Month: July 2011

News mob

Published by digby on July 7, 2011

News Mob

by digby

You’ve probably heard by now that in the face of the growing scandal, Murdoch abruptly pulled the plug on his London tabloid, News of the World. But the troubles don’t end there:

Today, The Independent reported that hacking allegations have engulfed a second publication of Rupert Murdoch’s — The Sun — his “best-selling” daily paper in the U.K. Previously, the scandal was confined to Murdoch’s News of the World tabloid. From The Independent:

Detectives are looking into allegations that a second newspaper at Rupert Murdoch’s News International may have used hacked voicemails to publish stories about the private life of a prominent public figure.Andy Gilchrist, a former union leader, has asked Scotland Yard to investigate his belief that interception of his mobile phone messages led to negative stories about him appearing in The Sun at the height of an acrimonious national strike by the Fire Brigades Union (FBU).He is the first public figure to suggest that the illegal technique was carried out for stories that ran in News International’s best-selling daily title, rather than its Sunday red-top, the News of the World (NOTW).One of the stories, headlined “Fire strike leader is a love cheat”, appeared in The Sun during the first week of its editorship by Rebekah Brooks following her transfer from the NOTW.As News International’s chief executive, Ms Brooks, née Wade, is leading the company’s defence against claims that phone hacking was rife at its headquarters in Wapping, east London.

At what point do we recognize that Murdoch’s news empire is a criminal conspiracy? And when do we consider whether or not it’s an international criminal conspiracy?

The lesson of 2000

Published by digby on July 7, 2011

The lesson of 2000

by digby

Jamelle Bouie in The Nation offers a bleak analysis of the liberals’ leverage in a world where nobody cares what they think:

[T]his proposal is further evidence that the debt ceiling negotiations were an intentional decision on Obama’s part. The president genuinely believes in deficit reduction, and chose to use the debt ceiling as an opportunity to cut spending with significant bipartisan cover. Obama hasn’t been fooled into these negotiations, nor is he playing rope-a-dope or a complex game of 11-dimensional chess. This is what he wants.

What does this mean for liberals? Well, they can complain and attack Obama — they’ve already begun — but criticism from the left has yet to budge the president, and it’s doubtful that this time will be any different. Demonstrations sound great, but they don’t actually carry a high chance for success; if your only option for changing the political calculations of a president is protest, then you’re probably too late to the game. Likewise, a primary campaign against Obama sounds like it might work, but outside of activist circles, there is little appetite for a challenge. The Democratic establishment is satisfied with President Obama, and will work to ensure his reelection.

Indeed, given the importance of presidential elections, Obama will be able to count on organization and support from every member of the Democratic coalition. Moreover, if a deal comes through, it will probably help him with independents, who support modest reductions in entitlement spending.

Simply put, liberals don’t have much leverage over the Obama administration, which, unfortunately, makes our concerns — and our anger — a second-order consideration at best.

I think this is right. However, if history is any guide, taking the base for granted doesn’t always work out the way you think it will. 1968 and 1980 featured primary opponents that chased one president out of the race and mortally wounded another. I don’t see that happening this time because there just isn’t anyone in the Democratic party who will run against the first African American president. And you can’t blame them. That designation has created a terrible backlash from the right and thus it offers protection by the party. It’s understandable.

But 2000 offers the more likely possibility, although I don’t see any evidence yet that it’s going to happen. The Clinton/Gore administration took the left for granted and it ended up with a minor third party bid from Ralph Nader. And that ended up being tremendously significant to the outcome.

There may not be a third party bid and the election may not be close enough for it to make a difference. But if one emerges, as it did in 1992, 1996 and 2000, ignoring the liberals could end up being very relevant. I don’t think I need to make the case that if another Florida situation were to arise, the Republicans — including the Supreme Court — would play hardball to ensure that every lever of power was used in their favor. And think about the political machines that run swing states right now: Rick Scott in Florida, John Kasich in Ohio, Scott Walker in Wisconsin …

If there was one lesson I thought every Democrat in the country learned in 2000 it was that every vote counts.

Supermarket Scanner strategy

Published by digby on July 7, 2011

Supermarket Scanner Strategy

by digby

Ok, this is scary:

Plouffe, who ran Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, previewed the arguments the president and his team will sound 16 months before an election that could be a referendum on Obama’s handling of the economy. While history has shown the unemployment rate to be a leading indicator of an incumbent’s success, Plouffe said Americans won’t base their votes on it.

