Month: March 2012

Romney: Credit Bush, Not Obama, for Saving Us from Great Depression

by David Atkins

Not content with just one horrible gaffe by his campaign today, Mitt Romney steps in it again:

“I keep hearing the president say he’s responsible for keeping the country out of a Great Depression,” Romney said at a town hall in Arbutus, Maryland. “No, no, no, that was President George W. Bush and [then-Treasury Secretary] Hank Paulson.”

How very like Mitt Romney to think that bailing out Wall Street vultures with TARP was a great idea, but that creating infrastructure jobs through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was not. In Mitt Romney’s world, only the Mitt Romneys of the world actually matter.

Jonathan Chait has even more insight:

Politically, though, this new emphasis seems problematic for Romney. For one thing, Obama’s plan is to depict Romney as continuing the failed policies of the Bush administration. Praising Bush’s economic stewardship is probably not the wisest strategy.

Second, the Wall Street bailout is actually a huge political liability for Obama because it’s incredibly unpopular and most Americans think Obama, not Bush, signed it. So having Romney run around reminding people that Bush bailed out Wall Street is actually Obama’s prayer answered.

This does not seem to be Romney’s best day on the trail.

No kidding. But the irony is that it might be his most honest day on the trail.

.

Vengeance for Adam

by digby

Here’s a gentle reminder that the Republican war on women is not confined to the sexy, sexy. They don’t like senior women either.

From Emily’s list:

Female Seniors Make Up an Overwhelming Majority of Medicare Beneficiaries. According to the 2010 census, 10,362,546 women over the age of 75 have Medicare coverage compared to 6,878,341 men with the same coverage. [US Census, 2010 Medicare Coverage by Age and Sex, accessed 3/20/12]

• Older Women, On Average are Poorer Than Older Men. According to the National Women’s Law Center, elderly women have lower average incomes and are more likely to live at or near the poverty level than elderly men. [National Women’s Law Center, 5/23/11]

• More Statistics on Women and Medicare:

o “In 2009, 43% of female Medicare beneficiaries were living in or near poverty compared to 32% of men.”

o “In 2007, the average annual income for women 65 and older was $23,400, much lower than elderly men’s average income of $38,222.”

o “On average, older women have lower Social Security benefits than men. In 2009, the average annual benefit for women over 65 was $12,000 compared to nearly $16,000 for men.”

o “Because of their lower income, millions of women with Medicare are also ‘dually eligible’ for Medicaid – meaning they qualify for and receive both. Almost three-quarters (70%) of people who receive both Medicare and Medicaid are women.” [National Women’s Law Center, 5/23/11]

That slut Eve started this whole thing and they’re going to finish it.

.

Will the Real Mitt Romney please stand up?

by digby

In case you are one of the few people who haven’t seen it yet:

Nobody seems to be quite sure why there’s footage out there of Mitt talking about masturbating but he did endorse Christine O’Donnell, so maybe that’s it.

I think this might be Mitt’s viral “Yes We Can” video. But when his supporters see it they cry for an entirely different reason.

.

Today’s report from the laboratories of democracy

by digby

From Jacobin Magazine:

The Left should be paying attention to Florida. If you’ve ever desired a nightmarish vision of the legislature-driven austerity measures sure to proliferate around the country in the coming years, look no further than the Sunshine State’s 2012 budget. With little protest, Florida lawmakers are eviscerating public welfare and rapidly turning the state into a haven for the exploitation of workers. Despite the laughable “moderation narratives” now propagating in local newspaper coverage–which depict it as part of a trend away from rightist absolutism–the 2012 budget is nothing less than an unqualified victory for free market zealots everywhere: its legislatively-imposed austerity measures and multi-billion dollar tax cuts will no doubt serve as a useful model for other “business friendly” Southern states and the country as a whole.

Read the whole thing to see just how bad things can get under one-party conservative rule. It’s not just that they have passed laws effectively legalizing murder. They’re in the process of turning Florida into a third world country for the 99%.

The 2012 Florida budget is a perfect example of this overarching strategy. On its own terms, it is a document of frightening severity, inflicted on a state with little risk of popular backlash. Scott and the Republican leadership may be widely despised, but the Sunshine State lacks the formations capable of challenging the imposition of austerity, such as what we’ve seen in Madison and Zucotti Park. I don’t want to downplay the noble efforts of the Floridian Occupiers (yes, they exist) but the state’s overwhelmingly suburban geography, its lack of density and dearth of prominent public space, prevents the sort of spectacular urban reclamation that made Occupy so compelling. And unionized public workers, the warp and woof of the Madison eruption, are a tiny minority of Florida’s total employed. Fittingly, the 2012 budget disproportionately harms university students and state workers, the two groups actively resisting the descent into austerity.

