Skip to content

Month: September 2011

Hitting Back at the Do-Nothing Chorus by David Atkins

Hitting Back at the Do-Nothing Chorus
by David Atkins (“thereisnospoon”)

No sooner does President Obama finally go on offense than we see another pathetic attempt by blue dogs and their ideologically aligned Senators to attempt to derail him:

President Obama anticipated Republican resistance to his jobs program, but he is now meeting increasing pushback from his own party. Many Congressional Democrats, smarting from the fallout over the 2009 stimulus bill, say there is little chance they will be able to support the bill as a single entity, citing an array of elements they cannot abide.

“I think the American people are very skeptical of big pieces of legislation,” Senator Bob Casey, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, said in an interview Wednesday, joining a growing chorus of Democrats who prefer an à la carte version of the bill despite White House resistance to that approach. “For that reason alone I think we should break it up.”

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, has said he will put the bill on the legislative calendar but has declined to say when. He almost certainly will push the bill — which Mr. Obama urged Congress to pass “right now!” — until after his chamber’s recess at the end of the month; Mr. Reid has set votes on disaster aid, extensions for the Federal Aviation Administration and a short-term spending plan ahead of the jobs bill.

Republicans have focused their attack on the tax increases that would help pay for the spending components of the bill. But Democrats, as is their wont, are divided over their objections, which stem from Mr. Obama’s sinking popularity in polls, parochial concerns and the party’s chronic inability to unite around a legislative initiative, even in the face of Republican opposition.

Some are unhappy about the specific types of companies, particularly the oil industry, that would lose tax benefits. “I have said for months that I am not supporting a repeal of tax cuts for the oil industry unless there are other industries that contribute,” said Senator Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana…

There are also Democrats, some of them senators up for election in 2012, who oppose the bill simply for its mental connection to the stimulus bill, which laid at least part of the foundation for the Republican takeover of the House in 2010.

“I have serious questions about the level of spending that President Obama proposed,” said Senator Joe Manchin III, a Democrat from West Virginia, in a statement issued right after Mr. Obama spoke to a joint session of Congress last week.

The “Democrats divided” storyline also contains a good old-fashioned hippie-punch at “shrieking” progressive DiFazio:

A small but vocal group dislikes the payroll tax cuts for employees and small businesses. “I have been very unequivocal,” said Representative Peter A. DeFazio, a Democrat from Oregon. “No more tax cuts.”

His voice rising to a near shriek, he added: “We have the economy that tax cuts give us. And it’s pretty pathetic, isn’t it? The president is in a box.”

In many ways, this is a mess of the Administration’s own creation. President Obama has chosen to align himself ideologically with the centrists and has given them undue power and influence over policy time and time again, including during the healthcare fight and the deficit reduction fight. So it’s a bigger story than it should be when the Mary Landrieus of the world push back against him in the press on behalf of her oil company executive overlords. A story that should be good for an eye-rolling laugh in the same way as when Collins and Snowe disagree with Boehner, all of a sudden becomes some sort of serious intra-party fracture.

Also, the President has put himself in this bind by underselling the positive effects of the stimulus last year, and by making the stimulus over-laden with tax cuts in the first place.

Most importantly, the President put himself in this bind by giving credibility to the deficit hawks for the last year and a half. It’s very difficult to spend all one’s time saying the deficit is the nation’s biggest challenge while hinting at cutting social security, and then turn around and say that we need to cut taxes and increase domestic spending on jobs. It’s schizophrenic and its confuses voters, which in turn makes legislators in purple states and districts queasy.

That said, John Cole fairly accurately summed up the politics of the jobs fight a while back:

In the long term, assuming a plan gets through the House (it won’t), then we get to go through our usual drama of the blue dogs from Red States (Manchin, Nelson, Landrieu, McCaskill, etc.), Lieberman just so he can continue to be the world’s preeminent douchenozzle, and some others I am sure I am missing. They’ll cockblock it on the Senate side, moaning about the program being a deficit buster while conveniently ignoring the fact that each one of them represents a welfare state sucking at the federal teat. Finally, at the 11th hour, Snowe and Collins will swoop in and offer tax cuts for the ultra-rich as a sweetener and they will support it. At this point, Bernie Sanders or whatever progressive hero of the moment will claim he can’t support anything with tax cuts for the rich in it. This will bring things to a standstill for a couple more weeks until another shitty jobs report comes out, and the Senate, acting in the fierce urgency of when-the-fuck-ever will pass some piece of shit that is too small, unfocussed, and does nothing other than provide the left with another opportunity to fracture and start flinging shit at each other. Republicans will have spent the entire time using procedural tricks to slow things down while having Frank Luntz work on the framing of the issue so that by the time it is about to hit the President’s desk, they will already have a cute name, the talking points will be distributed, and we’ll all be hearing about the new “Porkulus” or “Obamacare” or whatever the fuck childish name they come up with. In three months time, when employment hasn’t picked up because we are actually in the same god damned depression we’ve been in since 2007, Rick Perry can claim that Keynesian ideology has once again been disproven. Because everyone hates the bill, Friedman, Brooks, and other members of the Centrist jihad will claim this as proof that the bill is great.

I think his characterization of progressives in this fight is deeply unfair. I would remind John that progressives, even Dennis Kucinich, did the right thing by voting for ACA in the end. There’s nothing wrong with progressives using what little leverage we have to put our thumb on the scales for the middle-class insofar as possible, given all the inducements of corporate cash everywhere else. I would also ask John why Obama thinks using the bully pulpit to push the jobs bill is a good idea, if the bully pulpit is as useless as he often claims. But overall, his big picture of the these fights go is fairly accurate, especially here.

In the end, the jobs bill is unlikely to pass as a single entity, unless it’s horribly watered down. The typical Obama Administration reaction to that would be to water it down to the point where the President thinks it might pass–at which point the GOP would use that dramatically weakened negotiating point to move the goalposts even farther to the right. Then, after two weeks of Fox News drumbeats, the useless blue dogs would shift to the right with them.

So it’s heartening to see that the Obama Administration is going out on the road to push this bill anyway. Even though it likely won’t pass. That’s a good thing. Traditional analysis says that flogging a bill that ends up failing would make the President look weak. But in today’s political environment, that’s just not the case.

If the President moves forward, uses the pulpit to push the bill, shows anger at the do-nothing chorus in both parties that refuses to address the issue, and then reluctantly states that he is going to go after each item piecemeal due to the recalcitrance of the Republicans and even some Democrats, the President will gain support, not lose it. Congress is deeply unpopular, and what the people want is to know who is fighting for their values, and who isn’t.

Even if the President doesn’t get his jobs bill, fighting for it is the right thing to do. Let the do-nothing GOP and Blue Dog chorus whine and wail all they want: their intransigence will weaken the bill anyway and everyone paying close attention knows it. They might as well take a political hit for doing so while they’re at it, and the President might as well get credit for being a populist champion who at least wants to create jobs, even if Congress won’t let him.

.

Putting everything on the table

Putting everything on the table

by digby

That race in NY this week featured a lot of talk about Israel and a whole lot of analysis about ethnicity and demographics. But one thing very few have noticed was an important piece ofstandard 2010 messaging.

In two robocalls, Koch promised voters that Turner wouldn’t cut Medicare or Social Security. The weekend before the election, Hikind said the same thing, and bolstered his case by saying Democrats were risking the programs:

“The president of the United States is now a member of the Tea Party!” said Hikind. “He said, in his own words, that there won’t be Medicare and Social Security for my children and your children and my grandchildren unless we address Medicare!”

That’s not really a wedge issue – it’s the slow death of a wedge issue. It’s the start of a problem for Democrats, who have gone from attacking the Ryan plans for entitlement reform to vouching support for some undefined “everything on the table” entitlement reform. There might not be any way for Democrats to dodge this, and there’s no sign that they want to. And that leaves all of them in the position of Democrats in New York’s 9th. Their traditional base, weary of the recession, not sure what Democrats have to offer any more, are ready to be wedged.

“This message will resound for a full year,” said Turner in his victory speech. “It will resound into 2012.”

There are zero reasons to believe they won’t use this — to good effect — against Democrats and the president in 2012. Why would they? It’s working.

.