“The average American does not view the economy through the prism of GDP or unemployment rates or even monthly jobs numbers,” Plouffe said. “People won’t vote based on the unemployment rate, they’re going to vote based on: ‘How do I feel about my own situation? Do I believe the president makes decisions based on me and my family?’”

Since World War II, no U.S. president has won re-election with a jobless rate above 6 percent, with the exception of Ronald Reagan, who faced 7.2 percent unemployment on Election Day in 1984. The median forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg puts the unemployment rate at 8.2 percent in the third quarter of next year.

“Their decision next year will be based upon two things,” Plouffe said. “How do I feel about things right now and then, ultimately, campaigns are always much more about the future and who do I think has got the best idea, the best vision for where to take the country?”

He needs to get out more. The feeling of angst and fear across the land is directly tied to the fact that unemployemnt is high. People know it and except for the political class, heriesses, CEOs and Wall Street traders, even if they are currently employed they are personally experiencing it in their inability to get a raise, change jobs, move up, sell their houses,start a business or get a loan. People are stuck,unable to make a change, seeing the future they had planned just fade away as they adjust to a flat economy with no dynamism and no end in sight. Happy talk isn’t going to do it.

I can understand Plouffe wanting to downplay this issue in this forum because it’s not going to work in their favor. But someone else might have done it by saying that the president is very aware of the people’s angst and believe that they understand he’s doing everything he can to fix it — that Republicans are hostile to job creation policies and stymie any attempt to pass them. Pretending that it doesn’t matter at all is very telling.

I think that’s just bizarrely out of touch. George-Bush-Sr-with-the-supermarket-scanner out of touch.

The Perpetual Democrats’ Dilemma

Published by digby on July 7, 2011

The Perpetual Democrats’ Dilemma

by digby

Greg Sargent reports that the House progressives are getting very nervous:

Dem Rep. Peter Welch is urging fellow liberals to vote No on the debt ceiling compromise if it’s a bad deal, on the idea that it’s the only way House Dems can break a dynamic which continues to leave them with little influence.

Ultimately, though, the question of whether House Dems can exert any leverage over the talks lies with Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer. As E.J. Dionne notes today, if a sizable bloc of liberals can be counted on to vote No, that could actually strengthen the position of Pelosi and Hoyer, since GOP leaders will be relying on them and a sizable number of middle-of-the-road House Dems to vote Yes.

Pelosi, of course, has been urging Dems not cave on cuts to Medicare benefits. If history is any guide, of course, many House Dems will ultimately support the eventual deal once the President asks them to for the good of the party, his presidency, and the country. But if Pelosi holds firm — and persuades Obama and John Boehner that enough House Dems agree with her to make passage difficult — it’s not inconceivable that she can help bring about a deal that isn’t quite as terrible as the one we’re all expecting.

I hope nobody’s counting on Hoyer because he’s been agitating for “entitlement” cuts forever.

The problem, as usual, is that progressives really want to raise the debt ceiling while the conservatives really would like to see the economy crash and burn. (If it weren’t for their corporate masters, they’d do it too.) Sooo, we get to the deadline and the progressives who come out making all kinds of “pledges” to hold fast are faced with being accused as the instrument of Armageddon. (You’ll note that the teabaggers who refuse to vote for the package will not be similarly tarred.)

I’m fairly sure John Boehner and Barack Obama understood this dynamic before they even began their “talks.” After all, it’s been happening over and over again since January of 2009. And it’s also one of the best reasons to drag this out until the very last minute — it gives the Democrats no time to maneuver before the end of the world.

It’s possible that the Democrats will hang tough this time. After all, the country is entirely on their side on the ‘entitlement’ issue. But the consequences of failing to raise the debt limit are serious and neither side wants to be blamed for it.

Well, there are some lunatics out there …

Also too: With the treasury mulling whether to use the 14th amendment option in case no deal is concluded, progressives face impeachment as part of the GOP threat. No kidding.

