Month: October 2012

Debate Performance Art: The Village Critics Society convenes

by digby

Politico helpfully prepares us for what’s important in tonight’s debate:

As political actors, Obama and Romney will be judged as much — if not more so — on their body language and demeanor as on the quality of their arguments.

The winning formula, political pros acknowledge with some regret, is style over substance.

Ever since Richard Nixon sweated through his infamous 1960 televised debate with John F. Kennedy that radio listeners thought Nixon won, presidential debates have served as much as political performance art as policy forums. What’s remembered are Al Gore’s sighs, George H.W. Bush’s frequent glances at his watch and John McCain’s failure to make eye contact.

And why is this important? Because the Village press corps insists it’s important and will spend days deconstructing the “performances” as if they are auditions for the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts. And they have their script at the ready:

ROMNEY REBOUND? After weeks of taking a beating in the media and from Republicans, Mitt Romney is finally catching some breaks, and is poised for a surge in more positive coverage IF he exceeds expectationstonight. A number of things broke his way in the past 24 hours. None of them, alone, suggests anything profound. But in totality, they offer Republicans reason for hope coming out of tonight:

1) The Biden gaffe referring to “a middle class that has been buried the last four years.” Voters seem aware of who was in charge during those years.

2) The 2007 videotape of then-Senator Obama that surfaced last night and rocketed through right-wing media. The N.Y. Times and WashPost ignored it on their homepages this morning, but conservatives will force the MSM and voters to reckon with it. No doubt, some of the quotes could be used against President Obama.

3) A new NBC-WSJ-Marist poll shows Virginia and Florida tightening, and there is evidence that Romney efforts to target Hispanics in swing states is blunting Obama’s edge.

4) It all comes down to tonight. If Romney rocks, he will put concerns about message and his campaign team to rest for a few days — and put tougher attention back on Obama.

I’m guessing that “rock” means resisting the impulse to drop his pants and start running around the stage throwing thousand dollar bills at the audience.

Remember, these Village scribes can be a very “active” audience:

POOLEY: [Gore’s attempt to connect with the audience] was unmistakable—and even touching—but the 300 media types watching in the press room at Dartmouth were, to use the appropriate technical term, totally grossed out by it. Whenever Gore came on too strong, the room erupted in a collective jeer, like a gang of 15-year-old Heathers cutting down some hapless nerd.

Seven weeks after the Dartmouth debate, Salon’s Jake Tapper described the same conduct. Appearing on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal, he replied to a question about “liberal bias:”

TAPPER: Well, I can tell you that the only media bias I have detected in terms of a group media bias was, at the first debate between Bill Bradley and Al Gore, there was hissing for Gore in the media room up at Dartmouth College. The reporters were hissing Gore, and that’s the only time I’ve ever heard the press room boo or hiss any candidate of any party at any event.

Why is this relevant? Paul Waldman explains:

As I’ve pointed out many times, what persists in our memory about presidential debates are only those moments reporters choose to keep reminding us about (I wrote about it in this book—still relevant eight years later!). But there’s an important question to keep in mind when you consider the question of the media’s influence: Does it matter?

If the question you’re asking is, “Which candidate do voters perceive as having won the debate?” then yes, the media matter a great deal. But that’s not a particularly important question. Similarly, a debate can “matter” without it actually changing the outcome of the race. It can inform people, or bring up a new issue we haven’t much thought about in a while, or show us a side of one or both of the candidates we haven’t seen before, and that can be good even if no one’s vote gets changed. On the other hand, a debate full of stupid questions (“Mr. Romney, you’re trailing in the polls. Why have you failed to connect with the voters?”) and evasive answers can make people more cynical about politics, which matters too. And the media’s influence can matter if they ignore everything that was interesting, edifying, and revealing about a debate and instead spend a week talking about whatever clever line one candidate or another tossed off. Which, if the past is any guide, is what we’re most likely to get.

It’s their wading pool. We just drown in it.

If you want to follow my inane tweeting of the debate, you can do so a @digby56.

.

“You Didn’t Build That is a Net Positive for Obama

by David Atkins

Poll result of the year courtesy NBC/WSJ:

Q31
Barack Obama recently said that if you have been successful, you did not get there on your own. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create the American system that allowed you to thrive. He said if you have a business, you didn’t build that, somebody else made that happen. When we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. Does this make you feel more positive or more negative about Barack Obama, does it not make much difference in your opinion or do you not know enough about this to have an opinion at this time?

