Month: April 2011

Marching Orders

by digby

I don’t know why, but I giggled when I read these campaign talking points (via Greg Sargent):

Talking Points: Reelection Campaign · The President has launched his campaign to be reelected for a second term. · While the campaign gets off the ground, the President will be focused first and foremost on the important work the American people elected him to do. · Over the next year and a half, we will create a grassroots organization that’s more far-reaching, focused, and innovative than anything we’ve built before. · At its heart, that effort will be fueled by the energy and commitment of folks on the ground, community by community, neighborhood by neighborhood, house to house all around the country. · Real change never starts in Washington – and from its earliest days this movement didn’t start in Washington. It starts with folks all across America who believe that despite all the problems we face, we can steer our country toward a brighter place. The President’s supporters have been working tirelessly over the past two years to promote his agenda in their communities. Without the commitment of the American people, without the work of grassroots organizers, volunteers and community leaders of all walks of life we would not have: o Taken the economy back from the brink of a depression and gotten the economy growing again, now creating more than 1.8 million private sector jobs. o Passed historic reform to expand health care and lower its costs, preventing insurance companies from discriminating against people with preexisting conditions. o Held financial companies accountable and put reforms in place to prevent another taxpayer bailout. o Cut taxes for the middle class and small businesses—the drivers of job creation. o Torn down the walls of discrimination to allow gay Americans to serve their country openly. o Ended combat in Iraq, bringing home 100,000 American troops. · We’ve come a long way, but we have more urgent business to do for America — and we have more to do to change the way that business gets done in Washington. We believe we should live in an America where: o Everyone who wants a job can find one. o Anyone with a good idea can turn it into a thriving business. o Our education system delivers results, and prepares all of our children to win the future. o We are out-innovating the rest of the world, and creating the jobs and industries of the future, including in clean energy. o Our government lives within its means so we can make investments in our future. · America is moving forward. We simply can’t afford to go back. · Winning the future is not a spectator sport. It’s something we have to fight for. We can’t protect the progress we’ve made — or make any more — if we fail to mobilize. That’s why we’re getting started now. · As the President continues to do the important work of the American people, we need to start building our grassroots movement right away so that we are ready for 2012.

Obviously, I’m not the person for whom this is designed to appeal. But even so, it just seems so incongruous with the real political environment.

But this is what made me giggle: “as the President needs to do the important work of the American people we need to start building our grassroots movement right away so that we are ready for 2012.”

Who’s “we”? And are grassroots movement usually built when someone sends a signal from Washington DC that “it’s time?”

I don’t mean to be harsh. This is fairly typical campaign boilerplate and the “grassroots” stuff is natural since Obama had such a successful grassroots following in 2008. But there’s something a little off about it.

.

Killing For Jesus

by digby

Nothing extreme here, nothing at all:

Religious Right activists have frequently found themselves at odds with the prominent health organization the American Cancer Society, attacking the group over its support for stem-cell research, the approval of an HPV vaccine, and for an anti-smoking program by an Iowa Planned Parenthood clinic. Josh Braham, the director of Right to Life Central California and the host of Life Report, has taken this antipathy to a new level, calling for a boycott of American Cancer Society activities because of the group’s support for stem cell research. Writing for the anti-choice website LifeNews, Brahm calls for a boycott of the Relay for Life and claims that supporting the group is no different than aiding Nazi scientists.

There is no greater example of the “Right To Life” moral bankruptcy than their stem cell fetish. They would rather see living, brething, sentient human beings die than kill a few cells in a petrie dish. You tell me who’s the Nazi?

.

Suicidal Tendencies

by digby

If it is true that Paul Ryan’s plan includes privatizing Medicare in ten years, then I think he’s just lost the House in 2012 and they might as well run the Trump-Bachman ticket just for the entertainment value. They are dead if they do this, particularly with this big splash — and a week after they declared war on AARP.

I’m not sure who these people think are supposed to vote for them, but the young, wealthy racist vote just isn’t going to get the job done.