Update: So begins the semantic spin from the White house:

There is no news here – the President has always said that while social security is not a major driver of the deficit, we do need to strengthen the program and the President said in the State of the Union Address that he wanted to work with both parties to do so in a balanced way that preserves the promise of the program and doesn’t slash benefits

“Strengthening” is in the eye of the beholder, of course. If it’s the “chained-CPI” change we’ve been hearing about for a while now, it certainly will result in a benefit cut. The oldest people will bear the brunt of it — mostly older women, and who cares about them? However, by injecting Social Security into the phony debt ceiling “crisis” despite the fact that it has no bearing on the deficit, they are ensuring that there will be no time for deliberation or discussion of what these “strengthening” policies really are. It’s a classic Shock Doctrine tactic.

Obama goes to China: The Grand Bargain Arrives

Published by digby on July 7, 2011

The Grand Bargain Arrives

by digby

Looks like Obama’s going to China:

President Obama is pressing congressional leaders to consider a far-reaching debt-reduction plan that would force Democrats to accept major changes to Social Security and Medicare in exchange for Republican support for fresh tax revenue.

At a meeting with top House and Senate leaders set for Thursday morning, Obama plans to argue that a rare consensus has emerged about the size and scope of the nation’s budget problems and that policymakers should seize the moment to take dramatic action.

As part of his pitch, Obama is proposing significant reductions in Medicare spending and for the first time is offering to tackle the rising cost of Social Security, according to people in both parties with knowledge of the proposal. The move marks a major shift for the White House and could present a direct challenge to Democratic lawmakers who have vowed to protect health and retirement benefits from the assault on government spending.

“Obviously, there will be some Democrats who don’t believe we need to do entitlement reform. But there seems to be some hunger to do something of some significance,” said a Democratic official familiar with the administration’s thinking. “These moments come along at most once a decade. And it would be a real mistake if we let it pass us by.”

Rather than roughly $2 trillion in savings, the White House is now seeking a plan that would slash more than $4 trillion from annual budget deficits over the next decade, stabilize borrowing, and defuse the biggest budgetary time bombs that are set to explode as the cost of health care rises and the nation’s population ages.

That would represent a major legislative achievement, but it would also put Obama and GOP leaders at odds with major factions of their own parties. While Democrats would be asked to cut social-safety-net programs, Republicans would be asked to raise taxes, perhaps by letting tax breaks for the nation’s wealthiest households expire on schedule at the end of next year.

The administration argues that lawmakers would also get an important victory to sell to voters in 2012. “The fiscal good has to outweigh the pain,” said a Democratic official familiar with the discussions.

It is not clear whether that argument can prevail on Capitol Hill. Thursday’s meeting at the White House — an attempt by Obama to break the impasse that halted debt-reduction talks two weeks ago — will provide a critical opportunity for leaders in both parties to say how far they’re willing to go to restrain government borrowing as the clock ticks toward an Aug. 2 deadline for raising the debt limit.

Privately, some congressional Democrats were alarmed by the president’s proposal, which could include adjusting the measure of inflation used to determine Social Security payouts. But others described it as primarily a bargaining strategy intended to demonstrate Obama’s willingness to compromise and highlight the Republican refusal to raise taxes.

Obama has already spoken to House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) about the possibility of building support for a more ambitious debt-reduction plan, according to people with knowledge of those talks, who, like others quoted in this article, spoke on the condition of anonymity to shed light on private negotiations. The two discussed various options for overhauling the tax code and cutting entitlement spending, but they reached no agreement.

Keep one thing in mind as you mull all this over. Paul Ryan didn’t put Social security on the table. And even the Catfood Commission didn’t portray their SS recommendations as contributing to closing the deficit. And that’s because SS has nothing to do with the deficit — the trust fund is secure for more than 30 years. Sweetening the pot with Social Security in these alleged “deficit” talks is purely gratuitous.

If I had any faith at all that they were going to get some serious tax hikes in return I’d think this was just a feint to make the GOP look intransigent. But apparently they have been finishing up the kabuki script together:

The president’s renewed efforts follow what knowledgeable officials said was an overture from Mr. Boehner, who met secretly with Mr. Obama last weekend, to consider as much as $1 trillion in unspecified new revenues as part of an overhaul of tax laws in exchange for an agreement that made substantial spending cuts, including in such social programs as Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security — programs that had been off the table.

The intensifying negotiations between the president and the speaker have Congressional Democrats growing anxious, worried they will be asked to accept a deal that is too heavily tilted toward Republican efforts and produces too little new revenue relative to the magnitude of the cuts.

