We Haz Economics
by digby
Jim VanDeHei said on MSNBC that there’s no way to cut the deficit without cutting entitlement programs unless we can grow our way out of the deficits with a growing economy. Mrs Alan Greenspan says there’s no way the economy is going to grow any time soon, so they will have to do the cuts to the entitlement programs.
Can even those of us, like me, who have only a rudimentary knowledge of macroeconomics see what’s wrong with that picture? I knew that you could.
.
Low Point
by digby
I’ve been watching Chris Matthews talk about the Stupak Amendment all week while banging my head against the wall so it’s been hard to document the atrociousness of his arguments. Jamison Foser soldiered on through the headache so I didn’t have to:
If you want an illustration of how conservative framing dominates media coverage of politics and policy, you need only watch Chris Matthews talk about abortion each night on Hardball. Since early summer, the Hardball host has been hyping anti-abortion complaints about proposed health care reform, even though the proposals would have done nothing to expand abortion rights. In doing so, he has trafficked in falsehoods, embraced flawed and illogical conservative talking points, and portrayed pro-choice advocates who have already compromised as rigid, unyielding ideologues.
[…]
(Matthews’ comments about abortion and health care reform have by no means been unique; I focus on him here because he has addressed the subject regularly over the past several months, and because it serves as yet another reminder that, despite conventional wisdom, neither Matthews nor MSNBC is really “liberal.”)
That really can’t be pointed out often enough. It’s really worth reading the whole column for a full rundown 0f Matthews’ frustrating misinformation and ill-informed opinions on this subject.
Whenever this subject has come up this week, I can’t help but recall this post from last spring:
Chris Matthews says we have to find middle ground on abortion. Apparently, he just read Lord Saleton’s most recent screed in the NY Times and was very affected by this:
Eight years ago, the Alan Guttmacher Institute surveyed over 10,000 American women who had abortions. Nearly half said they hadn’t used birth control in the month they conceived. When asked why not, 8 percent cited financial problems, and 2 percent said they didn’t know where to get it. By comparison, 28 percent said they had thought they wouldn’t get pregnant, 26 percent said they hadn’t expected to have sex and 23 percent said they had never thought about using birth control, had never gotten around to it or had stopped using it. Ten percent said their partners had objected to it. Three percent said they had thought it would make sex less fun.
This isn’t a shortage of pills or condoms. It’s a shortage of cultural and personal responsibility. It’s a failure to teach, understand, admit or care that unprotected sex can lead to the creation — and the subsequent killing, through abortion — of a developing human being.
Matthews let fly with his interpretation that “the problem is that we have a lot of abortions, a lot of them, in cases where the person is having sex and not doing anything to prevent getting pregnant and that they have no intention of taking to term. What do we do about those people who have sex and have no intention of taking the baby to term?” [Burn them! — ed]
Ken Blackwell replied that science has shown that human life begins at conception whether it’s brainwaves or fingerprints. Yep.
Lord Saletan of Will added that mating is the engine of history.
And then Matthews railed some more against women for just having sex without taking any precautions, and just figuring they can go get an abortion if they get pregnant. He said, “I want these little bitches to think!” (Ok, he didn’t call them little bitches,he said “people,” but the meaning was clear.)
I went on in that post to discuss this slut shaming concept in some depth which you can read if you are interested in that topic. But I have found the actual transcript and I think Matthews’ comments are worth publishing in order to understand why a sexist like Matthews simply cannot understand and shouldn’t be commenting on this issue:
MATTHEWS: Well, look, I respect both sides in terms of your right to have these positions. This is an American debate that goes on. Right now, we have a law. The Supreme Court recognized the right to choose an abortion, to have an abortion in very late term. And, depending on the circumstances and the amount of regulation that goes on, it becomes it is easier to have an abortion early in term.
But the problem we have is that we have a lot of abortions, a lot of them, in cases where…
BLACKWELL: Absolutely.