I have little doubt that the Democrats are stupid enough to mess with Social Security in the years after 2030. That’s a long way off and will only affect people who don’t realize how badly they are going to need it. But they would be suicidal to even talk about Medicare after what the Republicans just did to them in 2010 with it. Remember this?

Honestly, if the Dems even allow Medicare to be brought up in 2012 after that they deserve to lose.

I am most surprised that they are going with a voucher system and having it kick in in 10 years. Maybe they think all the current seniors will be dead by then, but that’s taking a big chance. (And, in any case, most of them don’t want to be.) You see, the only way this allegedly “saves money” is if the seniors are “smarter shoppers” for their own health care. The idea that sick old people should be forced to “shop around” for their insurance and navigate the intricacies of the insurance system is just appalling — and insane.

And I can guarantee that the entire baby boom is going to defect from the GOP in massive numbers if they try this. Huge numbers of us are having to count the days until we are old enough to get Medicare because our coverage is so damned expensive. (And Health Care Reform isn’t going to help those of us 50 somethings who are middle class all that much.) I have to assume they think they can get Obama to sign on to some sort of compromise on this out of fear of being seen as fiscally irresponsible — it’s not the sort of thing you’d risk doing as a feint. But they misunderstand him, I think. He will compromise on anything but health care. And if the Democrats even have a pulse, once this is out there, every Republican is going to own it.

Paul Ryan is a Randian extremist. But I didn’t think he was stupid. Apparently he is.

Update: And having Alice Rivlin with him means nothing. Nobody knows or cares who Alice Rivlin is outside elite Village circles.

Update II: I may have misunderstood the 10 year kick-in. I thought they were going to do a total transition, but I’m hearing on CNN that it’s no biggie, no problem, that all of today’s seniors will be taken care of, only the people under 55 will have to die younger. Until it’s officially unveiled we probably won’t know.

Also Josh Marshall lays it out here: this is not “reform”, it is the eradication of Medicare, nothing less. Old people have a very serious health issue (impending death) and throwing them into an insurance pool destroys the pool and virtually insures that anyone without big bucks in the bank will not be able to afford decent care. You can’t put old, sick, dying people into “the market.” The market will “rationally” kill them.

.

“I happen to have Paul Krugman right here”

by digby

Watch GOP flack Torie Clark fatuously parroting the most fetid, decaying conventional wisdom (“neither of the two Senators tried to score political points … they were very responsible”) and then drag out the crusty old “uncertainty” trope to explain why companies aren’t investing in an economy where nobody has any money to spend.

And then watch the Nobel winning economist rip her silly argument to shreds:

I think George Will may have had a small stroke there.

h/t to bb

“It’s not fair to condemn a whole program just because of a single slip-up”

by digby

Following up on tristero’s post below:

Transocean Ltd. gave its top executives bonuses for achieving the “best year in safety performance in our company’s history” – despite the explosion of its oil rig that killed 11 people and spilled 200 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

No biggie. And anyway, where are you going to find good people if you don’t pay them?

Safety accounts for a quarter of the executives’ total cash bonuses. The total bonus for CEO Steve Newman last year was $374,062. According to calculations by The Associated Press, the total value the company assigned to Newman’s compensation package was $5.8 million. That figure includes an $850,000 base salary – a 34 percent increase from the prior year; perquisites of $622,057, which includes housing and vacation allowances, among other things; and the $374,062 bonus. Also included in the figure are stock options valued at $1.9 million and deferred shares valued at $2 million when those awards were granted in March 2010.

I’m sure he deserved every penny. And heck, if you had held him responsible what kind of “signal” would it send to other executives who are trying to maximize shareholder value — the first and only American value that really counts? I don’t think we want to live in a world where CEOs are afraid of what might happen if they fail to do their jobs or their risks don’t pay off do you?

.

