Month: February 2013

What do they really believe? Who knows?

by digby

Hmmm:

Despite the amped-up claims that President Obama is just waiting to crack down on gun owners, a new report reveals that his administration has been pursuing significantly fewer gun crimes than the predeceeding one. Under Obama, federal weapons prosecutions have declined to their lowest levels nearly a decade, according to a new report from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a research group associated with Syracuse University.

After 9/11, the Bush administration’s firearms prosecutions shot up, peaking at about 11,000 cases in 2004. In 2012, the feds prosecuted fewer than 8,000 gun cases

That reminds me of this:

The Obama administration deported some 1.4 million people during his first term, not far off from the number George W. Bush deported over eight years.

Or how about this? The Obama administration came into office saying they weren’t going to specifically target medical marijuana — they had more important things to worry about. (Like say, Wall Street crime?)

Initially [the administration] made soothing noises and announced that they wouldn’t target pot dispensaries that complied with state law. Then, last year, everything changed:

The reversal began at the Drug Enforcement Agency with Michele Leonhart, a holdover from the Bush administration who was renominated by Obama to head the DEA…Almost immediately, federal prosecutors went on the attack. Their first target: the city of Oakland, where local officials had moved to raise millions in taxes by licensing high-tech indoor facilities for growing medical marijuana…Two months later, federal prosecutors in Washington state went even further…In isolation, such moves might be seen as the work of overzealous U.S. attorneys, who operate with considerable autonomy. But last June, the Justice Department effectively declared that it was returning to the Bush administration’s hard-line stance on medical marijuana. James Cole, who had replaced Ogden as deputy attorney general, wrote a memo revoking his predecessor’s deference to states on the definition of “caregiver.”…Pot dispensaries, in short, were once again prime federal targets, even if they were following state law to the letter.

These are far from the only issues where the Obama administration has been more, for lack of a better term, right wing than the Bush administration. I was going to say more “law and order” in the old Nixonian sense, but the lax gun prosecutions doesn’t fit with that either. But these issues do all fit within a certain right wing concern matrix.

There has been intense speculation as to why the administration has taken these steps, from prosaic political motivations going into the election to genuine belief on the part of the administration that fewer gun prosecutions, more deportations and a marijuana crackdown are the right policies. (Some people have suggested this is is because of fear of the federal police bureaucracy which pretty much does its own thing regardless of the president, which may be the scariest possibility of all.) It’s hard to know exactly what has made the administration take these positions because they are rarely asked about it. The campaign ignored it because the Republican approach to all this is so much worse.

But whatever the motive, the most startling aspect of this story (which isn’t confined to those issues, by any means) is the extent to which the administration’s rhetoric doesn’t match its actions — and the degree to which they get away with it. I think this may be the most successful aspect of this presidency.

And I have to point out that the one group of people one would expect to reward the president for these stances — the right wing — is the one group that hates him with a blinding passion and will never even give him credit for waking up in the morning. Perhaps moderates might be impressed, but I doubt they even know about it. (These aren’t issues that animate them.) At the very least the left has a bad taste in its mouth — at worst they are actively hostile. So, who is pleased with these actions? Who exactly is the government serving?

If I had to guess, I think this is a combination of reflexive Democratic desire to be seen as “tough” and the American police apparatus operating on its own logic without regard to the needs and desires of the American people. That’s pretty inevitable when you build a huge Department of Homeland Security with dozens of federal agencies on top of hundreds of state and local police departments. They become a political force of their own and they get very, very powerful.

Again, for all I know the Obama administration truly believes that deporting more immigrants bought them something politically that simply being more humane didn’t. I cannot see what it was. The Latino community voted for Democrats because they are better on their issues than the Republicans and not one right winger voted for the Democrats because they deported more undocumented workers. Maybe they thought they could appease the gun lobby by prosecuting fewer gun crimes. (I don’t think that’s worked out.)  Maybe they thought that people think marijuana is a threat to the nation and they had to step in. But the votes in states across the land show that just isn’t true.(Arkansas — Arkansas! — came within four points of legalizing medical marijuana in 2012.)

