Month: March 2011

No Money For Anything

by digby

I guess women with unwanted pregnancies and cervical cancer are expected to leave the state because otherwise these “savings” aren’t going to materialize. Children and cancer are expensive:

While Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) continues to wait out the state’s Senate Democrats on his budget bill that would strip collective bargaining rights from public employee unions, a growing number of Wisconsin’s abortion-rights advocates worry that they have become his next target. In 2009, Wisconsin passed a “contraceptive equity” law that requires health insurance plans in the state that cover prescription drugs to include contraceptives. Proponents argued that the measure was necessary to ensure that commercial health providers — who cover approximately one-third of the state’s residents — don’t discriminate against women. “Contraceptive Equity is about fairness, preventing gender discrimination, and access to basic health care,” reads a statement on the website for Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin. Walker’s budget released this week would repeal the 2009 law. His budget summary called it an “unacceptable government mandate on employers with moral objections to these services,” adding that it “increases the cost of health insurance for all payers.” The governor is also proposing the elimination of the Title V Maternal and Child Health program, which receives a mix of federal, state and local funds to provide family planning services. Uninsured men and women can currently receive this care, which includes cervical and prostate cancer screenings, access to birth control and testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases. Walker’s budget estimates that Wisconsin would save $1.9 million annually by eliminating the Title V program, whose money goes to family planning centers such as Planned Parenthood. But Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin spokeswoman Amanda Harrington argued that more than 50 health centers in the state would be deprived of a total of $4 million once the federal and local funds are included. (Planned Parenthood receives roughly one-quarter of that money.) In many cases, Harrington said, these health centers are the only providers in the area and deliver critical care. Planned Parenthood is not a new target for Walker. While campaigning for governor in April, he told the Wisconsin Right to Life convention that during his time as a state legislator, he was proud of “trying to defund Planned Parenthood and make sure they didn’t have any money, not just for abortion, but any money for anything.”

That’s quite a statement. Meanwhile down in Texas they’re trying to save the silly little girls from themselves:

Women seeking an abortion would have to first get an ultrasound under a measure approved on Thursday by the Texas House of Representatives.

The proposal, the first significant bill considered by the House this year, was designated by Republican Governor Rick Perry as an emergency priority. A similar measure has already been approved by the state Senate.

Women would have to get an ultrasound between 24 and 72 hours before an abortion, the bill says. They would view the sonogram, hear an explanation of the image and listen to the heartbeat, if it is audible.

“We want to make sure that they’re fully informed, that they understand the medical consequences, the psychological consequences and everything involved in the procedure,” said the bill’s author, Republican state Rep. Sid Miller.

Opponents said that the requirement would traumatize women already in a difficult situation. During debate on the House floor, bill opponent Rep. Carol Alvarado held up a trans-vaginal probe used for sonograms early in pregnancy to illustrate what she called a “very intrusive process.”

“This is not the jelly on the belly that most of you think,” said Alvarado, a Houston Democrat. “This is government intrusion at its best.”

I’d say so. Shoving a probe into a woman’s vagina for the sole purpose of making her change her mind doesn’t sound like a “medical procedure” to me. It sounds like a form of coercive torture. I guess we should be happy they haven’t required them to be tasered while they’re in there just to make the point. Of course, that might harm the fetus and fetuses are sacred until they’re outside the female vessel. (Then it’s no holds barred.)

I think it’s adorable that so many of our Village scribes continue to insist that the “new conservatives” are just a bunch of fiscal hawks trying to cut the fat, but it’s wishful thinking. they are the same old same old, and as I wrote in the previous post, the reason they are fiscal hawks is the same reason they are social conservatives: to stop people they don’t like (in this case pregnant women who want to exercise their constitutional right to abortion) from doing things they don’t like.

.