MATTHEWS: … it‘s simply a matter of the person having sex, and not doing anything to prevent getting a pregnancy that they have no intention of taking to term.
What do we do about those people who have sex and have no intention of taking the baby to term?
BLACKWELL: Well…
MATTHEWS: I‘m just asking you, do you see a middle ground here? And, if you don‘t, just tell me, because then I will find somebody else who does, because I think there‘s got to be some way to begin this discussion.
[…]
MATTHEWS: All right. Fair enough, Ken. The reason I liked your [Saletan’s] article is it pointed out something I had never thought through. Something like 90 percent of the situations that lead to abortions—and you made it it‘s the person‘s choice under the law. An abortion because somebody chooses they figure that‘s what they‘re going to do, and that‘s their decision. And in every one of those case, 90 percent, it‘s the person who just didn‘t both to take any precautions. They just didn‘t both to think about it, do anything about it, do anything to protect themselves. They got pregnant and then they decide to have an abortion.
I want that decision to be made in the first instance, before conception. I want people to think. I want people to be grown up, even if they‘re young.
Notice “the people” involved didn’t protect “themselves” from “getting pregnant.” Evidently “they” were all doing it with a turkey baster not a man.
Matthews pretends to be pro-choice and goes on about how abortions will happen no matter how distasteful “everyone” finds it, although if you read the full transcript it’s quite clear by his use of personal pronouns he doesn’t personally believe in abortion. That would be fine if he could articulate the position that the many pro-choice people who are also personally anti-abortion hold. But he can’t because he’s not really pro-choice and he’s a sexist idiot to boot.
His performance this week has been a train wreck on this topic and he’s allowed more misinformation to enter the village ether than all but the most zealous anti-choice advocates. It’s a real low point, even for him.
.
What If they Don’t?
by digby
Everyone seems too be applauding the “Palinization” of the GOP. Lou Dobbs may run for president. Wingnut firebrand Marco Rubio may beat moderate Charlie Christ in Florida. Tom Tancredo just threw his hat into the ring for Colorado Governor. Liberals seem very excited about this prospect as if it’s self-evident that just as NY 23 laughed off that dead doorknob Hoffman, the country will always think these people are fools.
But what if they don’t?
In Palin’s case I think it’s probably true, not because she is a bigger fool but rather because she is a woman and a different kind of right wing celebrity. But I honestly wonder if it’s a good idea to not take these people a little more seriously. There are some rather stark historical examples of people assuming that a right wing demagogic movement is so ridiculous that a majority could never back them — and that assumption being proved catastrophically wrong.
And even if they are a bunch of fools who can’t possibly ever be elected by a majority, is it wise to ignore the fact that as this movement moves farther and farther to the right it leaves a vacuum that the political establishment expects the Democrats to fill? Whenever the Republicans move right, the villagers expect the Democrats to do the same. Indeed, with the Republicans taking themselves completely out of legislation, the Democrats have pretty much assigned members of their own ranks to take their place in the negotiations. They have the ability to move the right without the country even realizing it’s happening.
I’m not saying that we should panic. These people are politically weak in their own right. But when I see the liberal gasbags on TV blithely dismissing this as if it”s impossible that Americans could ever fall for such lunacy, I feel a little frisson of alarm. I’ve read too many accounts of people who, 80 or so years ago, complacently made the same assumption. And the whole world found out that under the right circumstances even the most civilized nations can throw in with the crazies.
.
