Skip to content

Month: November 2010

Mrs Greenspan scolds the San Francisco Hoyden for her unseemly behavior

Bad Behavior From The San Francisco Hoyden

by digby

The Villagers are very, very cross this morning with a certain San Francisco liberal who is no better than she ought to be:

Mrs Greenspan:[furiously waving her fan] Speaking of cod liver oil, what about Nancy Pelosi saying that this is “simply unacceptable” Is that the right way to approach something that at least is a thoughtful, bipartisan suggestion from two leaders who were both part of Democratic and Republican White Houses?

Steve McMahon [taking a bracing whiff of snuff]: Well … I think that’s going to be the reaction from a lot of people and frankly I agree that it would have been better to be more temperate and take a fuller look at what was in there. There are some things in there that I think no one’s going to like and there are some things in there that Republicans are going to like less than Democrats and vice versa…

I think she’s talking about specific aspects of it. Cuts in Medicare and cuts in Social Security and taking the greatest generation and taking the faith that they had that we would honor our commitment to them and disappointing them. But the fact of the matter is that entitlements are going to have to be part of this conversation at some level. And so are revenue enhancements … which is … of course … taxes. And so are spending cuts. And Republicans are interesting because they want to balance the budget and next week they want to extend tax cuts that will give 700 billion dollars to millionaires who frankly don’t need it ..

Mrs Greenspan : [with a small smile as she sipped on glass of sweet sherry] Well, I think you’re seeing already that the White House is blinking on that, though…

But let’s talk about the leadership struggle[fanning furiously now, reaching for the smelling salts.] Nancy Pelosi! I was told that the White House found out about it when she tweeted. There was no heads up, no advance warning. She really shocked the caucus and set up this fight between Steny Hoyer and Jim Clyburn in this game of musical chairs…Is she the best person to lead the Democratic party on the House side?

Dear me. It would seem that the San Francisco hoyden is simply running wild and someone needs to take her in hand. (Where, oh where, is the Sheriff of Rahm when you need him?) It is considered very unseemly in Village society for a lady to suggest that a “thoughtful bipartisan” plan should ever be dismissed out of hand. In fact, it’s positively shocking! After all, everyone knows that the peasants are going to have to sacrifice in order that the nobles are well fed.

One hopes that we don’t see The Hoyden any time soon at the gaming tables. She simply doesn’t play by the proper rules. Thank heavens the rest of her family knows how to behave.

.

Fact checking Kelly Ann Conway

Fact Checking Kelly Ann Conway

by digby

I was just watching a thoroughly disagreeable segment on Parker-Spitzer on DVR and heard a blatant falsehood from a Republican operative which nobody called out, as usual.

So, just for the record, I thought I would correct the record now. Here’s Kelly Ann Conway on the subject of Bush’s book:

CONWAY: I’m glad to see he’s back on the scene. I’m glad that he hasn’t butted into the Obama administration. He’s been purposefully silent and not even sort of giving blind quotes to the media and trying to pick on the successor, even though the successor’s pretty down now. President Bush, right before his party took a mini shellacking in 2006 and lost 30 seats in the House, his approval rating was 63 percent. Last week, the president’s party lost more than 60 seats and his approval rating was in the mid-40s.

That’s an outright lie. On election day 2006, Bush’s approval rating was 38% and it was all downhill from there. Obama’s was at 43% and has gone back to 47%.

But then, I recall that it took Bush languishing for months in the 30’s before the press stopped calling him a “very popular” president. Maybe they can’t read polls. Or maybe they’re just fools for love.

*The rest of the segment was just as ridiculous with participants calling for the fainting couch any time someone used the word “criminal” in the same breath as Bush. At some point we’re going to have to recognize that right wing political correctness is more Stalinist than anything the nanny-staters could ever come up with.

.

Extending the Bush kabuki

Extending the Kabuki

by digby

All the chatter this morning is about Axelrod officially signaling the cave on permanently extending the Bush tax cuts (which he seems to have tried to walk back this morning.) If you read this blog, you were not surprised.