Tea Party Worldview

by digby

Here’s just another little tid-bit to add to the ample existing evidence that the Tea Party is as socially conservative as it gets and that they care about the culture war as much as they care about cutting taxes and destroying government. From Right Wing Watch:

There are few “mainstream” anti-gay activists operating today that can match Matt Barber for shear anti–gay vitriol. In fact, it was his attacks on gays that turned Barber into a Religious Right celebrity in the first place, eventually landing him a job with Concerned Women for America before Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel lured him away and gave him a position as Associate Dean at Liberty University and Director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel. And Staver snapped up Barber because he shares his anti-gay views and because of their endless anti-gay attacks, Liberty Counsel found itself on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s list of anti-gay groups. So, of course, Rep. Michele Bachmann has tapped Staver to come and teach her Tea Party class to members of Congress …

I’m wondering when people are going to recognize that not only is the Tea Party socially conservative and uhm … racially uncomfortable, their antipathy to taxes and government actually stems from those attitudes. It’s not a coincidence or even a sympathetic constellation of various positions on the issues. They don’t like government because they believe that government should not protect and support people they don’t like.

It’s not even a matter of not liking the constitutional principle of “majority rule, but protect the minority” because they think it’s undemocratic. When they are in the majority, they resent the protection of the minority, to be sure. But when they are in the minority they equally resent majority rule. The “principle” is simply that they believe they are superior and more deserving and that people they don’t like, whether they are in the majority or the minority, do not deserve to have any say in how the world is organized. They just do not believe their opposition is legitimate in any way. It’s not really any more complicated than that.

.

Fingers Crossed

by digby

Don’t get your hopes up yet, but Greg Sargent reports:

I don’t know if these reports are true or not, and we should treat them with caution. But we now have two news outlets, one local and one national, claiming GOP defections from Governor Scott Walker may be in the works. The Wall Street Journal reports:

Conservatives in Wisconsin are getting nervous that three Republican state senators may defect on the collective-bargaining reform vote. It’s still anyone’s guess as to when that vote will take place because Democrats remain in exile to prevent the necessary quorum. But Republicans in the Senate hold a 19-14 majority, so GOP Gov. Scott Walker can afford to lose no more than two Republican senators on this pivotal vote. On Wednesday, Republicans held a “unity” press conference that was attended by all but one senator, Dale Schultz. But a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll showing that 62% of respondents oppose curtailing collective-bargaining rights for public-sector workers over health care, pensions or other benefits suggests that the GOP position may be losing some support among independent voters.

Separately, WEAU, an NBC affiliate in Wisconsin, reports that “four moderate Republicans are wavering and could break with the GOP and vote against Walker’s budget repair bill.”

I don’t want to jinx it by analyzing what that means unless it actually happens. let’s just say for now that it would be very, very good.

.

Giddy At The Prospect Of Other People’s Suffering

by digby

The news that Boehner may “play ball” with the White House to destroy Social security has made the Villagers’ day. Here’s Andrea Mitchell:

Andrea Mitchell: Washington may be closer than we thought to doing something real about the long term budget deficit. House speaker John Boehner has reportedly given President his word that he will not exploit the politically charged issue of entitlements if Obama takes the lead.

New York Magazine national political columnist John Heilman joins me.

This could be a whole new era! Entitlement reform, on the table, in this coming budget year? What are the chances?

Heilman: I think the chances are pretty good although I don’t think it’s going to happen the way that Speaker Boehner would like it to happen. I don’t see a whole lot of pressure on the president to do what Speaker Boehner would like to do which is to say, go first. You know, we saw in the Wall Street Journal poll in the last couple of days there’s not a lot of public pressure to take on these entitlement programs and to the extent there is public pressure it’s coming from the Republican base.

So I think the White House taken the attitude that they are ready to address these issues, but the Republican party is the party that’s going to have to go first and I think Speaker Boehner is going to have to do that if they are going to make this progress. I think he’s going to feel forced to by his constituents in the Republican party who want to see this happen.

Mitchell: Of course, the alternative is that both the White House and the Speaker stand off and play a game of “after you Alphonse” and nobody does anything and we reach a critical point here.

Heilman: Well, that’s certainly possible and you know look, as I say, the White House is comfortable politically with waiting.

And look, I think the truth is that I think the president actually believes that something has to happen on this and the question of sequencing is a political question. I think it’s a matter of long term policy and in fact is a matter of long term politics.

It’s in the interest of both the White House and the Republican Party to eventually figure out a way as they skirmish around and figure out who’s going to go first and who’s going to go second and who’s going to have whose back. Eventually it’s in all their interest to walk off this cliff together, so to speak, although that metaphor suggests that it’s in no one’s interest.

