Month: December 2010

Truth As Duty

by digby

Which dirty hippie blogger wrote this?

Everyone in Washington claims to support transparency and government openness during campaign season and when it’s popular to do so. They castigate the other side when it does things in secret and suggest that its intentions must be nefarious if it is unwilling to make its deliberations public. But when an organization discloses how our foreign policy is conducted, some of these same people claim that the release will endanger lives or threaten national security, or that the founder of WikiLeaks is a criminal.

When did we decide that we trust the government more than its citizens? And that revealing the truth about the government is wrong? And why is the media complicit in this? Did we not learn anything from the run-up to the Iraq war when no one asked hard questions about the justifications for the war and when we accepted statements from government officials without proper pushback?

My own sense is that we should err on the side of telling the truth, even when it’s inconvenient or when it makes our lives—or the business of government—more complicated. And that people who tell the truth should at the very least not be denigrated. That’s something I learned when I was young, and that I tried to impart to my three boys when they were growing up. As Albert Einstein is reported to have said long ago, “The search for truth implies a duty. One must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true.”

And shouldn’t news organizations be defending WikiLeaks and doing some soul-searching of their own about why they aren’t devoting more resources to the search for the truth? Why is it that the National Enquirer and Internet blogs sometimes seem better than they are at finding out what’s really going on?

It’s by former Bush advisor Matthew Dowd. No lie. Be sure to read the whole thing because its main theme (without irony) is the fact that the one bipartisan, establishment agreement in DC seems to the idea that the government has a right to unlimited power to spy on its citizens, but considers it treasonous for the government’s communications to be made public. That’s called authoritarianism. And it doesn’t surprise me in the least that political establishment and the elite institutions (including the torpid press)are behaving this way.

And speaking of authoritarianism, this little tid-bit might be of some interest for those who are wondering about the “crime” for which Interpol has put out the international Red Warning on Julian Assange. I guess we’ve all seen enough movies that the international “community” using this to silence a whistleblower doesn’t shock. Indeed, most of us seem to think it’s a perfectly natural thing to happen. But think about for a minute. This isn’t a movie.

.

Bipartisan Victory!

by digby

Who says they don’t know what they’re doing?

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the incoming chairman of the House Budget Committee in the 112th Congress, said Dec. 2 the Social Security plan in the deficit-reduction proposal by President Obama’s fiscal commission showed there may be room for compromise on the issue between Democrats and Republicans.

“It’s not where [Republicans] would go, but it’s getting close,” he told BNA Dec. 2.
The commission proposal would change the Social Security retirement benefit formula, link the normal and early retirement eligibility ages to increases in longevity, increase the taxable maximum for Social Security taxes, and link the annual cost-of-living adjustments to a better measure of inflation.

The proposal would also expand Social Security to cover newly hired state and local workers, give enhanced benefits to those over age 85, and provide a hardship exemption to workers in physically demanding jobs who cannot work past 62 but who are ineligible for disability benefits. The commission said the plan would make Social Security solvent over the next 75 years.

“I think common ground is evolving where you have Democrats putting out some of the ideas we’ve put out as well. We don’t like the tax increases, they don’t like our personal accounts, but there are other things we’re beginning to agree on,”Ryan said.

Separately, at a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, Ryan said he hoped Republicans and the Obama administration could decide the issues on which they can and cannot work together.

“Hopefully the President will say, you know, ‘this or that.’ I mean, I’d love to get a deal with the President on Social Security. I mean, I’d love to get a deal on something,” Ryan said.

“ He’s probably not going to do health care with us, because we have just such different perspectives on that issue. That’s the big one, and that’s probably going to be a big 2012 issue. But I’d love to get something passed that says, “Okay, these Americans aren’t crazy. Their political system isn’t broken.”

Recall that Obama considers Paul Ryan “a very smart guy” and someone he can relate to and work with.

This is why the entire Professional Left had to get its machinery up and working. Sadly, very sadly, they are going to have to expend a huge amount of time and energy keeping the Democrats from destroying themselves.

.

Senator Centerfold Takes a Lifeline

by digby

It looks like my cynicism may have gotten the best of me and they may get 60 votes for the repeal of DADT after all. Greg Sargent had it right when he said that Gates had offered a lifeline yesterday, and it looks like Scott Brown has taken it.(Dday has the whip count which is still fluid — but very possible.)

