Skip to content

Month: April 2013

QOTD: James Carville

QOTD: James Carville

by digby

“I think he likes that. I don’t think he’s upset. He got a very favorable Washington Post editorial. ‘Morning Joe,’ very favorable commentary right here. I guarantee you if he’s up watching this right now. Got a good David Brooks column. He’s kind of excited this morning. This is kind of important to him” — Dem strategist James Carville, on Obama angering his base (“Morning Joe”).

I didn’t see the segment so I don’t know if he was approving of this or just making an observation. But if anyone knows triangulation when he sees it, it’s Carville.

I guess this is the sort of thing the WH is so happy about:

[O]n chained CPI. I’d like to put into the record a summary sheet that we have done, if I may do so without objection, that shows I think it’s just as wrong as it can be to have made that choice. I don’t care where it came from. I don’t care if it was Speaker Boehner’s idea. It is wrong.

Social Security, as you just said, has not contributed to the deficit problem, and seniors, at least the ones that I deliver meals on wheels to in senior high rises, are not living so high off the hog, that they are not great people to go after.

And the protection of vulnerable seniors, as I read your plan, is actually less than the hit to them.
They end up still negative, even at 85 years old, because by the time they get the 5% benefit, they are getting a 6.5% hit.

So I just want to let you know – anything I can do to be a foe of that, I intend to do. The $15 billion that comes back to seniors through the benefit against the $230 billion overall cut, to me, is a figleaf.”

Indeed it is …

Update:  Here’s Carville. You be the judge if he’s in favor of it:

He’s right about one thing: the president genuinely wants a Grand Bargain.
.

Baby killers

Baby killers

by digby

This is not a joke:

He didn’t just come up with this nnsense after drinking too much moonshine.

It’s out there:

No seriously. This is from an earlier attempt in South Dakota to make fetal “self-defense” legal:

Supporters say it will protect unborn children from violence. Opponents say it legalizes murdering abortion providers. One thing’s for certain: House Bill 1171 has stirred up a hornet’s nest of controversy.

Supporters of the bill’s intent say it’s about protecting fetuses from assaults.

This is a bill that will provide self-defense for the unborn child,” said Rep. Phil Jensen, R-Rapid City, the bill’s prime sponsor.

It didn’t pass. And it was unusual in that most of these sorts of “fetal protection” bills are applied to the woman inside whom the fetus lives — they law considers the assault is against her. This proposal eliminated the pesky middle (wo) man.  But then, who the cares about her? After all, these people are hard pressed to even allow an abortion where the mother will die otherwise. Their priorities are quite clear.

They are currently trying to create a fetal “personhood” status which I assume would mean they’d be imbued with 2nd Amendment rights.  (It’s unknown if they can actually handle guns what with the undeveloped body and brain and all, but that’s no reason they should be denied their constitutional rights.) But  I wonder if they would believe in the death penalty for fetuses that are found guilty of murdering their mothers? Or would it be enough that they “feel threatened” and decide to “stand their ground” (as if they have a choice in the matter since they cannot survive outside their mother’s body.) What an interesting ethical dilemma. Someone should ask Steve Stockman.  I’m sure he’s thought it all through.

.

.

Good news and bad news

Good news and bad news

by digby

The latest polling:

Fifty-three percent of respondents favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry, which is up 2 points since the NBC/WSJ survey last asked this question in December, though that increase is within the poll’s margin of error.

Forty-two percent oppose gay marriage – also up 2 points since late last year.
By party, 73 percent of Democrats and 54 percent of independents back gay marriage, while 66 percent of Republicans oppose it…

The poll also finds that 63 percent of respondents believe the federal government should recognize same-sex marriages in states where they are legal, and 56 percent think that the question of allowing gay marriage should be left to a federal standard rather than to the states.

This is great news. It shows just how fast things can change in our culture and it’s pretty amazing. Unfortunately, when it comes to women’s rights, we seem to either be stuck or going in the wrong direction:

At the same time that general support for gay marriage has increased – albeit within the margin of error – so has opposition to abortion.

According to the survey, a combined 52 percent say that abortion should be illegal either with exceptions or without them, versus a combined 45 percent who say it should be legal either “always” or “most of the time.”

This is a reversal from the NBC/WSJ poll in January, when a majority – for the first time – said abortion should be legal in some form or fashion.

The poll also gauges public sentiment on other questions involving social and moral issues.
Asked to choose what should be a more important goal for society – either promoting greater respect for traditional values or encouraging greater tolerance – 50 percent picked traditional values, and 44 selected greater tolerance.