More positive ………………………………………………… 36
More negative ………………………………………………. 32
Not much difference ………………………………………. 26
Don’t know enough ……………………………………….. 6
Not sure …………………………………………………….. –

Q32
Mitt Romney recently said forty seven percent (47%) of people will vote for President Obama no matter what because they are dependent upon government, believe they are victims, and believe the government has a responsibility to care for them. He said his message of low taxes does not connect with the forty-seven percent (47%) of Americans who pay no income taxes so his job is not to worry about those people as he will never convince them they should take personal responsibility for their lives. Does this make you feel more positive or more negative about Mitt Romney, does it not make much difference in your opinion or do
you not know enough about this to have an opinion at this time?
More positive ………………………………………………… 23
More negative ………………………………………………. 45
Not much difference ………………………………………. 24
Don’t know enough ……………………………………….. 8
Not sure …………………………………………………….. –

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: progressives haven’t lost the economic argument in this country. We’ve won the economic argument.

As much as Democrats and progressives have challenges in framing our economic arguments, it’s not really a question of doing a better job of convincing the public. A majority of the public is, by and large, already convinced of our position.

What we lack is the political will to do what the public wants, largely because of the corrupting influence of money in politics and the fact that legislators tend to socialize almost entirely with the well-heeled.

.

The bipartisan Citizens United sleeper cell

by digby

Jonathan over at Michael Moore’s place reminds us all of the unintentional hilarity of the Citizens’ United opinion:

[W]e now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption…The appearance of influence or access, furthermore, will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy.

That is a knee-slapper. He then talks about the Chrystia Freeland article in the New Yorker about the whining greedheads (which I wrote about here.)And then delivers the punchline:

Scaramucci, the organizer of the dinner, told me the next day that the guests had witnessed the “activation” of a “sleeper cell” of hedge-fund managers against Obama. “That’s what you see happening in the hedge-fund community, because they now have the power, because of Citizens United, to aggregate capital into political-action committees and to influence the debate,” he said…“If there’s a pope of this movement, it’s Lee Cooperman.”

(And the punchline is … The Aristocrats!)

He then makes a serious point about what this means in light of the Supremes’ starry eyed idealism (or deep dishonesty, depending how you look at it) he notes that there were politicians there too, notably Al Gore and LA mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. Gore was standoffish, but good old Antonio was there tugging his forelock and eagerly giving Cooperman his private phone number. (He was the Chairman of the Democratic Convention at the time.)

As Jonathan says, here’s what we are supposed to believe:

1. Billionaires will get together in Las Vegas to plan political strategy—and their honored guests aren’t Republicans, but Democrats.

2. The hedge fund managers at the meeting openly talk about how, thanks to Citizens United, they’re forming a “sleeper cell” to “aggregate capital.” The head of this sleeper cell will be a guy who compares Barack Obama to Hitler.

3. The mayor of Los Angeles, who’s going to be running the Democratic National Convention in three months, will give his direct phone number to the guy who compares Barack Obama to Hitler.

4. Nevertheless, none of this gives rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption, or will cause Americans to lose faith in our democracy.

I think it’s fair to say that we’ve now heard from the mouth of the billionaires themselves, the ones who love Citizens United so much, that the Citizens United decision was total garbage.

Indeed, it was. Honestly it reminds me of the movie Casino. Las Vegas was the perfect venue for this meeting.

.

Who are the parasites?

by digby

In the wake of the latest illustration of Paul Ryan’s soulless Randian vision of America, here’s a little reminder to the empty shells of human beings who shout, “suck it up whiners”:

Some conservative critics of federal social programs, including leading presidential candidates, are sounding an alarm that the United States is rapidly becoming an “entitlement society” in which social programs are undermining the work ethic and creating a large class of Americans who prefer to depend on government benefits rather than work. A new CBPP analysis of budget and Census data, however, shows that more than 90 percent of the benefit dollars that entitlement and other mandatory program spend go to assist people who are elderly, seriously disabled, or members of working households — not to able-bodied, working-age Americans who choose not to work. This figure has changed little in the past few years.

In a December 2011 op-ed, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney warned ominously of the dangers that the nation faces from the encroachment of the “Entitlement Society,” predicting that in a few years, “we will have created a society that contains a sizable contingent of long-term jobless, dependent on government benefits for survival.” “Government dependency,” he wrote, “can only foster passivity and sloth.” Similarly, former Senator Rick Santorum said that recent expansions in the “reach of government” and the spending behind them are “systematically destroying the work ethic.”

The claim behind these critiques is clear: federal spending on entitlements and other mandatory programs through which individuals receive benefits is promoting laziness, creating a dependent class of Americans who are losing the desire to work and would rather collect government benefits than find a job.

Such beliefs are starkly at odds with the basic facts regarding social programs, the analysis finds. Federal budget and Census data show that, in 2010, 91 percentof the benefit dollars from entitlement and other mandatory programs went to the elderly (people 65 and over), the seriously disabled, and members of working households. People who are neither elderly nor disabled — and do not live in a working household — received only 9 percent of the benefits.

Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.

A small number of discretionary (i.e., non-entitlement) programs also provide substantial benefits to individuals, but the lack of full funding for some of these programs means they do not reach all eligible recipients. Indeed, in some cases — such as in low-income rental assistance programs — the vast majority of people who are eligible receive no benefits because of program funding limits. If we broaden the universe of programs examined to include the principal discretionary programs that provide benefits — low-income housing programs, the WIC nutrition program for low-income women and young children, and low-income energy assistance — the result is essentially unchanged. Some 90 percent of the benefit dollars still go to the elderly, the disabled, and working households.

So basically they are saying the elderly, the disabled and the children are burdens on society who don’t believe in, much less deserve, the American dream. That’s the conservative worldview in a nutshell.

.

Have you heard that President Obama is a gay murderer?

by digby

The other day I wrote about the creepy underground smut generated by the wingnut fever swamps about president Obama’s mother, and I mentioned the similarly pathological attacks on Bill Clinton as a murderer back in the 90s.

Well, it looks as though President Obama hasn’t escaped that one either:

In his latest “report” for WorldNetDaily, Corsi ponders whether Obama joined Jeremiah Wright’s church in order to meet other men at “The Down Low Club,” all confirmed by a source identified as “Carolyn,” who said Wright “helped Obama hide his homosexuality” and warned that people may have been killed to cover-up Obama’s dark, gay past.

Over the past several months, WND investigators have interviewed a number of members of the church who claim the president benefited from Wright’s efforts to help black men who engage in homosexual activity appear respectable in black society by finding them a wife.

…

The Down Low Club at Trinity “doesn’t have meetings, and it isn’t like the Rotary Club,” a source identified for this article as “Carolyn” explained to a WND investigator in Chicago.

“It was more that Wright served as a matchmaker,” said Carolyn, a 20-year member of Trinity who has played a role in church administration and knows the Obamas personally.

…

“Trinity was a chance to network,” she said. “The stuff preached was hateful, but about 70 percent of those who go there ignore the radical rhetoric and just trying to get ahead.”

Carolyn said Trinity “helped a lot of blacks get successful and connected.”

“That’s what Wright did for Obama,” she claimed. “He connected Obama in the community, and he helped Obama hide his homosexuality.”

…

“I’m still scared to discuss any of this,” Carolyn said.

“At Trinity, if you even hint at talking about Obama being gay, you are reminded of our dear departed choir director,” she said. “He was killed, and it wasn’t a robbery. The Christmas presents weren’t touched. The TV was not taken, nothing in the apartment was missing.”

The last time I mentioned this, I was barraged with complaints from right wingers insisting that the left does the same thing, citing the Bush National Guard story as evidence. For real …

.

We’ve had austerity lite whether we want to admit it or not

by digby

I’ve been detecting quite a bit of smug, self aggrandizement coming from certain Democratic quarters about the brilliance of the stimulus and how it deftly avoided all the problems that Europe and the UK are facing with their harsh austerity programs. It’s a nice story and there’s no doubt that the US dodged the UK bullet but there’s no doubt that the administration has not only been talking up austerity since they came into office, they’ve actually enacted it. Here’s Dday:

Jared Bernstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has an important piece that reinforces something I’ve been saying for a long time. Contrary to the opinion of Michael Grunwald that there has been no austerity in Obama’s first term, Bernstein lays out the numbers that actually shows the austerity, in both the short- and long-term, that actually encompasses most of what deficit scolds seek in their grand bargain. And this is actually a bad idea, as Bernstein illustrates.

These developments are poorly understood by those—most vocally, SB advocates—who continuously inveigh that we’re not “serious” about cutting spending. In fact, that’s the only thing we’ve been “serious” about so far, such that we’ve actually achieved 70% of the discretionary spending cuts called for in the SB budget plan. This does not count war savings, nor does it include savings on interest payments, which would add another $250 billion to the savings.

Bernstein references this paper by Richard Kogan of CBPP, which lays out the deficit reduction deals already put in place by Congress and the President, both from the 2012 budget deal and the Budget Control Act (i.e. the debt limit deal). This generated $1.5 trillion in discretionary spending cuts between 2013-2022, as part of a spending cap that President Obama is unlikely to violate as long as he’s President. And Kogan writes that, while 2/5 of these cuts come from defense, “These reductions will shrink non-defense discretionary spending to its lowest level on record as a share of GDP, with data going back to 1962.”

