Month: February 2013

Whole Lotta Stupid Goin’ On

by tristero

Here’s the bad news: An incredible 41% of the people polled trust Fox News. What this means is that, on average, of the next 100 drivers hurtling towards you on the interstate, forty-one of the those drivers are so unhinged from reality that they trust Fox News. Feel safe? I don’t.

Here’s some weird news. That 41% trust level? It’s a record low for Fox News. In 2010, nearly 50% trusted Fox. But I don’t take the drop as good news. It’s a terribly sad commentary on the state of the mainstream discourse that today well over 1/3 of this people polled trusts Fox.

Some good news: PBS – which, by the way, is not by any sane metric a “liberal network,”  – is trusted by a majority of Americans. Way to go, Big Bird!

The defense sequester dance is not very believable

by digby

Perhaps I’m naive for thinking that the Republicans will ever allow cuts to defense, but I am enjoying the show their putting on to pretend that it’s really a battle.

It’s an unusual kabuki dance to be sure, with the Democrats out there as the defenders of the military and some kooky Tea Partiers acting as if they’re anxious to cut spending. Leon Panetta is chewing the scenery in the role of Chicken Little:

Looming across-the-board budget cuts will present the U.S. military with the most significant readiness crisis in more than a decade unless quick action is taken to avoid the spending reductions, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned during testimony Thursday before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

If the billions of dollars in cuts are allowed to stand, Panetta said, he would have to throw the country’s national defense strategy “out the window,” and the United States would no longer be a first-rate power. “This will badly damage our national defense and compromise our ability to respond to crises in a dangerous world,” Panetta said.

But seriously, this is nonsense. The sequester will never stand because of these defense cuts. It’s nearly unthinkable that either party would allow it. What’s more likely is that the Republicans will do what they’ve been doing all along — waiting for the Democrats to offer up more and more non-defense domestic spending cuts and then reluctantly agree to take some and then kick the can again or perhaps agree to the whole deal. It’s even possible they might take yes for an answer on the “entitlements” this time. Certainly the White House will be even more anxious for them to agree to major cuts in the out years (which is the role “entitlement” cuts play in all this) so as not to cause a contraction in our still weak economy in the short run. (That’s also Paul Ryan’s ace in the hole with his upcoming 10 year budget.)

Obviously, I can’t tell the future, and maybe we’ll see the big cuts to defense we’ve always dreamed of. Stranger things have happened. But I really doubt it. When both parties and the president really don’t want something it’s hard to see how it happens.

.

Capitalism Unmasked

by tristero

“Capitalism Unmasked” is a joint project of Alternet and Econ4, a group of liberal economists interested in social change. A series of posts have been collected into an ebook which you can download here for free. Well worth doing so.

Can’t take the grift out of the GOP

by David Atkins

Politico buries the lede in their story about the Republican Party and Fox News attempt at reinvention in a kinder, softer mold. There are two things that stand in the way:

But a senior Republican operative said the party has two huge, unresolved impediments to the top leaders’ grand plans: “suicide conservatives, who would rather lose elections than win seats with moderates,” and the “many groups on the hard right that depend on direct mail fundraising that requires a high degree of audacity, and borderline shrillness.”

“Groups that depend on direct mail fundraising is only the tip of the iceberg, and is code for “fraudulent grifters.” Rick Perlstein has the classic rundown on the long con of the mail order Republican scams that fleece money from their paranoid base. And there’s much more where that came from.

Just take a gander at this hilarious Newsmax con advertising frequently on Fox News this month alongside the invitations to buy gold in bulk:

Yes, there are people in this country stupid enough to send these grifters twenty of their hard-earned dollars. The Republican grifter establishment has depended on these suckers for years. They’re the ones who help pay the bills, and more importantly they’re the ones who stew in a soup of such paranoia that they work their fingers to the bone to beat the EnviroCommieNaziDemoSocialists.