People much more connected than I say that the Republicans are going to hold out for permanent tax cuts because they say they really don’t want to have the fight again in 2012. Perhaps they are right. But I suspect we are watching some kabuki here and that the fix is in for a temporary extension of the tax cuts for the wealthy, which Obama will now get to call a “victory” — and which the Republicans will enjoy using as a cudgel to beat the Democrats over the head the next two years. After all, it would be a shame to lose their position as the only thing standing between their wealthy friends and Obama’s plan to confiscate all their money. It would certainly be less lucrative.

I simply do not believe they are worried one bit about “uncertainty” in the business world or have the slightest doubt that these tax cuts will be extended permanently. Tax hikes (which is what they will now be known as) are never easy, and right now they are almost impossible, despite deficit fever. And yet, the “threat” is very useful to illustrate how the socialist Democrats want to destroy capitalism and turn America into Bulgaria ca 1954.

It wouldn’t be the first time I misread a dynamic like this. And these things often take on a life of their own. But I continue to think we’ll end up with Obama claiming victory for only agreeing to a temporary extension and Republicans accepting it with a vow to extend them permanently and turn economy around when the American people send Obama and the Dems packing in 2012. We’ll see.

.

Goldilocks Villagers are thrilled with all the new catfood flavors

Goldilocks Villagers Are Thrilled

by digby

If you wonder how the Very Serious Villagers are analysing the politics the Catfood Commission’s draft report today, look no further than Lori Montgomery of the Washington Post:

JIM LEHRER: Now, I noticed that you mentioned the Pentagon, 15 percent cut in defense spending. And they even outlined, if I read this correctly, some specific weapons systems that should be eliminated.

LORI MONTGOMERY: Well, that’s right. And what’s been surprising to many people is that there are some Republicans that are willing to embrace this idea.

And if they’re going to sell Social Security cuts to the liberal Democrats, who right now are screaming the loudest about this plan, they are going to have to have some serious reductions in military spending in there, too.

JIM LEHRER: Give us a feel for the reaction. There’s been a lot of it in the last couple of hours.

(LAUGHTER)

Well, Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House, said, this is — just right off the top, is unacceptable, right?

LORI MONTGOMERY: Simply unacceptable, that’s exactly what she said.

There’s an interesting dynamic developing. I guess I should mention, first of all, that the White House also has been a little, like, well, this is just a starting point, very sort of noncommittal at this point.

But, otherwise, there’s an interesting dynamic developing, both on and off the commission. Many of the members, except for the most liberal members, the champions of Social Security, are very reluctant to outright criticize this thing.

They’re calling it a serious effort, something that they have to respect. And nobody is — I mean, nobody is for it, but nobody is totally against it either.

And then you have got some people on the outside, longtime balance-budget advocates, who are calling this thing a breakthrough. It’s like, you know: This is a serious plan. We can’t go back to pretending that, you know, eliminating ear marks is going to solve our budget problems any more.

JIM LEHRER: But, then, on the other side, there — Grover Norquist said that this was — was a secret way or a camouflaged way — of course, I’m paraphrasing — but to raise taxes. And he essentially said it’s unacceptable from his point view as well.

LORI MONTGOMERY: That’s right. They’re calling it a trillion-dollar tax increase.

But it’s interesting that these very extreme reactions are coming from the far end of the party, of each party. I think that there is a middle ground that is going to try to massage this thing, and — and could bring this whole debate back to life in a way that I think everybody was assuming it wouldn’t be resuscitated.

Obama has made some less than savvy political decisions in office but this one (the deficit commission) has to take the cake. If he ends up signing on to deep cuts in social security in exchange for some tax hikes (which will be subject to revision by the next idiot Republican who comes into office bleating “it’s your money!”) then he will have presided over the destruction of the Democratic Party. If they can’t even protect the safety net during a time of great financial stress — when they have the presidency and one house of congress — just what the hell is the point?

The irony is that we already tried this. Bill Clinton completely erased the deficit and left a surplus just ten years ago. He thought he was finally vanquishing the “tax and spend liberal” label and that Democrats could never again be accused of being irresponsible stewards of the nation’s economy. Yet the minute the Republicans took charge, they spent it all on tax cuts, goodies for corporations and illegal, useless wars, racking up trillions more in debt. That whole thing worked out so well for Democrats that they’re going to re-run it, only this time instead of “protecting social security first” they’re rushing to be the ones to “destroy social security first.”

Then surely the Republicans won’t ever be able to call them irresponsible again. Right?

