Month: June 2012

So the big storyline of the morning is that progressives are losers. Stop the presses. It’s based on this article over the week-end in the Washington Post about the alleged fact that progressives are all losing their primaries to moderates and conservatives. And once again, those of us who are working in this arena are all treated to solemn lectures about how we should get real and figure out that nobody likes us because we’re too liberal and that we need to … well, I’m not sure. Give up, I suppose.

Losing their sense of decency one young person at a time

by digby

Who says the congress has moved right? I certainly don’t see any evidence of it. Well, maybe. Just a little:

Utah politicians accused President Barack Obama of pandering to Latino voters after he vowed Friday to block the deportation of young immigrants as long as they get an education or join the military.

This idea is modeled after the Dream Act, legislation that Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch and Democratic Rep. Jim Matheson once ardently supported but have since backed away from.

“The fact that the president would use children as an election-year ploy is offensive,” said Hatch, who like many other Republicans also argued Obama’s new rule is an unauthorized expansion of power. “A policy issue like immigration needs to go through Congress.”

Hatch, who is seeking a seventh term in November, first sponsored the Dream Act in 2001, and Matheson signed on as a co-sponsor in 2004. The idea has fallen out of favor since then with conservatives, and Hatch and Matheson opposed the measure in 2010 when it fell short in the Senate.

Hatch vocally opposed it then but missed the vote for family reasons.

“I just personally feel that it is brought up at this time for pure political purposes,” Hatch said then, “and I resent that.”

Matheson took a position similar to that of many Republicans.

“We are a nation of laws, and until we demonstrate that we can secure our borders and address our broken immigration system through comprehensive reform, I cannot support piecemeal measures no matter how well-intended,” Matheson said at the time.

They are, quite simply, cowards who are afraid of the most retrograde members of our society — their own voters. Both of these men know very well that we are talking about young Americans, people who were raised here, educated here and identify as American in the same way their kids and grandkids do. They know that. And yet they are willing to let them be deported.

They once had a conscience, or at least a modicum of decency. Now they have none. Therefore, we have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the congress has moved to the right.

.

Grabbing the tiger by the tail

by David Atkins

Sahil Kapur at TPM:

After spending President Obama’s first term emboldening the most ideologically intense elements of the conservative movement, elected Republicans are now finding themselves in a box on critical issues like health care and taxes with limited options to avert national crises.

On health care, Republicans are coming to grips with the prospect of owning a mess of a system if the Supreme Court overturns ‘Obamacare’ this month.

The central pillars of the health care reform law — guaranteed coverage regardless of health status, an individual mandate to buy insurance and subsidies delivered via exchanges — were originally crafted by moderate conservatives and have long enjoyed support in the GOP. But after Obama embraced the template, Republicans ran to the right and abandoned it in an effort to undermine him politically. Now, as they try to sneak back closer to the center, the hard-right base that they’ve empowered is giving them hell.

First came the warning shots from activist groups like FreedomWorks and Club For Growth, which most recently purged the longest serving Republican senator for taking moderate positions in the past. Then came the cries of opposition from conservative legislators in the party. The anger is reflected among high-profile conservative activists who are actively confronting party leaders for straying — and apparently making them nervous.

Of course, that presumes that Republicans are actually interested in governing. Or that they care if healthcare is in a crisis. Or that they actually care about either unemployment or deficits. Or, more darkly, that they aren’t actively seeking a crisis.

It’s understandable that many progressives are disenchanted with their electoral choices. On one side are socially liberal but economically neoliberal technocrats seeking vainly to prop up the current system by reinflating asset bubbles and hoping that the confidence and investment fairies will work their magic to reduce unemployment. Within that group are a small but growing number of people who actually do push for economically progressive positions but are usually drowned out by the big money boys.

On the other is a economically libertarian, socially authoritarian radical doomsday cult with no ideological variance to speak of.

A distasteful choice is still a choice, and it still has dramatic consequences.

.

Campaign red meat for the populist grassroots

To think that guy won re-election three times with that divisive talk. Go figure.

.

Has Romney heard about Mr Google? Does he think no one will check?

by digby

Today he said:

“I ask a number of people close to the area of subject to come in and present their views,” Romney said. “I like having debate. I like having two sides. I didn’t go to law school, I didn’t practice law, but I like the idea of arguing points back and forth and sorting through them, and being able to probe, in some cases you need to go back and get more information.”