So, if it was a political decision it was wrong on every level. And if the administration believes these policies are good ones, they are misleading the American people about who they are. If the police agencies are out of control, they should do something to bring them under control. I don’t know the answer. But however you look at it, it isn’t good.

At the very least, it explains why so many people are reluctant to trust that the administration is only doing what it has to do in response to a hostile opposition. They didn’t have to do any of these things. But they did them.

.

Increasing the minimum wage won’t hurt employment

John Cassidy in The New Yorker says what shouldn’t need saying, but apparently does:

The first statement we can make without fear of contradiction is that, at $7.25 an hour, the current minimum wage is pretty low. In nominal dollars, it’s gone up quite a bit over the past twenty-five years. In 1978, it was $2.65; in 1991, it was $4.25. But these figures don’t take into account rising prices, which eat away at purchasing power. After adjusting for inflation, the minimum wage is about $3.30 less than it was in 1968. Back then—forty-five years ago—the minimum wage was $10.56 an hour, according to a very useful chart from CNNMoney…

We also know that the U.S. minimum wage is low compared to its counterparts in other advanced countries. In France and Ireland, for example, the minimum remuneration level is more than eleven dollars an hour. Even in Great Britain, which is usually regarded as a country with a flexible, U.S.-style labor market, it is close to ten dollars an hour. Another informative chart, this one from Business Insider, shows that the U.S. minimum wage is comparable to ones in places like Greece, Spain, and Slovenia—countries where G.D.P. per capita and labor productivity are markedly lower than here in the United States. We have an advanced economy but a middle-level minimum wage.

A second important and (largely) undisputed finding is that there is no obvious link between the minimum wage and the unemployment rate. During the nineteen sixties, when the minimum wage was raised sharply, unemployment rates were sharply lower than they were in the nineteen eighties, when the real value of the minimum wage fell dramatically. If you look across the states, some of which set a minimum wage above the federal minimum, you can’t see any sign of higher rates leading to higher unemployment.

To say nothing of the ethical case:

Finally, there is the moral issue. (Prior to the twentieth century, economics was considered a “moral science.”) With the decline of trade unions and the spread of aggressive management techniques, low-paid workers now have little bargaining power and few legal protections. Only the government can ensure that they receive a living wage. “Even with the tax relief we’ve put in place,” President Obama noted in his speech, “a family with two kids that earns the minimum wage still lives below the poverty line. That’s wrong.” And he’s right.

I’ve skipped over a lot of great stuff. Be sure to read the whole thing.

American politics can be extremely depressing when people are forced to litigate arguments that shouldn’t even be in question. But we don’t live in normal times, and the Republican opposition isn’t your average reality-based entity.

.

From the “Personnel is Policy” files

by digby

Lee Fang reports:

Recent reports suggest that President Obama is about to nominate Sylvia Mathews Burwell, the president of the Walmart Foundation, as director of the Office of Management and Budget. Her nomination would be a coup for Walmart and its foundation, which under Burwell’s watch has wielded its massive budget to expand the retail giant’s influence at all levels of government and to pave the way for store expansions.

The most recent tax disclosure from the Walmart Foundation, obtained by The Nation, shows that between February 2011 and January 2012, the company gave over $175.68 million in grants to charities, municipalities, churches and various community groups across the country, from the Environmental Defense Fund to Friends of NRA to Puppies Behind Bars. Our review of the foundation’s giving reveals that it has donated considerable cash to groups that have gone on the record to support Walmart during its most contentious political disputes, including the ongoing effort to open stores in New York City. The foundation also donates directly to municipalities, funds groups tied to powerful elected officials and instructs grantees to publicize Walmart’s generosity.

Leslie Dach, who oversees the foundation as Walmart’s most senior executive devoted to political affairs, touted the benefits of the company’s philanthropy during a presentation to investors in October 2010. According to a transcript, Dach described “our reputation” as “a lever” in pursuing the company’s goals, which he said include “new markets,” among them “urban America.” A former Democratic Party operative, Dach also extolled the company’s improved polling numbers among self-identified “liberals” and “moderates.”