The good news is that the wealthy celebrity gasbags are all on board. Today they were positively giddy with delight that we were finally getting down to doing what Andrea Mitchell told us was necessary nearly two years ago:

MSNBC commentator: … The subtext of all of this [call to service] is “hey Americans, you’re gonna have to do your part too. There may be some sacrifices involved for you too.” Do you think he’s going to use his political capital to make those arguments and will it go beyond rhetoric?

Andrea Mitchell: It does go beyond rhetoric. He needs to engage the American people in this joint venture. That’s part of the call. That’s part of what he needs to accomplish in his speech and in the days following the speech. He needs to make people feel that this is their venture as well and that people are going to need to be more patient and have to contribute and that there will have to be some sacrifice.

And certainly, if he is serious about what he told the Washington Post last week, that he wants to take on entitlement reform, there will be greater sacrifice required from a nation already suffering from economic crisis — to ask people to take a look at their health care and their other entitlements and realize that for the long term health and vitality of the country we’re going to have to give up something that we already enjoy.

I’m quite sure that she and her husband Alan Greenspan have been busily clipping coupons and collecting cans and bottles in anticipation of this moment. Never let it be said they aren’t willing to pitch in.

(And don’t tell anyone, but they’re having a big party at their house tonight to celebrate the fact that none of the parasites noticed that there wasn’t even one “sacrifice” required of the Masters of the Universe and John Galts who make this country great.)

.

Being a Tutsi

Being a Tutsi

by digby

I just watched Glenn Beck’s program “the Puppet Master” about the nefarious, money-changing, New World Order, self-hating Jew conspirator, George Soros. I don’t think I could do it again.

I listened to an hour or so of Limbaugh and had to turn it off, when I heard this line , which was actually fairly mild considering some of the stuff he says.

I know that it’s very wrong to make comparisons or analogies between bad foreigners and fine upstanding Americans who are by definition “good.” But after spending some time in the right wing media today I couldn’t help but think about this:

According to recent commentators, the news media played a crucial role in the genocide; local print and radio media fueled the killings while the international media either ignored or seriously misconstrued events on the ground. The print media in Rwanda is believed to have started hate speech against Tutsis, which was later continued by radio stations. According to commentators, anti-Tutsi hate speech “…became so systemic as to seem the norm.” The state-owned newspaper Kangura had a central role, starting an anti-Tutsi and anti-RPF campaign in October 1990. In the ongoing International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the individuals behind Kangura have been accused of producing leaflets in 1992 picturing a machete and asking “What shall we do to complete the social revolution of 1959?” – a reference to the Hutu revolt that overthrew the Tutsi monarchy and the subsequent politically orchestrated communal violence that resulted in thousands of mostly Tutsi casualties and forced roughly 300,000 Tutsis to flee to neighboring Burundi and Uganda. Kangura also published the infamous “10 Hutu Commandments,” which regulated all dealings with Tutsis and how Hutus are to treat them. It communicated the message that the RPF had a devious grand strategy against the Hutu (one feature article was titled “Tutsi colonization plan”). Due to high rates of illiteracy at the time of the genocide, radio was an important way for the government to deliver messages to the public. Two radio stations key to inciting violence before and during the genocide were Radio Rwanda and Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM). In March 1992, Radio Rwanda was first used in directly promoting the killing of Tutsi in Bugesera, south of the national capital Kigali. Radio Rwanda repeatedly broadcast a communiqué warning that Hutu in Bugesera would be attacked by Tutsi, a message used by local officials to convince Hutu that they needed to attack first. Led by soldiers, Hutu civilians and the Interahamwe attacked and killed hundreds of Tutsi. At the end of 1993, the RTLM’s highly sensationalized reporting on the assassination of the Burundi president, a Hutu, was used to underline supposed Tutsi brutality. The RTLM falsely reported that the president had been tortured, including castration (in pre-colonial times, some Tutsi kings castrated defeated enemy rulers). There were 50,000 civilian deaths in Burundi in 1993. From late October 1993, the RTLM repeatedly broadcast themes developed by the extremist written press, underlining the inherent differences between Hutu and Tutsi, the foreign origin of Tutsi, the disproportionate share of Tutsi wealth and power, and the horrors of past Tutsi rule. The RTLM also repeatedly stressed the need to be alert to Tutsi plots and possible attacks. It warned Hutu to prepare to “defend” themselves against the Tutsi. After April 6, 1994, authorities used the RTLM and Radio Rwanda to spur and direct killings, specifically in areas where the killings were initially resisted. Both radio stations were used to incite and mobilize populations, followed by specific directions for carrying out the killings.


