Month: December 2010

Busting The Filibuster

by digby

Here’s some really good news. If they pull this off it could change the dynamic next year and potentially alter the trajectory of the next two years:

All Democratic senators returning next year have signed a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., urging him to consider action to change long-sacrosanct filibuster rules.

The letter, delivered this week, expresses general frustration with what Democrats consider unprecedented obstruction and asks Reid to take steps to end those abuses. While it does not urge a specific solution, Democrats said it demonstrates increased backing in the majority for a proposal, championed by Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., and others, weaken the minority’s ability to tie the Senate calendar into parliamentary knots.

Among the chief revisions that Democrats say will likely be offered: Senators could not initiate a filibuster of a bill before it reaches the floor unless they first muster 40 votes for it, and they would have to remain on the floor to sustain it. That is a change from current rules, which require the majority leader to file a cloture motion to overcome an anonymous objection to a motion to proceed, and then wait 30 hours for a vote on it.

“There need to be changes to the rules to allow filibusters to be conducted by people who actually want to block legislation instead of people being able to quietly say ‘I object’ and go home,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo.

This year, McCaskill lined up backing from more than two-thirds of senators for elimination of secret holds, which allow a senator to block action on a bill or nomination anonymously. She said that Democrats will also push plans to force senators who place holds to do it publicly.

After weeks of Democratic Caucus discussions during which newer members pushed various plans to limit filibusters, reformers are increasingly confident that they can defy predictions by Republicans and many pundits that rules changes will not happen in the near term. A Democratic leadership aide said that Democrats expect to “do something on timing” next month, specifically by seeking to prevent 30-hour waiting periods on motions to proceed.

The fact that every returning Democrat signed the letter circulated by Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Mark Warner, D-Va., urging changes underscores growing determination on the part of the Senate’s majority to raise the bars for filibusters.

They still have to deal with the new Tea House and it can’t prevent bad deals between the White House and the Republicans, but at least the Senate Republicans won’t be able run their usual shenanigans as easily. It’s a big plus.

Annual Holiday Fundraiser going on right now. If you can help support the blog, I appreciate it. Cheers!

Creative Accountery

by digby

Evidently, in his memoir “Decision Points”, George W. Bush has great regrets about his failed plan to “reform” social security and blames it on Democratic partisanship. He says:

“The shortfall in Social Security – the cost of fixing the problem – has grown more than $2 trillion since I raised the issue in 2005. That is more than we spent on the war in Iraq, Medicare modernization, and the Troubled Asset Relief Program combined …the failure to reform Social Security ranks among the most expensive missed opportunities of modern times.”

Dean Baker explains via email why (once again) GWB is a dolt:

The increase in the size of the SS shortfall is primarily due to the fact that we are using different dollars. If you take the infinite horizon shortfall in 2010 dollars, as opposed to 2005 dollars, it would be about 15 percent more. that buys you most of the way to $2 trillion.

I would dump more on Republican accounting, but in Democratic TARP accounting, if we make trillions of dollar of loans at below market interest rates, and then get the loans paid back with interest, we have made a profit.

Of course this suggests a simple way to solve the SS shortfall and made a profit in the process. Let’s lend the SS trust fund $2 trillion at 1 percent interest. It can buy 30-year Treasuries at 4.0 percent and pocket the $60 billion difference each year. This would be almost enough to eliminate the 75-year shortfall and by Timothy Geithner accounting, the government is making a profit.

What is not to like?

Annual Holiday Fundraiser going on right now. If you can help support the blog, I appreciate it. Cheers!

Dealing With The “Businessman Republicans”

by digby

Here’s politics expert Chuck Todd talking to Chris Matthews today:

Todd: On the START treaty. Look at the Republicans who voted for it. All right. Three of them are retiring. Look at the ten that are left. It really is representative of the philosophical divide within the [Republican} party on some foreign policy and on some economic issues. But I think those ten are who the President’s going to have to work with if he wants to get things through the Senate. That’s going to be the ten that if he doesn’t strike up relationships with and isn’t able to move those ten, in a way to get his 60 votes then he’s not going to make a lot of progress next year.