Activists allege that Walmart’s charitable outreach is part of a bid to co-opt potential critics and isolate workers demanding changes to Walmart’s labor practices. “They are very clear about the fact that they’re trying to use their political giving as a lever to pry open these markets,” said Russ Davis, the executive director of Massachusetts Jobs With Justice and a leader of the coalition Massachusetts Stands Up to Walmart.

This must be the perfect way to pay back the unions for all their hard work electing Democrats, don’t you agree?

.

They’re back! (Just don’t call ’em Blue Dogs)

by digby

Well, lookie here, a letter from Freshmen congressmen to the leadership of both parties:

The 113th Congress House Republican and Democratic new members are troubled by the fiscal crisis facing the country, with burdensome debt and trillion dollar annual deficits, which affect economic growth for all and healthcare assurances for our seniors. Members of our class implore the President and Congress to address this serious challenge now. In recent years, Congress has lacked the political will to come together and find solutions. The freshman members of the 113th Congress believe now is the time to work together.

We call upon leadership to no longer accept piecemeal solutions and to work toward finding long-term solutions to avoid financial collapse like Greece and other European countries. The bi-partisan freshmen members, as noted below, come to the table with mutual understanding and without personal agendas or political gamesmanship.

We affirm the following actions to secure the fiscal health of our nation:

• Strengthen and Preserve Medicare and Social Security- While protecting current recipients and seniors, we must reform the Medicare and Social Security’s long-term financial obligations by addressing rising health care costs and changing demographics. The goal is to make sure these essential programs meet our obligations to our seniors and ensure that these bedrocks are available to future generations, while reducing our long-term deficit and debt issues.

• Promote economic growth to generate revenue- Of critical importance is a fair and broad tax plan including eliminating excessive corporate subsidies, tax loopholes and other subsidies to provide lower rates, that will encourage a pro-growth economy, providing added revenue for the federal budget. We must also encourage innovation with less stringent regulation to help small businesses grow, which will lower unemployment.

• Cutting spending- While some spending cuts have already been made, we must look for additional savings moving forward to further reduce spending, while seeking to protect the programs that are crucial to our future health as a nation.

• Identify efficiencies and consolidations- Restructure and consolidate agencies and departments, eliminating duplication and waste.

• Medicaid fraud- Aggressively pursue Medicaid fraud, waste and abuse.

We believe that a bipartisan effort encompassing these needed reforms will yield a prosperous future for our country, while making good to today’s seniors who are counting on the federal government to fulfill its obligations. We are committed to a new era in Congress where bipartisan solutions are the norm. We are dedicated to working with leadership to help bring these solutions to reality. The common good of the country demands good faith negotiation, compromise, and immediate and significant action.

Now you may think that reflect President Obama’s position, but it doesn’t. His is bad enough (and they do agree on quite a bit) but I think the administration has given up on “revenue neutral” tax reform and I’ve never heard them demagogue medicaid, which is right out of the dog-whistle playbook.

No, this was circulated by a newly minted Democrat.Howie has the story:

Last week 5 or 6 progressive freshmen called me to warned me that lifelong Republican Patrick Murphy (D-FL) was working all the freshmen for some idiotic statement of “bipartisanship” he had concocted. I mentioned it Thursday and it was made public this morning, much to the delight, no doubt, of Beltway Media Broderists.

Almost no Democrats signed his pathetic, badly crafted letter– but lots of Republicans did. So disappointing to see Ann Kuster (D-NH) lending her good name to this foolhardy initiative. Most of the rest of the Democrats who signed are typical untrustworthy hacks– or worse. The only Blue Dog freshman, Pete Gallego (TX) couldn’t wait to jump on board. And the only “Democrat” who has a ZERO ProgressivePunch score on crucial votes this session, corporate shill Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ), was right on top of it. (Kirkpatrick, unlike over 100 Republicans voted with Boehner on every single crucial roll call this year, a breathtaking record of achievement.)