There are questions about implementation which may make this whole thing less than meets the eye, but if they pass it, it really is the end of this absurd policy for all intents and purposes.

Update: Ooops. He forgot to check with Mitch, I guess. He now says he won’t vote for it until the “tax cut issue” is resolved.

.

Your Daily Grayson

by digby

I’m going to miss him.

.

Saving Some Catfood for Later

by digby

Well naturally the commission failed to get the required 14 votes and the press is spinning it as a new majority baseline for future compromise. But we knew this.

What is far more disturbing is Dick Durbin voting for it on the basis of wanting it to “move forward.” He is seen as a proxy vote on this for the president.

If they pursue this Social Security/Austerity business I think we’ll have a one term presidency (even, Gawd help us, if the Queen of the Arctic gets the nomination.) And I’m not sure that the Democratic Party won’t be permanently shattered.

I know that sounds hyperbolic, but it’s vitally, vitally important that the president understand that if he goes after Social Security, the Republicans will turn the argument on him just as they did with “death panels” and “pulling the plug on Grandma” and end up solidifying the senior vote for the foreseeable future and further alienate the Party from the liberal base. I know it makes no sense that Republicans would be able to cast themselves as the protectors of the elderly, but in case you haven’t been paying attention lately, politics doesn’t operate in a linear, rational fashion at the moment. After all, the Republicans just won an election almost entirely on the basis of saving Medicare.

Update: Third Way says:

“Today’s vote by the Commission marks a major milestone and provides the best hope yet that our leaders in Washington can rally to meet our deficit challenge. Today, a bipartisan majority of the Commission rose above ideology and partisan affiliations to back serious, credible solutions designed to address the biggest threat to America’s economic growth and leadership. Through its 11 to 7 vote to approve the Bowles-Simpson plan, the Commission has moved the ball into the red zone. It’s now up to President Obama and Congress to take their recommendations across the goal line and show that we can act to safeguard our prosperity.”

And here we go:

A group of 14 Democrats pressed for a congressional action to address the deficit despite a failure by President Obama’s fiscal commission to achieve enough votes to send its austerity plan to Congress for a vote.

A group of Senate centrists asked Obama and the top party leaders in both chambers of Congress to push ahead with legislation to address deficits and debt.

“Prompt action is needed to bring the country’s deficit into balance and stabilize our debt over the long term,” the group wrote. “Regardless of whether the Commission’s report receives the support of at least 14 of its 18 members, we urge legislative action to address these problems.”

[…]

The 14 senators hailed the commission’s recommendations on Social Security, healthcare, and tax reforms — three cornerstones of the plan on which support for a plan could hinge.

“There is no easy way out, and Washington must lead the way,” they said. “The strong bipartisan support its recommendations have already received demonstrates we can, and must, come together to solve this impending fiscal crisis. Every day that we fail to act the choices become more difficult.”

The signatories were Sens. Mark Warner (D-Va.), Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Mark Begich (D-Alaska), Michael Bennet (D-Colo,), Tom Carper (D-Del.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.).

All hail the new bipartisan baseline.

Update II: The reason I say the last election was won by Republicans almost entirely on the basis of Medicare is this:

In the 2006 midterm election, seniors split their vote evenly between House Democrats and Republicans. This time, they went for Republicans by a twenty-one-point margin. The impact of that swing was magnified by the fact that seniors, always pretty reliable midterm voters, were particularly fired up: nearly a quarter of the votes cast were from people over sixty-five. The election has been termed the “revolt of the middle class.” But it might more accurately be called the revolt of the retired.

Why were seniors so furious with the Democrats? The weak economy and the huge deficits didn’t help, but retirees have actually been hit less hard by the financial crisis than other Americans. The real sticking point was health-care reform, which the elderly didn’t like from the start. While the Affordable Care Act was being debated, most seniors opposed it, and even after the law was passed Gallup found that sixty per cent of them thought it was bad. You sometimes hear (generally from Republicans) that the health-care bill is wildly unpopular. The truth is that, in every age group but one—seniors—a plurality of voters want to keep the bill intact.

