Obama's Stealth War on Christmas and Open Thread

Sorry for my absence.  I have had an incredibly full schedule in terms of both work and social commitments.  On Saturday, I returned from my Florida travels and went straight to the White House to see the Christmas decorations there.  I found that the wily Kenyan socialist usurper has outdone himself in his continued attempt to fool the American public -- not only were there Christmas trees and decorations in abundance, there was even a manger scene, captured above, albeit in somewhat tiny fashion.  This President will stop at nothing in his attempts to trick the nation into believing that he is one of us.

- I remain convinced that there will not be a fiscal cliff deal or a debt ceiling deal until into the new year and that there will be serious brinksmanship before either of those things are accomplished.  I think all of the talk of an even moderately chastened Republican Party are just that -- empty talk.  And I think Obama is determined to hold his ground, having seen the kind of people with whom he is supposed to deal.  Let's hope that the economic fall out is not too serious from all of this.

- The Michigan right to work for less law -- or right to shirk as I like to call it -- discussed by l-t c below, strikes me as a deeply serious blow against an already reeling labor movement.  The off year election losses in 2010 are proving to be a disaster for progressive causes, notwithstanding our strong showing in 2012.  The election of these hard core right wingers is likely to continue to reverberate even if their stays in office end up being relatively brief.  It is hard to overstate how important it is to get our electorate out and voting in 2014 to see if we can undo some of the worst of what these radical governors and legislatures have wrought.

- Speaking of elections, the final vote tallies continue to roll in and Obama's margin continues to increase slowly but steadily.  He is now at 50.97% of the popular vote to Romney's 47.29%, with a margin of 4,736,633 votes.  It looks like he will end up with just under 66 million votes and a margin of about 5 million.  Not too shabby really.  And turnout is now down by only 2%, despite earlier misinformation indicating that it was substantially lower than in 2008. 

What's on your minds?

Comments

[low-tech cyclist]

Brad DeLong posted this comment from Henry Aaron of the Brookings Institution: "Conservative extremism has made any talk of entitlement reform verboten on the left. That will ultimately be self-defeating."

Sorry, Henry, but I think that's bullshit. (Couldn't say that over at Brad's blog. And it needed to be said.)

It's pretty clear that entitlement 'reforms' involving benefit cuts as part of a fiscal cliff or debt ceiling negotiation are verboten on the left.

And that's a Good Thing.

But that's as much as can accurately be said.

If we need to talk about the health of Social Security or Medicare later on, that's fine. But they should be discussed as separate issues of their own, not in an environment where the GOP is looking for something to cut just so they can say they did.

If they were OK with, say, strengthening the IPAB to save some Medicare $$, most of us lefties are good with that, though.

But they're not. The Republicans are not negotiating in good faith. They are looking to do harm to programs like Medicare and Social Security. Any Democratic concessions to GOP demands will almost surely consist of doing harm to those programs, not reforming them in a way that improves them or increases their long-term usefulness.

Lefties are adamantly against having harm done to these programs. So we are against benefit cuts to these programs in the context of the fiscal cliff or debt ceiling negotiations.

Is this so hard to understand?

[Sir Charles]

l-t c,

I believe to Dancin' Dave and the Morning Joe Crew, it is beyond comprehension.

For me, it makes total sense.

[oddjob]

Massachusetts toll roads to go 100% electronic, with no human toll collectors.

[kathy a.]

oddjob, the SF bay area is planning something similar for bridge tolls. i don't really get how it will work, at least for out-of-towners and people who don't travel the bridges much. [there is an electronic prepaid pass that has worked well for regular commuters.]

what is WITH these "war on christmas" people? note that the white house is simultaneously being criticized for too damned many trees this year...

[low-tech cyclist]

If the "War on Christmas" people are too dumb to realize that the real War on Christmas comes from the same people who gave us this year's War on Thanksgiving, Lord help them.

[kathy a.]

i'm just not enamored of the "buy, buy more, buy bigger" over-the-top commercial aspects, and especially the shopping mall and the sales madness. (that was harder to avoid when the kids were little...) my sibs and cousins all have a no-present pact for over-18 (minor cheating allowed for young adult children of sibs and cousins, who are not to gift one another at the family party).

most of my shopping was local; i made some investments in artists this year. nobody is getting anything big. guests are not to bring presents to our secular christmas feast.

but we have to have a tree; we must put out the decorations. i send cards, usually; it is a chance to remember people we do not see much. we must have at least several items of favorite holiday foods, and the correct snacks earlier. everybody visiting on christmas day gets a stocking from santa (house rule)-- and this year, my daughter helped me make all these crazy, colorful, non-traditional stockings!

we may be heathens, but we've got seasonal spirit.