Take a look at this:

This proves, I think, just how far down the rabbit hole we’ve become. Alan Simpson doesn’t even know that his program has largely been enacted and neither do the highly respected chroniclers of the era, who all insist that we have been on a Keynesian dream trip and that everything’s going as well as anyone could hope for under the circumstances.

I don’t know if that’s true. Nobody does. But the fact is that we’ve been undergoing a “soft” austerity from the very beginning cushioned with a temporary bump in spending that turned out to be inadequate. That’s it. (And yes, Ben Nelson is a jackass who ruins everything, we know that.)

Dday concludes:

Bernstein furthermore explains that this insistent deficit reduction, the result of a successful House Republican gambit to focus on public spending, is a bad, bad idea.

Finally, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. What is so damn great about cutting the heck out of non-defense discretionary spending? Clearly, we want to evaluate their effectiveness, but in an age of increased inequality and diminished opportunity and mobility among the least advantaged, many of the programs in this category should be expanded (help with college assistance, Head Start, job programs and job training). Simply cutting for the sake of optics without regard to social need and economic context is not the way forward.

That’s exactly right. And the trolling from these fiscal scolds, which has buy-in across the political spectrum, created this false need to cut, with dire potential effects on the economy.

(Incidentally, Bowles-Simpson masked its tax increases through differing baselines and shrunken budget windows; when Republicans see the true implications, they’ll run screaming.)

Paul Ryan did run screaming, you’ll recall. He refused to sign on to Simpson-Bowles and according to daffy Uncle Simpson, it was because of the proposed “revenues.”

I would just add that the fiscal scolds Dday mentions include those in the White House who scheduled a “fiscal summit” one month after he was inaugurated:

February 14, 2009
Obama to Shift Focus to Budget Deficit

By JONATHAN WEISMAN

With a $787 billion stimulus package in hand, President Barack Obama will pivot quickly to address a budget deficit that could now approach $2 trillion this year.

He has scheduled a “fiscal-responsibility summit” on Feb. 23 and will unveil a budget blueprint three days later, crafted to put pressure on politicians to address the country’s surging long-term debt crisis.

President Barack Obama, left, meets Deere CEO Robert Lane at White House Friday. Obama defended his stimulus plan before business leaders.

Speaking Friday to business leaders at the White House, the president defended the surge of spending in the stimulus plan, but he made sure to add: “It’s important for us to think in the midterm and long term. And over that midterm and long term, we’re going to have to have fiscal discipline. We are not going to be able to perpetually finance the levels of debt that the federal government is currently carrying.”

Along those lines, White House budget director Peter R. Orszag has committed to instituting tougher budget-discipline rules — once the economy turns around. Those include a mandate that any “nonemergency” spending increases be offset by equal spending cuts or tax increases.

Officials say the budget blueprint to be released this month will also attempt to make public the full extent of the dire fiscal situation, by not repeating some of the accounting used in crafting President George W. Bush’s budgets. Recent budget blueprints excluded from deficit projections the long-term costs of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those budgets also didn’t include the cost of preventing the alternative minimum tax — instituted in 1969 to ensure the rich didn’t escape taxation — from hitting the middle class.

Officials are examining whether to include those costs. The budget will project out 10 years, not the five-year forecast instituted by Mr. Bush. And with the stimulus cost, the fiscal 2009 deficit in the document is likely to exceed the $1.2 trillion forecast by the Congressional Budget Office last month.

Obama aides say they aren’t looking for quick action, but a start to the conversation. “We’re going to bring some things to the table, but we’re going to listen to everybody else,” said Christina Romer, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, in an interview Friday. “It’s a giant issue, and it’s not one we can solve unilaterally.”

The president met with 44 fiscally conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats this week and gave a nod to legislation that would set up commissions to deal with long-term deficit strains. The commissions would then present plans to Congress for an up-or-down vote.

“We feel like we’ve found a partner in the White House,” said Rep. Charlie Melancon (D., La.), a Blue Dog co-chairman.

They ended up postponing the summit until the next year  but they passed plenty of these measures in their budgets over time, as Bernstein points out. And once health care was passed they made the famous public “pivot” to hard sell on deficit reduction.

And our slow growth and high unemployment is a testament to just how well it worked.

.

Scared streeters

by David Atkins

The New York Times frets:

As campaigns enter their final month, a number of candidates are flooding the airwaves with advertisements demonizing Wall Street. From the presidential race to local Congressional contests, from Montana to New Mexico, candidates — both Democrats and Republicans — are relentlessly attacking their opponents by linking them to bankers and bailouts, no matter how tenuous the connection.

“Candidates are bashing each other over the heads for being in Wall Street’s back pocket,” said Elizabeth Wilner of Kantar Media’s Campaign Media Analysis Group. “Wall Street is this campaign season’s punching bag, and it’s bipartisan and it’s escalating.”

