Month: November 2012

A big lift from all of us

by digby

Today the progressives had a press conference on the Grand Bargain. And they had some requirements of their own:

“We’re going to send a loud message to the leadership in the House, in the Senate and President Obama. Do not cut Social Security, do not cut Medicare, do not cut Medicaid,” Sanders said. “Deficit reduction is a serious issue but it must be done in a way that is fair. We must not balance the budget on the backs of the elderly, the sick, the children or the poor.”
[…]
Whitehouse also said that the Defending Social Security Caucus, a 19-member group of senators founded by Sanders, would create a “firewall” in Congress to protect Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid from cuts. Sanders highlighted Wednesday comments from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) who said he would oppose any deal to cut the deficit that would reduce Social Security benefits. The notion that Social Security is in dire financial straits, Reid says, is a “myth” created by Republicans.

While most members of Congress at the event struck a positive tone, Rep. Keith Ellison’s (D-Minn.) comments indicated a belief that Social Security is indeed in the crosshairs for a debt-reduction package, with strong political forces allied to cut benefits.

Averting cuts to benefits will “take a big lift from all of us,” Ellison said.

Tom Harkin said that Medicare and Medicaid should be off the table during talks on the fiscal cliff.

He touted the results of the Nov. 6 election as evidence that Americans support raising taxes instead of cutting spending.

“When it comes to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the American people told us to protect and strengthen these programs, not cut them,” Harkin said.

“The American people want a change in the structure of who pays and making sure that we keep the programs that protect the poor, the disabled and the elderly,” he told The Hill.

It’s good to see some people making the progressive argument at long last. The media seems to be treating them as slightly slow children as usual, nodding patiently at the absurd notion that the “entitlements” don’t have to be slashed mercilessly for our own good.Bbut it’s been an article of faith among them for so long that I don’t think they can conceive of any budget battles that don’t turn on the idea of average people being required to “sacrifice.”

If you’d like to sign Senator Sanders’ petition, you can do it here.

Update: I just have to say one thing. I very much admire the progressives’ work on this, the people at Social Security Works and others. It’s vital (and somewhat galling frankly) that they stand up to the White House, the Conservadems, Wall Street and the Republicans to save the tattered safety net. I certainly stand with them.

But the sick truth is that none of this is necessary right now. We shouldn’t even be talking about the deficit with nearly 8% unemployment and interest rates and inflation so low as to not even exist. It’s daft. If I didn’t know better I’d think they had another agenda.

Also too: this.

Update II: Oh, and nobody pay any attention to this whatever you do:

BRUSSELS -Hundreds of thousands of Europe’s beleaguered citizens went on strike or snarled the streets of several capitals Wednesday, at times clashing with riot police, as they demanded that governments stop cutting benefits and create more jobs.

Workers with jobs and without spoke of a “social emergency” crippling the world’s largest economic bloc, a union of 27 nations and half a billion people.

The protests were met with tear gas in Italy and Spain, but were largely limited to the countries hardest hit by the austerity measures designed to bring government spending into line with revenues. Wealthier nations like Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark saw only small, sedate demonstrations.

Governments backing the line of stringent austerity were not impressed by the show of force.

`’We must nevertheless do what is necessary: break open encrusted labor markets, give more people a chance to work, become more flexible in many areas,” German Chancellor Angela Merkel said. `’We will of course make this clear, again and again, in talks with the unions.”

Spanish Economy Minister Luis de Guindos spoke of “a long crisis that has meant sacrifice and uncertainty,” but said: “The government is convinced that the path we have taken is the only possible way out.”

To combat a three-year financial crisis over too much sovereign debt, governments across Europe have had to raise taxes and cut spending, pensions and benefits. As well as hitting workers’ incomes and living standards, these measures have also led to a decline in economic output and a sharp increase in unemployment.

No they didn’t have to raise taxes and cut benefits. They chose to do it. And the results are impressive. So impressive our government wants to get in on some of that action apparently.

I keep seeing a vision of some future person studying this period and asking “
what were they thinking?” much as we say that about the period between the two World Wars.

.