[Sir Charles]

oddjob,

I thought the Massachusetts Turnpike existed in large part so that your ne'er do well brother in law or your useless nephew could get a job taking tolls.

Jesus Christ, you disturb the natural order of things and replace hack Irishmen with a black guy and this is what you get. Automation.

How many of those electronic eyes are going to pull the lever for you governor?!! C'mon.

(When I was a kid the Turnpike Authority was a notorious dumping ground for patronage politics, the kind of honest graft that gave a man a paycheck and a pension -- and a little change to pocket from time to time.)

[kathy a.]

well, we weren't counting on scalia's vote, anyway.

[low-tech cyclist]

kathy - my family has made a similar pact, where instead of gifts to each other, we make a few big charitable contributions. This year, I'm writing a check to Rolling Jubilee.

[low-tech cyclist]

Kevin Drum comments:

I continue to wait and wonder about the business community. Their self-interest is pretty clear: they should be in favor of a fiscal cliff agreement and they should be in favor of a debt ceiling agreement. Throwing the economy into the crapper is bad for business, after all. And yet, right now there's only a glimmering of evidence that business leaders are pressuring their tea-party friends to settle down, admit the need for compromise, and do a deal. So far, apparently, class loyalties are trumping fiduciary responsibilities.

At this point, should anybody have been surprised?

The main thing I'd like to contribute is that 'self-interest' is not always defined in dollars and cents. It is quite possible that they put a nontrivial value on their class solidarity, and quite possible that they assign a pretty large premium to maintaining a commanding position in our society, relative to the pool of customers and labor that they rely on.

I think it's clear at this point that they'd rather have economic conditions that dampen their wealth a little if it keeps their workers in a position of near-total dependency on them, than to have the metaphorical rising tide that lifts all boats.

[Crissa]

I use toll bridges a shocking once a year, when I'm too lazy to go around on the way to thanksgiving.

I can't imagine the pain of waiting in line while people operate a coin-operated machine.

[kathy a.]

actually, i remember some coin toll machines on the east coast somewhere -- they had basically a basket, so people tossed in the coins and moved right along. that clearly won't work for a $5 bridge toll....

here's the local story: the golden gate bridge is going all-electronic in a few months.

[Sir Charles]

The E-Z pass and other electronic tolling systems really are a great thing.

I don't do a whole lot of driving on toll roads, but if you do any kind of long distance driving north of DC -- to NYC for instance -- there are tolls galore and the advent of the automatic passes has really cut down on some of the worst traffic bottle necks. Some of the systems have eliminate the toll booths and gates altogether and let you go through at close to normal speed. It's an enormous improvement -- especially in place like Delaware, which used to have oddball toll amounts like $1.25, which guaranteed that many people had to get change manually.

[oddjob]

The stink over right-to-work in Michigan has spooked three other Republican governors (in OH, PA, & WI).

[oddjob]

actually, i remember some coin toll machines on the east coast somewhere -- they had basically a basket, so people tossed in the coins and moved right along. that clearly won't work for a $5 bridge toll....

The Garden State Parkway worked that way.

[oddjob]

especially in place like Delaware, which used to have oddball toll amounts like $1.25

Oh, I forgot about that!

While I've lived most of my life in the Philadelphia area, including much time very near Delaware, I've hardly ever had to travel on that stretch of I-95 in Delaware that is a toll road, but wow, what a pain that would be if you were traveling from DC to anywhere along that main "Northeast Corridor"!

[kathy a.]

via maddow, an interesting development in the DOMA case. a harvard law professor has been asked to brief and argue whether scotus even has jurisdiction to decide the case, as well as whether the legislative group bringing the case has standing. here is scotusblog on that development.

it is fairly unusual for the court to request an amicus brief of a particular lawyer. here is some commentary from scotusblog about the standing problem.

i don't know what would happen if scotus concludes that BLAG does not have standing. they could just decide that, and let the substantive issue go -- or, they could move on to the merits, since the administration is enforcing DOMA despite not defending it.