Official Not Is It. Bizzaro World In Live Not Do We

tristero by not

#2:

Transocean Ltd. gave its top executives bonuses for achieving the “best year in safety performance in our company’s history” – despite the explosion of its oil rig that killed 11 people and spilled 200 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

#1:

BP is seeking permission to continue drilling at 10 existing deepwater production and development wells in the [Gulf] region in July in exchange for adhering to stricter safety and supervisory rules, said one of the officials. An agreement covering existing wells could be reached within the next month…

!GMO

Attack on the Medicaid Expansion

by digby

I’m in a bad mood today, so I’m probably going to keep saying “I told you so” as I read article after article about Paul Ryan’s assault on the so-called entitlements. The shock and dismay at his attack on the Medicaid expansion in the Health Care bill among HCA cheerleaders is especially galling considering all the pooh poohing those of us who predicted it had to endure during the legislative battle. I was told repeatedly that it simply couldn’t happen, there was no reason to be so cynical and that once it was passed there was no way it could ever be repealed. And since the Medicaid expansion was the main piece of the HCA that liberals couldn’t walk away from in good conscience, it was used as blackmail to keep them from defecting when the rest of the bill became a rickety, market oriented construct that would only cover a fraction of the uninsured without it.

So here we are:

House Republicans are planning to cut roughly $1 trillion over 10 years from Medicaid, the government health insurance program for the poor and disabled, as part of their fiscal 2012 budget, which they will unveil early next month, according to several GOP sources…

The entitlement cuts represent a major battleground for the parties from now through the 2012 election: Democrats are already accusing Republicans of slashing benefits for the neediest Americans, but Republicans say Medicaid needs to be reformed to give states more flexibility in how they use federal dollars — and to rein in costs for both the federal government and state legislatures, which are swimming in red ink because of health care expenditures. To bolster their cause, GOP leaders point to years of requests from governors to reform Medicaid so their states aren’t on the hook for so much money in the federal-state partnership. Because the new health care law includes a major expansion of the program, there’s a double bonus for GOP leaders slashing it: It’s a bigger pot than it used to be, and it’s a major component of what Republicans derisively call “Obamacare.”

I am actually quite skeptical that Obama will allow this one to happen unless the Republicans come up with a mechanism that is so obscure that they can’t brag about sticking it to the poor, which would defeat their purpose. I believe that Obama will be protective of his legacy on Health Care and will not let them do anything obviously draconian to it. Indeed, that’s why I’ve been more frantic about Social Security. It’s the one place they can all agree to cut and use as an example of their fiscal rectitude without having any immediate repercussions for actual people (and which Obama can use to offset the “socialist” label.) There’s a huge political risk, of course. But if they jump off the cliff together the Democrats foolishly believe it will be lessened considerably for them.

The question, of course, is why would the Republicans want to give Obama any cover? I don’t think they do, so this cat and mouse game around Social Security continues. The danger comes from the Democrats doing it themselves with only minimal GOP support. Keep in mind, the fact that they are allegedly coming after Medicare after the campaign they just ran in 2010 is a testament to the truism that consistency among their tribe is irrelevant. They are masters of epistemological relativism (also known as “I know you are but what am I” politics.)

Ryan coming out with his screw-the-old-and-sick blueprint from the far right could tempt the White House into making the first move on SS out of a reflexive protection of the health care plan. It could also divert a whole lot of liberal resources to fighting yet another battle they shouldn’t have to fight — this one can be taken care of immediately with a strong, unambiguous veto threat from the president. If we don’t get one, I would take it as a possible signal that the White House is happy to have everyone running in several different directions.

But none of this means the Republicans aren’t going to keep trying to defund Medicaid as long as it takes to get the job done. And keep in mind they are perfectly happy to whittle away at it, year over year until it has become nothing more than a bleached out carcass of what it used to be. They are very good at playing the long game and it’s useful to them to have “welfare” programs out there to attack. It’s what keeps the haters revved up.