Abortions for me, but not for thee

by David Atkins

Do career conservatives actually believe in anything, outside of their own sense of entitlement? Apparently not:

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Republican U.S. Rep. Scott DesJarlais of Tennessee testified during divorce proceedings that he and his former wife made a “mutual” decision for her to have two abortions, according to divorce transcripts released Thursday.

The 2001 court transcripts were released by the state Democratic Party, which had tried to air the documents before the Nov. 6 election. A DesJarlais spokesman didn’t immediately return a message seeking comment.

DesJarlais easily won a second term despite revelations that he once urged a patient with whom he was having an affair to get an abortion. DesJarlais, whose campaign platform opposed abortion, acknowledged the conversation but said he was only trying to get her to admit she wasn’t pregnant.

The transcripts show that woman testified under oath that she had been pregnant. She declined to elaborate on the outcome of the pregnancy.

On his campaign website, DesJarlais espoused an anti-abortion position, saying: “All life should be cherished and protected. We are pro-life.”

One was an abortion of choice due to problems in their marriage, while the other was because his ex-wife was on experimental drugs that could negatively impact a pregnancy.

One wonders what The DesJarlais couple would have done if his Republican colleagues had been successful in outlawing abortions. Presumably they’d have still gotten the abortion, even if they had had to travel to another state or country to do so. It’s too bad the poorer and less fortunate wouldn’t have the same luxury.

Or maybe that’s all part of the plan.

.

QOTD: Kent Conrad

by digby

Zaid Jilani caught this from Conrad when he was asked if raising the Medicare age should be cut as part of a Grand Bargain:

I wouldn’t want that to be the starting point, but as part of an overall package, that’s balanced and fair. Given that we now have exchanges to purchase insurance because of the president’s health-care reform law, it makes it much more acceptable, much more reasonable, over a long period of time to gradually increase the age given that people are living so much longer.

This is definitely on the menu. It’s not just lame duck deficit hawks:

On Capitol Hill, it isn’t clear how strenuously Democrats will resist cutting entitlements. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.) said he and others were open to changes as long as they were done in a measured way and were part of deal that included tax increases. Mr. Van Hollen also said changing Social Security and increasing the Medicare eligibility age above 65 should be part of negotiations.

“I’m willing to consider all of these ideas as part of an overall plan,” Mr. Van Hollen said Tuesday at the Journal’s CEO Council.

White House officials in 2011 were in advanced talks with Mr. Boehner that would have agreed to some of these changes, notably raising Medicare’s eligibility age. That is one cause of liberals’ anxiety about how the coming talks may unfold.

Igor Volsky at Think Progress noted that this would just shift the costs to people who would be between the old eligibility age and the new one and these people would very likely end up being uninsured at the worst possible time in their lives. I don’t think people realize that even under Obamacare, insurance over the age of 55 is expensive for individuals and employers. I’m sorry, but humans tend to get sicker at this age. The subsidies will not adequately cover the difference. (And, by the way, younger people will likely see their premiums increased if they are in exchanges that are suddenly flooded with a bunch of older, sicker people.)

Meanwhile:

The Congressional Budget Office studied the proposal when it was part of the House GOP’s budget plan and found it “would have little effect on the trajectory of Medicare’s long-term spending…because younger beneficiaries are healthier and thus less costly than the program’s average beneficiary.”

This is basically an offering to get the Republicans to agree to ask those making more than 259k (or a million)a year to “pay a little bit more.” Or perhaps it’s better understood as a human sacrifice.

It’s hard to believe that it was only three years ago that we were close to an agreement to lower the Medicare eligibility age to 55 (which would have been a godsend.) Now Democrats are talking about raising it to 67. After a big re-election victory. Wow.

Bold Progressives reminds us what a progressive Grand Bargain looks like:

We don’t have to do this.

.

If it’s not racism, what is it?

by digby

And she’s only 22:

The Turlock, Calif., woman who made headlines for her controversial Facebook post last week is now rethinking her actions.

Frustrated by President Barack Obama’s reelection Tuesday night, the 22-year-old woman voiced her displeasure in an angry post that was quickly picked up by national news outlets. “Another 4 years of this (N-word),” Helms wrote. “Maybe he will get assassinated this term.”