Mitchell: laughter…

Heilman: I think it is in their interest to get this off the table politically. The White House would love to have deficit reduction off the table politically in 2012 because that’s the only thing Republicans have to run against President Obama on.

Then they both went on to talk about how the President and the Republicans have to raise a billion dollars each at a minimum for 2012 what with all the outside groups putting in their billions too.

Mitchell was positively giddy with excitement about this. After all, despite the fact that three quarters of the American people do not want cuts in social security,”everyone” knows that it has to happen. After all, the alternative might be to raise taxes wealthy celebrities like Mitchell and Masters of the Universe and we can’t have that — they might “lose confidence” and then where would we be?

Heilman is right that the Republicans need “entitlement reform” more than Democrats. After all, it’s only their base that is demanding these cuts. The Democratic base is adamantly opposed as are Independents. But logically that means that the GOP should be the one’s to propose the cuts and the Democrats should beat them over the head with it. That’s certainly what the Republicans would do in their place.

However, according to Heilman, the White House and the Republicans and the Tea party are really on the same side in this — against three quarters of the people and the only thing that’s being “negotiated” is who gets the blame. Apparently, the White House does have some political instincts left and know that the GOP will have no compunction about running against them in 2012 as Social Security killers, which makes Boehner’s statement so surreal. After all, the Republicans have been on record against Social Security for more than sixty years so for them to “generously” offer not to run ads against the president if he does their dirty work for them is a sign that we are so far down the rabbit hole that we are likely never to climb back out.

But they did. No word on whether or not the Koch brothers and Freedomworks signed on to the same pledge. I’m going to go out on a limb and say they didn’t.

And then there’s the silly idea that they can “get deficit reduction off the table” so we can talk about “winning the future.” It’s especially ironic considering that Obama’s main claim to the election in 2008 was that he wouldn’t have voted for the Iraq war resolution. Remember this sage advice from Carville and Greenberg in 2002?

The debate and vote on the resolution will bring closure on the extended Iraq debate that has crowded out the country’s domestic agenda as Congress concludes. But there is substantial evidence, as we indicated at the outset, that voters are very ready to turn to domestic issues. It is important that Democrats make this turn and provide a compelling reason to vote Democratic and turn down the Republicans…

“This decision [to support or oppose an Iraq war resolution] will take place in a setting where voters, by 10 points, prefer to vote for a member who supports a resolution to authorize force (50 to 40 percent).”

Here’s a little bit more background:

Democratic strategist Bob Shrum writes in his memoir to be published in June that he regrets advising Edwards to give President Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq. He said if Edwards had followed his instincts instead of the advice of political professionals, he would have been a stronger presidential candidate in 2004.

[…]

Shrum writes that Edwards, then a North Carolina senator, called his foreign policy and political advisers together in his Washington living room in the fall of 2002 to get their advice. Edwards was “skeptical, even exercised” about the idea of voting yes and his wife Elizabeth was forcefully against it, according to Shrum.

But Shrum said the consensus among the advisers was that Edwards, just four years in office, did not have the credibility to vote against the resolution and had to support it to be taken seriously on national security.

Democrats decisively lost the 2002 election and that vote for the war twisted presidential candidates up in knots ever since then. It almost certainly cost John Kerry the presidency in 2004. (I often wondered if Obama would have succumbed if he’s been a senator — after the FISA vote, I knew.)

It’s fine to try to set the agenda, and Democrats should do it more often. But this method of capitulation so that they can “pivot” to what they want to talk about has never worked. For some unknown reason, the Republicans refuse to go along with it and the American people never seem to be very impressed with the strategy.

Now, I suppose the Democrats will make the case that they are not being political this time and are doing what their consciences demand regardless of whether or not it’s popular. But if that’s the case then we have reached a point at which our leadership is no longer responsive to their constituents or capable guardians of the economy. Unless their consciences are telling them that people should suffer needlessly, they are either venal, stupid or disingenuous because Social Security is not an immediate problem, does not contribute to the deficit and a potential loss of benefits cannot be “solved” by ensuring that loss of benefits. It simply makes no logical sense.