One might also wonder about the Florida Democratic Party, but they are not present either. It’s the same everywhere. The Party looked at its massive losses in the 2010 elections and decided its only hope was to support austerity and elect more conservatives. After all, they lost to Republicans who ran on that platform, right? It must be what the people want. That’s just where their logic naturally takes them when they lose.

It’s a truly harrowing tale of a descent into fiscal and social madness, with no end in sight. It turns out that America hasn’t been spared the European style austerity after all. It’s just happening in the states.

.

Fracking’s got a friend in Pennsylvania

The moral emptiness of conservative “freedom”

by David Atkins

Watching Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum speak last night, a student of American politics would be forgiven for thinking that Republicans are truly obsessed with the idea of freedom. Laced throughout the two candidates’ rhetoric were paeans to private enterprise, to individual liberty, and to entrepreneurial spirit. Also redolent in the post-Illinois glow was palpable anger against the meddling intrusiveness of federal bureaucrats in Washington D.C. into successful industries and private American lives.

All of which would make sense, if these Republican paragons of virtue actually cared about any of these things. Civil libertarians protective of private American liberties certainly have a lot to complain about. The Obama Administration has been guilty of a great deal of meddling that the Bush Administration would not have countenanced.

If Republicans wanted to legitimately complain about actions of the federal government in the private sector, they could point to the Obama Administration’s disruptive steps against the burgeoning world of online poker (though it appears the Administration took action against the bad guys before loosening the rules to clear the way for legitimate operators). They could decry the record number of deportations of undocumented immigrants, preventing businesses from exploiting cheap labor. Republicans could lament the intrusion by federal government into California’s medical marijuana business (though it appears the Administration didn’t have a direct hand in that). The tri-corner hat crowd could wave their “Don’t Tread on Me” signs to rail against the fairly clearly unconstitutional killing of an American citizen on foreign soil without judicial or due process. They could protest the continued use of the Patriot Act and other forms massive illegal information gathering without a warrant against American citizens.

Conversations about the intrusion of federal government into private rights are certainly happening. But they’re all happening on the left, as various factions debate the proper role of state and federal government in dealing with gambling, drugs, immigration, and prevention of international terrorism.

But on all these issues the American Right is either conspicuously silent, or angry that the Obama Administration has not been restrictive enough against American freedoms. Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney would redouble the Obama Administration’s curtailment of personal freedoms and rights in these areas, and then some.

No, when Republicans speak about “freedom” as their leaders did last night, they mean only two things: 1) the “freedom” of the super-rich to stack the deck even farther in their favor while contributing nothing to the social supports that made them rich; and 2) the “freedom” of religious bigots to enforce their version on morality on everyone else. When they argue that President Obama is removing their freedoms, they refer not to his actual infringements on American freedoms, but rather his innocuous efforts at universal health insurance and 1990s era tax rates on the wealthy.

American conservatives don’t care about individual liberty. They arguably never have. The care only about preserving the right of private wealth and religious authority to abuse and oppress the rest of us without interference or intervention. The federal government is the ultimate restraint, elected by the people of this country, placed on their otherwise absolute authority, and they want it gone. They want the freedom to employ anyone they choose at any wage and at any age that they wish, and then cast them aside once they’re no longer useful. They want the “freedom” to stuff women back into the kitchen, minorities back into shantytowns, and gays back into the closet. That’s “freedom” to the conservative mind.

“Freedom” for them isn’t about everyone in this country having the opportunity to live life as they see fit. It’s about making sure that the most powerful private individuals, be they CEOs or church leaders, get to make the rest of us live the lives they see fit.

There’s nothing moral or respectable about it. It’s a contemptible ideology, made all the more odious by its appropriation of the language of liberty, and its silence on the issues that truly define whether Americans live free.

.

Bispecies cooperation

by digby

Ok, here’s an adorable dog playing with a river otter:

.