Matthews: It’s interesting Chuck, that — they’re not all from the South. There are the two Senators from Maine, one from Alaska, Murkowski survived that primary, of course. But you have southern guys like Thad Cochran and Lamaar Alexander and Corker and Johnny Isaakson, so it’s not just the usual Northeastern moderates here.

Todd: No what it is, is, and I’ve been trying to figure out this divide a little bit and I think it’s ongoing, but it really is the old “businessman Republican.” And Johnny Isaakson and Bob Corker and Lamaar Alexander and Cochran they come from that wing of the party. And in the South when they became Republicans that was the party of business. And when you come from the business wing of the party that’s when you have that pragmatic streak in you a little bit.

And if there’s a common denominator among that group that isn’t about the more moderate nature of the Northeast. And I’ll be honest, I think this White House took too long of a time… you know, this group of Senators have been sitting there for two years and I think this White House took too long in courting them and finding them. They were sitting there for two years and they voted with the president on one big issue early on and that was children’s health care, all lot of these same senators were on this list. And they didn’t develop this relationship. I think they probably regret it, and I think they realize it’s still there to develop. And my guess is that these ten, including these ones in the south, not just the political ones in the Northeast who have what I would call “the Blue State factor” and I would go back to the business man wing of the Republican Party.

Even Matthews was able to see the little problem with that absurd thesis:

I think it’s fair to say without being too condescending that the Tea Party types are not too focused on the nuances of nuclear arms control.

Todd then gibbered more nonsense about the divide between the America firsters and the Internationalists and Pat Buchanan, but seriously, that analysis is about as dumb as it gets.

First of all, The Democrats twisted themselves into pretzels over the past two years trying desperately to get Republicans to sign on to something … anything … and were rebuffed. In the lame duck it was certainly very big of them to finally “give in” to pass unemployment insurance and health care for 9/11 responders at Christmas time and I’m sure they’ll be rewarded in heaven. And pulling in a handful of moderates to repeal DADT after a stream of military guys with salad on their chests said it needed to be done was very generous I’m sure. Passing a nuclear arms treaty that nobody had ever heard of was a huge sacrifice. But let’s not kid ourselves — the Republicans put all of those issues on the table because it meant they could kick some immigrants for the Tea Party and they could get whyat they really needed — the tax cuts extended for two years and the budget battle and debt ceiling battles put off until next congress when they have much more control. Let’s put it this way, Mitch McConnell isn’t sitting in his office saying “curses, foiled again.”

Paul Begala on CNN just said that the White House feels the tax cut deal gives them the authority to fight back in the next congress when they try to repeal health care and go after the education and Veterans budgets.When Blitzer asked Alex Castellanos if repealing health care really was a priority, he replied:

The priority number one for Republicans is going to be for jobs and growth. And that’s what they are going to put on the table first…

One hopes the Democrats and the president will at least challenge that with a jobs and growth plan of their own, bus so far we’re hearing they want to talk deficits and austerity, (which just so happens to be the GOP jobs plan, it just sounds worse.) Castellanos admitted that part of their jobs bill would the test votes throughout the year of what Gloria Borger helpfully reminded him was called the “jobs killing health care bill.” Somehow, I have a feeling that they are going to enjoy putting the President in the position of having to compromise something very painful to protect his health care plan.

None of this to say that the victories aren’t worthwhile or the price worth paying. I quarrel mightily with the overall strategy that left the tax cuts on the table to the very end, but when you are dealing with a Party that is perfectly willing to allow the people to suffer and die if they don’t get what they want, it’s tough to negotiate. You have to find something these people will accept in return and the price will be very, very high. And it was.

Going forward, if the president sees his main function as stopping health care repeal and cuts to education and Veterans benefits, then we’ll have gridlock, which considering the current dynamics, may be the best we can hope for: now that the Republicans have their tax cuts, I’m afraid that the only thing left that the Republicans will consider “common ground” are cuts to the safety net.

Update: Meanwhile Dday updates on the new House rules:

Making the debt limit vote separate prevents the ability for it to be a less palatable vote for Republicans. It appears to prevent a merging of the budget resolution to fund the government in March and the debt limit. So it makes that a separate hostage-taking event.

