Month: April 2011

Win-win

by digby

Gloria Borger gives us the inside Village run-down n on why we are where we are:

I’m getting that everbody understands, at least the leaders, understand that they need to get a deal. That the American people want a deal. What’s interesting though, Wolf, is that when you talk to people, the Republican base, as we were just talking about, is ok with no compromise. It’s the Democrats who who really want to compromise.

What we are seeing is two parties who can’t even agree on what they disagree on. And that’s because the politics are kind of interesting. Republicans agree that it’s all about spending, that’s what it is all about in the Republican Party. The Democrats are saying, “we’re ok on the spending” but it’s about the social issues. I was talking to a Democratic pollster who said to me, “look, these social issues work for us.” They were just out in the field with a poll and he said to me, “on these social issues like Planned Parenthood, for example, we win with young voters, we win with suburban women and by a 2-1 margin independent voters do not want to defund Planned Parenthood. That is why you are hearing so much about the social issues, because that’s their political sweet spot.

Looks like we’ve got us another one of those great bipartisan win-wins the Village loves so much. Well, win-win for the governing elites who get exactly what they want. The country, not so much.

.

Juuust Right

by digby

Both Paul Krugman and James Fallows have a great pieces today ruthlessly challenging the gushy Village consensus about Paul Ryan’s “brio” and “seriousness.” You should read both if you haven’t already.

But I haven’t heard anything much about this:

While House Republicans have already embraced Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) ambitious vision for the 2012 budget, the Republican Study Committee is offering a starkly different alternative from the official party version.

RSC Chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio and his allies Thursday listed some talking points in support of their proposal: It would balance the budget in 2020. It would make huge cuts in domestic spending, both in discretionary and mandatory programs. And it would make bold moves to delay coverage for Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries, including an extension of the eligibility age for persons who are now 59 years old.
[…]

The conservative alternative makes huge spending cuts by cutting many “mandatory” spending programs to their 2007 “pre-stimulus” level, which also happens to be the final budget before Democrats took control of Congress in the 2006 election. Among those programs are food stamps, supplemental security income and family support programs that were created by welfare reform. The RSC plan also would make big cuts in farm spending and student assistance and would increase fees for mortgage loans.

You may recall Chris Hayes‘ bon mot from the other day:

Can’t wait for someone to propose eating the poor and infirm so we can all then agree the Ryan plan is reasonable.

At the rate they’re going the Catfood Commission is going to be called a socialist plot. (Read Susie to see why that’s not all that far off.)

.

Nuts and Sluts

by digby

In case you ever wavered in your knowledge that the right wing men (and the women who love them) think women are oversexed little sluts who “tempt” them into being bad, waver no more. This government shutdown debate may be a first class kabuki dance, but at least it’s turning over the pile of fetid compost that passes for conservative values these days:

I have many very nasty retorts to that comment churning around in my brain but I’m not going to lower myself to his level. Suffice to say that Rush’s issue with women are well known and it’s just lucky for him that he has hundreds of millions of dollars.

.

Effect and Cause

by digby

“You burn my house down and then get mad at my reaction?”

.

Keeping It Unreal

by digby

This is just funny at this point:

A Senate source explains why numbers have changed in recent hours — and it has to do with riders. Yesterday evening, Senate Dems were holding firm at cutting spending by $34.5 billion. Republicans wanted something closer to $39 billion. Today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) acknowledged, in a roundabout way, that the new consensus figure was $38 billion, and aides have since confirmed that number.

The source said the additional $3.5 billion was put on the table to sweep all the remaining riders off the table — that was the price. But for House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), that price doesn’t include the measure that would defund Planned Parenthood. He has not agreed to that.

At least not yet. Some high-profile Republicans, including anti-abortion members of his own party, are publicly suggesting that he drop the issue. For his part, Boehner is publicly denying that the zero-hour impasse has anything to do with riders — and that it’s all about spending. This is somewhat belied by the fact that Dems keep publicly admitting to giving up more and more money.