The Republicans are stuck. The establishment GOP ship knows it’s headed for a demographic iceberg and needs to change or die. But they’re tethered to Fox News and its audience, which won’t let them change course. And Fox News itself also realizes it’s headed for the same iceberg to a certain degree, but Roger Ailes is tied to the Breitbarts and Newsmaxes that won’t let them budge, either.

They’ve been creating this monster of ugly profiteering and rabid resentment for decades. They can’t just make it go away now. The base has too much invested, and the con artists aren’t done bilking their marks.

.

Briefing Congress isn’t adequate

by David Atkins

Facing political and legal pressure, the Administration has decided to brief Congress on its justification for extrajudicial killing of U.S. citizens. It’s a little amusing that much of the push to force the Administration’s hand is coming from normally authoritarian conservatives worried that they or their friends might find themselves in the crosshairs. But that’s not terribly surprising: many liberals aren’t concerned about this sort of power being in the hands of President Obama because they trust him not to abuse the power. Similarly, conservative objectors would be mostly silent under a Republican Administration claiming the same authority.

I’m personally less concerned about it than many progressives not because of the partisan identity of the President, but because I believe the dramatic legal line between the rights of those born in the U.S. and those not born here to be antiquated. I believe that foreign-born U.S. citizens should be eligible to serve as President. I don’t care if Obama was born in Kenya or not, and I think that Arnold Schwarzenegger is just as American as anyone born here. So by the same token, if Anwar Al-Awlaki is hiding out in Yemen encouraging terror attacks, I’m not losing sleep over a drone strike on him any more than on his Yemeni-born Al Qaeda friend next door. I support the DREAM Act for the same reason I don’t care too much about Al-Awlaki: your actions should determine your fate more than the accident of your birth.

That said, we are a nation of laws, and the power of the President to unilaterally decide who lives and dies is a terrible and awful one. Its potential for abuse is extremely high. And while Al-Awlaki himself can rot alongside Osama Bin Laden for all I care, the precedent the killing sets is chilling and unacceptable. In responsible hands, such power is fine. In irresponsible hands it certainly is not.

Unfortunately, we aren’t ruled by philosopher-kings who always do what’s right. Human nature and history have proven that there are no such perfect beings. Worse, we are a divided nation in which half the country doesn’t trust the leaders of the other half. That’s why we have rule of law and, though they may be not almost archaic in a 21st century world, pretty strict dividing lines on what kinds of people the President has certain kinds of authority to deal with in certain kinds of ways. In a perfect world, it would be up to an international body to deal with people like Al-Awlaki. But we have neither the legal framework nor the executive authority for that in a world dominated almost entirely by nation-states.

That doesn’t mean that the United States must put up indefinitely with American citizens openly associating with Al Qaeda and relocating to lawless areas in which our traditional law enforcement cannot operate, or instigate risky and costly military operations just to possibly bring them in alive. But it does mean that there must be an open, civilian judicial process to convict American citizens in absentia if need be, as well as an invitation to the accused to return home to face trial. If the U.S. government doesn’t have enough evidence to convict a U.S. citizen of treason in a civilian court, it should not have the authority to kill him unilaterally. Until we get a workable international framework to deal with stateless terrorist groups at an global level, unilateral decisions to terminate American citizens by the President are unacceptable. Giving the Congress the fig leaf of a briefing doesn’t change that fact.

.

Oh Good. Let’s make poor people pay for their own ritual humiliation.

by digby

Now this is low:

A proposal to require drug testing for some North Dakota welfare recipients puts an unfair burden on the needy and might be unconstitutional, state and social services officials said Monday. 

Several Republican lawmakers are pushing the measure, which also would require applicants of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to pay for the drug testing themselves before getting assistance. 

Rep. Dennis Johnson, R-Devils Lake, told the House Human Services Committee that the bill would ensure that taxpayer money is not being used to fuel addiction problems. He said it’s a concern he hears often from his constituents. 

“This bill provides a needed incentive for people to keep clean from drug use,” Johnson said. 