Ahhhh, Now I Get It
by digby
DKos diarist James Richardson wondered what the Republicans thought they were achieving by holding up extended unemployment benefits for over a month only to end up voting for it 98-0 and discovered they wanted to screw over a lot of people and then take credit for being good guys, as usual:
[T]he real reason republicans delayed passage of the unemployment extension benefits was this:
Because the bill was held up for so long in the Senate, an end-of-the-year filing deadline will prevent anyone from accessing the final six weeks of benefits, according to state officials and sources on Capitol Hill. On Friday, President Obama signed into law legislation extending jobless benefits by 14 weeks nationwide, with an additional six weeks for those states where unemployment rates top 8.5 percent. Those benefits kicked in on Sunday. But there’s a glitch. The new law treats the 20-week extension as two separate extensions of 14 weeks and six weeks, with participants required to exhaust the first 14 weeks before applying for the next six. However, the current law keeps a Dec. 31 application deadline, roughly seven weeks from now, making collecting the full 20 weeks impossible. That’s not all. The emergency unemployment benefits provided beginning in 2008 are also tiered. The filing deadline applies to all tiers. That is, the new extension would effectively grandfather the unemployed into the tier where they sit at the end of December, preventing them from jumping into the next, even if they were eligible.
It’s very important that with 10% official unemployment (and probably close to double that in real unemployment)that we don’t let people think they have some kind of “entitlement.” They need to suffer or they won’t understand just how seriously we take the work ethic in this country.
It’s possible that this is an unintended consequence of waiting, but it’s hard to see why someone didn’t figure it out. Indeed, the whole “tiering” system seems designed for just this result. I guess they don’t want the unemployed to get spoiled by all that free money.
.
Rhetoric Watch
by tristero
Stupak is an attempt by the pro-life movement to use health reform as a vessel to ration access to reproductive health services.
No.
Stupak is an attempt by the pro-coathanger movement to use health reform as a vessel to ration access to reproductive health services.
As long as we provide the foes of women’s reproductive rights the opportunity to cast themselves as being “for life,” and do so voluntarily, we will continue to lose ground on a fundamentally moral issue in which we, supporters of unrestricted health care for women, hold the high ground.
Do you think “pro-coathanger” is needlessly confrontational, even if true? Ok, Digby’s formulation, “coerced birth,” is a more than reasonable substitute. Or if you insist, “anti abortion rights” is fine.
But an important note about that last one: the issue is one of rights, not whether we think a specific set of procedures agrees with our abstract moral code. We can’t leave the word “rights” out of the phrase without rhetorically handing the opposition – which is headed by people that genuinely hate women, especially poor women – a powerful concession.
Words matter. And the rightwing would never, ever, make the mistake of calling us anything milder than “pro-abortion,” despite the fact that is not our position, nor what this is about. It is about rights, rights to healthcare without restrictions for about half the people in this country.
Think Progress does great work; I’m not raking them specifically over the coals. The rhetorical problem I’m pointing out is so commonplace as to be nearly invisible. My hope is that decent people will focus on how very important it is, always, to resist casting cultural debates in the loaded rhetoric of the right. “Pro-life” is one of their most egregious formulations. And one of the worst.
UPDATE: Short answer to commentators who claim that “pro-life” is just a morally neutral label for one side in a political controversy: You’re kidding yourself. You may think the nuanced meanings of a specific phrase don’t matter, but they do,
Lou Peron
by digby
I thought for sure that Dobbs would be going to Fox but I understand that really isn’t happening, at least not right away. Then I saw the speculation about a political career and just assumed that if he were thinking along those lines he would run for state office or maybe congress. But it didn’t occur to me that he’d set his sights higher than the Senate or even Glenn Beck. The Dreyfuss Report wonders if he isn’t going for The Big One:
Parsing the Lou Dobbs bombshell, I can’t help wondering if the pudgy populist is planning a run for president in 2012. My guess: yes. And if he does, I’ll bet he’ll do so as a Peron-style, would-be Ross Perot. It could be America’s first truly fascist electoral effort.
[…]
In his statement last night, which you can read here and watch here, Dobbs said:
“Over the past six months it’s become increasingly clear that strong winds of change have begun buffeting this country and affecting all of us, and some leaders in media, politics and business have been urging me to go beyond the role here at CNN and to engage in constructive problem solving as well as to contribute positively to the great understanding of the issues of our day.”