[paula]

When we first got FastLane/EZPass, we realized we saved a full hour in travel between NE and DC, on any given trip. Since we make at least six a year, that's a big savings in time.
A few months ago, my husband and I traveled through quite a few fully automated highway tolls in France. They don't use transponders there, so tolls are taken by coin/bill machines and/or credit cards. People also carry chip/pin cards, which are debit-card versions of EZPass, for use at tolls, gas pumps and vending machines. There are similar chip/pins for buses and trains. Whatever. Lines are short, unless tourists unfamiliar with the technology hold them up, not to name names.

[oddjob]

whether scotus even has jurisdiction to decide the case

What were to happen if SCOTUS decides it has no jurisdiction to decide the case? That one perplexes me.

[kathy a.]

these cases are really complicated legally, with the questions on which cert was granted.

if scotus decides it does not have jurisdiction any which way, then i think things stay the way they are and the lower court ruling about unconstitutionality of DOMA (which i believe has been stayed pending cert) takes effect.

that would mean (i think) that the DOJ needs to start enforcing the unconstitutionality of DOMA (instead of just refusing to defend) -- which means the federal government recognizing same-sex marriages, and according all the rights and privileges that flow from legal marriage. these include but are not limited to health benefits; family access to other perks (military commissaries, for example); tax benefits; survivor benefits. but the benefits would only apply to couples legally married in some US jurisdiction.

so, that would mean a lot of federal-level changes (for federal employees; military; tax-wise; benefit-wise), for which i suspect the feds are already preparing.

if it goes that way -- DOMA decided on jurisdictional issues only -- then i think there will be a lot of marriage tourism. states are constitutionally required to give full faith and credit to other states, so it would force anti-equality states to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, i think. also, another round of lawsuits.

somebody tell me if this analysis is missing something!

[low-tech cyclist]

The E-Z pass and other electronic tolling systems really are a great thing.

They used to be, and probably still are for a lot of folks.

I used to occasionally take trips that took me on toll roads in the Northeast, and I got an EZ Pass for that reason. Basically, as long as you kept some modest amount ($25, I think), they'd pull your tolls out of your account, and life was good.

But then they started charging $1.50/month for me to keep my account open, and most of the money in my account would be gone between one trip and the next, so I closed out my account, and went back to paying at the tollbooth. If they want me to use the tollbooths rather than the EZ Pass lanes, then that's what I'll do. (I'm not sure why that's what they want, but that's their lookout.)

And don't get me started on the DC Metro's SmartPass or whatever they call it. They're basically extending a big middle finger to people like me who use the system only occasionally. They want to charge me extra? I'll drive.

[oddjob]

so, that would mean a lot of federal-level changes (for federal employees; military; tax-wise; benefit-wise), for which i suspect the feds are already preparing.

But wouldn't that only be the case in the states covered by the First & Second Districts? Wouldn't DOMA still be the law of the land in the remaining ones?

[oddjob]

if it goes that way -- DOMA decided on jurisdictional issues only -- then i think there will be a lot of marriage tourism. states are constitutionally required to give full faith and credit to other states, so it would force anti-equality states to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, i think. also, another round of lawsuits.

There remains Section 2 of DOMA which hasn't been challenged yet. It specifically authorizes states opposed to marriage equality to not recognize same sex marriages performed elsewhere.

This is why I don't understand why SCOTUS would entertain the idea that it doesn't have jurisdiction to rule on the case. It seems to me the consequence of such an abdication decision is exactly the sort of mess SCOTUS was created to resolve.

[low-tech cyclist]

There remains Section 2 of DOMA which hasn't been challenged yet. It specifically authorizes states opposed to marriage equality to not recognize same sex marriages performed elsewhere.

Not only does it seem like the sort of mess SCOTUS exists to resolve, but at least to this layman, it looks like an attempt to limit via legislation the Full Faith and Credit clause of Article IV, Section 1. You'd think the Supremes would have had to step in years ago to either slap it down, or explain why DOMA and Article IV aren't in opposition.

[kathy a.]

see? i do not know all the answers, and had not thought of those questions. there could be considerable confusion if scotus does not address the substantive issues.

but it seems to me that is is very like the situation when loving v. virginia was decided. and that is the major substantive precedent.