No, however venal, stupid or disingenuous they might be, it is obvious that this is entirely political and it’s even worse than the idiotic advice to back the Iraq war resolution. At least they had the excuse that the people were more or less behind it. In this case, only a small, highly partisan, extreme right wing faction wants the government to do this thing. Why in the world would they think they’ll be rewarded by anyone for doing it? Indeed, the truth is that they’ll be punished by the shadowy Republican groups that will use it to make sure that nobody over 55 ever votes Democratic again — Shadowy Republican groups that are backed by the very big money plutocrats they are trying to appease with this assault on average working people.

I hope that Heilman is wrong and that the White House is not thinking along these lines. They may win re-election simply by default, considering the GOP field. But they will almost definitely lose the Senate as well as the House and American liberalism will be an empty shell going forward. But the if the Democrats can’t keep Social Security off the chopping block in the middle of an economic crisis — with 75% of the people behind them — then I suppose that ship has already sailed.

.

Merkley Makes The Case

by digby

Greg Sargent:

Senator Jeff Merkley opens fire on the House GOP plan for budget cuts in some of the harshest terms I’ve heard yet:

The GOP budget plan will destroy 700,000 jobs. The last thing our nation can afford right now is further job losses. We need to be creating jobs, not destroying jobs.

There are common-sense budget cuts that could reduce our deficits without wrecking the economy or attacking working families. We can start by cutting back on the bonus tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires that Republican leaders insisted on just ten weeks ago. We could end tax subsidies for oil companies and save tens of billions of dollars in the process.

Republican House Speaker John Boehner summarized his perspective on the Republican budget as follows: if people might lose their jobs, “so be it.” You might think the House Republican leaders would show some humility after their failed agenda turned record surpluses into massive deficits in 2001, or after their policies reduced the wages of working Americans during the modest expansion in the middle of the decade, or after they burned down the economy with unregulated derivatives and predatory mortgage securities in 2008.

Apparently not. Their proposals are exactly the same: give massive tax cuts to the wealthiest, shred the safety net, and eliminate investments that would help restore American economic leadership.

Thank you Senator Merkley. That has such a ring of truth that like Sargent, I can imagine how powerful it would be if the Democratic Party would adopt this as their new rallying cry:

It’s tempting to imagine what would happen if Dems were united behind a hard hitting message emphasizing the charges Merkley leveled here: GOP budget cuts will destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs. Republicans are hacking away at programs that benefit working and middle-class Americans even as they preserve tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. And Republicans have no business lecturing America with pieties about the deficit, given that their policies played a major role in creating it.

But Dems are not united behind such a message.

No they aren’t. But this shows that such a message is possible.

Sadly, if one thinks it’s important to be seen as the most “bipartisan” guy in the room the result is likely to be fairly ugly in light of this:

Just over one month ago, the Senate largely abandoned a plan to ambitiously reform the Senate rules after the GOP agreed to a “handshake deal” which would curb the unprecedented spike in filibusters since the GOP lost control of the Senate. Rather than uphold their side of the bargain, eight Republican senators have now promised to take their obstructionism to unprecedented heights.

Sens. Tom Coburn (R-OK), John McCain (R-AZ), Jim DeMint (R-SC), John Ensign (R-NV), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Rand Paul (R-KY), Mike Lee (R-UT) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) circulated a letter to their colleagues yesterday threatening to place a hold on any bill which does not comply with five very broad criteria.

This is the Teabag faction, of course, which now includes John McCain (who I always knew was a fanatical right wing scumbag at heart)and John Ensign who is under big time pressure. (I expect Orrin Hatch will be joining this group any day now.) Essentially, they are now running the US Senate and any “deals” that happen will have to get past them. Doesn’t that sound grand?

So I’m frankly rooting for gridlock at this point. And if that’s what we have, then it’s necessary to use it wisely. Merkley’s speech is a great starting point.

Unfortunately, it’s not looking good. As Sargent concludes:

Merkley’s strong stand reminds us that by and large Dems are not really united behind a powerful, coherent, and consistent critique of the GOP’s fiscal policies. And Republicans are rubbing their hands together in glee about it.

.

Huck’s Just Relating To His People

by digby

So Huckabee is still out there pimping the Muslim lie even though he was caught at it earlier in the week. Does he seem dumb enough to do that by accident to you?