Misinformation about “death panels” and so on had something to do with seniors’ hostility. But the real reason is that it feels to them as if health-care reform will come at their expense, since the new law will slow the growth in Medicare spending over the next decade. It won’t actually cut current spending, as Republicans claimed in campaign ads, but between now and 2019 total Medicare outlays will be half a trillion dollars less than previously projected.

Those ads were ubiquitous and they didn’t just come from candidates. There were a massive amount of Independent Expenditures aimed at spreading that message. Like this one which I must have seen a hundred times:

“California seniors are worried. Barbara Boxer voted to cut spending on Medicare benefits by $500 billion, cuts so costly to hospitals and nursing homes that they could stop taking Medicare altogether. Boxer’s cuts would sharply reduce benefits for some and could jeopardize access to care for millions of others, and millions of Americans won’t be able to keep the plan or doctor they already have. Check the facts and take action. Call Boxer. Stop the Medicare cuts.”

I know it’s hard to believe that the Republicans have the kind of chutzpah to simultaneously argue to end “entitlements” and run ads like that, but they do. Boxer won her election here in California, but an awful lot of Democrats didn’t in places where the senior turnout was high and they were inclined to believe this nonsense.

.

Give Ireland Back To The Irish

by digby

That’s an old song but sadly it’s relevant again, in a (sort of) different way. Considering Irish history, this anguished letter from Kevin O’Rourke on what’s happened to his country is just sad. I think this part is particularly poignant — and familiar:

[T]he biggest Irish joke of them all, which underpinned the bank guarantee in the first place: that if we wanted investors to retain confidence in the creditworthiness of the Irish State, we needed to make sure that nobody who invested in our (private sector) banks ever lost a penny?

The latter decision is the one that sank the country. It was the last great act of hubris of the Celtic Bubble, and was immediately denounced by one of the heroes of the crisis, my old UCD colleague Morgan Kelly. On the night the guarantee was announced, Kelly pointed out that while it was the right policy if the Irish banks were facing a liquidity crisis, it was a terrible policy if they were insolvent, which was in fact the case. As they always do when confronted with someone smarter than them, the Dublin establishment circled the wagons, and Kelly was dismissed as an irresponsible young troublemaker of no consequence. He has been proved right, of course, but the establishment is still at it, making the
same fundamental mistake of thinking that a solvency crisis is just a liquidity crisis. Now, however, the establishment is European as well as Irish, and it is the State rather than the banking sector which is insolvent.

We’ve heard that here as well. Only yesterday, the Fed audit revealed the extent to which the bailouts went to foreign investors. And while the US is in no danger of being insolvent, it looks like we’re going to pretend that it is so that our financial sector can continue to reap the same rewards.

The reaction to the news that Irish taxpayers are to be squeezed while foreign bondholders escape scot-free has been one of outraged disbelief and anger. At the start of last week, it was possible to make the argument that ‘burning the bondholders’ was irresponsible, since it would inevitably lead to contagion, and the spread of the crisis to Iberia. That argument has at this stage lost all validity, since contagion has happened anyway. Besides, the correct response to the possibility of contagion was never to engage in make-believe, but to extend taxpayer protection to other Eurozone members as required. Swapping debt for equity in a coordinated fashion across Europe would show ordinary people that Europe is on their side; but like the PLO of old, the European Union never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity. It could have provided a means of kick-starting a new post-crisis growth strategy based on investment in the infrastructures we will need in the future; instead it has transformed itself into a mechanism for forcing pro-cyclical adjustment onto countries that are already sinking. It could have led the way in reining in an out-of-control financial sector; instead it now embodies the discredited principle that banks must never, ever, default on their creditors, no matter how insolvent they may be.

Of course banks must never default on their creditors. If that were to happen everyone would be uncertain and lack confidence and then where would we be?

Read the whole thing. It’s a cautionary tale.

.

It’s a Kabuki Christmas

by digby

Uh huh:

The deal Democrats fear will be pushed by the White House would give the GOP a two-year extension of all tax rates. In exchange, Republicans would allow for an extension of unemployment benefits for a yet-to-be-determined period. Democrats would also get smaller tax provisions that they have been pushing for this past year, such as the Make-Work-Pay tax credit. They would also secure a vote on the START Treaty, a nuclear non-proliferation pact with Russia.