Well, yeah. Especially since the last thing the economy needs at all is spending cuts and tax hikes at the moment.

Keep in mind that “overhaul of tax laws” — a very complicated undertaking which everyone had previously agreed was too difficult to within the time constraint of the debt ceiling talks — does not necessarily result in increased revenue. Indeed, Eric Cantor was saying yesterday that it musn’t result in increased revenue. But I’m sure that clever politicians could make it look as though it will.

And in any case, considering what we’ve been hearing from the Republicans for the past two weeks, we have to assume that the only possible deal is to give away the fundamental New Deal compact in exchange for closing the tax loophole on corporate jets and maybe some accounting gimmicks. John Kyl suggested yesterday that he might go along with selling off federal assets to raise some money. (I hear the grand canyon brings in some serious change…) Somehow I have a feeling that Boehner’s going to be able to find enough GOP votes to put that sort of Grand Bargain over the top. (The Democrats, of course, will be forced to vote for it or risk having Gloria Borger blame them for crashing the world economy because they are being childish.) It’s all very “Big” indeed.

Still, the only real change from what we knew yesterday is that the president himself is blessing the Social Security element that was already on the table and has decided to spin this deal as his Grand Bargain. Other than a few details, this looks the same as it has for quite some time.

The president wants to go to the country in 2012 as the man who wrapped up all of our supposed long term problems in one Big Deal. (No word yet on the acute short term problems — maybe he’ll have time for that in the second term.) He said he was going to do this even before he was inaugurated and nothing, not lunatic Republicans or an epic economic crisis, has deterred him from his goal.

Here’s what I wrote at the time:

Thursday, January 15, 2009

Obama Goes To China

by digby

EJ Dionne was at the meeting of less conservative writers yesterday (less conservative by contrast to the George Will dinner the night before, anyway) and he came away with a little character study that is quite interesting. First, he discusses the fact that Barack is non-ideological, which I think is quite clear. But he says it in an interesting way that’s worth examining:

There are at least three keys to understanding Obama’s approach to (and avoidance of) ideology. There is, first, his simple joy in testing himself against those who disagree with him. Someone who knows the president-elect well says that he likes talking with philosophical adversaries more than with allies.

This part of him was once the detached writer and professor who could view even his own life from a distance and with a degree of abstraction. Seen with perspective, after all, the ideological differences in the United States are rather small. We have no major socialist party, and when it comes down to it, even conservatives are reluctant to dismantle our limited social insurance and welfare programs.

But Obama’s anti-ideological turn is also a functional one for a progressive, at least for now. Since Ronald Reagan, ideology has been the terrain of the right. Many of the programs that conservatives have pushed have been based more on faith in their worldview than on empirical tests. How else could conservatives claim that cutting taxes would actually increase government revenue, or that trickle-down economic approaches were working when the evidence of middle-class incomes said otherwise?

I would guess that it will remain the terrain of the right because there is no ideology on the left, at least among politicians. At this point I’m not sure there is such a thing as liberal ideology at all.

The fact that Dionne says this is temporary puzzles me. How exactly does one change the fact that Republican ideology is the default position in American politics unless it’s challenged? Is it not just as likely that in the event that Obama is successful, the public will believe that conservatism is “what works” since nobody tells them differently? And will they not be inclined to vote for someone who offers a more pure version of what they believe is “what works” once their memories of the loathed Bush fade away?

I suppose this all depends upon whether or not you think that politics is a matter of smart people getting together and agreeing on how the world should be run or whether you think it’s a system designed to organize society and government by testing and challenging varying ideologies and worldviews against competing interests and values. The first is a very nice, clean way of doing things and the second is somewhat messy and difficult. But the truth is that I’ve never seen the first kind of politics work. (Indeed, Obama would be wise to put down his Lincoln histories for a few minutes and pick up a copy of The Best and the Brightest.)

Even the most pragmatic of presidents, Franklin Roosevelt, had no illusions about the forces arrayed against his programs (and against him personally) and he wasn’t afraid to lay it out for the American people:

For twelve years this Nation was afflicted with hear-nothing, see-nothing, do-nothing Government. The Nation looked to Government but the Government looked away. Nine mocking years with the golden calf and three long years of the scourge! Nine crazy years at the ticker and three long years in the breadlines! Nine mad years of mirage and three long years of despair! Powerful influences strive today to restore that kind of government with its doctrine that that Government is best which is most indifferent.