Far more Republicans signed the wretched letter– which the New Dem types love– than Democrats. And the worst imaginable Republicans in the whole Congress, dreck like hate talk radio host Trey Radel (R-FL), domestic terrorist Steve Stockman (R-TX), Ted Yoho (R-FL), sociopath Kerry Bentivolio… Here’s the whole list

I can’t tell you how it hurts me to see Ann Kuster join that group of right wing weirdos. In fact, it’s a pretty big betrayal of the progressive movement that supported who through very tough races. But I’m going to guess that the Villagers will be thrilled to frequently feature all these people as the only grown-ups in the room and laud them for “standing up” to the so-called extremists. Of course, the only “extremists” they are standing up to are progressives who don’t believe that we should “reform” Social Security and Medicare by cutting benefits or enact tax reform in order to lower rates. Or any of the rest of the drivel in that letter.

True, it may be that Ryan will come out with an even more draconian approach and this will be the “moderate” alternative that can garner enough Democratic votes so Boehner can release his loons to let their freak flag proudly fly. (I have a sneaking suspicion some of the names on this letter will be flying theirs as well.) Who knows?

But it’s telling that the first move the guy who beat Alan West does is circulate a letter that gets far more Republican signers than Democrats. Of course, he was a Republican until approximately five minutes before he filed to run so I suppose it shouldn’t surprise us.

.

No, the vast majority of the rich don’t move to flee taxes

by David Atkins

James Stewart in the New York Times has a good reminder today about the undying GOP zombie myth that the rich flee increased taxes in droves:

But it’s not the case. It turns out that a large majority of people move for far more compelling reasons, like jobs, the cost of housing, family ties or a warmer climate. At least three recent academic studies have demonstrated that the number of people who move for tax reasons is negligible, even among the wealthy.

Cristobal Young, an assistant professor of sociology at Stanford, studied the effects of recent tax increases in New Jersey and California. “It’s very clear that, over all, modest changes in top tax rates do not affect millionaire migration,” he told me this week. “Neither tax increases nor tax cuts on the rich have affected their migration rates.”

The notion of tax flight “is almost entirely bogus — it’s a myth,” said Jon Shure, director of state fiscal studies at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonprofit research group in Washington. “The anecdotal coverage makes it seem like people are leaving in droves because of high taxes. They’re not. There are a lot of low-tax states, and you don’t see millionaires flocking there.”

Despite the allure of low taxes, Mr. Depardieu hasn’t been seen in Russia since picking up his passport and seems to be hedging his bets by maintaining a residence in Belgium. Meanwhile, Russian billionaires are snapping up trophy properties in high-tax London, New York and Beverly Hills, Calif. “I don’t hear about many billionaires moving to Moscow,” said Robert Tannenwald, a lecturer in economic policy at Brandeis University and former Federal Reserve economist. Along with Nicholas Johnson, he and Mr. Shure are co-authors of “Tax Flight Is a Myth,” a 2011 research paper.

It turns out that global celebrities and the extremely wealthy do occasionally move to avoid taxes, but that the vast majority of the wealthy do not. The high-profile cases make for big news, but poor tax policy:

In 2009, just 364 people in the millionaire bracket moved from Maryland or died (the data didn’t distinguish between the two) — about the same percentage who disappeared in 2007, before any tax increase. And in 2009, more than 1,500 taxpayers entered the millionaire rolls, either because they earned more or moved to Maryland that year. That data “directly contravenes the notion that changes in tax policy were discouraging the affluent from working hard and earning substantial sums of money, or driving them out of the state altogether,” the study concluded.

Professor Young said his study looked at every millionaire tax record filed in California over the last 20 years, and “neither tax increases nor tax cuts on the rich have affected their migration rates.” He said that the two major tax overhauls before the recent increase didn’t have any effect on migration rates of millionaires. “Among the very richest, people making more than $2 million, out-migration actually declined slightly after the 2005 millionaire tax,” he said.

Why didn’t they move? Professor Young said that for most people, even the very affluent, it’s not that easy, since most successful businesses and high-paying jobs are tied to specific locations. In addition, “entrepreneurship and earning power are clustered in highly competitive regions like Silicon Valley, Los Angeles and New York City,” he said. “People making over a million are typically close to their peak income years, and are enjoying the fruits of long-term career investments. This is hard to walk away from.”