That’s a significant change from when this question was last asked in 1999, when 60 percent chose traditional values and 29 percent sided with tolerance.

That’s awesome. Except that there are millions and millions who are just as intolerant as ever:

Notably, this movement toward tolerance comes from Democrats and self-described independents – but not from Republicans. (In 1999, 76 percent of Republicans said promoting traditional values was a more important goal vs. 77 percent say that now.)

For all their talk about moderating their tone, the Republicans know which side their bread is buttered on:

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) argued in a speech to activists Thursday night that robust opposition to abortion rights is crucial to the GOP’s political chances.

Ryan’s remarks to the Susan B. Anthony (SBA) List gala were his most extended on abortion since the 2012 election cycle, when several GOP candidates lost following controversial remarks on abortion and rape.
Ryan, the former GOP vice presidential nominee, acknowledged that a “careless remark or an ugly sign” can damage the cause against abortion rights “in an instant.”

But he challenged the view that Republicans should soften their approach in order to attract centrist or female voters, who favored President Obama by more than 10 points in November.

“Our critics say we should abandon our pro-life beliefs. But that would only demoralize our voters,” Ryan said. “It’s an odd strategy, I think: the cynical ploy followed by the thumping defeat.”

Never let it be said that he is “intolerant” however. He is certainly willing to compromise on issues that that don’t exist:

But on Thursday night, Ryan encouraged activists to seek out areas of possible collaboration with their opponents.

“People who consider themselves pro-choice don’t agree with us on everything,” he told the audience.

“But many agree we should stop taxpayer funding of abortion … Many agree we should require parental notification.”

Ryan gave the example of former Rep. Bob Dold (R-Ill.), a centrist abortion-rights supporter who sided with his more-conservative peers on some abortion votes.

“Last year, he lost to a Democrat who today is another down-the-line, pro-choice stalwart in the House,” he said. “Dold was an ally of our cause. We need to work with others like him.”

“Our task isn’t to purge our ranks. It’s to grow them,” Ryan added.

There isn’t any taxpayer funded abortion by the way, at least on a federal level. That’s courtesy of the Hyde Amendment which Obamacare, via Democrat Bart Stupak and friends, managed to get permanently codified (after a 30 year battle.) Huzzah.

I would just warn women to watch their backs. When Republicans begin this kind of “outreach” you can be sure that the Third Way “common ground”, anti-choice Democrats will be scurrying to make “deals” that will restrict your right to own your own body. We’ve been here before.

But the movement on gay rights is a big advance and it’s wonderful to see that tolerance can so quickly flow into our culture and become status quo. But as the fight for women’s rights show they’re never fully safe. When you have tens of millions of people who believe that your human rights are immoral, vigilance is called for.

.

The NHL sends social conservatives to the penalty box, by @DavidOAtkins

The NHL sends social conservatives to the penalty box

by David Atkins

I’ve always loved the sport of hockey–played it a great deal on rollerblades when I was younger, and I’m learning to ice skate better so that I can eventually play on the real thing. Not a fan of the fights and all that ugliness, but the sport itself, when kept clean, is exciting to play and fun to watch. This just makes it even better.

Maybe it really is as simple as it sounds.

That for the NHL and its players, establishing a partnership with the You Can Play project — which fights homophobia and advocates for the inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual athletes in sports — was born of fairness and logic and isn’t really a big deal.

“In talking to the guys and all the rest of it, I think the basic feeling was this is the right thing to do, so we oughta go do it. And that’s the motivation,” Donald Fehr, executive director of the NHL Players’ Assn., said Thursday.

“You do it because it’s the right thing to do.”

It was. Yet, the agreement announced Thursday between the league, the union and You Can Play is a big deal and should be recognized as that.

It’s the first time a major men’s professional sports league has made inclusion its official policy and will back its words with deeds that include educational seminars for rookies and confidential outreach resources for players. When coaches like Rutgers’ Mike Rice can sling homophobic slurs at players without being fired until ESPN airs a video of the tirades, it’s exemplary for the NHL and its players to fight intolerance at every level.

“This isn’t, ‘OK, we’ll tolerate a gay fan,’ or ‘We’ll tolerate a gay player, we’ll tolerate a gay coach.’ We invite you. We’ll welcome you into the hockey community,” said Patrick Burke, who founded You Can Play just over a year ago in tribute to his brother, Brendan, who came out as gay while serving as the student manager of the hockey team at Miami University of Ohio and died in a car crash in 2010.

“We want you to be a part of this and to feel safe. It’s really historic.”