Another part of the House rules includes “CutGo,” mandating that all spending increases get offset by cuts elsewhere and not tax increases (tax reductions would not have to be offset in this way).

Ultimately that’s going to be the legacy of the lame duck session. I think moving forward on all these bills in the lame duck was great. But the budget hostage crisis will be the inevitable result of keeping taxes low, failing to make appropriations for the full fiscal year and not raising the debt limit. And it’s going to result in a lot of pain for a lot of struggling people. The President could at least limit the damage by refusing to sign any bill that would hurt the economy (another way of saying reducing aggregate demand), but I’m not sanguine that he’ll choose to do that.

Update II: Speaking of the health care bill, Ezra Klein reports:

The Senate passed the Continuing Resolution 79-16 this afternoon. Another way of saying that: The Senate voted to defund the implementation of both health-care reform and financial-regulation reform….

Republicans had been talking about attacking the health-reform law by defunding it, but few thought they’d succeed without a fight. The assumption was that Democrats would shut down the government before they let Republicans take that money. But as it happened, there was no fight at all. The omnibus spending bill collapsed, and the continuing resolution compromise was reached within a few days. Most senators probably don’t even know the implications their vote had for the implementation of bills passed over the past year

His colleague at the Post Jennifer Rubin says:

I don’t see how Democrats could have missed the implications of the defeat of the omnibus for ObamaCare. The aide, with obvious relish, dismissed the idea that Democrats in effect missed this one. He told me, “I think senators knew there was funding in the omni. That makes it all the sweeter: [Senate Democrats] would have had to force a fight to spend more and fund a bill that half the country not only hates, but wants to defund.”

If this was all a secret, it was a poorly kept one. Republican leadership offices blasted out e-mails and press releases to activists and members of Congress warning that the omnibus included a billion dollars to fund ObamaCare. Republicans talked about it on the floor. I don’t see how anyone voting, on either side of the aisle, could have missed this. Liberals might not have wanted to highlight it, but that’s different than being unaware.

How did Democrats wind up in this fix? A GOP operative and former Senate staffer e-mails me that “after the omnibus collapsed, [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid didn’t have an alternative. If conservatives are feeling bad about START, they should be really happy about this. With the new Congress in January, the GOP will be in a strong position on fighting ObamaCare.”

All I can say is that I’m really relieved they got DADT done (which was made possible by the collapse of the omnibus) and Obama got unemployment extended for a year because I can’t see any possible way forward in this next congress for anything even close to that happening. They got in just under the wire.

Annual Holiday Fundraiser going on right now. If you can help support the blog, I appreciate it. Cheers!

How Republicans Get Away With Pretending To Be Human

by digby

The 9/11 Responder’s health care bill is passed, thank goodness. America is not heartless after all.

Unfortunately, I watched Politico’s Jeanne Cummings this morning giving credit for it to Jon Stewart and FOX News.While it’s certainly true that The Daily Show segment was powerful and influential and Shep Smith did admonish the congress, here’s how FOX presented the story:

Barb at DailyKos notes:

Watch as the media arm of the Republican Party blatantly lies about Republican obstruction of the 9/11 health care bill, with the GOP lapdogs not only ignoring that all forty-two Senate Republicans blocked the bill less than two weeks ago, but saying that the “Democratically-controlled House killed it back in July,” not mentioning that it was House Republicans who voted against it en masse.

Sadly, these lies and airbrushing gives Republicans and the opportunity to pretend to be human beings instead of what they are:

Unfortunately, the Times, like so many Beltway outlets, simply refuses to address the rather obvious answer to what Republicans did with regards to the 9-11 bill, and what they’ve been practicing since Obama was inaugurated: Obstructionism.

And not just everyday obstructionism, but truly radical, unprecedented obstructionism designed to oppose virtually every Democratic initiative. That’s how Republicans ended up against the 9-11 bill: Democrats were for it, therefore the GOP opposed it.

It’s telling that several Times readers immediately sniffed out the real answer in their posted comments:

Here’s the bottom line: If a Democrat supports it, Mitch McConnell has given orders to his Republicans caucus to oppose it.

And:

Republicans are against it because Obama is for it. Simple as that.