Looks like we’ve got them right where we want them. Oh wait …

.

The Sticking Point

by digby

Ryan Grim with the latest:

The United States government is on the verge of shutting down over a dispute about subsidized pap smears. The White House and Senate Democrats have publicly capitulated to ever increasing GOP demands for spending cuts, but the negotiations over whether to shut down the government no longer hinge on money but instead are focused on so-called riders: Provisions in a budget that restrict the federal government from spending money on certain projects or entities.

Riders are used by members of Congress to make social policy without going through the regular congressional committee process, or they are used to benefit business interests by specifically blocking the government from spending money to write or enforce certain regulations.

At a late-night White House meeting between the president and key congressional leaders, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) made clear that House Republicans would not approve funding for the government if any money were allowed to flow to Planned Parenthood through legislation known as Title X. “This comes down to women’s health issues related to Title X,” a person in the meeting told HuffPost

I could certainly be wrong — these people are just that nuts — but I still have a sneaking suspicion that the Republicans don’t really want to shut down government over Planned Parenthood and that the Democrats know it. There are plenty of members, including John Boehner, who remember the shutdown of 1995 and know shutting down over social issues rather than budget issues will not accrue to their favor.

As I’ve written for the last couple of months, I expect that President Obama and the Democrats will “win” on that — as they agree to painful draconian cuts to the budget in every other way. If he doesn’t, I don’t think anyone can calculate the harm he will have done to his base and I would imagine even Independents who don’t care at all about these issues will think less of him for it. No, I still think this will be his victory in the negotiations. Even the crazy Republicans know it’s good to give him something — and both sides have always thrown their culture warriors to the curb when necessary.

I saw forced childbirth zealot Bachman on CNN yesterday saying that it was time to move on to defund Obamacare. I’m fairly sure she’s a good wingnut/Tea Party bellwether on this. (On the other hand, it’s fair to assume that she may not be in the loop, so who knows? )

Update: John Boehner says it isn’t about Planned Parenthood at all and that it’s really about spending. Again, I will truly be shocked if this doesn’t end up being a huge capitulation on spending in exchange for “saving” Planned Parenthood. If it isn’t, the GOP has signed its own 2012 death warrant.

Update II: Phil Klein at the Washington Examiner is on the same wavelength:

The gist of their remarks was this:

What this suggests to me is that the ultimate deal, as most veteran observers expected all along, will be that Democrats will agree to more spending cuts and that Republicans will agree to drop the Planned Parenthood provision. By making the statements they have today, when a deal is reached, Reid and President Obama could tell the frustrated liberal base that they fought to protect “women’s health” (their euphamism for Planned Parenthood). Meanwhile. Boehner will tout the spending cuts they were able to extract from Reid in the face of conservative criticism for caving on funding for the nation’s largest abortion provider.

There will probably be defections from the right and left when the final deal comes up for a vote, just like on last year’s tax deal, but ultimately, they’ll be able to cobble together enough votes to avert a shutdown.

Get ready to clap louder, folks.

PS: By the way, as Sarah Posner points out here, this isn’t really about abortion and it’s hard to believe the GOP will really shut down the government because they don’t want women to have pap smears:

Here’s a misleading headline from this morning’s New York Times: “As Latest Talks on Budget Fail, Democrats Cite Abortion Funds.” But it’s not about abortion funds, it’s about the rider that Republicans have attached to the budget preventing federal funds, including Medicaid funding for low-income women, from going to Planned Parenthood, which by law cannot be used for abortions anyway. The funding Republicans seek to cut is for family planning, cancer screenings, and sexually transmitted infection testing and treatment.

The article, in fact, is in conflict with the headline:

Democratic officials familiar with the negotiations said that proposed restrictions on money for Planned Parenthood remained the chief sticking point, and that attempts to resolve the disagreement through alternatives like allowing a separate floor vote on the issue had not been successful. Democrats said they were told by the Republicans that the votes of anti-abortion social conservatives would be needed to move any budget measure through the House.