I don’t think so. He’s the real “Palin with brains” not Bachman. He has her same snotty sarcasm so beloved by the wingers but he’s a professional politician who knows how to point it. (Plus, he isn’t on twitter and Facebook all day talking gibberish.) With this silly Muslim talk he’s just sending them a strong message that he’s one of them.

I haven’t shared one of these in a while, but in case you were wondering if they are still flooding the in-box — they are:

Does Barack Hussein Obama wake up every morning and ask himself, “How can I Destroy Christian America” today? Because for the past two years that is exactly what this Lying, Commie, Baby Killing, Muslim has been doing!

How many Laws has Obama broken? How many times has Obama broken his Oath of Office? How many time has he broken the American Constitution? How many times has he lied to The American People? How many times has he betrayed America? How many Acts of Treason has Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder committed?

When is our Congress, our Senate and our Law Makers going to Stop and Impeach this destructor of America?

Why is Obama allowed to continually break the Laws of the Land?

It has been over two years and America still does NOT know if Obama was born in Kenya, Hawaii or where? America which was once Strong, Proud and Respected Nation has become the laughing stock of the World.

PS: This just in…………….

New bill would require Barack Obama to provide proof of birth to get on Georgia ballot.

State Rep. Mark Hatfield, R-Waycross, just handed me a copy of his new bill, HB 401, which would require President Barack Obama to provide certified proof of his birth to the Georgia secretary of state in order to appear on next year’s presidential primary and general election ballots.

The bill has the signatures of 94 members of the 180-member House, including that of one Democrat, Glenn Baker of Jonesboro. The measure will get its first hearing on Wednesday.

As you undoubtedly know, this belief is not confined to a few fringy wierdos. The number is growing and a substantial number beyond that “aren’t sure”. (Where there’s smoke there’s fire?) All GOP candidates have to grapple with it and those who are seeking to win with a Teabag strategy have to find a way to embrace it. That’s what Huck’s doing.

Update: Some more creepy anti-muslim behavior.

I Know You Are But What Am I Negotiating

by digby

Uhm, White House? When you are negotiating with *epistemic relativists, this doesn’t work:

the White House argues the president has already essentially agreed to $44.8 billion in spending cuts from his original proposal. Add the current $6.5 billion in new cuts proposed today and voila! – roughly half of $100 billion.

Republicans argue that President Obama’s original budget is a nonsensical baseline from which to begin since it was never enacted.

What you have to do, Republicans say, is start from the current level of spending as represented in the original Continuing Resolution.

This is why, House Republicans say, they only claimed to have cut spending by $61 billion, not $100 billion. They say to do otherwise is taking credit for $44 billion in cuts the White House never actually agreed to in any serious negotiation.

“I understand that maybe some people who originally decided to use that math may not want to use that anymore,” Pfeiffer said today. “There are innumerable quotes, many of them in stories in papers that you guys did on that day,…with Republican leadership saying that they cut $100 billion on that day. By that measure we have come half way.”

“Their thing hasn’t passed into law either, right?” said Sperling “This is the president of the United States has put forward a request that’s his ideal budget that he put forward. They put forward their ideal proposal. Something they could pass in the House, but and that’s – there’s a $102.3 billion difference there. I don’t know why when you’re covering any type of negotiation that it’s not highly relevant to know where the president’s proposal was, where their proposal was, and then, and then if there’s movement – to what degree is that splitting the difference or moving towards one side or the other. So I think it’s a totally legitimate important thing covering the negotiation.”

Pfeiffer added that “what is clear is that we are at the beginning of the process discussing this. They are not going to get everything they want. We’re not going to get everything we want. And we’re going to discuss how we’re going to get there. Much like the tax cut deal.”

I think that tax cut “deal” may have made the administration stupid.

Their objective isn’t to “get a compromise” or “split the difference” so everyone in the Village will drool all over them because they are so awesomely bipartisan. It’s to get what they want. The other side really, really, really wanted those tax cuts and they got them. Now they really, really, really want spending cuts.

Arguing over semantics or even arithmetic with these people is to fundamentally misunderstand how they operate.

But hey, not to worry. All they have to do is give the other side what they want, order the Democrats to clap as loud as they possibly can and the Village will declare them brilliant negotiators. Perhaps it will even buy them a point or two in the polls for a month or so.