[kathy a.]

in an interesting irony, justice thomas has enjoyed the benefits of loving v. virginia. thomas is generally considered a "two-fer" scalia vote, and he may hate on gays as much as any of the tribe. but he'll exceed his own self if he wants to overrule loving.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

A quick drive-by, sorry. never know how time is going or strength either. Anyway, afaik, 'full faith and credit' has never been held strictly applicable to marriage matters. There is a story that there were some states in which the multiply married detective story writer, Craig Rice, was divorced more times than she was considered married.\

But what I really stopped by t5o mention was a c9omment I came across on "Texas Liberal" reminding us that St. Nicholas was the patron of the falsely accused, and that one of the stories about him involves himn saving the lives of three falsely acused men. The blog -- and I -- suggest that for those people who prefer charitable donations to presents for Christmas should consider the suitabi;ity of either the Innocence Project or -- my addition -- janinsanfran's anti-death penalty group/ (And I didn't find out details but apparently Gov. O'Malley of Md is considering abolishing the death penalty there, and could use e-mails of support. If I know more I'll get back to you on this.)

[kathy a.]

i can't speak for jan's preferences. she worked for the campaign to abolish the DP in california, and that campaign is over. but major sponsors included death penalty focus and aclu/northern california. more info is at death penalty information center, which is a great source of info, and has "resources" links nationwide.

[oddjob]

You'd think the Supremes would have had to step in years ago to either slap it down, or explain why DOMA and Article IV aren't in opposition.

I can't help but think this is obvious on its face, and I also can't help but conclude that the reason marriage equality legal advocates (such as Mary Bonauto) have avoided "going there" is purely tactical, waiting until society had moved enough towards embracing marriage equality for the challenge (& just about guaranteed win) to not cause the sort of uproar that could have led to a successful amending of the US Constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

(Yes, back in '95 or '96 or '97 I think such an amendment would probably have passed and been added to the Constitution.)

[oddjob]

he may hate on gays as much as any of the tribe. but he'll exceed his own self if he wants to overrule loving

I think it more likely gay people don't bother him at all, but I also think it just about certain he'll vote with Scalia, not necessarily because he approves of Scalia's morals in this matter, but rather because he doesn't believe the Constitution authorizes him to strike DOMA down (or to uphold the Prop. 8 decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals).

[kathy a.]

just pointing out the irony. chances are, thomas and scalia will vote together as usual. thomas is really horrid on affirmative-action type issues; and i expect the comparison of gay marriage to his marriage is deeply offensive to him. but his own mixed-race marriage was disallowed by some states until the loving decision.

point of clarification: the court does not just "step in" to most controversies -- it is not legally able to. it needs for a federal issue to be presented to them; the issue needs to be "ripe"; and they want the issues to be well-developed in lower courts. they also get many thousands more cert petitions than they can possibly hear in any given year, so most cert petitions are turned down.

i'm sure there were tactical choices made along the way to increase the chances of winning. attitudes reached a turning point in recent years, the best evidence of which are the results in 4 states during this election, as well as all these previous court victories.

(the cal supremes, who have NOT been a liberal court since the ouster of rose bird and other justices in the late 1980's, decided some years ago that marriage equality was constitutionally mandated under the state constitution. that was an amazing legal victory! but it also prompted prop 8, a crappy electoral loss.)

anyway, i'm hopeful the time is right. we can live with a nasty set of dissents. i understand why people are nervous, because this is not the ideal court, and nothing is for sure. but public and legal movement is all in the direction of equality; the cases present in great postures; and i think there is truth to the speculation that roberts does not want to be on the losing side of history. he is a pretty young guy, for a justice; he'll be saddled with the taint of a bad decision for the rest of his career, and then some.

[kathy a.]

i speculate here, but the cal supremes probably decided on state constitutional grounds to avoid this kind of showdown in the big court at just that point in time. the relevant provisions of the state constitution are very similar to the US constitution, but states are allowed to provide more expansive rights under their own constitutions. (they cannot curtail federal constitutional rights.)

broader state interpretations of basic constitutional rights do, however, influence the high court over time.

[oddjob]

just pointing out the irony.

When it comes to Thomas there's never a shortage of those, either....

[oddjob]

"...According to Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the Judiciary Committee is planning a hearing early next year to examine federal policy towards two states that legalized marijuana in November...."

[low-tech cyclist]

i think there is truth to the speculation that roberts does not want to be on the losing side of history.