His research in New Jersey found that, while some people left, any lost revenue was more than made up for by added revenue from people who stayed. He estimated that New Jersey’s 2004 tax increase on incomes over $500,000 raised nearly $1 billion a year, “with little cost in terms of tax flight.”

Mr. Shure added, “I can say flatly that no state has ever raised taxes and lost money.”

Yet the tax flight myth remains surprisingly persistent, fanned by media coverage of celebrities, who are among those most likely to have the means and motive to choose a home based on tax considerations. “You can always find an anecdote.” Mr. Shure said. “Many people want this to be true as a way to discourage tax increases. The rich are always trying to find ways to make the middle class make their arguments for them.”

Bookmark it to send to your right wing uncle. This is one zombie lie that difficult to put down, but the data is there for all to see.

.

The best toilet team on television

by digby

I thought it was bad enough that CNN was featuring wall-to-wall coverage of the toiletless cruise ship, but now MSNBC has just devoted a full segment of The Cycle to adventures in toilet travels. For ral.

I agree with Jon Stewart on this one:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

By the way, CNN sent Erin Burnett to the scene. She was waiting on the dock to interview the passengers when they got off the ship last night.

We’ve come a long way from the authority we sensed when James Earl Jones intoned “THIS is CNN”, haven’t we?

.

The Payback Party

by digby

John McCain verified my supposition that the Hagel brouhaha was all about payback for his apostasy during the Bush administration:

McCAIN: But to be honest with you, Neil, it goes back to there’s a lot of ill will towards Senator Hagel because when he was a Republican, he attacked President Bush mercilessly and say he was the worst President since Herbert Hoover and said the surge was the worst blunder since the Vietnam War, which was nonsense. He was anti-his own party and people — people don’t forget that. You can disagree but if you’re disagreeable, then people don’t forget that.

And I stand by the other piece of my supposition as well:

 Some of this is just the way the Republicans deal with apostates.  Hagel broke with the party in favor of the Democrats and that. is. simply. not. done. They are making an example of him.

I would just add that they are also telling the Democrats that only orthodox conservative Republicans count if you’re trying for a bipartisan cabinet pick.

And I think this pretty much proves that picking Hagel will not make it any easier to make cuts in the defense budget or withdraw troops or anything else that everyone assumes comes with picking a Republican for the post. If anything, it means all that’s going to be harder now.

.

Blue America celebrates Elizabeth Warren — and endorses Ed Markey for Senate

by digby

We sent this letter to our supporters this morning:

Last year over 800 Blue America contributors put up some money for Elizabeth Warren’s campaign for the Senate. As you know, she ousted the incumbent, Wall Street shill Scott Brown. This week was her first opportunity to question witnesses from her new position on the Senate Banking Committee. I think if you chipped in– or even just rooted for her– you’ll be very proud of Senator Warren’s first indication of what her job performance is going to be like for the next six years. There’s a new sheriff in town! Look at what your work did– and while you’re there watching Elizabeth kick ass, consider helping the next Progressive Fighter in the Senate, Ed Markey.

It’s early in the 2014 election cycle but we want to let you know that Blue America already has a Senate page up. There are three candidates on it now, two incumbents who have done spectacular jobs since being elected in 2008, Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Al Franken (D-MN), and one challenger, Ed Markey, who many of you probably know from his work on environmental issues in the House of Representatives.

Ed has been one of the most consistently progressive members of Congress, across the board, and he’ll make a great successor to John Kerry as Massachusetts’ other senator. He and Elizabeth Warren will be an amazing team. But first he has to win a primary against a conservative, anti-Choice congressman, Stephen Lynch.

We’re eager to introduce you to a young state Rep who will run for Markey’s House seat when he advances to the Senate, but that will have to wait a little bit.

Meanwhile, if you can, please contribute to Ed Markey’s Senate campaign on the Blue America Senate page. Last cycle we helped elect Bernie Sanders, Tammy Baldwin and the star of that video above, Elizabeth Warren. Let’s keep up the momentum to create a powerful progressive caucus in the Senate!