For nearly four years you have had an Administration which instead of twirling its thumbs has rolled up its sleeves. We will keep our sleeves rolled up.

We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace–business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me–and I welcome their hatred.

I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master.

Under pressure from the right, he pulled back a lot of New Deal programs the next year and it caused unemployment go back up, so rhetoric isn’t everything. But he had no illusions about how political power is won and used for the greater good and he didn’t give the Republicans tools to gain political power by pretending they were anything but the opponents they were. His lasting legacy, however pragmatically it was envisioned and implemented, was that people trusted the Democrats for generations and the New Deal programs were woven into the fabric of America. Liberalism, not conservatism, was the default ideology because Roosevelt made his arguments in stark and clear ideological terms.

It has been my experience, and reading of history generally, that politics is rarely a gentlemanly debate about the public good but is rather a struggle between competing interests. And ideology is usually what binds these interests together through common values and worldviews. In our system those interests have historically formed coalitions within the two political parties which fight it out before the public. I’m sorry that’s unpleasant, but it’s usually the best humans can do short of killing each other.

But perhaps change is upon us and for the first time in history we will have a functional one party government of earnest like-minded public servants dedicated to the betterment of the people. (We have had a functional one party government of like-minded public servants dedicated to the continuation of the ruling class and the status quo many times, so that much is certainly possible.) But everybody calmly sitting down together and agreeing on “what works” would be a first.

Unfortunately, it would appear that Obama is going to go to China — or rather, he’s going to “reform entitlements,” which is the Democratic equivalent. Dionne reports that they’ve adopted Stephanopoulos’ characterization of a Grand Bargain (which just shows that the beltway echo chamber is in full effect.) Obama told the Washington Post today that he’s doing this in order to prove to somebody (who I’m not sure) that he is “serious.”

Obama To Hold Fiscal Responsibility Summit

President-elect Barack Obama will convene a “fiscal responsibility summit” in February designed to bring together a variety of voices on solving the long term problems with the economy and with a special focus on entitlements, he said during an interview with Washington Post reporters and editors this afternoon.

“We need to send a signal that we are serious,” said Obama of the summit.
[…]
Obama said that he has made clear to his advisers that some of the difficult choices–particularly in regards to entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare – should be made on his watch. “We’ve kicked this can down the road and now we are at the end of the road,” he said.

Normally another Democratic run bipartisan commission on social security reform wouldn’t alarm me so much as annoy me. After all, Clinton was forced by the incoherent “centrist” Bob Kerrey into appointing a social security commission and Bush promised to appoint one after the failure of his attempt to privatize the system. But this time could be different. The scope and complexity of the economic crisis could lead to politicians rushing forward with some bad plans just to appear to be doing something.

I believe that everything about this is a huge mistake. It validates incorrect right wing economic assumptions, incorporates their toxic rhetoric about “entitlements,” focuses on the wrong problems and continues the illusion that social security is in peril when it isn’t. The mantra of shared sacrifice sounds awfully noble, but it isn’t very reassuring to talk about the government going broke at the moment, particularly when the cause of our problems isn’t the blood-sucking parasites who depend on government insurance when they can’t work, but rather the handiwork of the vastly wealthy who insist on operating without restraint and refuse to contribute their fair share. I would have thought that a bipartisan commission on financial system reform might have at least been on the agenda before social security.

Obama is empowering the Republicans and the Blue Dogs with this fiscal responsibility rhetoric and perhaps he believes they will reward him by acting in good faith. And maybe they will.Or perhaps he thinks he can jiu-jitsu the debate in some very clever way to actually bolster social security and enact universal health care. But it’s a big risk. I believe that all this talk about “entitlements” and fiscal responsibility will make it much tougher to sell universal health care and easier to dismantle some of the safety net at a time when many people have just lost a large piece of their retirements, their jobs and their homes. It’s very hard for me to understand why they think it’s a good time to do this.

I know it’s probably right that we give him a chance before we completely go postal about this, but I also know that if this were a Republican saying these things I’d certainly be doing everything in my power to oppose it. But then that’s the beauty of the Nixon goes to China gambit, isn’t it? It neatly shuts down the most fervent opposition. That’s why it’s so frightening. He might just get it done.