Yes, it’s true. People hate Wall Street–so much so that campaigns on both sides are stretching the truth to tie their opponents to Wall Street because it looks so bad.

That’s what happens when a small class of very, very wealthy people crashes the entire economy, gets bailed out at the expense of everyone else, roars back to greater riches than ever, and then has the audacity of sneer at the downtrodden for not being as “productive” as they are.

Yes, they’re insecure about both their wealth and their position in society, emotionally and morally.

Good. It’s called social guilt, and it’s a survival mechanism. The big question is who will be left surviving if they bring it all crashing down again.

.

CA26 debate liveblog between Julia Brownley & Tony Strickland

by David Atkins

One of the top contested districts in the country is CA26 spanning most of Ventura county, California. The race is between Republican tea party State Senator Tony Strickland, and Democratic Assemblymember Julia Brownley. The district leans slightly Democratic. Tonight Cal Lutheran University is hosting the first debate between the candidates, and I’ll be liveblogging it here in a few moments…

7:03 A bunch of Republicans, one of them reeking of cologne, have occupied the front row reserved for the Press. Hilarious.

7:07 The debate is getting started a little late. Brownley and Strickland both waiting at the podia.

7:13 Moderators are Timm Herdt, Henry Duboff of Pacific Coast Business Times. So a centrist and a conservative. Balance!

7:16 Brownley: “Ventura County has a choice it hasn’t had in decades…We want to protect Medicare and Social Security, and a woman’s right to choose…President Obama needs a Congress that will help him expand the middle class and move the country forward.” Good opening statement.

7:17 Strickland: “Are we going to leave the next generation in a better spot than what we found?” “I don’t care if it’s a Democratic idea or a Republican idea, if it’s a good idea I’m all in.” Strickland continues his fraudulent “moderate” credentials. Strickland is one of the most extreme Republicans in the California State Senate, and leader of the so-called “Taxpayers Caucus.” But Strickland knows that he has to pretend to be a moderate to win.

7:20 Herdt: Both of you say your opponents are too extreme for Ventura County. What is it that makes your opponent too extreme? BROWNLEY: “Two candidates with different visions and values. Mine is to grow the economy by strengthening the middle class.” Wants to protect Medicare and Social Security the way we know it. Have the wealthy pay their fair share so we can protect Medicare and Social Security. Protecting a woman’s right to choose. My opponent wants to privatize and voucherize Medicare and Social Security, turn the clock back on women’s rights, and cut taxes on the wealthy.

STRICKLAND: Stresses how he lived in Ventura County. Lies about her never having lived in Ventura County. Capitol Weekly rates the legislators based on their voting record. Talks up Nancy Pelosi talking Brownley into coming to the district, uses his “didn’t need to use Mapquest to get here.” Basically, it’s an anti-SanFran, anti-Los Angeles campaign of division while claiming to be a moderate.

Brownley responds as well.

7:25Duboff asks about the fiscal cliff and Simpson Bowles. Would you endorse or support something along the lines of Simpson Bowles? Duboff uses a bunch of glowing words about Simpson Bowles, in a horribly biased question.

STRICKLAND: The best way to get out of the fiscal crisis is to make sure we create jobs. Right now the economy is stagnant. The best way to get out of this fiscal mess is to grow the economy. What is being proposed in Washington is these deep defense cuts. That would have a devastating impact in Ventura County. Republicans and Democrats need to come together to fight for the military bases. Essentially, Strickland is totally dodging the question on Simpson-Bowles.

BROWNLEY: The fiscal cliff is not an option for our country. The Simpson-Bowles proposal is just a proposal. The Congress has other options at this time. I agree with Tony that it needs to be a bi-partisan effort. And at the end of the day there have to be solutions that Republicans aren’t happy with and Democrats aren’t happy with. But we can’t balance the budget on the backs of the middle-class and seniors. We need a balanced approach. She takes an Elizabeth Warren approach to the answer, which is good. Even generals have recommended where we can make cuts to the defense budget, and Democrats and republicans can come together, but not balance the budget on the backs of the middle class, and not by hurting our seniors.

STRICKLAND: I grew up lower-middle class, and Brownley has voted for tax increases that fell broadly on the middle class.

7:31 QUESTION: How far have we come to protect ourselves from another Wall Street collapse like 2008?

BROWNLEY: I believe that the steps taken by the Administration to create and save jobs were the right thing to do. Not fast enough, but we’re on the right path. The wealthy need to pay their fair share. We can’t balance the budget on the backs of the middle class. The stock market has improved. Our employment numbers have improved slightly. It’s going in the right direction and we’re looking toward a greater economic recovery.