Right wing radio is hate radio. And Glenn Beck is fucking lunatic. And they reach many millions of people every day. Will any of those people act? Well, they already have on an individual basis. But this daily ranting about the evil of liberalism and the inhumanity of liberals seems to finally be reaching some sort of critical mass in which those on the right who hear nothing but this sort of raving all day long have come to believe that liberals — not liberalism — must be eliminated. I realize that we won’t have teabaggers running across the countryside lopping off people’s hands with machetes. But the sentiment that drives people like Beck and Limbaugh isn’t all that different, even though the worst we’ve seen are spit spewing screamers at Townhalls and a few cases of head stomping and false arrest. So far. This cannot end well.

Update: For those citing the “SEIU incident”, read this. It’s bullshit. And for all the other conservatives who are drolly commenting about how ridiculous this is, I certainly hope you are right and that extremists don’t listen to various radio hosts calling liberals America-hating America-raping vermin all day long and get the wrong idea. Oh wait, it’s already happening. Fairly frequently.

.

Factoid of the day — Celebrity gasbags may live longer. Real working people, not so much.

Factoid of the Day

by digby

Krugman:

I’ve referenced this before, but here’s the Social Security Administration study. Look at Table 4: since 1977, the life expectancy of male workers retiring at age 65 has risen 6 years in the top half of the income distribution, but only 1.3 years in the bottom half.

And this:

Unlike a century ago, people expect their children to live past the age of retirement. This fact has important implications for how workers save for retirement, but has no specific implications for the retirement portion of Social Security. In addition, the increase in life expectancy is not nearly as important as it might first appear. A significant part of the increase in life is between birth and age 20. Including declines in child and teen mortality exaggerate the increase in retirement length. Furthermore, much of the gains in life expectancy come during working years—between age 20 and retirement. This means that workers are not only experiencing longer retirements, but longer working lives as well. Finally, each succeeding generation has been vastly more productive than prior generations—a trend that will continue. Thus, not only have workers on average more years of work over their lifetime, they are better able to save for their retirements.

That last may not come to fruition if the economic structures of today remain, unfortunately. But if that’s the case, they’ll need social security even more …

All of this was, by the way, anticipated in the design of the program, which is why it has been remarkably stable. If it weren’t for the decades long hostility of rapacious greedheads like Pete Peterson (and the apparent conservative desire to consign millions of elderly people into poverty if they are unlucky enough not to hit life’s lottery) the system could be simply adjusted from time to time as needed (as it was in 1983 to cover the baby boom.) Unfortunately, the program is under constant assault so protectors of the system have to form a full fledged defense of the system every time some minor tweak needs to be done — or whenever they Republicans borrow and spend like drunken sailors and leave the Democrats to clean up their mess.

The sad news is that it’s left to old people like me to defend it because younger people are convinced by all the hoopla that they won’t see any benefits anyway. And we’re tired.

.

The devil and Daniel Webster — do evangelicals know they’ve made a deal?

The Devil and Daniel Webster

by digby

Frank Schaeffer, the apostate son of Religious Right founder Francis Schaeffer, has written a fascinating article for Alternet about the evangelical voters and their relationship with the billionaire financed Tea Party:

A bedrock article of faith among many of the anti-Obama white voters is that America had “Christian origins,” and that today America must be “restored” to “our religious heritage.” The “Puritan heritage” of America is constantly cited as evidence for our need to return to our “biblical roots.” The Constitution is also waved around as if it too is some sort of Bible to be religiously believed in. Of course the Billionaire Lynch Mob doesn’t care about such quaint ideas as individual liberties, let alone “biblical absolutes,” but many of the people who believed the anti-Obama lies did care.