But that’s not racist or anything:

“It does [sound like I’m a racist],” Helms said, “but I am not. That’s what everyone’s been telling me, ‘You know, what you said sounded so racist,’ and it does, and you know, I take it back. If I could erase what I said, I would.”

I am actually comforted by the fact that this obnoxious young woman is a racist because it’s even more frightening to think that level of hatred sprang from something rational.

.

Benghazi smell test

by digby

Kevin Drum asks the only truly relevant question on this Benghazi issue: what could the administration have been hoping to achieve by putting out the wrong story? We’ve seen nothing that makes any sense here. Kevin writes:

As best I can tell, the suggestion from the right has been that Obama didn’t want to admit that Benghazi was a terrorist attack because….well, I’m not sure, exactly. Something about how this would blow a hole in his claim to be decimating al-Qaeda via drone attacks. Or maybe it would remove some of the luster from being the killer of Osama bin Laden. Or something. But one way or another, the story is that Obama was deeply afraid of admitting that terrorists are still out there and want to do us harm.

This has never made a lick of sense. If anything, the continuing existence of terrorists justifies his drone attacks. And it certainly wouldn’t do him any harm in an election. The American public routinely rallies around a president responding to a terrorist attack…

[And] there’s considerable evidence that on September 15, when Rice taped her appearances, the CIA told her there had been protests in Benghazi earlier in the day. The CIA turned out to be wrong about that, but it simply makes no sense for them to have made this up. If it does anything at all, it only makes their response look worse. This whole thing is a conspiracy theory with no conceivable motive. It’s just a wild, scattershot attack hoping to take down someone, somewhere, just to claim a scalp. It’s disgusting.

It’s also a very common form of right wing scandal mongering. They excel at “smell test” insinuations, ginning up the sense that there must be something very wrong with a flurry of questions, not necessarily related or leading to any obvious conclusion, but always leading to the impression that something very important was being covered up.

And the press inevitably loses its moorings, running around chasing each “lead” never really sure of exactly what they’re looking for until the scandal takes on a life of its own. This one is on the verge of becoming one of those scandals, especially now that sexytime’s on the menu.

There’s no there there. It’s exactly how Kevin describes it. But that isn’t stopping the press from talking about “benghazi” as a “massive intelligence failure and cover-up” featuring John McCain every five minutes ranting about “fecklessness” and pretty much taking it upon himself to destroy Susan Rice over nothing. It’s what they do.

Update: Here’s Anderson Cooper doing a good job last night with John McCain, but you’ll note that McCain, as usual, is unmoved by clear evidence of his own hypocrisy:

COOPER: Supporters of Ambassador Rise compare her comments to made to — comments that Condoleezza Rice made back when she was national security advisor in 2002 when she made a very public case for the Iraq war, saying Saddam Hussein was pursuing nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction. That intelligence was incorrect. But when she was nominated for secretary of state, many Republicans spoke out strongly for her including herself, saying she was a success story and that any one who challenge her integrity was doing it based on politics.

They say there’s a double standard. To that you say what?

MCCAIN: Well, I can say I appreciate them saying that, but the fact is four Americans died, four Americans died, and there was overwhelming evidence to the contrary that was clearly a al Qaeda affiliated attack that murdered four Americans that didn’t need to happen. There were advance warnings that were sent on August 15th and 16th. They said that they — in case of a concerted attack they could not guarantee that they could defend the consulate.

There was many warnings. There was previous attacks. All of that goes to the State Department and to this administration and our ambassador to the U.N. The — raises the question, what was she doing out there anyway? And so the American people were told — given false information when there was clearly information to counter that immediately. People don’t go to spontaneous demonstrations with mortars and rocket-propelled grenades.

COOPER: I just want to push back on you a little bit —

MCCAIN: Sure. Sure.

COOPER: On the — on the Condoleezza Rice comments because, you know, I mean, thousands were killed in the war in Iraq and yet people did not — Republicans did not hold her accountable for misleading statements that she made in the run-up to the war when she was being nominated for secretary of state.