The Republican Base Exposed

by David Atkins

Charles Johnson at LGF once again dives into the comments at FoxNews.com so the rest of us don’t have to. This time it’s about the murder of Trayvon Martin, and we get to see the real driving animus behind the politics of Fox News viewers:

What a shame—a tragedy, really— because the dead lil’ gangsta could’ve used “‘A-FIRM-TIV AK-SHUN” to go to kollige an play footballz and make lotsa cash munny!”

[…]

Fast and Furious didn’t work to pass new gun control so now Eric Holder will try the race card.

[…]

No matter how crime figures are massaged by those who want to acknowledge or dispute the existence of a Dirty War, there is nothing ambiguous about what the official statistics portray: for the past 45 years a large segment of bIack America has waged a war of v i o l e n t retribution against white America.

[…]

Zimmerman was attacked by the man and defended himself with a gun. Zimmerman’s wounds were verified by police.

[…]

17 = child. LOL!!!!!!

Let the LIB word games begin.

[…]

Yet the “justice department” refuses to prosecute any voter intimidation that involves a blac k as the intimidator.

[…]

Why should anyone care about this kid? Because he is of color? People don’t value kids period. They are property. BTW, I am a conservative that cares a great deal about kids. We follow hundreds of cases each year, many white babies and children, none of them get attention. But he does??

[…]

Zimmerman felt threatened by Martin’s gang’s actions…this could have possibly lead to these terrible circumstances. Gang violence MUST BE STOPPED OBAMA!

[…]

Blacks can do no wrong, period! That is the DOJ’s excuse for becoming involved. 50+ years of being told they are special and entitled and the gov’t’s only focus is to make it so!!

[…]

In any event, it appears to be a case of one sc u m bag Cuban-type (Zimmerman) offing some scummy b l a ck kid (Trayyy-Vonnnn)…in some trash neighborhood….

but now, because the dead kid’s a kneegrow, we have:

the BIG BAD FBI on this “important” case…and

the usual BLACK-RADICAL-PROTESTERS who can’t mind their own business!

[…]

Gated communities exist because people are afraid….& negros thrive on crime…Look at our prisons.

[…]

Need that too….But Negr0s only have their welfare checks….and in any event can’t follow rules

[…]

What time do the riots start? Gotta get my popcorn and munchies ready for the “hood” burning!

[…]

Funny you never see them rally against the drug dealing murderers that control their neighborhoods. LOL!!!

[…]

How does anyone know what this 17 yr old said, Most likely he threw the race card out ” you stop me because I*M B L ACK” and then became threatning. The media alway plants the seed of doubt when when a B l ac k is sh ot by a caucasian

[…]

maybe his gang brothers incited violence too?

[…]

How’d the kid get into the “gated” community in the first place?

[…]

Them monkeys can jump!

[…]

This is going to be a tough case. gang violence is hard to prosecute. martin’s gang may even want to retaliate. this is scary

[…]

Let’s find out why the “po’ baby” was REALLY there!

[…]

The little thug ghetto monkey should have been home doing his homework, not out gang bangin.

[…]

I’m just glad Zimmerman didnt miss and hit an innocent bystander.

[…]

THIS IS PURE RACIST!! When do you ever see the DOJ investigate the death of a white child??

[…]

This is pure B.S I want to see the kids police record even if something is expounged also why was he removed from facebook it says account terminated.Why because his parents are trying to cover his tracks just like if you hit a bus they see Dollar signs.People have dragged data about Zimmerman out where is the kids past.Don’t say he was a good boy prove it.Ask yourself what is more likely to happen any 17 year old kid when you ask a question.A smartass reply I have never and I mean never seen a teenager run unless he did something wrong.I guess no crinimal has ever cased a place when they went to a store.It takes me aback the way all these facts are quoted by people who read one story on a issue.

[…]

Who says his gang wasn’t hiding near by?

[…]

he could be a good kid, but being in a gang doesn’t help his case

[…]

An unfortunate death, but when will DOJ investigate the death of a Caucsasian?

[…]

Here we go again— a LOCAL law enforcement matter (no federal issues) is being hijacked by the FEDS because the alleged “victim” is bl a c k! We all KNOW this kid was up to no good and now he’s feedin’ worms. Too bad-ha ha ha!

[…]

Last night on CNN Anderson Cooper kept referring to zimmerman as white when he knew he was Hispanic I wonder why

[…]

maybe then the kid was not bIack maybe Hawaiian like tiger woods then we can say s p i c s h o o t s Hawaiian

[…]

This has Bl ack racist Holder and his all bl ack racist “DOJ Civil Rights Div” written all over it.