The earnest, mostly Evangelical dupes have a point: by calling for a “return to our roots” (be they biblical and/or constitutional) they are actually maintaining a grand old American tradition: religious delusion as the basis for conquest. The Puritans believed that they were importing “authentic Christianity” to America, especially as written in the Old Testament. They said that they were on a divine mission, even calling themselves “The New Israel” and a “city set upon a hill.” John Winthrop (governor of Massachusetts Bay) transferred the idea of “nationhood” in biblical Israel to the Massachusetts Bay Company. And the Puritans claimed they were God’s “Chosen People.” They said that they had the right to grab land from the “heathen.” These were the American Indians whom the Puritans thought of as the “new Canaanites,” to be slaughtered with God’s blessing and in the case of the Pequot Indians burned alive.

There are many threads in the anti-Obama tapestry but three are ignored at our peril: 1) The End Times fantasies of the Evangelicals; 2) The rise of so-called Reconstructionist theology and 3) the culture war launched over the legalization of abortion.

These “threads,” not the economy alone, are also the source of the vote where white lower class and white middle class Americans voted in droves against their own self-interest. Let’s unpick these fraying threads one at a time.

Read on. It’s a fascinating trip through the intellectual progress (if you want to call it that) of the religious right. Basically, he posits that the “anti-government” mantra was as much invented by the Christian Right (for different reasons) as it was by the Goldwater libertarians:

Fast forward thirty years to the first decade of the twenty-first century: The messengers and day-to-day “issues” changed but the volume of the anti-government “debate” and anger originated with the anti-abortion movement. “Death Panels!”, “Government Takeover!”, “Obama is Hitler!” and all such “comments” were simply updated versions of “pro-life” rhetoric. And ironically, at the very same time as the Evangelicals who began the anti-abortion crusade (along with conservative Roman Catholics) had thrust themselves into bare knuckle politics over Roe, they also (I should say we also) retreated to what amounted to virtual walled compounds.

Evangelicals created a parallel “Christian America,” our very own private world, as it were, posted with “No Trespassing” signs. Our new “world” was about creating a Puritan/Reconstructionist-style holy-nation-within-our-fallen-nation.

This went far beyond mere alternative schools and home schools. Thousands of new Christian bookstores opened, countless Evangelical radio programs flourished in the 1970s and 80s, and new TV stations went on the air. Even a “Christian Yellow Pages” (a guide to Evangelical tradesmen) was published advertising “Christ-centered plumbers,” accountants and the like who “honor Jesus.” New Evangelical universities and even new law schools appeared, seemingly overnight with a clearly defined mission to “take back” each and every profession – including law and politics – “for Christ.” For instance, Liberty University’s Law School was the creation of the late Jerry Falwell, who told me in 1983 of his vision for Liberty’s programs: “Frank, we’re going train a new generation of judges and world leaders in the law from a Christian worldview to change America.”

Does anyone remember a lawyer by the name of Monica Goodling? There are many more like her waiting in the wings.

Schaefer concludes with this intriguing observation:

To the old-fashioned Goldwater-type conservative mantra of “big government doesn’t work,” in the 1970s the newly-radicalized Evangelicals added “the US Government is Evil!” Our swap of spiritual faith for the illusion of political power – I say “illusion” since even in the 70s and 80s the real power was in the hands of the Billionaire Lynch Mob — meant that we would tell people how to vote, but that we didn’t want our kids going to school with theirs. We’d wind up defending not just private schools and home schooling to “protect” our children from the world, but also private oil companies and private gas-guzzling polluting cars, private insurance conglomerates and so forth.

The price for the Religious Right’s wholesale idolatry of private everything was that Christ’s reputation was tied to a cynical political party owned by billionaires from the fast-food industry, raping the earth (not to mention our health), to the oil companies destroying our climate. It only remained for a Far Right Republican-appointed majority on the Supreme Court to rule in 2010 (Citizens United V. The Federal Election Commission), that unlimited corporate money could pour into political campaigns – anonymously — in a way that clearly favored corporate America and the super wealthy who long since were the only entities served by the Republican Party’s defense of the individual against the government. The “individuals” turned out to be Exxon, the Koch brothers, Rupert Murdoch, McDonald’s and Goldman Sachs et al.

Just ask Ralph Reed how that works and for whom. Recall that he became a very high paid lobbyist after leaving his post at the Christian Coalition. And now he’s back, organizing the evangelicals for the Tea Party. Ain’t it grand?