Everyone’s always trying to figure out what Barack Obama really wants. But it’s not a mystery. He’s been clear about it from the very beginning. What people have to face is the fact that he is a rigid leader who refuses to change course in the face of changing circumstances. Perhaps that’s a strength at times. But in this one, it’s a tragic weakness. We have over 9% official unemployment and probably double that in reality. The housing sector is still dead. Growth is anemic and very possibly about to go south. His grand bargain vision from 2009 was always anathema to the liberal project. Today it is destructive on an entirely different level.

Stomach churning: Piers Morgan feels sorry for those at the top of the Murdoch empire

Published by digby on July 7, 2011

Stomach Churning

by digby

I’m sure you’ve been following these latest revelations of the Murdoch empire hacking scandal. The sickening news that they hacked the phone of a kidnap victim, erased the messages, and then wrote a false story about the erased messages and how it gave the family hope that their daughter had called in to clear them is downright sickening.

But get a load of CNN star Piers Morgan’s comments on this Guardian podcast at Newstalgia:

The opening alone:

“I have a lot of sympathy for those at the top. They couldn’t know what’s going on …”

Morgan, of course, is a former editor of Murdoch’s News of the World, the main paper implicated in this scandal.

And also note his scathing indictment of Hugh Grant, who had the temerity to complain about having his phone hacked — Morgan calls it “stomach churning” because apparently if you are in the public eye you give up even the right to not have your phone tapped by tabloid newspapers. (You can see Grant talk about it here. He sounds a hell of lot more serious and mature than Piers Morgan.)

And then he compares the tabloid phone tapping to Wikileaks. Seriously.

What a putz.

Revenue neutral: Sure, we’ll close some loopholes — as long as they won’t raise any money.

Published by digby on July 7, 2011

Revenue neutral

by digby

Can someone explain to me how in the hell anyone can saythis helps close the deficit? And since it doesn’t, why in the hell should it be part of these stupid negotiations everyone insists we must have because “we can’t kick the can down the road” for even one more minute?

“If the president wants to talk loopholes, we’ll be glad to talk loopholes,” Cantor said at his weekly roundtable with reporters. “We’ve said all along that preferences in the code aren’t something that helps economic growth overall. But listen, we’re not for any proposal that increases taxes, and any type of discussion should be coupled with offsetting tax cuts somewhere else.”

We are really down the rabbit hole now folks. Apparently the face saving “grown-up” compromise for the Big Deficit Reduction now on the table is to agree to close some loopholes in the tax code as long as it is revenue neutral. I guess they’re just doing it for fun.

So far, the Senate isn’t budging, since they’re chomping at the bit to do “tax reform” (which means effective tax cuts for all the people who count.) So who knows where this will go? But it’s indicative of just how ridiculous these negotiations have become. In a sane world, once one of the parties starts proposing to cut the deficit with revenue neutral policies, it’s time to put us out of our misery and end this thing.

One down 49 to go: Sure you have rights … if you can exercise them

Published by digby on July 6, 2011

One down, 49 to go

by digby

Kansas provides the template:

It’s official. Every abortion provider in the state of Kansas has been denied a license to continue operating as of July 1. As we reported last week, strict new state laws put in place this month threatened to close the remaining three abortion clinics in Kansas. The staff of one of these facilities, a Planned Parenthood clinic in Overland Park, initially thought their operation could survive the strict new standards. But on Thursday afternoon, Planned Parenthood announced that the Overland Park clinic has thus far been denied a license to continue operating—effectively cutting off access to legal abortion in the entire state.

The new law, which takes effect Friday, establishes new standards for abortion providers—standards apparently designed to make compliance difficult. The rules require changes to the size and number of rooms, compel clinics to have additional supplies on hand, and even mandate room temperatures for the facilities. Given that the rules were released less than two weeks before clinics were expected to be in compliance, many providers knew they wouldn’t be able to obtain a license to continue operating. The laws, often called “targeted regulation of abortion providers,” or TRAP laws, are an increasingly common legislative maneuver to limit access to abortion by redering it tough, if not impossible, for providers to comply.