STRICKLAND: I would have opposed the stimulus program. Now our grandkids will pay for our overspending. Promotes the overseas jobs tax repatriation idea. If you want unemployment to go below 8%, that’s how you do it, with private sector solutions.

BROWNLEY: The choice is whether we’re going to grow the middle class. The failed economics of the Bush era of trickle-down economics haven’t worked, and we need to expand the middle class.

7:35 HERDT: Please explain why you believe your opponent’s position would cut Medicare:

STRICKLAND: I signed a Medicare protection pledge, and oppose the Ryan plan. Brownley supports the Nancy Pelosi healthcare act. Strickland has the Republican talking points down. As if cuts to MEdicare Advantage providers amounts to Medicare cuts. It doesn’t, of course.

BrOWNLEY: You support privatizing Medicare for those under 50. Democrats and Republicans in Washington both scored a $716 million savings. But Democrats closed the doughnut hole and increased funding for seniors presecription, and extends Medicare through 2024. We also have the Affordable Care Act, so that we have all the advantages it affords us, no caps, no pre-existing conditions. The Republicans did it to give tax relief to the wealthy and that’s where it goes. We do preventive care and extend the life of Medicare for 8 years.

STRICKLAND: I have a history of voting different from my party. I oppose the Ryan plan. We need to preserve and protect Medicare. I don’t support vouchers. I said for 40 or 30, we need to contribute a little more. My Mom would kill me if I touched Medicare.

BROWNLEY: You praised Paul Ryan for thinking up ways to change Medicare. You founded the California Club for Growth. I don’t know what your plan is to save MEdicare. But I’m going to protect Medicare for today’s seniors and tomorrow’s as we know it.

7:41Question about alternative energy.
BROWNLEY: I would be supportive of anything that helps to leverage those kinds of alternative energy. I would look honestly at oil subsides. We should move to alternatives.

STRICKLAND: I‘ve always been fighting in Sacramento for renewable energy. We should pass the Keystone Pipeline. Now we’re buying oil from Hugo Chavez. Fails to mention oil is sold on a global market.

7:46 Dream Act and immigration question.

STRICKLAND: We wouldn’t need the Dream Act if we had a sensible immigration policy. Attacks the system of bringing immigrants in for education then go back to their home countries. I want to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

BROWNLEY: I authored California Dream Act legislation. I support Obama’s approach to this. It’s very important for young people who have come here by no fault of their own.

7:50 Both candidates talk about the need to keep the naval base in Ventura County. Strickland jumps on Brownley for saying that the closure isn’t an imminent threat. She’s right. It isn’t. But Strickland will demagogue it anyway.

7:55 Duboff: What will you do to encourage individuals to take the jump into entrepreneurship and how will you reward those risk-takers? What a load of crock question. The problem isn’t rewarding risk-takers. The problem is reducing the risk so that people will actually dare take the leap.

STRICKLAND: I passed a bill with Senator Padilla to offer a manufacturing jobs tax credit. People are having a tough time getting access to credit. We have too many regulations. We need to cut red tape, look at the tax structure. Manufacturing and small business, I’ll be a champion in Washington.

BROWNLEY: Small business is the backbone of the economy. One thing we need to do is get healthcare costs under control. We need tax credits for startups, small business needs access to capital. Big banks were bailed out, but aren’t giving loans to small business. We have to continue to create incentives for small business.

STRICKLAND: Small business owners don’t like the “Pelosi healthcare act.”

BROWNLEY: I just had a talk with a small business owner who said we need more money in the hands of the middle class. If we expand the middle class, they’ll have customers to buy those goods and services.

8:00 QUESTION: If elected to Congress, you would represent the nation. Your advice on foreign policy would be relevant. With regard to the Israeli contention that Iran is on a path to making a nuclear weapon, what is your response?

BROWNLEY: We must be vigilant to prevent proliferation. A nuclear Iran would present a serious threat to Israel, and we cannot let that happen. We are 30 days from a presidential election, and we shouldn’t be politicizing an issue as serious as this. I take my job seriously, I do my reserach, I learn the issues before I cast a vote. This is something we have to approach very carefully, but nuclear proliferation is not an issue. I support Israel unequivocally. I have a long track record to demonstrate that kind of support. But by drawing a red line, we should be careful about politicizing that. All options need to be on the table. But at the end of the day, we have to be ever so vigilant in preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

STRICKLAND: Sadly both the past two Administrations waited too long in implementing sanctions. We must do everything we can to prevent Iran from using nuclear weapons. I have a long track record of supporting Israel. We need to do whatever we have to, to prevent this from happening. If Iran gets nukes, it will threaten not only Israel, but us at home.