.

Everybody wins but the country

by digby

Dave Weigel has the definitive post today on the Hagel nomination cock-up. He points out that Hagel himself is the only real loser here:

He botched up his confirmation hearing, giving Republicans all kinds of reasons to oppose him. (In his “no” statement, Sen. Mark Kirk, who was never undecided on Hagel, continues to pretend that Hagel’s “elected” government of Iran gaffe was a window into his real thinking, as opposed to lazy verbiage.) He has to wait 12 days for the Senate to take up his nomination again. In that time, he has to endure more reports and rumors about his past speeches (nothing since “Jewish lobby” has damaged his chances so far), and he probably has to shut up, which seems difficult for him.

On the other hand, Weigel says Democrats get to portray Republicans as lunatics, which they seem to believe is going to benefit them hugely (rather than normalize lunatic behavior) while the White House gets to take credit for “hanging tough” on a nominee whose confirmation has never rally been in doubt. Win-win for them.

But holy smokes, look who’s perceived as winners on the other side:

Senate Republicans have humiliated the administration, yet again, three mere weeks after filibuster reform passed. Those Republicans who grew to dislike Hagel (i.e., most of them) have humbled him. The humbling of a nominee doesn’t usually stay active once the confirmation votes come in — ask Sam Alito or Clarence Thomas — but it’s empowering, and it’s pleased the Lobby Which Cannot Be Named. “The Emergency Committee for Israel salutes the Senators who courageously voted today to prevent the rubber-stamping of Chuck Hagel as the next Secretary of Defense,” said Bill Kristol in a post-vote statement. Which brings me to…

The Anti-Hagelians. The scrappy, outnumbered troika of the Washington Free Beacon, Breitbart.com, and Jennifer Rubin have enabled a historic filibuster of a media darling. Rubin, who was given first crack at Ted Cruz’s letter asking for a longer Hagel debate, was proven right — Republicans Luntzified their language and claimed that they could delay Hagel without actually filibustering him.

Breitbart.com, Free Beacon and Jennifer Rubin have been empowered by this nonsense? Ok. If that’s true then I am more convinced than ever that too many progressives’ facile assumption (again) that the conservative movement is dead in the water is wrong. Filibustering a cabinet nominee to make a point is a bold exercise of political muscle, breaking with tradition and defying the agreement Reid made with the Republicans. They ain’t done yet. And they’ve got a new generation of wingnuts to help them do it.

.

Freedomworks descends into self-parody

by David Atkins

Just when you thought Freedomworks couldn’t get any lower, the honorable organization is conducting a grassroots campaign against the minimum wage, replete with Facebook ads like this:

The pitch is remarkable in its cruel tone-deafness:

Among the number of economically disastrous policy prescriptions offered by President Obama during his State of the Union address, a hiking of the federal minimum wage to $9 an hour was one of the saddest. For a President who believes you can spend your way out of debt, the proposal wasn’t surprising. But now many in Congress are reportedly ready to back the measure. If enacted, the minimum wage hike will only make the economy worse.

No serious thinker in the 21st century believes a higher minimum wage will help low-skilled workers. In fact, it will have the opposite effect. Wages are not determined by employers- they are paid by much each worker produces.

The freedom to choose means the freedom to accept wages offered. By hiking the minimum wage, all Congress will do is outlaw employing those who will work for less than $9 an hour. For young aspiring workers with little experience, this is a senseless policy.

Contact your representative in Congress and tell them to oppose any hike of the minimum wage now.

It’s uncertain which of these statements is most risible: the notion that “no serious thinker” believes that a minimum wage worker would be benefited by an increase in their wages? The idea that in a world in which median wages have stagnated while productivity and executive pay have skyrocketed, each worker is paid according to their production value? The amazing statement that there are many workers desperate to work for below minimum wage, but prevented from doing so by law? It’s so hard to choose.

This ultimately is why the Republican Party won’t be able to reinvent itself so easily. The people who run organizations like Freedomworks have considerable power, and they’re careening farther and farther out of step with common decency.

.