Up until now, as long as the Republican leadership paid them lip service and gave them plenty of superficial respect, they have been content. I wonder, however, if the Tea party revolutionary ethos might just give them some ideas.

It ends with this provocative conclusion:

The Billionaire Lynch Mob’s only sacrament is fear. Their reward for cashing in on white religiously-believing middle class American’s addiction to Bronze Age biblical mythology is to walk away with our country. And fear-filled white Americans don’t get anything in return, unless you count their fleeting visceral pleasure of putting “that uppity black man” in the White House in his place.

I think that last is more salient than people might think. After all, the Christian Right didn’t originate out of the Roe vs Wade decision. It came out of opposition to civil rights. Remember Bob Jones University?

While abortion clinics sprung up across the United States during the early 1970s, evangelicals did little. No pastors invoked the Dred Scott decision to undermine the legal justification for abortion. There were no clinic blockades, no passionate cries to liberate the “pre-born.” For Falwell and his allies, the true impetus for political action came when the Supreme Court ruled in Green v. Connally to revoke the tax-exempt status of racially discriminatory private schools in 1971. At about the same time, the Internal Revenue Service moved to revoke the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University, which forbade interracial dating. (Blacks were denied entry until 1971.) Falwell was furious, complaining, “In some states it’s easier to open a massage parlor than to open a Christian school.”

Seeking to capitalize on mounting evangelical discontent, a right-wing Washington operative and anti-Vatican II Catholic named Paul Weyrich took a series of trips down South to meet with Falwell and other evangelical leaders. Weyrich hoped to produce a well-funded evangelical lobbying outfit that could lend grassroots muscle to the top-heavy Republican Party and effectively mobilize the vanquished forces of massive resistance into a new political bloc. In discussions with Falwell, Weyrich cited various social ills that necessitated evangelical involvement in politics, particularly abortion, school prayer and the rise of feminism. His pleas initially fell on deaf ears.

“I was trying to get those people interested in those issues and I utterly failed,” Weyrich recalled in an interview in the early 1990s. “What changed their mind was Jimmy Carter’s intervention against the Christian schools, trying to deny them tax-exempt status on the basis of so-called de facto segregation.”

In 1979, at Weyrich’s behest, Falwell founded a group that he called the Moral Majority. Along with a vanguard of evangelical icons including D. James Kennedy, Pat Robertson and Tim LaHaye, Falwell’s organization hoisted the banner of the “pro-family” movement, declaring war on abortion and homosexuality. But were it not for the federal government’s attempts to enable little black boys and black girls to go to school with little white boys and white girls, the Christian right’s culture war would likely never have come into being. “The Religious New Right did not start because of a concern about abortion,” former Falwell ally Ed Dobson told author Randall Balmer in 1990. “I sat in the non-smoke-filled back room with the Moral Majority, and I frankly do not remember abortion ever being mentioned as a reason why we ought to do something.”

Today we have the spectacle of a Christian Reconstructionist theocrat named Daniel Webster making deals with billionaires

.

Get frisked and eat Friskies

Get Frisked and Eat Friskies

by digby

I’m still slogging through it, but TPM has highlighted some of the “deficit reduction” proposals that have been released in today’s Catfood Commission draft:

  • Index the retirement age to longevity — i.e., increase the retirement age to qualify for Social Security — to age 69 by 2075.
  • Index Social Security yearly increases to inflation rather than wages, which will generally mean lower cost of living increases and less money per average recipient.
  • “Increase progressivity of benefit formula” — i.e., means test part of Social Security benefits by 2050.
  • Increase the Social Security contribution ceiling: while people only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,800 of their wages today, that’s only about 86% of the total potentially taxable wages. The co-chairs suggest raising the ceiling to capture 90% of wages.
  • The co-chairs suggest capping both government expenditures and revenue at 21% of GDP eventually.
  • Freeze federal worker wage increases through 2014; eliminate 200,000 federal jobs by 2020; and eliminate 250,000 federal non-defense contractor jobs by 2015.
  • Establish co-pays in the VA medical system and change the co-pays and deductibles for military retirees that remain in that system.
  • Eliminate NASA funding for commercial space flight.
  • Require the Smithsonian museums to start charging entrance fees and raise fees at the national parks.
  • Eliminate funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting — which many conservatives suggested in the wake of the firing of former NPR contributor Juan Williams.
  • Reduce farm subsidies by $3 billion per year.
  • I’m getting old, so this won’t matter as much to me. But I can’t help but find it more than a little bit ironic that for all these people’s caterwauling about doing this for their grandchildren, by 2050, I’d guess we will have a fully functioning totalitarian police state. After all, defense and homeland security are excluded because everyone knows they are sacred. If that’s where the money all goes — and there will be money for that, guaranteed — it will just become stronger and stronger.