“All of this could change rapidly, said one top Hill aide. “It is clear the White House has been pursuing the strategy for the last 24 hours or so. The question is how will it be perceived in the caucus?”

I think the better question is how they all want to be perceived by the media. The Democrats want to be seen as being forced (to do what they wanted to do anyway) and the Republicans want to be seen as forcing them to do it (while still having impending “tax hikes” to beat the president over the head with in a presidential campaign). The the President wants to be seen as the mushy conciliator (so that “Independents” will love him.) And they all want to be seen Santa Claus by benevolently “giving” unemployed citizens a tiny little stipend at Christmas,(while they reward their wealthy friends with endless riches.) I think they can get that done.

Needless to say, this could all go kerflooey if one Senator decides that this Kabuki dance is not to their liking.it could be anyone.

Update: Word is that the Senate is going to hold a vote on middle class tax cuts. Maybe they can change the dynamic. If they want to.

.

.

It Burns, it burns so hot

by digby

Juan Williams was bad before but he’s gone full bore bagger now. It’s just staggering that someone can parrot a sound bite like this without a care in the world that they sound like utter fools: Via TPM

Wow, the 40 million people who’ve benefited from extended unemployment over the past two years would probably be surprised to find out that their problems were caused by laziness and a lack of personal hygiene. Apparently, however, being completely destitute and without hope will motivate them to take a shower.

Yes ok, long term benefits in an economy that has lots of jobs may give some people an incentive not to get one. But Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, how stupid do you have to be to not understand that there are no fucking jobs for all these allegedly lazy parasites to get. Unless they truly believe that the long term unemployed should stop getting checks so that they can get on with their life of crime and prostitution, I honestly don’t know what they think these people are supposed to do.

.

A Freebie For The Haters

by digby

Greg Sargent seems a bit surprised that no Republicans have grabbed the DOD lifeline they were offered today to end DADT “for the good of the military.” I think that in normal times they would have done it, but moderates are running scared of the Tea Party and contrary to popular myth, most of the Tea people care more about persecuting gays than they do about populism. This is a freebie for a party that is going to have to toe the line for the corporations down the road and needs to build up some credit with the rubes. If you listen to Talk Radio it’s not hard to figure out where the party is coming from on this. It’s a non-stop gay bash.

It’s possible that the Dems will still be able to find a couple who will do it, but I don’t think it’s going to be anyone that’s coming up for reelection soon or anyone who has a strong Tea Party presence in their state. This is some red meat they can give to their haters and I don’t think they want to miss that opportunity.

.

According To Plan

by digby

I am usually fairly skeptical of the idea that the Democrats are always screwing up and losing debates because they are consciously conspiring with the Republicans to reach certain goals. I know it seems that it’s impossible for them to be quite as inept as they are, but human nature is complicated enough that I rarely think it’s that simple, although in the case of certain politicians like Lieberman and Nelson, their combination of ego and ideology certainly lends itself to the argument.

However, today Ezra Klein writes a good piece about how the Democrats have badly blown the tax cut debate for political and perhaps psychological reasons and I find myself leaning toward the Occam’s razor view of this rather than attributing it to fear or ineptitude or some other human frailty: I think it’s fairly clear that they want to extend the tax cuts for millionaires.

I think most of them truly believe that raising taxes on millionaires will be bad for the economy and bad for politicians who vote for them. They are wrong about the economy, but it’s an article of faith among the ruling class that raising taxes on millionaires is bad in every way, all the time, and even those with a Kenynesian bent can see this particular tax hike as being counter-productive if they choose to.

They always believe that tax hikes are ruinous to their careers no matter what (and the tsunami of cash that was unleashed against them during the last cycle just emphasized that point.)

I’m not defending them. But there has to be a good reason the Democrats failed to extend the tax rates for the middle class separately the minute they took office and it isn’t because the date just crept up on them. Nobody’s that dumb. If they had been serious about doing what Obama ran on they could have gotten it done as an economic imperative in the early heady months. And the Republicans would have had no choice but to vote for extending the middle class tax cuts a year and a half ago when the millionaire tax cut would have still been in place. The only reasonable explanation for not doing it is that the Dems never really wanted to decouple them in the first place.

Update: I should add that they’ll probably “get” an unemployment extension as part of the kabuki deal, so that’s good. Of course, they could have won on that one separately as well …

.