*Epistemic relativism: the view that there is no objective standard for evaluating some lines of reasoning as better than others. Instead, the epistemic relativist holds that what counts as a good reason for holding a view is relative one’s situation and interests.

This is otherwise known as “I know you are but what am I” argument. Example: that argument above.

Update: fergawdsake:

As of several days ago, this math might have worked with the GOP. But as negotiations have entered a new stage, so to has the context. Republicans now insist negotiations instead should be based off current spending levels, not those in Obama’s 2011 budget proposal. With that as a baseline, their CR offers roughly $60 billion in cuts. The president, in turn, offers just $10 billion (the $4 billion passed already plus the $6 billion suggested on Thursday).

“I understand that people maybe want to change the math, now,” said Pfeiffer, arguing that it would be irresponsible for the media to base the current proposals off anything other than FY 2011 suggestions. “What is clear is no matter what math they use, Republicans won’t get everything they want and Democrats won’t get everything they want.”

One thing Republicans might not get are the host of riders that attached to their continuing resolution, including language that would cut off, among other things, funds for Planned Parenthood.

“We think the focus should be on how to cut spending in a way that is smart for the economy,” said Sperling, “and that no one should get that core mission derailed by focusing on any political or ideological [cause].”

On the Hill, the talk was even tougher. Several female Democrats took to the floor on Thursday to denounce the Republican proposal as demonstrably unfair towards women. Aides, meanwhile, insisted no deal would be reached if House GOP leadership didn’t drop some of the more draconian cuts and riders.

“Our side believes that any measure that keeps the government running should be clean of extraneous legislating,” said on top Democratic aide.

Oh man. I’d laugh if it wasn’t so depressing.

.

Turning Shlaes Into An Oracle

by digby

Wait a minute. I was told over and over gain by very savvy insiders that “No Drama Obama” was in full effect all the way through the first two years. And now we find out it wasn’t true. Go figure:

Less Drama in White House After Staff Changes

When Rahm Emanuel was White House chief of staff, the decision about what President Obama would say in the short address he delivers via radio and the Internet each Saturday changed so often that speechwriters would wait until Friday to write.

But since William M. Daley took over two months ago and David Plouffe succeeded David Axelrod as communications chief, the decision is made early — and it sticks.

The new team Mr. Obama has assembled to run the White House is just starting to make its mark. But together Mr. Daley and Mr. Plouffe are bringing a new order and a different management style for different times, say people within the West Wing and others who deal with them. The White House is more disciplined and less personality driven, more focused on long-term strategic goals and less consumed by the daily messaging skirmishes with Republicans — even when that means absorbing hits and pulling punches for now.

Unlike Mr. Emanuel, the idea-a-minute dynamo who would dart from floor to floor trying to control matters mundane and major, Mr. Daley, a seasoned former executive and commerce secretary in the Clinton administration, has streamlined the operation and is more likely to keep to his office, door closed, and to delegate to subordinates. The big matters, however, demand his full attention. On Wednesday, Mr. Obama directed Mr. Daley to help negotiate a deal on spending cuts with Republicans on Capitol Hill.

Are they trying to make us miss Emmanuel? I think so:

White House officials say the goal is winning the year — by bagging a budget deal or the credit for trying — not each day’s news cycle. On two successive weekends, for example, the White House passed up chances to score points against House Republicans.

Last Saturday, Mr. Daley addressed Democratic governors meeting in Washington and did not even utter the word “Republican,” let alone throw partisan red meat by lambasting House Republicans’ proposed cuts in education, health services, border control and other programs important to financially struggling states — a purposeful omission, officials said.

Similarly, a week earlier when the House before dawn had approved those cuts by a party-line vote, the White House remained silent though many of Mr. Obama’s priorities would be slashed.

Frustrated Democratic lawmakers and interest groups have been railing to White House aides that Mr. Obama is forfeiting opportunities to draw the public’s attention to what the Republicans’ cuts would mean for programs popular with most voters, including the coveted independents. The aides respond that the time will come for Mr. Obama to join the attack, should Republicans press their agenda and refuse to compromise…

Similarly, the White House mostly has sought to stay out of the fray in Madison, Wis., and other state capitals where Republican governors are battling public employee unions and Democratic lawmakers over collective bargaining rights. When West Wing officials discovered that the Democratic National Committee had mobilized Mr. Obama’s national network to support the protests, they angrily reined in the staff at the party headquarters.