    Now, in reality, keep in mind that all this is just to form the basis for “bipartisan cooperation.” So, I wouldn’t expect that in the end we’ll see any cuts to the VA or farm subsidies. I think we know very well that there will be no tax hikes of any kind. And as I mentioned defense and Homeland security aren’t on the menu. This is just an exercise designed to create a new “bipartisan”starting point for the destruction of social security.

    The most amusing thing about this (in a dark and twisted sort of way) is that the Democrats are dying to take credit for it. Think I’m kidding? Here’s Obama again on 60 Minutes:

    I mean, we’re gonna have to, you know, tackle some big issues like entitlements that, you know, when you listen to the Tea Party or you listen to Republican candidates they promise we’re not gonna touch.

    And this is from February 2009:

    Both Summers and Sperling said there would not be consensus in today’s session about how to fix the program. They also said the public was more receptive to the government making hard decisions necessary to keep SS from running out of money in the long run, because Americans are anxious about their private retirement savings and the value of their houses.

    Sperling said: “I think there may be a lot more openness than we thought in the past for people to have an honest discussion about the shared sacrifice necessary to have Social Security solvency. That this would be a sure thing they could count on, and they could count on for the next 50 to 75 years.”

    At the end, Sperling also tried to cut through disagreement over whether the program was in a state of crisis. “I really hate the whole argument about, is this a crisis or is this not a crisis? Why do we not want to preempt a crisis. Why do we not want to do something early? It is a shame on our political system that there has never been entitlement reform without a gun to our head. . .Wouldn’t it be a tremendous confidence-building thing to act early and smart?”

    They think they will be rewarded for doing this. Seriously.

    Update: Oh, and by the way — they are recommending this even though they agree that social security is not part of the general treasury and should not be counted as part of deficit reduction. They’re just doing this out of the goodness of their hearts.

    As for real debt reduction, one of the more curious aspects is their odd proposal to drastically cut income taxes and repeal the mortgage income deduction. Supply side is back!

    The proposed simplification of the tax code would repeal or modify a number of popular tax breaks — including the deductibility of mortgage interest payments — so that income tax rates could be reduced across the board. Under the plan, individual income tax rates would decline to as low as 8 percent on the lowest income bracket (now 10 percent) and to 23 percent on the highest bracket (now 35 percent). The corporate tax rate, now 35 percent, would also be reduced, to as low as 26 percent.

    .

    Getting Down To Business —

    Getting Down To Business

    by digby

    For those who think that all the shrill talk coming from lefties like me about the dangers of electing fundamentalist theocrats to govern the country is unseemly, perhaps this will give you pause. The fellow quoted is a climate change denier (as are a large majority of those newly elected to the congress in 2010) and he’s running to become head of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Via Andrew Leonard at Salon:

    Juan Cole does us the unpleasant service of bringing back to life the comments of John Shimkus, R-Ill., a year and a half ago.

    Shimkus starts by quoting Genesis 8, Verses 21 and 22, in which God makes Noah a promise.

    Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though all inclinations of his heart are evil from childhood and never again will I destroy all living creatures as I have done. As long as the earth endures, seed time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, will never cease.

    Shimkus continues: “I believe that is the infallible word of god, and that’s the way it is going to be for his creation… The earth will end only when God declares its time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood.”

    Well that’s a relief. Now let’s get down to business and cut some taxes and shame some women!

    .

    Too Big To Jail

    by tristero

    Of course no one’s going to be prosecuted for destroying evidence of torture. Mr. Rodriguez and Company are just far too important and well-connected to be subjected to something like that.

    Besides, torture is the American Way. Just ask your friendly neighborhood teabaggers whether their sensitive souls are troubled for even one millisecond because their tax dollars are being used to pay people to maim and mutilate non-Christians.