But instead, the Times reported the story like this [emphasis added]:

The legislation took a back seat in the lame-duck session as lawmakers struggled with other issues — the Bush-era tax cuts, the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, budget bills. Democratic efforts to bring it up for a vote in the Senate two weeks ago failed by three votes.

That’s not quite the whole story. When Democrats tried to bring the 9-11 bill up two weeks ago it was unanimously opposed by Republicans who had signed a pledge not to let any legislation proceed (regardless of its content) until they were allowed to vote on giving tax cuts to the rich.

See the difference between that and simply claiming the bill “took a back seat.”

As I’ve noted before, Republicans have been practicing an unprecedented brand of obstructionism since Obama’s inauguration, but the press has been treating it as normal. It’s not. It’s radical.

However, Mitch McConnell has told us how Obama can get more of this Village media love when the new, even more radical, congress comes in next month:

“If the president is willing to do things that we believe in, I don’t think we’re going to say, ‘No, Mr. President, we’re not going to do this any longer because you’re now with us,’” McConnell told POLITICO in his ornate office across from the old Senate chamber. “Any time the president is willing to do what we think is in the best interest of the American people, we have something to talk about.”

I’m fairly sure that’s how the vaunted tax “compromise” worked, so there’s no reason to think it can’t happen gain. Obama himself just told us that “this lame duck shows that we are not doomed to gridlock.” Let’s hope his definition is better than McConnell’s.

Annual Holiday Fundraiser going on right now. If you can help support the blog, I appreciate it. Cheers!

Giving Back The Ring

by digby

Merry Christmas, America. You took one more step to being a decent, rational country today:

That’s Harry Reid giving Dan Choi his West Point ring back, which he promised to do when the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was passed.

Update: Watch Barney Frank answer a conservative’s gotcha question.

Annual Holiday Fundraiser going on right now. If you can help support the blog, I appreciate it. Cheers!

Scams and Thievery

by digby

Dday comments on today’s better-late-than-never NY Times story about banks burglarizing houses that they say are in foreclosure:

Over the past few months, we’ve been following perhaps the worst abuse by the banks in the foreclosure crisis – breaking and entering homes where they are foreclosing, changing the locks, and terrorizing the owners. The banks claim that they only do this with vacant homes, in an effort to keep out squatters, but it hasn’t worked out that way. There have even been reports of break-ins on homes where the borrowers are current on their payments. Borrowers who have seen their homes broken into are fighting back and even suing the banks over this practice. If signing false documents and lacking standing to foreclose is too technical for the courts, perhaps breaking and entering will be what stops the banks’ reign of terror.

When Mimi Ash arrived at her mountain chalet here for a weekend ski trip, she discovered that someone had broken into the home and changed the locks. When she finally got into the house, it was empty. All of her possessions were gone: furniture, her son’s ski medals, winter clothes and family photos. Also missing was a wooden box, its top inscribed with the words “Together Forever,” that contained the ashes of her late husband, Robert. The culprit, Ms. Ash soon learned, was not a burglar but her bank. According to a federal lawsuit filed in October by Ms. Ash, Bank of America had wrongfully foreclosed on her house and thrown out her belongings, without alerting Ms. Ash beforehand.

Ash was in the middle of working out a loan modification when this happened. “This is in essence a burglary,” Ash remarked. The bank took her late husband’s ashes.

But it doesn’t look like there’s going to be any concerted effort to fix any of these problems — if the Fed has its way anyway:

Top policymakers at the Federal Reserve are fighting efforts to rein in widely reported bank abuses, sparking an inter-agency feud with the FDIC and the Treasury Department. The Fed, along with the more bank-friendly Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, is resisting moves to craft rules cracking down on banks that charge illegal fees and carry out improper foreclosures. The FDIC supports such rules, according to an FDIC official involved in the dispute. The new regulations would rein in debt collection, loan modification and foreclosure proceedings at bank divisions called “mortgage servicers.” Servicers have committed widespread fraud in the foreclosure process. While the recent robo-signing of fraudulent documents has received the most attention, consumer advocates have complained about improper fees and servicer mistakes that lead to foreclosure for years. “Given that we’ve seen a massive failure in servicing practices and a massive failure to address servicing in an honest way, I think this is important,” says Joshua Rosner, a managing director at Graham Fisher & Co., and longtime critic of the U.S. mortgage system. Last week, the National Consumer Law Center and the National Association of Consumer Advocates published a survey of 96 foreclosure attorneys from around the country, attesting that servicers have pushed 2,500 of their clients into the foreclosure process, even as the borrowers were negotiating loan modifications with the same servicers.