Update: I guess I should at least entertain the idea that Obama is open to repealing or substantially privatizing the Medicaid portion of the HCA. It’s hard for me to believe that he’d jeopardize his own legacy by hugely reducing the number of people covered, but there are ways to pretend that isn’t happening. And the changes won’t take place until 2014. It’s possible, but I still think it’s doubtful. He paid a big price for that legislation and it is the one thing I think he will protect.

.

Who’s Your Daddy?

by digby

Throughout our ongoing discussions of why the President is so deferential to the Big Money Boyz despite the obvious electoral potential (not to mention policy success) of a more populist approach, I’ve been pointing out that the billion dollar campaign plus Citizens United pretty much explains it. I’m not even sure why we’re pretending anymore:

Facing an energized Republican Party and deep-pocketed conservative groups, President Obama is kicking off his 2012 reelection campaign with a concerted push for help from wealthy donors and liberal groups unbound by spending limits.

The strategy — which could begin in earnest as early as Monday with the formation of an official presidential committee — suggests a notable shift in emphasis for a president who has long decried the outsize role of money in politics.

Obama frequently points with pride to the role that smaller donors played in his 2008 election, when his campaign also openly discouraged spending by outside organizations. But now Obama finds himself seeking out the kind of big-money donations he has often criticized while encouraging independent groups to raise and spend unlimited money on his behalf.

Obama’s campaign manager-in-waiting, Jim Messina, has asked the party’s biggest supporters to raise $350,000 each this year, to be shared by Obama’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee, far higher than goals set during the 2008 cycle.

The effort could yield $140 million or more by the start of 2012, a pace likely to provide a major advantage to Obama and his party over potential GOP rivals. By comparison, Republican challenger Mitt Romney has set a minimum goal of $50 million for the primaries, though GOP strategists expect him to raise more.

Yes, one of the two parties will win and one will be even more subservient to business than the other. But both parties are completely under the thumbs of the wealthy, they know it, and most of them don’t have a problem with it. Indeed, I would guess some could even see themselves as Tea Partiers, following founder John Jay’s vision:

Those who own the country ought to govern it.

The influence of money in our system has always been outsized. But in this era of hugely expensive campaigns and now Citizens United, it’s dominating on a scale we haven’t seen before. And you can’t exactly blame politicians for assuming that they can keep the rabble sending in their tiny contributions as well, by providing some bread and circuses. It’s worked so far. And they are far easier to disappoint than the amoral Big Money Boys. Where are they going to go?

.

What the Hell?

by tristero

Frank Rich left the NY Times Sunday op-ed pages a few weeks ago. He was one of the rare voices in the mainstream media raised consistently, and early, against the bizarre behavior of the Republican party and their loopy ideas. He had his faults as a pundit – and Somerby can tell you all about them if you search The Howler – but even so, his columns were on my must-read list for Sunday morning. Since he wrote once a week rather than twice weekly, like the other columnists, Rich’s column was twice the length. When he was on a roll, it was comforting to read a lengthy column by someone who saw things so clearly, and with such intellighent outrage.

With Rich now gone, the Times has filled that double column on their highly influential Sunday op-ed page with even better trenchant, hard-hitting, and substantive analyses of the political state of the nation.

I’m kidding, of course. Here’s what the Times ran this Sunday in Rich’s place: a paean to baby strollers in New York City.

Jeebus.

Saturday Night At The Movies

Lawyers, sons and money

By Dennis Hartley

Eat your heart out, John Irving: Win Win

Back in my wintry Alaskan radio days (way back in the 20th Century) there was a corny old one-liner that I wasn’t too proud to recycle once or twice as a weather forecast zinger:

“In fact…it is SO cold, that as I drove past the courthouse this morning on my way to work…I spotted a lawyer who actually had his hands in his own pockets.” (SFX rim shot)

I don’t want to insinuate that a “lawyer” is, by pure definition, an opportunistic, self-serving type of individual; I mean, what profession doesn’t have its “bad apples”? There are a lot of straight-shooting idealists out there practicing law. But I think we can all agree that that there are very few attorneys on the face of this earth who have never met a loophole or “gray area” they couldn’t eyeball from outer space-with their glasses cracked.