Making us stupid: how the political press celebrates misinformation

Making Us Stupid

by digby

If you want to know why we are so screwed as a nation, you can probably find a couple of dozen good reasons. But this, I say, is right at the top of the list.

From MSNBC, with Chuck Todd filling in for Andrea Mitchell:

Richard Stengel, managing editor of TIME magazine: I think [Rick Perry’s] on to something. Do Americans really realize that there is no such thing as a social security trust fund? That it’s a pay as you go program and when there are fewer paying in than what you get out? Are they’re any people under 35 in America who believe that Social Security is going to be there as it is and was for their parents? So I think he’s hearing something that maybe the other candidates aren’t hearing.

Right. He’s hearing you, spouting misinformation that’s been spread by the financial services industry to make people believe that the Social Security system is going broke.

Yes, there is a trust fund. It’s been conservatively invested in US treasury bonds. Current contributions and those bonds will keep the checks coming at their current levels for another 35 years — at which point it will only be able to pay out about 80% of what it’s paying today unless we do the only intelligent thing and ask people who make over 100k to pony up the same percentage of their income that everyone else does. That’s it. That’s the crisis.

If people under 35 think it won’t be there for them it’s because journalists like Richard Stengal don’t do their jobs. Yes, he’s accurately reporting what people inaccurately believe. He just forgets to present the real facts and correct their misapprehensions. And then goes on to praise presidential candidates for being savvy enough to flog the same misinformation.

We have a very serious problem with epistemology in this culture and a huge part of it is due to the press. I don’t know how to fix it. But until we do, our politics are going to be distorted and dysfunctional.

.

A brave journalist

A Brave Journalist

by digby

I always admire the intrepid journalists like Richard Engel or Lara Logan, throwing themselves into the line of fire to bring home the story. They are brave, brave people and as much as I criticize the press, I consider these reporters to be heroes.

But there is no reporter alive as brave as Walter Shapiro:

It was a self-inflicted, eye-glazing marathon—50 hours in late August spent watching a full sampling of the Fox News lineup. Looking back, it seems like a nine-day hallucination of strident voices, blonde hair, and more pitchmen hawking gold coins than at any time since the heyday of King Midas.

Why did I volunteer for this ordeal when a rational person would have been at the beach? Not to belabor the predictable liberal lament that Fox News fails to uphold the high TV journalistic traditions of Edward R. Murrow and Eliot Spitzer. Rather, I wanted to know how the leading cable news network was deploying its unprecedented powers in its coverage of the 2012 GOP presidential race.

Few Republican voters outside Iowa and New Hampshire will glimpse a presidential contender on anything other than a TV screen. And that TV screen is apt to be tuned to Fox. According to a 2010 poll by the Pew Research Center, 40 percent of Republicans habitually watch Fox News. Bill O’Reilly alone regularly attracts 21 percent of Republicans. It is a safe guess (although Pew did not ask the question directly) that more than half the activists who will be voting in the GOP primaries are Fox faithful. There is no equivalent thumb-on-the-scales force on the Democratic side—not even if you combine MSNBC, NPR, and The New York Times. And, as it turned out, the lesson of my TV marathon was unambiguous: The Fox News primary already has a winner.

Shapiro got out alive, but I’m sure he’ll never be the same. Nobody can survive something like that without sever psychological damage.

But the story he brought back is worth it. He’s absolutely correct that this is how most Republicans will get their information about these primaries and Roger Ailes’ preference is, therefore, extremely important. Read the whole thing to find out who that is …

.

Fact without context

Facts without context

by digby

I think it’s great that newspapers have found the resources to employ fact checkers. But strangely, they often seem to have such a skeptical attitude that they become rather thick literalists and fail to take context into consideration.

For instance, the Washington Post is “debunking” the idea that the Tea Partiers “cheered” for the death of the uninsured during the debate the other night:

A few jeers? Yes. Heckles? No question. “Audience” cheers? No way.

The voices that can be heard in the video — perhaps two or three of them — don’t constitute an “audience” reaction. The episode is the clumsy work of a few loons or meatheads in the audience.

A fine headline would read: “Debate hecklers cheer death of uninsured.”