Huh?

[H]is father, by now serving in President Richard Nixon’s cabinet as United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, advised him that a law degree would be valuable to his career. Thus he became one of only fifteen students to enroll at the recently created joint Juris Doctor/Master of Business Administration four-year program coordinated between Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School He graduated in 1975 cum laude from the law school, in the top third of that class, and was named a Baker Scholar for graduating in the top five percent of his business school class.

I’m beginning to think that Mitt Romney is the guy they all falsely accused Al Gore of being. This is just weird. He went to Harvard Law and graduated cum laude.WTH?

Update: Apparently he was misquoted, which is, frankly, a relief. It’s too scary to think that someone could be that pathological and running for president.
.

The long history of mandate repeal

by digby

Hmmm:

In 1993, Washington also passed a law both guaranteeing all residents access to private health insurance, regardless of their health status, and requiring Washingtonians to purchase coverage.

The state legislature, however, repealed that last provision two years later. With the guaranteed access provisions still standing, the state saw premiums rise and enrollment drop, as residents only purchased coverage when they needed it. Health insurers fled the state and, by 1999, it was impossible to buy an individual plan in Washington — no company was selling.

That article in the Washington Post recounts several stories from around the country in which states attempted to impose a health insurance mandate which Republicans repealed upon taking office. All the plans fell apart for reasons similar to those outlines above.

Can someone explain to me why anyone thought the Republicans wouldn’t do the same thing on a national level? Now, it may very well turn out that the Supreme Court will strike down the mandate as unconstitutional, which will pretty much end this particular approach altogether. But even if they uphold its constitutionality, what’s to stop the next Republican majority and president from repealing it? (Hell, the way things work currently, it won’t even take a Republican majority.)

I guess I’ve just never understood why there was such ecstatic optimism about a plan that was so dependent on several moving parts being left undisturbed by the enemies of national health care. I always thought the mandate was vulnerable, but the medicaid expansion is even more vulnerable. These examples of what happened in the states were out there, so it can’t come as any surprise, can it?

Not that there was anything that wouldn’t have been vulnerable to repeal by wingnuts. But I have to believe that allowing people to buy into an already existing program like Medicare — which had a strong and longstanding constituency — would have made that less likely. But hey, it’s spilled milk. Here’s hoping that at the end of the day enough of this health care reform takes hold that some substantial number of people’s lives will have been improved by it. That’s not nothing.

.

Drudge is the Walrus

by digby

For real:

He’s referring, of course, to President Obama’s recognition of the Stonewall riots.

In fairness, Drudge isn’t the only one to use this headline. In fact, I’m not sure if he’s the chicken or the eggman.

.

Lamentations of the father

To be passed along to your father friends:

Of the beasts of the field, and of the fishes of the sea, and of all foods that are acceptable in my sight you may eat, but not in the living room. Of the hoofed animals, broiled or ground into burgers, you may eat, but not in the living room. Of the cloven-hoofed animal, plain or with cheese, you may eat, but not in the living room. Of the cereal grains, of the corn and of the wheat and of the oats, and of all the cereals that are of bright color and unknown provenance you may eat, but not in the living room. Of the quiescently frozen dessert and of all frozen after-meal treats you may eat, but absolutely not in the living room. Of the juices and other beverages, yes, even of those in sippy-cups, you may drink, but not in the living room, neither may you carry such therein. Indeed, when you reach the place where the living room carpet begins, of any food or beverage there you may not eat, neither may you drink.

But if you are sick, and are lying down and watching something, then may you eat in the living room.

And if you are seated in your high chair, or in a chair such as a greater person might use, keep your legs and feet below you as they were. Neither raise up your knees, nor place your feet upon the table, for that is an abomination to me. Yes, even when you have an interesting bandage to show, your feet upon the table are an abomination, and worthy of rebuke. Drink your milk as it is given you, neither use on it any utensils, nor fork, nor knife, nor spoon, for that is not what they are for; if you will dip your blocks in the milk, and lick it off, you will be sent away. When you have drunk, let the empty cup then remain upon the table, and do not bite it upon its edge and by your teeth hold it to your face in order to make noises in it sounding like a duck; for you will be sent away.