The Fed is run by bankers, after all …

I think this story tells itself. But if you haven’t been following the details I highly recommend dday’s coverage on this over the past few months if you want to catch up. It’s an astonishing story.

Meanwhile, the wonks at Naked Capitalism have put together a petition to ask the regulators to do their jobs.

As readers may know, the banking industry is trying to prevent the FDIC from moving forward with its proposed reforms on securitizations and is also attacking related SEC reforms, namely amendments to Rule A/B. To further the effort to curb servicer abuses, please visit the website, StopServicerScams, and sign the petition. As we have written, and as experts and foreclosure defense lawyers have reported in Congressional testimony, and as pending lawsuits by attorneys general in Arizona and Nevada allege, servicer abuses are a significant cause of foreclosures. These include including delaying and misapplying payments, using false hopes of pending mods to extract more payments from consumers, and applying compounding junk fees. We will submit the signed petition in early January. Thanks for your support in this important effort.
.

Annual Holiday Fundraiser going on right now. If you can help support the blog, I appreciate it. Cheers!

The Cruelty Lobby

by digby

Not content to merely lobby for cutting social security pensions, the other day Peter Orszag put disability insurance on the menu as well, saying that people with disabilities should be working during this economic downturn.(It’s bad for their character if they don’t, you see, and they’ll get lazy and unproductive.)

This is evidently something that the President’s former GOP bff, Tom Coburn is on a tear about as well, so it’s looking as though this might be one o0f those vaunted areas of common ground. (I’m sure nothing will make Republicans happier than throwing the poor disabled to the mercy of charity — where their characters can be appropriately monitored by the right people.)

Demographic and economic factors explain much of the increase in the number of people receiving Social Security disability benefits in recent decades. But that’s not the impression you’d get from some alarmist recent reports. Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), a member of the President’s fiscal commission, told the commission that disability payments were “out of control,” and authors of a new Brookings Institution report described the program as a “rapidly growing expense” that has “largely escaped the scrutiny of policymakers.”

Here are the facts:

This month, 8.2 million people will receive disabled-worker benefits from Social Security. (Payments will also go to some of their family members: 160,000 spouses and 1.8 million children.) The number of disabled workers has doubled since 1995, while the working-age population — conventionally described as people age 20 through 64 — has increased by only about one-fifth. But that comparison is deceptive. Over that period:

* Baby boomers aged into their high-disability years. People are roughly twice as likely to be disabled at age 50 as at age 40, and twice as likely to be disabled at age 60 as at age 50. As the baby boomers (people born in 1946 through 1964) have grown inexorably older, disability cases have risen.

* More women qualified for disability benefits. In general, workers with severe impairments can get disability benefits only if they’ve worked for at least one-fourth of their adult life and for five of the last ten years. Until the great influx of women into the workforce that occurred in the 1970s and 1980s, relatively few women met those tests; as recently as 1990, male disabled workers outnumbered women by nearly a 2 to 1 ratio. Now that more women have worked long enough to qualify for disability benefits, the ratio has fallen to just 1.1 to 1.
* Social Security’s full retirement age rose from 65 to 66. When disabled workers reach the full retirement age, they begin receiving Social Security retirement benefits rather than disability benefits. The increase in the retirement age from 65 to 66 has delayed that conversion for many workers. This month, over 300,000 people between 65 and 66 are collecting disability benefits; under the rules in place a decade ago, they would be receiving retirement benefits instead.