Republicans said that no final agreement on money had been struck, and that both policy and spending issues were causing the impasse.

“The largest issue is still spending cuts,” Michael Steel, a spokesman for Mr. Boehner, said Friday morning.

By contrast, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, told reporters in an exchange broadcast on CNN Friday morning that “this all deals with women’s health” and that other issues had been resolved. “It has everything to do with ideology on that other side of the Capitol,” he said.

So Democrats didn’t cite abortion funds, did they? No, they cited Planned Parenthood funding, and women’s health, but not abortion funds. That’s because the federal government does not fund abortions. See the Hyde Amendment, which for 30 years has prevented federal funds from being used to pay for abortions.

Update II: Yeah,get out the hand moisturizer. You’re going to be doing some serious clapping soon:

Republicans have hit President Barack Obama for being out of touch, disengaged and unwilling to lead on the budget negotiations — and Democrats aren’t wild about his taste for last-minute heroics either.

Administration officials say that’s flat wrong and that Obama’s team has been quietly working with lawmakers for weeks. The president’s late entry into direct talks was a calculated strategy, they say, to avoid overexposing Democrats’ sole marquee star and to gain maximum leverage after House Republicans and Senate Democrats fell short of an agreement.

And to the doubters, they say it works.

Obama staged several eleventh-hour interventions on health care reform. He repeated the tactic with far greater success during last year’s tax-cut debate…

Success.

.

Just A Coincidence

By tristero

To suggest that this sting was deliberately set up by Republican goons to entrap a friend of the president is simply paranoid, preposterous, and over the top. We may have our differences with the Republican party, but let’s get real: They would never, ever, stoop so low as to suborn a police department in Honolulu and have them set up Obama’s pal.

True, Republican thugs employed by a Republican president were caught burglarizing a doctor’s office for dirt on his opponents. True, Republican thugs have recently posed as hookers and pimps to entrap gullible social workers – and, when they didn’t get the footage they wanted, Republican operatives were dishonest enough to edit the raw footage to be far more incriminating than it actually was. And yes, it’s true that a Republican governor was part of a group of Republicans who helped steal a presidential election for his brother.

But for Republicans to entrap a friend of the opposition president with a street hooker, thereby isolating the president from his intimates and increase the psychological pressure on him ? They would never, ever do that. Why, that would be…wrong.

***

Special note to the overly literal among the commentariat: Of course, I have absolutely no idea whether this was a Republican-backed operation designed to embarrass Obama at a particularly difficult time, or simply one of those random things that sometimes happens. I suspect no one, I suspect every one, as Clouseau sez.

My only point is this: If you think Republicans would never use such tactics in order to terrorize and discredit their opponents, then I can only admire you for your generous and forgiving and trusting nature. Otherwise, I’d have to laugh in your face for being such a stupid and naive fool.

As for the inevitable commentator who will surely infer from the above that, since I didn’t specifically say otherwise, I must believe prostitution is a victimless crime, that I think that the women and men who work as sex workers are always doing so of their own free will,, etc etc etc etc.. You are soooooooo right;! How could I possibly assume that everyone would know that street walking is not a career I aspire for my child? So, let me unequivocally state that I don’t care what anyone says to the contrary, I for one, am against, completely against, forceable prostitution.

Some other things that also aren’t obvious and need to be said: I believe that serial killers should be apprehended before they kill again. Also, we really must find a cure for cancer. Finally, and this one’s a real shocker: Qaddaffi is a tyrant.

If no one else has the courage to take a stand on these and many other issues and say what’s right, well then, I suppose I must.

Real Troopers

by digby

It’s awfully stirring to see the patriotic Republicans rending their garments again because the Democrats are refusing to support the troops (as usual.) But it’s important that people forget that they have quite a history of voting against the troops themselves. Remember this one?

The House today passed a $106 billion bill funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through September, as House Democrats backed President Obama despite misgivings among the ranks about his strategy in Afghanistan.