When you chew your food, keep your mouth closed until you have swallowed, and do not open it to show your brother or your sister what is within; I say to you, do not so, even if your brother or your sister has done the same to you. Eat your food only; do not eat that which is not food; neither seize the table between your jaws, nor use the raiment of the table to wipe your lips. I say again to you, do not touch it, but leave it as it is. And though your stick of carrot does indeed resemble a marker, draw not with it upon the table, even in pretend, for we do not do that, that is why. And though the pieces of broccoli are very like small trees, do not stand them upright to make a forest, because we do not do that, that is why. Sit just as I have told you, and do not lean to one side or the other, nor slide down until you are nearly slid away. Heed me; for if you sit like that, your hair will go into the syrup. And now behold, even as I have said, it has come to pass.

Read on, my children, or ye shall be sorry

Happy Father’s Day to all you lovely daddies.

h/t to Jon Schwartz

Beware “tax reform”: Mitt Romney’s all for it

by digby

Here’s a little hint about how the next looming Grand Bargain/fiscal cliff showdown is likely to end up:

During a Republican primary debate last August, all GOP candidates – including Romney – said they would reject a hypothetical proposal to trade $10 in spending cuts for $1 in tax increases.

“I do feel that way,” Romney said in an interview broadcast Sunday on the CBS program “Face the Nation”, defending that stance.

“Government is big and getting larger and there are those who think, well the answer is just to take a little more from the American people,” Romney added.

Romney said that his plans would spur economic growth that brings in new revenues without raising rates.

“We can have lower rates, as I have proposed, that creates more growth and we can limit deductions and exemptions,” Romney said, and touted his plans to cut spending.

I would say that’s just campaign rhetoric and that nobody will care what Romney’s said about this if he loses the election. But unfortunately, he’s lined out the area of “common ground” that the Democrats have already signaled they want as well: tax reform.

It’s fairly meaningless in itself. The wealthy will figure out ways around it almost immediately and it’s highly unlikely to raise any money.(In fact, it’s designed not to.) The question is what the Democrats might agree to do in exchange. The Simpson Bowles travelling salvation show is making the congressional rounds selling a toxic brew that places all the emphasis on “sacrifice” for the polloi with reassurances that it won’t “harm business.” It’s very easy to see a deal forming that includes heavy cuts in exchange for phantom “tax reform.” Both Parties can claim victory, you see. And it will be — it will be a victory for the 1% and a massive defeat for the rest of us.

Executive pay keeps rising despite “competitive business environment”

by David Atkins

One of the most frequently offered explanations offered by conservatives for declining wages and the need to cut pay in “right to work” states is that American corporations must stay competitive with foreign competition. If workers’ salaries are inflated, it is argued, then prices will need to rise, causing foreign companies to undersell their goods to the American market.

Thus, the argument goes, pay for regular Americans must go down. But if that’s the case, how do they explain this?

Despite a lot of noise from shareholders and a few victories at big names like Citigroup and Hewlett-Packard, executive pay just keeps climbing.

Yes, some corporate boards seem to be listening to shareholders, particularly on contentious issues like the seven-figure cash bonuses that helped define hyperwealth during the boom. Since the bust, corporate America on the whole has moved to tie executive pay more closely to long-term performance by skewing executive paychecks more toward restricted stock, which can’t be sold for years.

But rewards at the top are still rich — and getting richer. Now that 2011 proxy statements have been filed, the extent of executive pay last year has finally become clear. Median pay of the nation’s 200 top-paid C.E.O.’s was $14.5 million, according to a study conducted for The New York Times by Equilar, a compensation data firm based in Redwood City, Calif. The median pay raise among those C.E.O.’s was 5 percent. (The full list is available here.)

That 5 percent raise is smaller than last year’s. But it comes at a time of stubbornly high unemployment and declining wealth for many ordinary Americans. Even corporate pay experts say that this is hardly the kind of change that will quell anger over the nation’s have-a-lots by the have-lesses, particularly in an election year.

If competitiveness is the issue across the board, then that competitive business environment should apply to executives as well as mail room clerks.

But it doesn’t. American corporations have record profits. Executives are making more money than ever. “Competitiveness” has nothing to do with it. Greed and outright theft does.

.