16 years now.  Those are privileges not shared by all too many of my fellow American citizens and by even less of my fellow world travelers.  So I'll try very hard to keep my whining restricted to the above comments.

Speaking of health care, the courageous Paul Ryan has made abolishing Medicare the official GOP position, and of course the cretins in the press and Democratic party are tripping over themselves to applaud Ryan and the rest of the GOP for such manly, macho courage, offering up a few half-hearted harumphs and well, maybe that's a bit too far along the way.

Without getting into any question of whether Americans deserve to see our woefully anemic welfare state completely dismantled, I'm starting to believe that no meaningful progress will be possible until it is.  That is to say, there is nothing more powerful in America than backlash politics, nothing that manages to get things done in the same way.  Appealing to a sense of shared responsibility, to any type of nobility of mind or spirit or other such things just doesn't seem to work.

Take the Civil Rights Movement.  I'm wondering if the gains that were made weren't because America was actually ready to leave it's slaveholding and Jim Crow past behind, but because the full ugliness of White America, especially in the south, was finally on display.  If the southerners had restrained themselves and not used firehoses and attack dogs - along with burning crosses and bombs in churches - the Civil Rights Act probably would not have passed.

If the Great Depression had not happened, I doubt we would have a Social Security to attack.  If the capitalists of the 19th and 20th centuries had been able to exercise any restraint at all in their business practices then unions would never have risen and worker protections in this country, such as they are, wouldn't be there.  And so on.

Therefore, I don't think we'll be able to make any significant progressive steps until Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and most unionization rights are destroyed.  I'm not saying that I want this to happen, just that I think it's inevitable.  America's capitalist class will continue to manufacture economic crises, aided and abetted by the GOP, and our politicians will continue to manufacture enemies and wars, all of which will justify further abuse of 99% of Americans to benefit the top 1%.  They will do it, raising the stakes every time, until there is finally a backlash.  Maybe next time we can make it last more than 70-80 years.

Tuesday Open Thread and Supreme Court B#tching

 

"Jesus Fever" - Kurt Vile

The conservatives on the Supreme Court have issued a couple of truly hideous decisions this week.  Once again, here is one of those instances where the differences between the parties are so profound that, in and of themselves, they constitute a compelling reason to always vote and to always pull the Democratic lever when so doing. 

Today, the five conservative justices issued a 5-4 ruling that taxpayers in Arizona lack standing to make an establishment clause challenge to an Arizona law providing tax credits benefiting religious schools.  In so doing, the Court virtually guts the ability of taxpayers to raise questions regarding the propriety of states using tax credits as a means of favoring religious institutions.  Scott LeMieux has a good piece on this most recent travesty.  He quotes at length Elena Kagan's passionate dissent, which is well worth your perusal. 

I just want to make a simple, non-legal point here.  The breakdown of the Court on this case was completely by party of appointment.  All five Republican appointees were in the majority and all four Democratic appointees were in dissent.  This is not, as I will discuss further below, an aberrant result in the area of contentious constitutional cases.  And it vividly illustrates again something that I wouldn't think needs to be pointed out over and over -- but seemingly does -- that the parties produce profoundly different kinds of Supreme Court justices and that these differences result in profoundly different rights being enjoyed -- or not -- by the American people.  (Of course, I hope you all remember that Kagan was excoriated by the holier than thou set on the left as "the most unqualified justice in Supreme Court history" among other gems.)

It also shows as well, the insidious process of the Roberts' Court destroying rights via procedural rules such as standing.   

And then, there's Connick v. Thompson, yet another travesty handed down by the same 5-4 split.  In this case, egregious acts of prosecutorial misconduct that resulted in a death sentence and the wrongful imprisonment of an innocent man for over 18 years -- 14 of them isolated on death row (I'm sure Jane Hamsher visited him frequently though) -- and his near execution led to a jury award of $14 million on behalf of the victim of this outrageous behavior.  The Supreme Court reversed, in the process granting virtually unlimited license to prosecutors to engage in unethical and dishonest behavior with nearly complete impunity.  Read Dahlia Lithwick's take on the case and the extraordinarily mean-spirited jurisprudence of Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia -- two sociopaths in black robes.   Read as well Justice Ginsburg's dissent -- an opinion about which she felt so strongly that she took the unusual step of reading it aloud.  

Once finished, you're welcome to tell me again why it is meaningless in the real world if Obama wins in 2012 or if the Democrats retain control of the Senate.  

Or share your thoughts on anything else.

Ryan's Folly

I cannot quite believe that Paul Ryan appears to be following through with his plan to voucherize Medicare.  (h/t oddjob.) I ran into a friend of mine who is a health policy analyst at a major think tank on Saturday and she and I were both skeptical that he would actually go through with something this radical, but it seems the games afoot.  

The Republican Party won its 2010 victory in large part because voters over 65 voted against what they perceived, erroneously, to be an attack on Medicare by health care reform.  I cannot imagine that this same constituency and those who will follow shortly into it will feel at all good about the idea of abolishing traditional Medicare coverage (even if there are pledges made to "grandfather" as it were existing participants).  (I guess it's all part of the master plan to now alienate soon to be senior citizens, along with public employees, Hispanics, gays, Muslims, and pro-reproductive rights women -- the race to sew up 40% of the electorate.) 