It’s an old trick, actually. I’m surprised they didn’t do it earlier. It’s not a perfect analogy, but they got Al Capone for tax evasion, remember? Ends justifying the means and all that …

This will undoubtedly be challenged in the courts and the Supremes will eventually decide whether or not to throw out the “undue burden” requirement altogether. But in the meantime, Kansas women have a federally guaranteed constitutional right they cannot exercise in their home state. And I have little doubt that other states will follow.

Third act kabuki

Published by digby on July 6, 2011

Third Act Kabuki

by digby

So it seems that Ben Nelson is reprising his role as the clownish villain in our farcical kabuki dance and just stepped in front of President Obama to absorb the liberal slings and arrows once again. (When Obama hosts a fundraiser for him, remember this moment.)

Sen. Ben Nelson, one of the more conservative Democrats in the chamber, has said that a deficit-reduction deal should focus on reducing spending, and not finding new revenues.The Nebraska Democrat also said in a Wednesday statement that he thought a significant plan to roll back deficits would not necessarily have to take aim at entitlement programs.“I want to see a broad and serious package of spending cuts,” Nelson said. “And we can cut trillions of dollars of spending without attacking Medicare and Social Security. But if we start with plans to raise taxes, pretty soon spending cuts will fall by the wayside.”

Well I suppose you can have a significant plan to roll back the deficit without cutting Medicare and Social Security or raising any taxes, but it would take pretty much eliminating all discretionary spending and downsizing the Pentagon to pre-WWII levels. That would be an interesting debate to have but since nobody anywhere is talking about anything like that, I’m guessing he’s just blowing smoke.

This is just semantics. When he says “attacking” medicare and Social Security” it’s a code word like “slashing” (which I would imagine is the talking point he was grabbing for.) They are all going to be saying that the “entitlement” cuts won’t affect beneficiaries so they don’t count. We can assume that all these cuts will be happily absorbed by the providers. Isn’t that how medical insurance usually works?

More importantly, however, is that Nelson stepping up means that the President is now absolved of all responsibility for any of this because #thepresidencyisapowerlessofficecomparedtoasinglesenator.

Update: Nelson is an interesting case. He’s going to have a very tough race because tea partiers see his seat as an excellent chance for a pick-up. If he finds himself trying to thread the needle between slashing Medicare and appeasing the Tea party, I can’t see how that’s my problem. He has spent his career giving aid and comfort to the Republicans while happily providing cover to Democrats who ostensibly would “prefer” a different outcome but can’t do a thing, sorry, because Ben Nelson just won’t let them. I’m for tearing off this band-aid and having the partisan argument.

Update II:

Dday writes:

You see in Nelson’s statement the shifting fault line in American politics. Republicans want to cut spending, slash entitlements, keep taxes low for the rich, and redistribute wealth upwards. Democrats want to cut spending and keep taxes low, and aren’t really that concerned about the redistributional effects. They want to maintain entitlements, but they believe that some cuts may have to be endured, as long as we’re not “balancing the budget on the backs of seniors.” And that’s the difference between the parties. It’s a long way from the Great Society.

Not much a fault line, I’d say. More like a superficial hairline crack.

Update III: About those defense cuts:

As it considers steep cuts to domestic programs in an effort to slash the deficit, the House is set to consider a defense spending bill on Wednesday that increases the Pentagon’s budget by $17 billion.

The Defense Department appropriations bill includes $530 in base Pentagon spending, which is $8 billion less than President Obama’s request for fiscal year 2012. There’s an additional $118.6 billion for overseas contingency operations — a $39 billion drop, reflecting the expected drawdown in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Republicans announced in May that they were going to try to cut $30 billion from federal agencies’ operating budgets in order to deal with the growing deficit.

While the Pentagon isn’t getting all the money the Obama administration would like it to receive, it’s still in a significantly stronger position than many other government agencies. If the Pentagon gets its full $17 billion increase, that means that domestic agencies have to absorb $47 billion in cuts.

“Big” mistake: listening to the Village always is

Published by digby on July 6, 2011

Big Mistake

by digby

You’ve probably heard by now that Social Security is back on the table in the debt talks. Oh, they’re calling it an accounting adjustment or some such nonsense, but it’s there. It comes in the form of the “Chained CPI” an unconsciously illustrative term that ends up in benefits cuts for the oldest and most infirm, particularly the women who will have the misfortune to live longer in Ayn Rand’s Thunderdome.