And:
“At this point, I’m considering a number of options and directions, and I assure you, I will let you know when I set my course. I truly believe that the major issues of our time include the growth of our middle class, the creation of more jobs, health care, immigration policy, the environment, climate change, and our military involvement, of course, in Afghanistan and Iraq.”
The field is certainly wide open and Dobbs has carved out an explicitly Peronist niche on the political spectrum. I could see it. (Does anyone know the wife?)
.
Spiritual Healing
by digby
Yesterday I wrote a satirical post calling for the exclusion of erectile dysfunction treatments in the health care plan because of my moral objections to men defying God’s edict to stay flaccid. It created a good chuckle around the blogosphere, my favorite being General JC Christian’s post “First they came for the boners” (and his hilarious comment section — “They’ll pry my boner from my cold dead hands.”)
But as is so often true these days, satire is no longer operative with the right wing having retired the concept of hypocrisy. Howie sent me this post with a real life provision which I quite seriously object to having my tax dollars spent for:
A few days ago the L.A. Times reported on a provision slipped into the Senate bill that “would require insurers to consider covering Christian Science prayer treatments as medical expenses.” Orrin Hatch is behind the provision, but he was aided by Kennedy and Kerry, the senators from Massachusetts, which is where Christian Science has its world headquarters.
The measure would put Christian Science prayer treatments — which substitute for or supplement medical treatments — on the same footing as clinical medicine. While not mentioning the church by name, it would prohibit discrimination against “religious and spiritual healthcare.”… Phil Davis, a senior Christian Science Church official, said prayer treatment was an effective alternative to conventional healthcare.
“We are making the case for this, believing there is a connection between healthcare and spirituality,” said Davis, who distributed 11,000 letters last week to Senate officials urging support for the measure.
“We think this is an important aspect of the solution, when you are talking about not only keeping the cost down, but finding effective healthcare,” he said.
Let’s not kid ourselves about this. It’s a boondoggle. And if it passes, I’m done fighting all this. I’m going to start a “spiritual healing center” and become a millionaire. And I won’t just be stealing your tax dollars to do it, I won’t have to pay taxes myself. It’s brilliant.
.
Toxic Labels
by digby
It looks like the Fiscal Zombie has made its way into the White House. (Or perhaps, more precisely, he’s been let out of the closet.)
The White House is in the early stages of considering what bigger moves it might make for next year’s budget. The Office of Management and Budget has asked all cabinet agencies, except defense and veterans affairs, to prepare two budget proposals for fiscal 2011, which begins Oct 1, 2010. One would freeze spending at current levels. The other would cut spending by 5%. OMB is also reviewing a host of tax changes. The President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board will submit tax-policy options by Dec. 5, including simplifying the tax code and revamping the corporate tax code. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is pressing for substantial spending cuts to go with any tax increases to try to avoid the “tax and spend” label that has bedeviled Democrats, according to administration and congressional officials.
Yeah, because the Republicans will completely at a loss for criticism if the Democrats cut spending in the middle of an economic crisis. They’ll will coast to an easy victory if only they don’t have the “tax and spend” label. Al Gore proved that in 2000.
Is Emmanuel really considered a political genius? If so, you wouldn’t think he’d be listening to Amity Schlaes.
.
Moral Equivalence
by digby
Everyone seems to agree that it would be an immoral and selfish act for pro-choice women to vote against health care reform based on their own parochial principles when the bill will help so many people. Greater good, moral imperative and all that rot. Real human beings would suffer for their self-centered insistence on a fealty to their own beliefs and they are most often people at the lowest end of society who desperately need such help.
Will the Catholic Church be held to the same standard?
The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn’t change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care.
Under the bill, headed for a D.C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians.
Fearful that they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, church officials said they would have no choice but to abandon their contracts with the city.