But look at the whole exchange:

BLITZER: Thank you, Governor. Before I get to Michele Bachmann, I want to just — you’re a physician, Ron Paul, so you’re a doctor. You know something about this subject. Let me ask you this hypothetical question.

A healthy 30-year-old young man has a good job, makes a good living, but decides, you know what? I’m not going to spend $200 or $300 a month for health insurance because I’m healthy, I don’t need it. But something terrible happens, all of a sudden he needs it.

Who’s going to pay if he goes into a coma, for example? Who pays for that?

PAUL: Well, in a society that you accept welfarism and socialism, he expects the government to take care of him.

BLITZER: Well, what do you want?

PAUL: But what he should do is whatever he wants to do, and assume responsibility for himself. My advice to him would have a major medical policy, but not be forced —

BLITZER: But he doesn’t have that. He doesn’t have it, and he needs intensive care for six months. Who pays?

PAUL: That’s what freedom is all about, taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to prepare and take care of everybody —

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?

(Hecklers shout “Yeah!”)

What was that applause just before Blitzer said “are you saying society should just let him die?” all about? Blitzer had been relentlessly framing the hypothetical as someone who needed intensive care for six months and didn’t have insurance. Paul answers “that’s what freedom is all about, taking your own risks” and the audience applauds.

It’s not as if he was just saying “freedom is about taking your own risks” as a non-sequitor. It was in the context of a discussion about what should happen if someone gets sick and doesn’t have insurance. Clearly, those people in the audience were sympathetic with Paul’s belief that this fellow had freely taken a risk with his life … and lost.

One last thing. The fact checker says that this question was particularly open to ridicule and cat-calling because it was a hypothetical. But as previously noted, Ron Paul’s trusted aid died without insurance leaving a $400,000 bill behind him.

Society didn’t just let Snyder die. He received a significant amount of intensive care based on the bill.

But his mother didn’t have the resources to pay the hospital. Few mothers would.

Instead, as Gawker reported, Snyder’s friends started a website to raise money to pay the bill. Often in cases like this, hospitals are forced to pass along as much of the unreimbursed costs to other, insured patients or to eat those costs.

One of the ironies of Snyder’s case is that the former aide appears to have been a remarkable moneyraiser for Paul. Gawker reports:

In the fourth quarter of that year (2008), Snyder raised a stunning $19.5 million for Paul — more than any other Republican candidate had raised at the time.

Paul did stress that charity would always step in to pick up the slack but I guess he’s too busy lecturing us all on personal responsibility to raise the money himself. Snyder’s friends were able to raise less than 50k for him.

Paul should have explained that freedom to him means being able to wage quixotic multi-million dollar presidential campaigns without having to pay for the health insurance of the people who work for him — or even help raise the money necessary to pay the hospital when one of them gets sick and dies. I wonder if anyone would have cheered for that?

.

Nebraska. Very different from Pennsylavania. by David Atkins

Nebraska. Very Different from Pennsylavnia.
by David Atkins (“thereisnospoon”)

On the heels of the GOP’s attempt to overturn democracy in Pennsylavania by cynically distributing its electoral votes per assembly district, it appears that Republicans in Nebraska are trying to move Nebraska in the other direction. You may recall that Nebraska and Maine are currently the only states to split their electoral votes, and that one of Nebraska’s electoral votes went to Obama.

Well, the GOP has a plan to fix all that. From the winger blog Objective Conservative:

The state tried to change this in the 2011 session but the Democrats have found a new ally in State Senator Paul Schumacher, also a Republican and a RINO who finds the idea of splitting the vote pleasing. Schumacher prevented the return to winner-takes-all from getting out of committee in 2011.