Under the measure, the state could deny public assistance for one year after the date of a positive drug test, and three years after the date of a second positive test. The measure would not affect assistance for children. A third party would manage the aid if a parent or guardian tested positive for illegal drugs.

The good news is that this would solve the nation’s drug problem. After all, we know that people who aren’t on welfare never use illegal drugs.

.

Rick Perry needs to zip it

by digby

A little friendly rivalry is fine, but Texas Governor Rick Perry’s taking it a bit far. Here’s the Sacramento Bee:

Poor Texas. With its high dropout rate, lack of health insurance coverage and economic disparities, the Lone Star State appears to be desperate, or least its governor is. How else to explain Gov. Rick Perry’s unseemly radio ads attempting to lure businesses away from California?

“Building a business is tough, but I hear building a business in California is next to impossible,” the Republican governor says in the ad. “This is Texas Gov. Rick Perry, and I have a message for California businesses: Come check out Texas.”

Yes, come check out Texas. Check out a state that ranks dead last in the percent of its population with high school diplomas. Come check out a state that is last in mental health expenditures and workers’ compensation coverage. Come check out a state that ranks first in the number of executions, first in the number of uninsured, first in the amount of carbon dioxide emitted and first in the amount of toxic chemicals released into water.

Texas certainly has some attractions for business, and California certainly needs to work harder to create a friendly place to start companies and grow jobs. But California is creating businesses all the time, partly because of our natural assets – great weather and stunning mountains, beaches and deserts – and an excellent although underfunded system of higher education.

If we invest in that system and protect our environment, our state will continue to create companies such as Apple, Google, Hewlett Packard, Oracle, Craigslist, Yelp, Twitter, Sun Microsystems, Genentech, Cisco, Intel and Qualcomm, and the list goes on and on.

Also too: The 850 mile coastline. The tidal shoreline including small bays and inlets is 3427 miles. Plus mountains. And other stuff.

Texas certainly has much to recommend it, not the least of which is some very good people. But it’s silly for Perry to diss California. After all, Republicans once ran California too. And then they decided to be nasty to Latinos. It didn’t work out well for them. There’s every reason to believe it won’t work out for them well in Texas either.

.

Cracking down on child endangerment

by digby

It’s past time for parents to take responsibility for their dangerous behavior around their kids:

A Memphis woman is behind bars on a DUI and child endangerment charge even though she did not have a child in the car with her, and blood alcohol level was under the legal limit.

Maria Guerra was driving in a car by herself when she crashed on I-240 Sunday morning just south of Walnut Grove. Her blood alcohol content was only half the legal limit, yet, she is charged with DUI-child endangerment with a child under 18 because she told an officer she is four months pregnant.

Memphis police say Guerra smelled of alcohol, was unsteady on her feet, and had bloodshot eyes.

Tennessee Code 39-13-214 recognizes a “Viable Fetus as a Victim”. The state will “…include a viable fetus of a human being, when any such terms refers to the victim of any act made criminal…”

She is behind bars on a $5,000 bond.

What a horrible person, putting her fetus in danger that way. She should know that if this happens, they’ll throw the book at her for being so irresponsible. If only she had accidentally shot her five year old, she would be home free:

No charges will be filed against the Cleburne dad who shot his daughter while loading his gun.

Police said the accident happened this past Friday. The man was loading a handgun that he had recently purchased and accidentally fired it.

He shot his 5-year-old daughter in the abdomen.

She was taken to Cooks Children’s Hospital with non-life-threatening injuries.

Police and the district attorney’s office reviewed the case and decided it was an accident. No criminal charges will be filed.

That’s good. It’s not as if a fetus was endangered. That would be really, really bad.

I realize that the first case was in Tennessee and the second in Texas. But they arrest women for endangering their fetuses in Texas too.

.

*Not excusing the drunk driving, btw. That is a criminal offense.

.