You get a vibe that attorney Mike Flaherty (Paul Giamatti), the lumpy middle-aged protagonist of writer-director Thomas McCarthy’s new film Win Win, likely began his law career as one of those straight-shooting idealists. He’s an amiable fellow and a solid family man who devotes a good portion of his free time coaching the local high school wrestling team. There’s a noticeable deficit of statuettes in the trophy case, but Mike and his assistant coach (Jeffrey Tambor) make an effort to keep up the positive reinforcement.

It’s too bad that Mike can’t turn some of that positive reinforcement back onto himself. While out for a morning jog with his best friend Terry (Bobby Cannavale), he suffers a full-blown anxiety attack. Once the paramedics leave, Mike sheepishly opens up to his concerned pal (also an attorney) about the financial worries that have been keeping him up nights. Mike also confesses that he’s envious that Terry has amassed a relative fortune through his own (and more successful) law practice. Terry does his best to empathize, but as he is still reeling from a recent divorce, he’s been a tad anxious and depressed himself.

When one of his clients, an elderly man named Leo (Burt Young) is declared legally incapacitated, Mike comes up with a brainstorm for turning this “loss” into a “win win” situation. In order to pull it off, however, Mike will have to dive headfirst into one of those “gray areas” that I referenced earlier. After a half-hearted wrestling match of the figurative kind (with his conscience), Mike offers himself to the court as Leo’s legal guardian. That way, Leo can continue to live in his own house, and Mike will check in on him. The judge raises an eyebrow, but as Mike seems earnest, grants him guardianship. So how does the “wrestling with his conscience” part figure in, you might ask? Well, Mike is fudging just a wee bit with the court…and his wife (Amy Ryan). He actually intends to put Leo in an elder care center (a nice one, of course), so he won’t really be fussing with taking care of him, per se. Oh-and he’ll sort of “pocket” the monthly $1500 stipend Leo’s estate pays him for being a guardian. But, as long as Leo is content, and Mike is making some extra money to help support his own family, everybody wins-right?

Mike’s scheme runs like clockwork-until a potential spanner in the works named Kyle (Alex Shaffer) rolls into town. He’s Leo’s teenaged grandson, who, despite his taciturn and enigmatic nature (quick to deflect any questions about his parental situation) ingratiates himself with Mike’s family-especially after he turns out to be a gifted wrestler. Mike can’t believe this streak of luck. But you know what they say-no good deed goes unpunished. Enter Kyle’s estranged mom (Melanie Lynskey), just out of drug rehab, armed with an attorney and looking for a steady income (like the $1500 a month she could get if the court appointed her as Dad’s legal guardian). Mike’s streak could be over.

In the hands of a lesser team (McCarthy co-wrote with Joe Tiboni), this is the kind of narrative that could easily descend into the pathos of a turgid family soap; or even worse, the bathos of the dreaded Hollywood “dramedy”. But luckily for us, this is Thomas McCarthy, the actor turned director who also helmed the outstanding films The Station Agent and The Visitor. And, as he did in those two previous efforts, McCarthy has once again delivered characters who are as “real” as you and me; and no more or no less “human” than they need to be in order to make us truly care about what happens to them. A true “actor’s director”, McCarthy also coaxes pitch-perfect performances from the entire cast. It’s refreshing to see Giamatti underplay things for a change; he’s a fine actor, but has been known to ham it up now and then. He really reins it in here, and it’s an outstanding turn, especially in all of his scenes with young newcomer Shaffer (who admirably holds his own with the more seasoned players). The development of their relationship is central to the story, and neither of them hits a false note, ever. Ryan is a wonder to behold as always; I think she remains a sorely underutilized talent and needs to be offered some juicy leading roles immediately, if not sooner. Touching (but never maudlin), funny (without trying too hard) and genuinely heartwarming, this is a must-see.

Previous posts with related themes:

The Visitor
The Savages
The Wrestler
Solitary Man

.