The 226 to 202 vote came after Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner had called some reluctant Democrats during the day imploring them to back the bill, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had strongly pressed her colleagues in a closed-door meeting to vote for the bill in a show of support for Obama, even if they oppose his strategy for increasing troops in Afghanistan. In the end, 221 Democrats voted for the bill, while 32 opposed it.

All but five Republicans opposed the bill.

And how about his one?

From Roll Call:

Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) accused Republicans of attempting to filibuster the Defense bill, which includes funding for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, in an effort to block work on the health care bill. […]

Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (Ariz.) and other Republicans, however, sought to place the blame for the funding delay on Democrats, accusing them of dragging their feet in bringing the bill to the floor and arguing they are prepared to pass the bill.

“I find it rather curious that our colleague … is accusing Republicans of filibustering this Defense appropriations bill. Republicans don’t control the Senate or the House. The House just passed this bill Wednesday. Now, it could have been passed in October or September,” Kyl said, adding that, “We always vote for the Defense appropriations bill.”

Moments later, Kyl refused an attempt to pass the defense bill immediately by unanimous consent. Hours later, he voted against bringing the Defense bill to a final vote.

In a perfect world, the Republicans voting with Kyl would be forced to explain why they sought to kill the bill providing troop funding in the middle of two wars.

Unfortunately, since the Democrats never made a point of it, they continue to get credit for being the stalwart defenders of the boys in blue no matter what and carry on as if they have never in history played politics with the military. The American people have no idea that they do it all the time because nobody ever turns their cheap flag waving back on them when they do it.

.

Talk to the end users

by digby

Hank Aaron, one of the original proposers of “premium support” back in the 90s weighs in on Paul Ryan’s phony adoption of the term and then explains why he’s subsequently come to believe that even his proposal will not work:

In brief, current proposals are not premium support as Reischauer and I used the term. In addition, I now believe that even with the protections we set forth, vouchers have serious shortcomings. Only systemic health care reform holds out real promise of slowing the growth of Medicare spending. Predicted savings from vouchers or premium support are speculative. Cost shifting to the elderly, disabled, and poor and to states is not. Medicare’s size confers power, so far largely untapped, that no private plan can match to promote the systemic change that can improve quality and reduce cost. The advantages of choice in health care relate less to choice of insurance plan than to choice of provider, which traditional Medicare now provides and which many private plans restrict as a management tool. Finally, the success of premium support depends on sustained and rigorous regulation of plan offerings and marketing that the current Congress shows no disposition to establish and maintain.

There was a lot of thinking along those lines back in the 90s when everybody was enthralled with the New Democrat ideas about using market forces for liberal ends. The power of money, the nature of modern conservative ideology, the fact that capitalism will always concentrate wealth if you don’t restrain monopoly power have shown in the intervening years that social welfare simply cannot rely on the markets.

Aaron points out that Medicare already has 24 “choices” for seniors to choose from and 75% of them choose traditional Medicare. There is no greater example of democratic endorsement than that. They like it, they want to keep it, and nobody knows how this stuff works better than the people who use it. That’s the starting point for any “reforms.”

.

New Life

by digby

It is way past time for a baby animal break. This one’s via Gristlist:

A fish hatchery in Decorah, Iowa is streaming a live feed of its bald eagle eggs. The first two hatched over the weekend, but number 3 is likely to go at any minute now (over the next couple of days, anyway). Keep an eye on the webcam for a rare chance to see an endangered bird get born.

Live Broadcasting by Ustream

As I post this the baby birds are sleeping underneath the mother. But earlier they were popping their heads out and looking around. They don’t start out looking like the regal birds they become, that’s for sure.

By the way, let’s make sure we let the Republicans shut down all programs like this, ok? Saving the bald eagle isn’t in the least bit patriotic — – in fact we should let Ted Nugent shoot these babies in the nest as part of his stage show. That’s what freedom’s all about.

.