MCCAIN: And I respect that opinion and that view. I think these are two entirely different cases, but if somebody wants to make that case, and tell the American people that it was OK to go out and tell them that this was a spontaneous demonstration sparked by a hateful video that they’re qualified for — to be our secretary of state then they’re entitled to that view. I’m entitled for my role and my advice and consent in the United States Senate, and my advice and consent, my constitutional obligation is that I will not vote and not agree to her appointment as secretary of state.

He might as well have put his fingers in his ears and started singing lalalalala.

This is why I don’t believe that Democrats should ever count on taking anything “off the table” or using GOP behavior as a way to inoculate themselves from criticism. It doesn’t work that way. They must understand that they have to fight each battle as if the world was just invented that morning. There is no history and no context that will protect them. Neither is there any necessity that a pseudo-scandal makes rational sense. The 90s should have proven once and for all that all they have to do is evoke the “smell test” and a scandal can become overwhelming whether it makes any sense or not.

Once a scandal has a one-word name, it’s real. This one is just “Benghazi”. The people don’t know the details anymore than they knew the details of Whitewater, but I think they probably all know that there must be something to it or they all wouldn’t be talking about it.

Update: Oy veh. Alleged Democrat Kent Conrad is on TV saying that questions must be answered. It’s airborne.

.

Carlos Marx and the parasites

by digby

It’s been very heart warming to see some of the GOP stars reevaluate their relationship to the Hispanic community in light of its wholesale rejection of the Party in this last election. They must “reach out” and tell them how much they are valued. It’s reminiscent of the approach George W. Bush took during his career in which he spoke Spanglish and promised comprehensive immigration reform. He even attempted to do it. And remember what happened? The GOP base had a meltdown.

Have they changed? I don’t know. But if these words from popular talk show host and Director of Issues Analysis for the American Family Association, Bryan Fischer, are any indication, not much:

“Hispanics are not Democrats, don’t vote Democrat because of immigration,” Fischer told his audience today.

“It has to do with the fact that they are socialists by nature. They come from Mexico, which is a socialist country. They want big government intervention, they want big government goodies.”

“Now they want open borders — make no mistake — because they’ve got family and friends that they want to come up and be able to benefit from the plunder of the wealth of the United States, just as they have been able to do.”

True, it’s slightly different from the stealing our jobs mantra, but it fits in nicely with the “dropping anchor babies” issue. And the parasites meme has always been a one-size fits-all for the eliminationist right. (They’ve really warmed to the more abstract Randian definition of the concept, but I would have to guess that the more “traditional” lizard brain usage is at work as well.)

Maybe the base is chastened and will see the necessity of welcoming our Hispanic brothers and sisters into the fold after all these years of fear and loathing. But I wouldn’t bet the future of the party on it.

.

Ballot Initiative gambit

by digby

ThinkProgress reports on the latest in vote suppression coming from the vote suppression innovators, Florida:

Two Florida state representatives told ThinkProgress they believe the larger than usual number of ballot initiatives were part of an intentional strategy aimed precisely at creating long lines and discouraging citizens from voting.

State Rep. Perry Thurston, the incoming House Democratic Leader, said:

Without a doubt it was intentional. The items in those amendments were not items that needed to be placed in our constitution. Such a long ballot that requires so much reading, you see so many of them were defeated. That, along with the cutting back on the days for early voting, the hours. You could just see it coming and it was gonna be turmoil. … It clearly was [the Republican majority’s] intention to make it more difficult, and to discourage individuals. There is no way people should be waiting six to seven hours, but four to five hours is too long as well. It’s a sad reflection on our state when you require that kind of time to do something that’s not a privilege but a right.

Rep. Mark S. Pafford (D), agreed that the amendments were designed to slow down voting:

Basically what they did was load up the ballot so more people would have to take time either reading through or standing in lines of five to six hours in Palm Beach County— and make a decision after a long wait. I don’t think there’s any question that what occurred was designed to suppress voters in FL. … We had amendments – the ballot was full of things that, during the holidays, you don’t talk about at home. Religion and politics.

A lot of this seemed to backfire. People don’t like having their voting rights manipulated and they proved it by standing in those long lines despite all the efforts to get them to turn away. But they do have lives to live and jobs to go to and it’s not going to be as easy in off year elections.