BROWNLEY: I think it’s very very important on these foreign policy issues, that Democrats andRepublicans need to stick together on these issues. We have to continue that bipartisanship.

STRIckLAND: On a bipartisan level, we missed the boat. They’re closer every day that goes by.

8:05 Would you vote for the Defense of Marriage Act?

STRICKLAND: I support marriage between a man and a woman. Dodges the question like a coward.

BROWNLEY: I support the repeal of DOMA. And I strongly support the LGBT community and the right for same sex couples to marry. It’s a civil rights issue. I’m pleased the Obama Administration has taken necessary steps. I support gay marriage 100% (ugh, “marriage equality!”). Benefits differences is all the reason we must repeal DOMA.

Favorite Supreme Court Justice?

STRICKLAND: I would have said Roberts before the healthcare decision. Now I would say Clarence Thomas, or still Roberts.

BROWNLEY: Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

STRICKLAND: Upon reflection, I would say Alito. (!!!! Keep digging, Tony.)

Both candidates wax on about earmarks. Local funding is good, says Brownley. Same, but legislators have to put their names on it, says Strickland.

What about student debt?

BROWNLEY: Higher education is extremely important. California has superior higher education. Investment in science and research couldn’t be more important. The research on renewable energies and other new technologies are the backbone of California’s economy. Education creates opportunity and prosperity. It also creates wealth with a state, county and country. Students should have access to federal grants, Pell grants.

STRICKLAND: Wants to cut Administrator salaries. We need to put a feeder into good-paying jobs that work with your hands, community colleges, invest in those jobs as well. And we’re behind in math and science. We’ve done a good job with our public universities as well.

BROWNLEY: You can’t give tax breaks to the millionaires and billionaires and halve the investment that we put into our higher education systems. You can’t have it both ways. I believe again that the wealthy have to pay their fair share and expand the middle class, providing opportunities for college students and middle class families so that our next generation can have the same opportunities that the next generation was afforded.

STRICKLAND: We can’t build a high-speed rail initiative, and then reach for more money from families.

What are you reading these days?

BROWNLEY: Last book I read was “Thoughts before dying.”

STRICKLAND: “Strong fathers, Strong daughters.” Strickland is good at the personal schmooze and storytelling.

Question: Let’s talk about taxes. What does fair share mean? What should the highest level of income tax rate should be?

BROWNLEY: I think everyone has to pay their fair share of taxes. I’m not sure exactly where the right balance is. But I know that in today’s economy we need to grow our economy and I believe that extending the tax cuts for the wealthy isn’t going to help us and assist us in getting out of the stranglehold we are in. We need tax relief. No question we need to study our tax system and go over line item by line item where the loopholes are. But what I hear from the Ryan plan and Romney plan is that we’re going to give tax cuts to the rich while eliminating deductions for the middle class. I’m not a tax expert, but if I go to Congress, you will seriously believe that I will study and be prepared.

Herdt: 35%? What number should it be?

BROWNLEY: I don’t know what the number should be. But when the wealthy can use tax deductions to pay 10% or 12%, that’s not right. (Brownley needs to study up on this. The easy answer is that we should go back to the tax rates on the wealthy that drove so much of our economic growth under Clinton or Ronald Reagan. Easy, easy answer and should have come prepared with it.)

STRIcKLAND: 35% is much too high. We need to simplify the tax code. The death tax isn’t right. Strickland voted for a broad-based tax increase on the sales tax. People should keep more of what they earned.

BROWNLEY: I think a lot of what Tony stays isn’t true. It’s been very difficult to balance California’s budget. We need a more balanced approach. When we’re cutting child care and healthcare and higher education, we need to take a more balanced appraoch. We too need to get an economic stimulus going, we have not been able to take a more balanced approach to this because Tony and others have signed the Grover Norquist pledge, and when you signed a pledge and you’re not able to come to the table, that’s the wrong way to approach it. We have to be responsible and reasonable about the budget, but we need to simultaneously balance budgets and grow our economy. You have to do that very carefully, and in a bipartisan way. And Democrats and Republicans would walk away with things they didn’t like.

STRICKLAND: California already has the 3rd highest tax rate in the nation. California government should live within its means.

CLOSING STATEMENTS:

STRICKLAND: I grew up in Ventura County, want to solve problems, but if I go to Washington will never forget where I grew up and why I’m there.

BROWNLEY: Strickland wants to go back to the failed policies of the past. Wants to take away a woman’s right to choose, cut programs for the middle class and education to provide tax breaks for the wealthy. We need to protect Medicare and Social Security. And for the many people who have succeeded and done well, they too should pay their fair share so the middle class can thrive.

.