The Social Security actuaries express the number of people receiving disability benefits using an “age- and sex-adjusted disability prevalence rate” that controls for these factors. Over the 1995-2010 period, that rate rose from 3.5 percent of the working-age population to 4.4 percent. That’s certainly an increase, but not nearly as dramatic as the alarmists paint

Not surprisingly, the rate crept upward during periods of economic distress. Anecdotally and statistically, we know that many workers who can’t find jobs and who exhaust their unemployment benefits turn to disability insurance.

I’m sure disabled people are at the head of the hiring lines right now. Employers don’t have many people to choose from, after all.

And that’s not all, sadly:

Here’s an entertaining fact for you: My brother-in-law Vincent receives toe and toenail care at the podiatrist. No he doesn’t wear toenail polish like Frank Burns did on M*A*S*H. A combination of skin issues, chronic obesity, and intellectual disability create mundane but important foot problems for Vincent that require serious attention. He’s unlucky enough to require Medicaid. Luckily for him, though, he doesn’t live in South Carolina (h/t Diane Meier’s valuable tweets), since that state will no longer cover these mundane but important services. As today’s WYFF4 news puts it:

Starting in February 2011, Medicaid will no longer cover podiatry services, routine eye exams or dental services for anyone older than 21. Routine circumcisions for newborns, diabetic equipment and services and some wheelchair accessories are on the list. Hospice care services will also be eliminated.

You read that last one correctly. The state will no longer provide Medicaid coverage for hospice care. Like an anxious investor watching a crashing stock market, I’m seeing what’s happening with Medicaid and wondering when states will finally hit bottom. One might think Arizona’s transplant policy provides a credible floor (listen here if you haven’t been following this). But maybe not. Here’s what is coming later to South Carolina:

In April, Medicaid will eliminate services under the state’s Community Long-term Care Program, which provides services to people at their home. That includes chore and appliance services, nutritional supplements, adult day health care nursing services and respite service. There will also be a reduction in the number of meals delivered to the home each week.

That’s a new one. Meals on wheels will apparently reduce its weekly meal deliveries from fourteen to ten. I don’t quite know what to say, except to hope that this is some budgetary game of chicken, and these cuts don’t actually happen. Given what is happening around the country, there’s little reason to be hopeful.

This war on the safety net is starting to head into areas that we once would have thought were sacrosanct. I think it’s the inevitable result of years of conservative cant, the cruel ethos of our post 9/11 rage and the unthinking embrace of post meltdown austerity. It’s the perfect fetid petrie dish for the disaster capitalists to thrive.

Annual Holiday Fundraiser going on right now. If you can help support the blog, I appreciate it. Cheers!

It’s A Good Thing This Is All A Hoax

by digby

Gosh, if the five day non-stop deluge would stop just for a few minutes I could go outside and clear my head after reading this alarming story:

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) has projected that the United States will lead the world into catastrophic global warming over the next twenty five years…

This pathway would almost certainly commit the world to catastrophic climate change, including rapid sea level rise, extreme famine, desertification, and ecological collapse on land and sea. Right now, the United States, with less than five percent of global population, produces 20 percent of global warming pollution. Center for American Progress senior fellow Joe Romm published in Nature in 2008 that humanity “must aim at achieving average annual carbon dioxide emissions of less than 5 GtC [5 billion metric tons of carbon, or 18 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide] this century or risk the catastrophe of reaching atmospheric concentrations of 1,000 parts per million.” To do so, he said, humanity needs to adopt a “national and global strategy to stop building new traditional coal-fired plants while starting to deploy existing and near-term low-carbon technologies as fast as is humanly possible.”

Since 2008, the science has grown more dire. The impact of existing global warming on oceans, extreme weather, agriculture, polar ice, and ecosystems is at or exceeding the highest range of past projections. Dr. Romm’s suggestions were based on the assumption that stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations at 450 parts per million (ppm) would likely limit warming to 2°C above pre-industrial temperatures. However, as climate scientists Kevin Anderson and Alice Bows write in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, “the impacts associated with 2°C have been revised upwards, sufficiently so that 2°C now more appropriately represents the threshold between ‘dangerous’ and ‘extremely dangerous’ climate change”

Here’s a reminder of what the new head of the House Subcommittee on Environment and Economy in the 112th Congress thinks about all this:

Full quote:

“…the earth will end only when God declares it’s time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood…. I appreciate having panelists here who are men of faith, and we can get into the theological discourse of that position, but I do believe God’s word is infallible, unchanging, perfect.