[…]
Catholic Charities, the church’s social services arm, is one of dozens of nonprofit organizations that partner with the District. It serves 68,000 people in the city, including the one-third of Washington’s homeless people who go to city-owned shelters managed by the church. City leaders said the church is not the dominant provider of any particular social service, but the church pointed out that it supplements funding for city programs with $10 million from its own coffers.
You’ll recall that the Catholic Church earlier abandoned foster children in Massachusetts over gay adoption, so there’s every reason to believe they will follow through on this threat. It’s obviously an edict from the hierarchy. And presumably, they will not face the disapprobation of the whole country for being “selfish” and “immoral” for doing so.
I’m not arguing that this stand is right. I’m arguing that there is a double standard that puts secular principles at a permanent disadvantage. The Catholic Church and other religious organizations are not only not accused of immorality for refusing to minister to the poor because they don’t believe in gay rights, they are portrayed as highly principled and beyond moral reproach. So are the “pro-life” Catholics — backed up by the Catholic Bishops — who are willing to destroy health care reform that will give millions of people access to life-saving health care. Meanwhile, pro-choice advocates are being pompously lectured by patronizing media figures about “letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.”
There is no reason to grant that “pro-life” and anti-gay rights Catholics are operating from a higher moral position. If the argument is that it’s immoral to deny millions of people health care because of one moral objection, then the Catholics are behaving as immorally as the secularists. On the other hand, if refusing to compromise on a matter of fundamental principle is a moral position then both sides are equally moral. You decide. But either way, there’s no distinction between the two sides. So everybody needs to stop the lectures about pro-choice women being self serving and immoral for threatening to withhold their votes if they believe their principles have been violated.
If pro-choice Democrats are going to be accused of “making the perfect be the enemy of the good” then so should the “pro-life” Democrats. And frankly, if anyone’s going to be given extra points for morality I would at least give them to the people who have shown they feel some sense of moral dilemma rather than the wrecking crew who don’t blink an eye at denying people health care merely because one of their dollars will touch a dollar that pays for insurance that might someday pay for an abortion. But then, I’m an immoral pro-choicer.
“We won because [the Democrats] need us,” Stupak said. “If they are going to summarily dismiss us by taking the pen to that language, there will be hell to pay. I don’t say it as a threat, but if they double-cross us, there will be 40 people who won’t vote with them the next time they need us — and that could be the final version of this bill.”
h/t to KC
.
Between A Little Rock And A Hard Place
by digby
Here’s a good piece on the Democratic Strategist talking about Blue America’s Blanche Lincoln campaign, which are running all over Arkansas as we speak:
Lieberman looks like a lost cause, as far as the public option is concerned. But ActBlue [sic] is setting an impressive example of citizen lobbying, via TV ads, to persuade Senator Blanche Lincoln to not filibuster against an up or down vote on the public option. BlueAmerica’s latest Lincoln ad is very tough, and graphically amusing, depicting Senator Lincoln all gussied up like a NASCAR driver, only the ads pasted all over her jumpsuit are for her many health care contributors. Slide the right-side bar at the link down and view three more ‘Harry and Louise’ style ads depicting a couple at the kitchen table wondering why Sen. Lincoln is so concerned about health insurers, when they can hardly pay their bills. The idea here is to build constituent awareness about her foot-dragging and get them to call her and urge her to get on the side of consumers, who need a public option to have any leverage with private insurers. Some I guess would argue that these ads may do more harm than good if they alienate Lincoln from her progressive supporters. If she is that petty, however, she would probably vote wrong anyway. So I say it’s time for the full-court press. The ads are honest, both in the facts presented and in depicting the utter bewilderment many of her constituents — especially those Democrats who voted for her — are feeling at her reluctance to even allow a vote on a measure that would let maybe 10 percent of Americans chose government health insurance over private insurance. Will Lincoln be a corporate lackey or champion of the people? Maddow puts the campaign to win Lincoln’s support in perspective right here.
Here’s the ad, if you haven’t seen it. Campaign For Health Care Choice
.