I also suspect that he doesn't want to be seen as a total right-wing tool. And it blows enough smoke in the eyes of the Fred Hiatts and Dana Milbanks of the world to take the liberal side of a few cases where the big money's not on the other side so that he can get away with being a total corporate tool in all the cases where the big money's clearly on one side, and come out with his public reputation unscathed.

[low-tech cyclist]

Susan Rice's withdrawal from consideration for Secretary of State is depressing. If there was ever a time to stand and fight over a nomination, this was it.

Withdrawal may have been the best choice for her, but it was the wrong choice for the country.

[kathy a.]

fucking guns. damned fucking automatic weapons -- how can those possibly have a legitimate civilian use?

two fucking mass shootings in one week. kindergarteners and teachers, this time. i just saw a report of 22 kids dead, 29 total.

michigan just passed a revision of its concealed carry law, which is awaiting gov. j@ack@ss' signature -- it would allow concealed weapons in previously forbidden places, like schools and churches. different issue, i guess, but you know how i feel about gun insanity generally.

[Joe S]

kathy a., Even worse, last week stated Illinois which had the only total ban on concealed carry in the country was just told its law was unconstitutional.

What seems so discouraging is that Democrats have managed to win a bunch of elections, but on policy, conservatism continues to advance and really set public policy. Gun control is a dead issue. Labor organizations appear to be on their way out. Social insurance looks to be badly endangered. Women's rights are taking a real beating in the states. Austerity is basically going to be the rage for the near future even though it has failed badly in Europe. The time period from 1990-2016 looks like 25 years of fail despite the fact that Democrats got pretty good at winning elections.

[kathy a.]

people getting shot to shit in large numbers is completely unacceptable. i am beyond sick of the NRA shoving its fanatic ideas about their "freedom" equaling firepower down the throats of everybody else.

it is a public health and public safety issue. it has gone so far down the rabbit hole that there is no immediate solution, but certainly we can start with automatic weaponry. how many dead kindergarteners are a sufficient sacrifice to the gun gods?

[low-tech cyclist]

Yeah, on my favorite message board, I just heard the "freedom is not free" BS from one of the gun nuts.

I told him: "You know what that means? That people who desire and enjoy certain freedoms should be willing to fight to preserve them.

But you expect SOME CHILDREN who had nothing to do with your freedoms, to die bloody deaths on the altar of your freedoms."

For a decade or so, I'd kinda given up on gun control, because it wasn't going anywhere anyway. But the Aurora massacre woke me up again - and there have been so many more massacres in the less than 5 months since then.

I think of those kids who got killed today, and how if my son had been one of them, I'd feel like the world had ended. I'm sure there are a few dozen parents in Connecticut right now who are feeling like that right now.

And the terror that every parent of a kid at that school experienced on hearing the news, not knowing whether their kid was alive and well (at least, about as well as one can be after being terrorized by a man gunning down as many of your schoolmates as he can manage), or lying in a bloody heap on a classroom floor, will stay with them to the end of their days.

Fuck the Second Amendment. Fuck Wayne LaPierre. And fuck every damned gun nut in this country.

[kathy a.]

right on, ltc.

one of my friends concludes the world has gone crazy because 22 kids also got slashed in china today. but all those kids lived; that's the trouble with firepower.

if today's shooting doesn't prompt action, nothing will.

citizens are petitioning the white house; i also heard there is a "today is the day" rally outside the WH.

i called both senators and my congresscritter.

[kathy a.]

a piece that has almost enough swear words to reflect my opinions.

[nancy]

Here's a refresher on the role that ALEC plays in our national madness about all matters gun-related. Co-billing with the NRA in favoring an armed citizenry and its attendant hugely lucrative weapons industry above all. In a proper would there would be public shaming.

And I for one don't care to hear the word "conversation" used in regards to the subject. Fuck that.

We are killing our children. That is a fact, not a conversation.

[kathy a.]

fuck alec, too.

my kids lost a number of people when they were young -- thankfully, no violent deaths -- but even losing one is scary as hell. i remember being shaken when pres. kennedy was killed, when i was 6. those losses are nothing compared to what this community is going through.

i have a lot of personal reasons why i hate guns. but damn, this brings stuff up for all of us. one friend was a grad student at VA tech, that terrible day. enough.

[Sir Charles]

As long as no one has to pay compulsory union dues, we can rest easy knowing how free we all are in this, the best of all possible countries in which we live.