Conservatives will fight for your freedom — to starve

by digby

I’ve been wondering where all those conservative alleged protectors of individual rights have been as institutions claimed the Bill of Right for themselves. And I haven’t seen many of them standing up for the individual against these claims that an employers’ religious liberty trumps the religious liberty of their employees.

A judge did just that this week:

Like the many copycat lawsuits asserting similar legal claims, the plaintiffs in this suit argued that the birth control rules substantially burden their faith by requiring them to pay for employee health benefits which might then in turn be used to pay for birth control. As Judge Jackson’s opinions explains, however, this argument proves too much:

The burden of which plaintiffs complain is that funds, which plaintiffs will contribute to a group health plan, might, after a series of independent decisions by health care providers and patients covered by [an employer’s health] plan, subsidize someone else’s participation in an activity that is condemned by plaintiffs’ religion. . . . [Federal religious freedom law] is a shield, not a sword. It protects individuals from substantial burdens on religious exercise that occur when the government coerces action one’s religion forbids, or forbids action one’s religion requires; it is not a means to force one’s religious practices upon others.

[It] does not protect against the slight burden on religious exercise that arises when one’s money circuitously flows to support the conduct of other free-exercise-wielding individuals who hold religious beliefs that differ from one’s own. . . .
[T]he health care plan will offend plaintiffs’ religious beliefs only if an [] employee (or covered family member) makes an independent decision to use the plan to cover counseling related to or the purchase of contraceptives. Already, [plaintiffs] pay salaries to their employees—money the employees may use to purchase contraceptives or to contribute to a religious organization. By comparison, the contribution to a health care plan has no more than a de minimus impact on the plaintiff’s religious beliefs than paying salaries and other benefits to employees.

A key insight in this opinion is that religious plaintiffs can hardly claim they refuse to provide a benefit to their employees that those employees could later use to purchase birth control, because they are already providing those employees with a benefit they can use to purchase birth control — money. An employer cannot assert a religious objection to how their employees choose to use their own benefits or their own money, because religious freedom is not a license to “force one’s religious practices upon others.”

There is a school of thought (and its quite a large one) that says employers pretty much own their employees and if the employees don’t like it they can just exercise their freedom to quit. And starve. Especially if there is no safety net.

My suspicion is that the same argument will be made here: if these feminazis want to practice their witchcraft religion and whore themselves without paying the consequences, they’ve got the freedom to quit their jobs. (I’ve got their religion liberty for ’em, right here…)

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Frankly, I could see some appellate wingnut arguing that now that he’s thought about it, an employer does have the right to object to how their employees use their benefits and pay. It’s really the natural next step of their civil rights for corporations, religious institutions and wealthy employers movement. They shall overcome.

.

If they can’t suppress the vote, maybe they can just buy it outright

by digby

Golly, I’m so old I can remember when the Republicans used to go into a fugue state and start speaking in tongues upon hearing tales of Democratic campaign organizers offering free cigarettes to homeless people to get them them to vote:

“This is just plain and simply wrong. There is a right way and a wrong way to turn out the vote in this country and handing cigarettes to homeless people in an effort to entice them to vote is as wrong as wrong can be. It raises questions as to whether similar activities are going on at other places around the country,” [Ari]Fleischer said.

But hey, this is completely different:

Americans for Prosperity (AFP), the nonprofit financed by David Koch and other wealthy Republican businessmen, has spent some $31 million on anti-Obama ads since April. The group recently opened 98 Get-Out-the-Vote offices, hired some 200 field staffers and has been distributing its state-of-the-art voter-targeting technology on Samsung tablet computers to its volunteers. Now AFP is hoping to win hearts and minds with gifts of free gas.

AFP is hosting events at gas stations across the country to provide gasoline to motorists for the price of $1.84 per gallon. The group is paying for up to fifteen gallons for 100–150 drivers at each station, telling them that the $1.84 price symbolizes the price per a gallon before Obama took office in 2009.

A CBS news affiliate in Iowa reports that at least one driver, Louis Lumpkin, said that the free gas would make a difference on his vote for president.

AFP is spending about $4,000 giving away gas at every stop, and has been to stations throughout Nevada, Iowa and Michigan. Along the way, they’re earning free, largely uncritical airtime for their message and maybe some votes in swing states.

Click over to Lee Fang’s article at The Nation to read all the reasons why the opil-soaked Kochs are the biggest hypocrites in history for this little gambit.

Considering how much money is out there and how willing these plutocrats are to spend it on this campaign, it’s probably worth wondering how much straight up vote buying is going to happen. They’re doing this in plain sight and asking for publicity. Clearly, they are not concerned about any appearance of impropriety or legal exposure. Why not go for it?

.