[…]

Crack Skittles the new disguise

[…]

Skittles actually has a couple slang meanings. Could be referring to recreational usage of Coricidin. Also refers to a male getting lipstick marks from young ladies on the member. Taste the rainbow..

[…]

You think the DOJ or main stream will report zimmerman was Hispanic not White

[…]

That is all it was — just another n i qq er. No loss

[…]

He was slinging crack.

[…]

Is tea and skittles slang for guns and crack.

[…]

Skittles is actually slang for recreational usage of Coricidin.

[…]

This is what happens when you join a gang. kids need to learn from Martin’s mistakes

[…]

They should have a hunting season in Florida for these drug crazed gang members.

[…]

This could have had a tragic outcome. His gun could have jammed. Whew!

[…]

At least he didn’t chain him to the back of his truck?!?!?

[…]

How long will it take to get all of those little blk curly nappys out of the White House bedding so that the next POTUS can sleep without that Creepy Crawly feeling .

[…]

The picture is of an innocent choir boy designed to evoke sympathy for the “victum” and justify the skewed actions of a corrupt department of justice.

[…]

the b!ack community has created a sense of fear with the excessive amounts of cr!me and v!olence and the glamorizing and glorification of cr!mes and v!olence through c rap music (term used lightly) and most are rude, crude, nasty and give others the tough guy BS attitude.You people (term also used lightly) made your beds and now have to lie in them………don’t be angry with us or blame us you did this all on your own.

[…]

Hunting, maybe thinning the herd…

[…]

It is obvious the un-civilized B!ACKS who dwell in the greatist nation on earth have never wanted to be part of the TEAM, they CRY and P!SS and MOAN at every given oportunity about fairness and equality, While lining up for the free ride at welfare.
The United States is cursed with these baboons, Who will never gain the ability to stand up and make it on their own without our help.
They are the eternal retarded stepchild , needfull and helpless until the end of time.

[…]

Now the family of the kid has lost there way out of the ghetto.

[…]

ANOTHER TOOKY WILLIAMS, ABORTED.
GOOD SHOT ZIMMY. lol

It’s important to be reminded of this when we see Paul Ryan and his crew push budgets that would leave 48 million uninsured. Sure, the plutocrats just want more money. But the Republican base will go along with it, because they’re happy to lose their own healthcare if it means also denying it to the “young bucks.” This is part of why Barack Obama is the most socialist president evah, despite even his own supporters’ acknowledgement of his attempts to undermine liberalism itself.

There is no point in trying to compromise or bargain with these people. Bipartisan fetishists like to pretend that the policies on which Americans agree are much greater than the policies on which we disagree. That’s just not true. There is an enormous disconnect between huge swaths of Americans over just what society we should have; just what sort of social views of women and minorities should direct our public policy; and what our basic economic, cultural, and social values should be. Those differences are growing. They are important. They are extremely relevant. They profoundly affect debates on seemingly non-partisan granular policy issues.

And they deserve as much sunlight as humanly possible.

.

Abortion would be fine if women weren’t making the decision

by digby

Robin Marty at Rh Reality check has the latest hideous dispatch from Gilead:

Alaska is, apparently, itching to be among the growing number of states in which the GOP is proposing or already requires that women undergo invasive, expensive, medically-unnecessary forced ultrasounds before obtaining an abortion. But one state GOP representative, apparently itching for a grand entry into the ol’ boys misogyny club in the lower 49, suggests women should have to get permission from whomever impregnated them if they wanted to terminate the pregnancy.

Via The Mudflats:

[I]f you’re not fully convinced yet that Alaska is the next front in the GOP’s war on women, you just have to listen to State Rep. Alan Dick. He said that he doesn’t believe that when a woman is pregnant, it’s really “her pregnancy.” As a matter of fact, he would advocate for criminalizing women who have an abortion without the permission via written signature from the man who impregnated her. He stated, “If I thought that the man’s signature was required… required, in order for a woman to have an abortion, I’d have a little more peace about it…”

Apparently Ohio tried to pass this back in 2009 and it didn’t make it because they felt it was too extreme. But as Robin Marty points out:

Then again, once upon a time not allowing exceptions for rape and incest victims was considered “too extreme” too, and now it’s becoming the norm.