RJ Eskow has the whole story if you’d care to fill yourself in on the details:

Do you hear a noise like power saws cutting away at your Social Security benefits? That’s the sound of the politicians working on the “Chain Gang.”They’re promoting the “chained CPI [1],” Washington’s latest gimmick for tricking voters and cutting their hard-earned benefits to protect the wealthy. That may sound like inflammatory rhetoric, but the numbers don’t allow for any other conclusion. People retiring today could lose more than $18,000 in benefits [2] over their lifetimes – and people who are already retired will feel the pain too.What’s wrong with this idea?1) It’s an underhanded way to cut Social Security benefits (its true intent).
2) It’s unnecessary.
3) It’s unfair to women, the poor, minorities, and the very elderly.
4) It reflects a un-American political culture of pessimism and lost faith in the future.Any politician who signs onto a “chained CPI” approach to Social Security will feel the wrath of the voters – and deserves to.

I certainly hope so. But if it’s part of “Doing Big Things” it’s a fully bipartisan endeavor, so people will have a very broad target. I think we can count on the Koch brothers and Karl Rove’s Crossroads group to ensure that Democrats get their fair share of the blame but I’m also fairly sure that the Democrats will tie themselves up in pretzels trying to explain themselves and end up looking like the smarmy turncoats they are.

The Village consensus seems to be that this is all totally awesome for the president. Because it’s Big. And when it comes to president Obama, he’s totally awesome because he always goes “big” and that’s what the people want. At least the people who count: “Independents and people in the middle of the political spectrum.”

Chris Cilizza helpfully fleshes out the total awesomeness of The Bigness:

“[N]ow is not the time for small plans,” he declared in that speech, deriding his Republican opponents for trying to make a big election about small things.

The bumps in the first two years of Obamas presidency came, largely, when he went small.

The best example is the protracted fight over health care reform. Obamas initial instinct to let the bill be crafted and hashed out by Democratic leaders in Congress was a move toward bigness, staying out of the sausage-making that voters tend to view unfavorably.

But when that process broke down, Obama found himself waist-deep in a process argument in which he, inevitably, was dragged down into a debate over minute details. It was the essence of smallness in government and likely cost Obama Democratic control of the House in the 2010 election.[huh??? — ed]

Recoiling from the 2010 results, Obama went big again cutting a compromise deal in early April to keep the government operating rather than forcing a shutdown; today, Americans of different beliefs came together, Obama said at the time. We protected the investments we need to win the future.

Obamas bet on bigness will face its toughest test yet over the weeks between now and the Aug. 2 deadline for the U.S. to raise the current $14.3 trillion debt ceiling.

The Obamas team belief appears to be that he is at his best when regarded as the adult in the room hence the comparisons of Republican congressional leaders to his tween-age daughters in a confrontational press conference last week.

While the image of Obama as compromiser-in-chief doesn’t sit well with many liberals, its the independents and people in the middle of the political spectrum that the presidents political aides have their eye on in 2012.

And those voters react very positively to the image of Obama as the one person in Washington willing to rise above partisan concerns and do whats right for the country.

Of course, the downside of Obama urging Congress to go big on a debt deal is that if one doesnt happen, it undermines his brand as someone uniquely positioned to bring fundamental change to Washington.

Isn’t that fascinating? “Bigness” has absolutely nothing to do with policy. Or even the scale of the policy. (Most people would consider health care reform “big”, after all.) No, “bigness” is all about the image of Obama being “the one person in Washington willing to rise above partisan concerns and do what’s right for the country.” And clearly, everyone who’s anyone knows that “what’s right for the country” is cutting spending on an epic scale in the middle of an economic nightmare.

I will say this, I think there may be quite a few Independents and “people in the middle of the political spectrum” who might see things in more parochial personal terms and could conclude that the president has indeed Gone Big — on unemployment, home foreclosures, anemic growth and a general belief that the country has gone to hell in a handbasket. (And after the Koch Brothers weigh in, they will likely conclude that he went Very Big on cutting Medicare and Social Security too.) But according to the Village, those are irrelevant details. All that matters is that the president is seen as a “grown-up” who gets credit for making a deal. Any deal. As long as it’s Big.

If the president is listening to these people he’s making a Big Mistake.