It’s truly a travesty that our democracy is subject to this kind of nonsense. If Democrats were smart they’d start running on the issue of electoral reform. I don’t think they would pay for it at the polls. In fact, I think they would be rewarded. Americans can be thick sometimes, but I think they have been awakened to the fact that something’s gone wrong here.

.

Maybe people care about climate change after all

by David Atkins

Zogby has a post-Sandy poll showing the public increasingly concerned about climate change:

These results show the dramatic impact 2012′s extreme weather has had across party lines, with half of Republicans, 73 percent of independents and 82 percent of Democrats saying they’re worried about the growing cost and risks of extreme weather disasters fueled by climate change. It’s a major change from our December 2009 poll, which showed two-thirds of Republicans and nearly half of political independents saying they were ‘not at all concerned’ about global climate change and global warming. The political climate has shifted and members of Congress need to catch up with their constituents.

Among the poll’s findings:

Two-thirds of voters (65 percent) say elected officials should take steps now to reduce the impact of climate change on future generations, while just 27 percent say we should wait for more evidence.

A strong majority (57 percent) says climate change is adding to the severity of recent extreme weather such as Superstorm Sandy and the summer droughts. Concern is even deeper among key demographics, with 75 percent of Hispanics, 67 percent of African Americans, 65 percent of women, and 65 percent of voters 25-34 agreeing that climate change is fueling America’s extreme weather.

Seven in ten voters (69 percent) are greatly or somewhat worried about the growing cost and risks of extreme weather disasters fueled by climate change. Six in ten (58 percent) of Tea Party sympathizers are greatly or somewhat worried, showing a connection between climate action and fiscal responsibility.

Three times as many voters say the government is doing too little to protect America’s air, water, wildlife and other natural resources (44 percent) as say it’s doing too much (14 percent).

Asked to pick the highest priority to help solve America’s energy challenges, twice as many voters select renewable energy like wind and solar power (38 percent) than any other choice. Independents favor wind and solar over fossil fuels by a 4-to-1 margin – 48 percent pick renewable energy while just 12 percent select the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline and only 11 percent prioritize more oil and gas drilling on America’s public lands.

Two thirds of voters (67 percent) say they’re very or somewhat concerned that political donations by oil, gas and coal industries are influencing politicians in Washington to approve policies that benefit their corporations. The oil and gas industry alone made $59 million in political contributions in the 2012 election cycle and has spent another $104 million on lobbying so far in 2012, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

When asked which political party they trust more to protect America’s air, water, wildlife and other natural resources, twice as many voters choose Democrats (44 percent) than pick Republicans (24 percent). But independents are up for grabs, with 54 percent answering neither/not sure.

The big question is, when does it become politically acceptable to talk about it? How many more cities need to drown before this becomes a top-tier issue?

.

Keeping the “urbans” in their place

by digby

When the Republicans get introspective it’s always interesting what psychic rocks they end up turning over:

As Representative Paul D. Ryan casts about to find an explanation for the defeat of the Republican presidential ticket, on which he was Mitt Romney’s running mate, he is looking to the nation’s big cities for answers.

“The surprise was some of the turnout, some of the turnout especially in urban areas, which gave President Obama the big margin to win this race,” Mr. Ryan said in an interview with WISC-TV back home in Wisconsin on Monday before returning Tuesday to Capitol Hill for the start of the lame-duck session.

“When we watched Virginia and Ohio coming in,” Mr. Ryan said, “and those ones coming in as tight as they were and looking like we were going to lose them, that’s when it became clear we weren’t going to win.”

Mr. Ryan, now a potential 2016 presidential candidate, has repeated the sentiment in subsequent interviews. And he is not the only conservative who has embraced the notion that a surge of voters in urban America gave Mr. Obama the prize, as many Republicans try to come to grips with how an election they believed was theirs for the taking instead got away.

When I worked in the movie business, I often had to deal with overseas buyers who would explicitly refuse to acquire what they called “urban” movies, because their audience allegedly didn’t “relate.” That euphemism never fools anyone.