Today we have about 388 parts per million in the atmosphere. I think in the age of dinosaurs, when we had the most flora and fauna, we were probably at 4,000 parts per million. There is a theological debate that this is a carbon-starved planet — not too much carbon. And the cost of a cap-and-trade on the poor is now being discovered.”

Well that settles that. Now lets get back to fixing those 75 year deficit projections while we have the chance. It’s just not fair to our great-grandkids to fail to balance the budget in 30 years by cutting those benefits today. Let’s think ahead for once, people.

Annual Holiday Fundraiser going on right now. If you can help support the blog, I appreciate it. Cheers!

Lawbreaking Lawmakers

by digby

Via Greg Mitchell, here’s Michael Lind in Salon asserting that the problem with WikiLeaks is that Americans do not respect the rule of law:

“For Assange’s admirers, the embarrassment that his publication of stolen government and corporate documents produces for government policymakers, bankers or corporate executives whom they dislike more than compensates for the theft of classified or private information on a grand scale. The idea that the law in its majesty is supposed to protect the bad as well as the good apparently is rejected by those who celebrate information vandalism, as long as its victims are the State Department or big banks.”

But what do you do in a democracy when the ones making the laws are also breaking the laws and using the law to keep their lawbreaking a secret?

I think the founders saw this as the necessary antidote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This is a built in tension in democracies, which depend upon an informed public to properly function. The wealthy, in collusion with the politicians, tend to get sloppy and greedy and the lawmakers immunize themselves with official secrecy and two tiered justice. So muckrakers must rise up to expose them.

The problem isn’t the people becoming lawless. The problem is powerful institutions becoming lawless and that includes the corporate media that covers up for them. The only thing the people have to fight that is democracy and a free press. It’s not much, but it’s all we’ve got.

Annual Holiday Fundraiser going on right now. If you can help support the blog, I appreciate it. Cheers!

Their Way Or The Highway

by digby

On CNN today:

Gloria Borger: I think you have to say that out of this lame ducks session Barack Obama turns out to be a big winner, even though he got some liberal Democrats in his base very upset, people voted for bipartisanship and working things out in this last election and it’s very clear that Obama did not take a lot of time in listening to them and said “you know what? I heard you and we’re getting a lot done.”

It’s an interesting interpretation and I think it’s widely held among the punditocracy. But I have to say that I think it’s just a tiny bit off. The fact is that the people who voted for all those new House and Senate representatives voted for conservative policies. And to that extent, Obama did hear them and passed the one thing they wanted more than anything, which was tax cuts. But he (and Harry Reid) were deft enough to take advantage of their missteps with the budget battle to get DADT repealed (with a strong assist from the Pentagon brass who still carry some weight with the flagwavers.) START was always going to get done — it was a hostage the GOP wasn’t really willing to shoot and everyone knew it.

But none of this was in response to a desperate cry from the public for bipartisanship. If it had been, we wouldn’t have seen a 60 Vote pick-up by very conservative Republicans. It’s convenient to think that’s what they were saying, but what those voters were actually saying was for Obama to give them what they want. And he heard them. Just as he hears Mitch McConnell today:

“There’s much for them to be angst-ridden about,” McConnell said with a chuckle. “If they think it’s bad now, wait till next year.”

Emboldened by Democrats’ decision to scrap an omnibus funding bill and extend the Bush-era tax cuts for two years, McConnell is ready to deploy his larger Republican minority next year, insisting that Democratic leaders will need to bend to his party’s will — particularly on spending issues.

Indeed, McConnell is signaling that the White House should be prepared in the new Congress to support Republican policies — not the other way around.

“If the president is willing to do things that we believe in, I don’t think we’re going to say, ‘No, Mr. President, we’re not going to do this any longer because you’re now with us,’” McConnell told POLITICO in his ornate office across from the old Senate chamber. “Any time the president is willing to do what we think is in the best interest of the American people, we have something to talk about.”

Annual Holiday Fundraiser going on right now. If you can help support the blog, I appreciate it. Cheers!