One of the reasons that Medicare exists is because the private insurance market couldn't or wouldn't provide affordable health care coverage to senior citizens.  The notion that this problem has been corrected is incredibly errant nonsense. 

The fact that Ryan's plan also includes yet further tax breaks for the rich should make his whole scheme a veritable political pinata for the Democrats to take swings at.  Let's hope the Party has the good sense to see it as such and not as a starting point for compromise. 

Oh, and fuck Alice Rivlin, that goddamned turncoat clown.  The next time I see her ancient ass wandering in my neighborhood (which I do frequently) I am going to tell Stanley to bite her in the ankles. 

  

Monday Open Thread

 

"Big Wave" - Jenny and Johnny

A song for the new American depression -- both literally and figuratively:

Living your life in the gray
Is the new American way
We're spending what we haven't made

And we save our money in good faith
And we work hard for our living wage
But still the banks got to break

Because the dream's a lie
And the snake, it bit you
When you were awake
And the books all fried
You are bankrupted
Because all the loans you take

I was at a big Irish-American, building trades union function last night and the talk of the place was the extraordinary war against public employees and what most saw as the amazing folly of the Republicans attacking police and fire fighters.  This was an audience that has a pretty strong affinity with these groups and everyone to whom I spoke thought that the backlash against Republicans was going to be pretty overwhelming in places like Ohio and Wisconsin.  As I've said before, policemen, firefighters, teachers, and nurses form a sort of core middle class cadre throughout many of the small cities and suburbs in America.  These people are viewed as the quintessential middle class solid citizens in these places -- people who are generally liked, respected, and relied upon in many ways. 

And oddly enough, these people generally value their collective bargaining rights and representatives.  So the attack on their unions is perceived by both the members themselves and their fellow citizens as an attack on these people.  I do not think it is an attack that will sit well with the average voter. 

We may get some early insight into this with the Supreme Court election tomorrow in Wisconsin.           

Sunday Open Thread

I've been on an odd quest this morning: trying to find out just what number of votes constitutes an effective majority of the House these days.

If all 435 seats were filled and all members able to vote, the answer would be 218.  But there are two vacancies (Jane Harman's and Chris Lee's old seats), and one member who obviously won't vote in the next few weeks (Gabrielle Giffords).

But all the recent votes of the House effectively show 3 vacancies rather than 2: if you go to a House vote, count up the Ayes, Noes, Present, and Not Voting, you get 432, with Giffords counted under Not Voting.

So the magic number for a compromise bill to pass the House isn't 218.  But I'm not sure whether the number's really 216 or 217.

Yes, I'm a nerd.  And proud of it!

What's on your minds this morning?

Friday Open Thread

 

"April's Fool" - Cotton Mather

Ah, we say goodbye to what has been an inordinately gloomy last couple of weeks of March -- just cold and drizzly and damp. (Of course April has started the same way.)  Spring is desperately wanted in these parts.  The lawyer things been a bit out of control too -- it's been a little bit more  than a full time job the last week or so.  I feel a little out of touch with what's going on.

- I loved the awesome turn out of tea partiers yesterday in DC.  You would think that this is sort of thing would finally get the media to start questioning the alleged power and appeal of this tiny group of marginal cranks.    And yet the tea partiers still get front page treatment while organized labor, which has shown an ability to turn out tens of thousands of people in multiple states, sometimes day after day as in Wisconsin, is treated as a kind of passe non-entity in much of the press.

- Maybe though, if organized labor defeats this odious bill in Ohio via referendum and succeeds in the Wisconsin recall battles, a different narrative will begin to emerge.  And it can't happen too soon with general right-wing nuttiness breaking out all over the country.  I am waiting for Thirteenth Amendment repeal to start catching on in Republican circles.

- The only thing that seems more in danger than the right to bargain collectively is the right to reproductive freedom.  This stuff is just odious.  . 

- Michelle Rhee has been a scamstress for a long time it would seem.  Some of the work by DC high school math teacher G.F. Brandenberg really highlights this fact.  She's an insufferable grifter who will no doubt find a comfortable niche in right wing Republican circles and become wealthy in the process. 

- Speaking of shameless grifters, I somehow missed this deft dismantling of David Brooks by Chris Lehman, wonderfully titled "The Babbitt of the Bobos."  It's almost as devastating as this.    

- The war on everyone who is not a Republican is consistent with the right's ethos, which is that politics is war by other means.  It would be helpful if people on the Democratic side of the aisle understood this better and acted accordingly.  And to a certain extent imitated it.  In a world in which strategic political thinking were more a part of the legislative process when Democrats are in power, things like immigration reform and a jobs program for unemployed young people would have been at the very top of the to-do list, both because they were substantively good policy, but also because they would be likely to render significant electoral advantage -- probably for decades to come.  Winning elections is the essential factor in getting policies you want adopted.  It seems like an obvious proposition, but one which has not always been acknowledged in establishment Democratic circles. 

I hope it's sunny where you are.  What's happening?