I’ve rarely had a nice thing to say about Paul Ryan, but I have never thought he was one to pander openly to those members of the base who have, shall we say, somewhat old fashioned views when it comes to race. For all his faults I didn’t think he was one of those guys.
But that certainly sounds like one of those guys. And considering the massive effort to portray those voters as attempting to steal elections through voter fraud, this excuse is even more sinister.

Also, Mr Very Serious Budget Wonk got his very serious analysis wrong. Again:

But pointing to urban voters for the Republican failure to win last week does not take into account that the Republican ticket also lost big in some rural, mostly white states, like Iowa and New Hampshire.

And there is little proof from the results of the election that urban turnout over all played the decisive role in swing states like Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia or Wisconsin, where Mitt Romney lost in Mr. Ryan’s suburban home district…

“What Paul Ryan misses is that the Republicans have been losing the urban vote for a long, long time,” said Marc Morial, the president and chief executive of the National Urban League.

Mr. Morial said he did not know why Mr. Ryan was focusing attention on the nation’s urban core as the cause of the Republican losses. But he said the decision by Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan not to attend his group’s annual conference was not a good sign that Mr. Ryan wants more outreach in the future.

Yeah, I’d say that bridge has probably been burned. And that may explain why Ryan’s out there still fanning the voter fraud flames.

More reasons why bipartisanship is largely dead, as appropriate

by David Atkins

I’ve explained before the core reasons why bipartisanship is dead (hint: it’s racism and corporatism. Surprised?)

That’s the so-called disease. But the symptoms make it even more pronounced. One of the closest Congressional races in the country was right in my backyard, in which Democrat Julia Brownley defeated Republican Tony Strickland. (Disclaimer: I’m the chair of the County Democratic Central Committee here.) A tightly competitive district should make for centrist, moderate politics, right? Well, not exactly. Former Republican-turned-indepedent Supervisor Linda Parks ran in the primary, essentially on the Simpson-Bowles ticket. She even declared that “restoring the nation’s bond rating” was essential to creating jobs and improving the economy, a statement as laughably wrong as it is Village centrist orthodoxy. But she lost the open primary to a Tea Party Republican and a progressive Democrat despite being largely popular in the county. How did that happen? Well, the Ventura County Star’s Timm Herdt has the tale of the tape:

California’s independent redistricting process enabled this state to produce a few districts that are genuinely competitive — not because they are politically moderate, but because they encompass multiple communities in which the sorting by education, income, ethnicity and other factors has produced conflicting political results. That is the case with Ventura County’s 26th Congressional District. It is a competitive district not because it is politically moderate, but because it is politically schizophrenic.

I wrote yesterday about the city-by-city results, and how they show the extreme differences among communities within Ventura County. But on a micro level, the sorting is even more extreme.

Poring through precinct-by-precinct results I came upon a few that stand out for their political homogeneity.

Consider two precincts in Downtown Oxnard that encompass homes and apartments on A, B and C Streets. In precinct 4342, Democrat Julia Brownley beat Republican Tony Strickland 745-158, or with 85 percent of the vote. In neighboring precinct 4361, Brownley won 406-58, which was an even bigger landslide, with 87.5 percent.

Meanwhile, up in the residential palaces around Lake Sherwood, at precinct 7050, Strickland trounced Brownley 563-180, winning 76 percent of the vote.

This is the polarized political world in which we live. Is it really any wonder why our elected representatives have problems with the concept of compromise?

No, it isn’t. But that’s not a bad thing. Republicans are incredibly wrong on every issue, and morally bankrupt to boot. But at least they have a semi-consistent worldview that makes some internal sense: free market good, poor people lazy and bad, tax cuts good, investment dollars create the jobs, therefore cut social services and taxes on the rich, and a utopia of deficit-free libertarian yet militaristic paradise will result. Progressives, of course, have a worldview based in reality.

But Simpson Bowles? The notion that both raising taxes and eliminating social services during the middle of a recession will “solve” a long-term problem instead of make it worse? The notion that S&P’s downgrade is more important than the unemployment rate? That’s not only stupid beyond words, there’s also no political constituency for it. Not in the Oxnards of America, and not in the Thousand Oakses, either.

.