.

Destroying liberalism from within

by digby

Jonathan Chait is not known to be a harsh and unreasonable critic of the Obama administration. Indeed, he’s usually considered to be very supportive. So this piece about the Washington Post’s inside story of the Grand Bargain negotiations called “How Obama tried to sell out liberalism” comes as a bit of a surprise:

Last summer, President Obama desperately attempted to forge a long-term deficit reduction deal with Congressional Republicans. The notion that he could get the House GOP to accept any remotely balanced agreement was preposterous and doomed from the start, but Obama responded to the increasingly obvious reality by reducing his demands of the Republicans to virtually nothing.

The Washington Post has a long narrative report about the negotiations between Obama and the House Republicans. The narrative frame of the Post’s account is that Obama blew the potential deal at the last minute. That’s a story that people close to Obama’s fired chief of staff, Bill Daley, have been peddling for a long time. But that conclusion is utterly belied by the facts in the Post’s own account. But let’s put that aside for now, because the facts in the Post’s account support a different and far more disturbing conclusion: Obama was even more desperate to cut a deal than previously believed — dangerously desperate, in fact.
[…]
The obvious reality is that there never has been any way to get House Republicans to agree to a balanced deficit deal. Even the capitulation Obama offered — $800 billion in semi-imaginary revenue, all raised from the non-rich — was too much for them to agree to. Locking in that low level of revenue would have required huge cuts in spending, making a decent liberal vision of government impossible. The Post is making the case that there was a potential deal, and Obama blew it by failing to properly handle the easily-spooked Republican caucus. What the story actually shows is that Obama’s disastrous weakness in the summer of 2011 went further toward undermining liberalism than anybody previously knew.

I urge you to read the whole thing, but not because it isn’t something you didn’t already know long ago. Certainly, if you read this blog, you knew it. But it’s still interesting to see that it’s become crystal clear even to some supporters of the President that we had a very, very close call and it was only the irrational stubbornness of the Tea Party that kept the the Democratic Party from having to run on a record of dismantling the New Deal and ushering in a new era of destructive austerity. (I thank the Tea Partiers every day …)

The sad truth is that the only real bit of news in the WaPo story is this:

White House officials said this week that the offer is still on the table.

Is that the starting point for the next round? There’s no reason to think otherwise. If so, we still have a problem — a big one. As Dday points out in this piece called Grand Bargain History Due to Repeat With Fiscal Cliff at End of the Year:

The deal could have easily become a reality were it not for the troublesome appearance of the Gang of Six. And it could still become a reality. It says right there in black and white at the end of the article: “White House officials said this week that the offer is still on the table.” What’s more, despite the change in attitude from the President, who’s in election mode, from a conciliator to a fighter, there’s a signifying event coming at the end of the year that will force a number of these same choices to be negotiated again.

By January 1, 2013, the Bush tax cuts will expire, the payroll tax cut will expire, unemployment benefits will expire, the “doc fix” on Medicare reimbursement rates will expire, and the “trigger” of $1.2 trillion in across the board defense and discretionary spending cuts will be triggered. Taken together, this mass of deficit-reducing changes would wipe out the primary budget deficit, leaving mostly a deficit made up of financing for the national debt. Debt-to-GDP ratio will fall, the key number often cited for sustainability. Oh, and the debt limit will run out around this time as well, making it more of a forcing event.
[…]
[T]hat’s where the groundwork of the grand bargain talks comes in. Democrats and Republicans in Washington are going to look for a substitute deficit package in the lame duck session, the point of the lowest ebb of political accountability, with members of Congress who will never face voters again participating, after America has elected a new Congress and possibly a new President. We know that deficit hawks of both parties are already making their plans on this substitute. It could include slashes to entitlement programs when they actually need to be increased to be adequate. It could include a raft of tax cuts even though they have done the brunt of the work on exploding the deficit, without the value of helping the economy. And what it will most surely not include, unless the work gets done today, is the perspective of those ordinary Americans who would rather not see their futures sacrificed for the betterment of the well-off in society.

The “undermining of liberalism” that Chait describes will not be undone unless the president repudiates that deal and the Democrats refuse to negotiate with these economic terrorists from that starting point. After all, the White House has already shown how far it’s willing to go. Why would the Republicans ever take anything less again?

Update: The White House says that the Boehner deal is not the one that’s still on the table.