Administration officials said they saw such events beyond Washington as distractions from the optimistic “win the future” message Mr. Obama introduced with his State of the Union address, exhorting the country to increase spending for some programs even as it cuts others so that America can “out-innovate and out-educate” its global rivals.

I wonder if he mentioned to the Egyptians and Charlie Sheen that they were stepping on his WTF message too? I mean, how rude of people to get off message when the White house is trying to convince the country that they should believe him over their lying eyes (and empty pocket books.)

At this point it’s seems obvious to me that the White House believes it will be rewarded for an economic recovery predicated on big budget cuts, regardless of whether or not the latter had anything to do with the former. I hope everyone can see how thoroughly destructive that is to the progressive movement and liberalism in general. One of the most pervasive misunderstandings in the country right now is the notion that the government should cut spending and eliminate debt at a time of low growth and high unemployment. It’s the most pernicious, disaster capitalist trope of all and watching it being advanced by an allegedly left of center administration is rather dizzying.

Moreover, it’s extremely risky. Ezra Klein has a post today discussing the disagreement between economists about the potential for lost jobs under the GOP’s budget proposals, with the economist John Taylor saying that economist Mark Zandi’s alarming projections neglect to take into account the benefits of the confidence fairies joy at budget cuts and finally cutting loose and creating jobs. I think Zandi is supposed to be a proxy for the administration in this argument, but I’m frankly not so sure. Zandi reportedly has Obama’s ear, but the actions of the administration indicate that they are also intent upon stimulating the confidence fairies to get the economy moving. At the very least they see it as one vital component of the recovery.

But guess what? If the administration really assumes that it needs to stroke the turgid egos of the Masters of the Universe in order to raise growth and unemployment, the evidence across the pond isn’t all that encouraging. Krugman writes:

[H]ow’s that going in Britain, where the Cameron austerity program was supposed to lead the way?

Most of the discussion of Britain I’ve seen focuses on GDP numbers, with the debate then centering on how much of the decline in the 4th quarter was weather-related. But a lot of things affect GDP. Why not look directly at confidence? The BDO has a convenient survey of business optimism (pdf); numbers for December and January here. Here’s what it looks like:

Austerity seems to have hurt, not helped, business confidence; as the BDO says, “Private sector unprepared to fill the hole left by public sector cuts.”

Why do we think the US experience — with the GOP proposals far less serious and responsible than Cameron’s — would be any better?

Or Obama’s proposals for that matter? Cutting spending while telling everyone to cheerlead a recovery they don’t feel, sending Bill Daley in to fluff the confidence fairies and ignoring anything that doesn’t fit the “morning in America’s winning future” theme is a funny way of stimulating growth. I hope the economy really is already on the way back so that people can start to rebuild their lives. But I’m very sad for the future of America because cranks like Amity Schlaes will wrongly get the credit, ironically due to a Democratic administration making her argument for her. God only knows what that will mean for the next time. And that’s the best case scenario. Worst case is a no growth or return to recession.

.

Blue America Chat: Raul Grijalva 1PM pst

by digby

Howie will be hosting a chat with Congressman Grijalva at 1PM today at Crooks and Liars to talk about this:

Howie writes:

Watch the video above that Grijalva asked me to post. It isn’t about him. Its about the fight he’s helping to lead to preserve our country for the middle class rather than just let conservatives take over and turn back the clock to a time when it was a country run by the rich for the rich, a time we’re precariously close to again. “We understand we have issues to deal with in terms of the budget, but they should not be on the backs of working people. We should not rob them of their fundamental right to bargain collectively and be able to make their lives in the workplace and their homes better… Congress,” he told me Tuesday afternoon after the vote on Boehner and Ryan’s budget resolution, “is taking away money for agencies like this [job training], and I don’t understand the logic. How is this country going to get out of the economic situation we are in if we don’t have people prepared?”