Reformers with results!

by digby

Atrios sez:

I can’t believe anyone is pretending to believe their 100th rebranding exercise. They care about cutting taxes on rich people, funneling money from poor and middle class people to rich people, and occasionally kicking the poors.

Plus war, God and guns.

I’ve been laughing too, remembering the last “rebranding” just 13 years ago after the GOP let its freak flag fly and made an ass of itself over the impeachment. It was called “compassionate conservatism.”
Karen Hughes, who popularized the phrase (along with “reformer with results”)has recently begged the Party to go back to the good old days when decent, generous, kind Republicans ruled the land:

Karen Hughes, a top adviser to George W. Bush, gave her political party some tough love Wednesday, saying the GOP needs to re-embrace the “compassionate conservative” vision outlined by her former White House boss.

That’s especially true, she said, after Republicans struggled in the November election to successfully connect with women, Hispanics and other increasingly influential voting groups.

“The right approach for the Republican Party is a conservative philosophy that is hopeful and optimistic, not angry and negative,” said Hughes, who worked in the Bush Administration at the White House and State Department.

Yes, I recall how well that worked out for the whole world. Nothing angry or negative about invading a country that didn’t attack us. Or torturing prisoners. Or trying to privatize Social Security. Or crashing the world economy. It was awesome. I’m just afraid that another round of Compassionate Conservatism like that last one will finally kill us once and for all.

.

Two circles of hell

by digby

Greg Sargent explains:

The first circle represents the more than $1.7 million in spending cuts Dems agreed to, in exchange for zero in new revenues, as part of the debt ceiling deal of 2011. The second circle portrays the state of play after Republicans agreed to some $700 billion in new revenues as part of the recent fiscal cliff deal. As you can see, the ledger is still tilted lopsidedly in favor of Republicans: Some 70 percent of the deficit reduction we’ve seen thus far came in the form of spending cuts Republicans want, while only 30 percent came in the form of the new revenues Democrats want.

Here’s what this means: Even if the parties reach a deal in the third round of deficit reduction to avert the sequester with something approaching an equivalent sum of spending cuts and new revenues, the overall deficit reduction balance would still be heavily lopsided towards Republicans. Yet they continue to insist on resolving round three only through cuts, anyway.

The simple reality here is that there is an easy way for Republicans to get the very spending cuts they want. All they have to do is drop their opposition to more in revenues via the closing of loopholes — something they were prepared to accept last year in any case. There’s simply no doubt that Obama and Dems are prepared to give them more in spending cuts if they do. And if Republicans gave ground on this point, the math shows that they would still emerge the “winners” — our deficit problem will have been resolved mostly their way. Yet this still isn’t good enough: They would rather allow a sequester to go through than make any more concessions.

Greg is absolutely right. The Republicans have been winning at every step of the way and they just keep demanding more, more, more. And they will win again, even if they agree to the president’s proposals. And that’s because the President’s proposals at every step of the way have also been Republican proposals. (One could even make the case that allowing the tax cuts to expire on schedule was also a Republican proposal.) In fact, sometimes his proposals have been more Republican than the Republicans’. After all, it’s been the most conservative members who have spared us the “entitlement” cuts the president has proposed in both deals.

These charts perfectly illustrate the travesty of our bipartisan economic policy of the past few years. It’s certainly true that Republicans have been intransigent and obstructionist. I think we all know that if you give them an inch, they’ll take a mile. But at some point it would be nice if the president didn’t open every negotiation, as he did again yesterday, by offering up a proposal that is, even if it’s taken at face value with no further discussion, a GOP wet dream. He gives them a mile before the game has even started.  Is it any wonder those charts look the way they do?

Greg’s piece shows exactly why progressives are completely exasperated with the administration on these issues. Even when they “win”, we lose. And, many of us feel that since Democrats control one house of congress and the presidency, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense that it would be this lopsided if the Democrats weren’t pretty much on the same page.

Update: Here’s how the Congressional Progressive caucus proposes to even things up.

.