Having noted the above, we’ve learned that a resolution will be introduced at the September Republican Party State Central Committee to deal with so-called Republicans who refuse to support their party on what is truly a ‘litmus’ issue for the party. It reads as noted:

Whereas Nebraska is one of only two states that award electoral votes based on the presidential winner of congressional districts,

Whereas Nebraska’s overall clout in national elections is decreased by a procedure used in only one other state,

Whereas 48 other states refuse to allocate their electoral votes under such a plan because such plan dilutes the clout of their states and citizens in determining the election of the president,

Whereas the vast majority of Nebraskans and their votes for the president are not counted on an equal playing field with those of other states,

Whereas it is of the highest priority and interest to the Nebraska Republican Party and the citizens of Nebraska that the state returns to a “winner-takes-all” electoral vote plan,

Whereas the Nebraska Republican Party supports legislation that returns the state to the “winner-takes-all” basis,

And, whereas the Nebraska Republican Party believes that the “winner-takes-all” issue is a litmus test for those who would claim to be Republicans and seek the support of the Nebraska Republican Party,

Be it resolved that the Nebraska Republican Party will not support in any manner, financial or otherwise, any state senator who opposes the return of the state to the “winner-takes-all” electoral vote plan either by failing to vote for such in committee or on the floor of the legislature.

The resolution will deal with the likes of Schumacher who will become persona non grata next year if he prevents the measure getting to the floor. Certain, RINOs like Schumacher will never again see the support of the Republican Party and the party will find a candidate to replace him come the next election.

It would appear that moving Nebraska to a winner-take-all system hinges on a single vote of Nebraska’s Government, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee.

The answer is obvious, of course, but it would be nice if the media would ask the GOP chairs in Pennsylvania and Nebraska whether each supports the other’s plans. Also, if they could provide a specific rationale rooted in the Constitution, freedom and democracy, that would be great. Inquiring minds would like to know the Constitutional difference between the two states.

.

Popular Cuts

Popular Cuts

by digby

Per Bloomberg’s poll this morning:

I am going to mention some changes that could be made to decrease the deficit. For each, please tell me if you favor or oppose the change.

Reduce Social Security benefits for high-income earners — Favor:64%

Repeal the tax cuts for households earning more than $250,000 a year — Favor: 54%

Raise the amount of salary subject to Social Security tax beyond the current limit of about $107,000 — Favor: 52%

Gradually increase the Social Security retirement age to 69 — Favor: 49%

Eliminate all tax deductions, including the home mortgage deduction, in return for lower tax rates for every tax bracket — Favor: 48%

Let tax cuts for all taxpayers expire as scheduled and return rates to previous levels — Favor: 48%

Cut defense weapons systems and reduce the number of armed forces personnel — Favor: 41%

Replace Medicare with a system in which government vouchers would help participants pay for their own health insurance — Favor: 37%

Increase co-pays for Medicare recipients — Favor: 33%

Decrease the amount paid to hospitals and doctors who provide Medicare services — Favor: 30%

Cut benefits by slowing the rate of automatic cost-of-living increases for Social Security payments — Favor: 29%

Cut Medicaid, which is government help for medical care for low income people — Favor: 21%

Just saying.

.

The Paul Plan

The Paul Plan

by digby

Ron Paul’s former campaign manager died in 2008, uninsured because of a pre-existing condition. That’s right:

Like the man in Blitzer’s example, the 49-year-old Snyder…was relatively young and seemingly healthy when the illness struck. He was also uninsured. [The Kansas City Star quoted his sister at the time as saying that a “a pre-existing condition made the premiums too expensive.”] When he died on June 26, 2008, two weeks after Paul withdrew his first bid for the presidency, his hospital costs amounted to $400,000. The bill was handed to Snyder’s surviving mother who was incapable of paying. Friends launched a website to solicit donations.

According to CNN they managed to raise $50,000 leaving the “estate” 350k in debt. When they asked Paul about this he insisted that Snyder wasn’t denied care, which is true, but he evaded the fact that somebody has to pay this bill and the more likely outcome which is that the hospital and doctors who treated him will simply pass the costs on to those who are insured. (He pointed out that the hospital hasn’t tried to collect from the mom — which I guess means that he thinks the care was free.)

I suppose Snyder could have shopped around for a “better deal” while he was under the oxygen tent, but essentially the only way Paul’s plan really works is if he and his friends had managed to find the 400k to pay for Snyder up front — or if the hospital had thrown him into the street when it didn’t arrive. That’s Libertarian economics in action.

And that’s the kind of thing those cheering Tea Partiers all believe in too. Unless it happens to them, of course. In which case the argument will be that, unlike all those freeloaders, they deserve to be cared for. Real Americans really are entitled.

.