Update: Here’s former Wisconsin congressman David Obey denied access to the constitution:

Thank God For Republicans

by digby

Dave Weigel doesn’t usually allow himself to be bound by phony beltway paradigms, but I’m afraid he falls down on the job in this one. Discussing the NBC News/WSJ poll he notes that when asked how much the budget deficit concerns voters, 80 percent say “a great deal” or “a little bit” and says it should be added to “the annals of Voter Stupidity” because of this:

But they think we can do it all with spending.

Do you think it will be necessary to cut spending on Medicare, the federal government health care program for seniors, in order to significantly reduce the budget deficit?Yes – 18%
No – 54%Do you think it will be necessary to cut spending on Social Security in order to significantly reduce the federal budget deficit?Yes – 22%
No – 49%

When Republicans talk about the country being ready, finally, for real talk on entitlement reform, stuff like this should concern them. But it must concern Democrats, too. There are several of them who want to keep entitlement reform in the discussion when the 2012 budget comes up, because it’s not possible to get to a balanced budget in 10 years without that or without massive discretionary spending cuts.

Are”entitlement reform” (whatever that is) or massive discretionary spending cuts really the only way to deal with the deficit? According to basic economic theory — and those stupid voters — there is another part of the formula:

[The survey] listed 26 different ways to reduce the federal budget deficit. The most popular: placing a surtax on federal income taxes for those who make more than $1 million per year (81 percent said that was acceptable), eliminating spending on earmarks (78 percent), eliminating funding for weapons systems the Defense Department says aren’t necessary (76 percent) and eliminating tax credits for the oil and gas industries (74 percent).

Raising taxes on millionaires is right up there. And it accounts for a whole lot of money. Defense is in there too — and it accounts for a whole lot of money too.

Now, it’s true that most people believe that future deficits will likely be problematic if health care costs overall are not brought under control and singling out Medicare isn’t going to solve the problem. Certainly the people who are so concerned about Medicare costs had a funny way of showing it when they demagogued their way into office in last falls elections by scaring the pants off of the elderly about “Obamacare.” (And social security simply isn’t a real contributor to the deficit and shouldn’t be considered in the mix at all.)

I don’t blame Weigel for not seeing this. After all, neither NBC or the Wall Street Journal bothered to point this out in their stories about the poll. And get a load of the response yesterday on Chris Matthews’ show when the subject came up:

MATTHEWS: OK. When people asked what to do about the deficit, 37 percent say cut big programs, 29 percent say raised taxes. These are like the final things they‘re willing to go for if it really gets tough. Obviously, you want to cut the fat and waste, everybody does that first. TODD: Sure. MATTHEWS: But then you asked them, what do you want to do once you‘ve already done that, if you‘ve done that that? And they say, basically, if I had to choose between going after Social Security and taxes, they sort of suggest go after Social Security. But then when you asked particularly about Medicare and Social Security, hands off, 80 percent. People really don‘t want to make these decisions, do they? TODD: No. MATTHEWS: They want the politicians to have to make them. TODD: Well, that was another. There‘s another way to read that poll. That‘s right. Look, there are no popular solutions. MATTHEWS: Yes. TODD: I‘ll give you one that actually wasn‘t. The most acceptable idea of—we tested 26 different budget proposals. The most acceptable what us was a surtax on millionaires at 81 percent. There‘s no chance that any member of the Republican Party elected in Congress right now would vote for a proposal that did that, even though it has an 81 percent acceptable rating. That‘s sort of the Chuck Schumer idea. MATTHEWS: That‘s why we have a republican form of government, not an actual democratic form of government. You got to get somebody else to make these decisions. In the end, who wants to cut their own Social Security? Who wants to raise their own taxes? Nobody wants to do that. TODD: Nobody does. MATTHEWS: That‘s why we have politicians to fight with.

I don’t know if Matthews was inadvertently revealing his class bias or just misspoke, but I think that was a beautiful example of Village millionaire thinking. “Thank God for our Republican form of government. (Thank God for Republicans!)”

Even if one accepts that the budget deficit must be dealt with right this minute (something else the people aren’t behind — they would prefer job creation) the idea that the only viable approach is “entitlement reform”, including social security is just flat-out wrong. Most of the people aren’t dumb about this at all. In fact, their instincts are quite right — they know a scam when they see one.

.