Good for them, good for hockey, good for pro sports, and good for society in general. One by one the barriers keep coming down. Sure, it doesn’t threaten the big money boys and the established economic order. But it’s worth celebrating nonetheless.

.

Factoid ‘O the Day: who cuts “entitlements” more?

Factoid ‘O the Day: who cuts “entitlements” more?

by digby

So yesterday the Republicans divided up their duties and sent out the head of the NRCC to wail about how the president was balancing the budget on the backs of seniors while Boehner and McConnell proclaimed their dismay that President Obama didn’t cut “entitlements” enough.

The beltway seems to think this is a sign of Republicans disarray. I think it’s a sign of the GOP knowing how to get the Democrats to do their dirty work and cut the most popular programs in America for them:

[I]t’s easy to get the impression that the president hasn’t met Republicans half-way with his cuts to Medicare and Social Security, the two biggest entitlement programs. In fact, he’s exceeded them. The president’s budget would spend less on both Medicare and Social Security than Ryan’s GOP plan over the next ten years.

On Social Security: Ryan didn’t cut Social Security by a penny. The president has proposed cutting the program’s spending by $130 billion, by adopting a slower-growing measure of inflation.

On Medicare: Ryan’s budget kept Obamacare’s Medicare cuts and added another $127 billion. His budget projects $6.74 trillion in Medicare spending between 2014 and 2023. Obama cuts even deeper with $380 billion in cuts below his baseline, and his budget projects $6.67 trillion in Medicare spending over the same period. Upshot: Obama’s ten-year Medicare budget is $70 billion below the GOP, and his announced cuts are about $250 billion deeper than the GOP.

Jonathan Alter characterized this as “calling the Republicans’ bluff” on Hardball today. He’s funny.

.

A path forward on gun legislation in the House?

A path forward on gun legislation in the House?

by digby

With all the euphoria over the Manchin-Roomey agreement in the Senate over background checks, I’ve been wondering whether I’d missed some new softening on guns over in the House. Not that breaking a filibuster and getting through the Senate isn’t a big deal. But it certainly isn’t the end of the story.

Greg Sargent reports how it might unfold from here:

But there is a narrow path to victory even in the House, according to GOP Rep. Peter King of New York, who plans to introduce a bill in the lower chamber that is very similar to the proposal rolled out yesterday by Senators Pat Toomey and Joe Manchin.

“The combination of having Manchin and Toomey as the main sponsors, and assuming it can pass the Senate with a significant majority, greatly increases the chances that it will attract enough Republican support to pass the House,” Rep. King told me in an interview. “If Pat Toomey can support it, most conservatives should be able to support it and should want to support it.”

King said he has been in talks with a number of House Republicans about joining the effort, and that he would be “aggressive” in pursuing them in the wake of the Toomey-Manchin announcement, which could help change the debate for some conservatives. Yesterday Toomey said there are a “substantial number” of House Republicans who support his proposal’s “general approach.”

All of this sounds like a real long shot, and in truth, it is. But it’s not impossible. Dave Wasserman, who closely tracks House races and districts for the Cook Political Report, points out that there are a number of districts with certain characteristics that make as many as a few dozen House Republicans potentially gettable on the proposal.

“These are the types of Republicans who come not just from suburban districts, but districts where the business community is the prevalent faction of the Republican base, as opposed to gun owning social conservatives,” Wasserman tells me. He cited 17 districts that went for Obama in 2012, as well as other ones in suburban Minneapolis, New Jersey, parts of California, and the Philadelphia suburbs (a key motivator for Toomey), as examples.

Now one might wonder whether Boehner will violate the Hastert rule in the case of something that is so fraught with emotion among the GOP base, but he has been willing to do it as long as the Senate gives him cover by passing a bipartisan bill first. If the GOP has enough votes to get it over the line with a majority of Democrats (and Boehner doesn’t face a rebellion by his Tea Party if he lets it go to the floor) then it might just get done. Which would be really great. Breaking the NRA reign of terror that’s gripped the Democratic Party since 2000 is long overdue.

.

A few simple questions, by @DavidOAtkins

A few simple questions

by David Atkins

Digby and I have discussed the multitude of media failures in talking about the deficit fetish in general, as well as the demand to cut Social Security specifically. The abnegation of the media’s duty in this regard is highlighted by the failure to even ask, much less get an answer to, some simple questions. Questions like:

If the point of the Administration’s plan is to ask for revenues in exchange for cuts to government, why not make one of those revenue increases an increase in the payroll cap in order to protect Social Security?

If the point is to secure revenues in exchange for cuts to government spending, why not make those cuts to corporate welfare, big agriculture and oil subsidies, and military spending, instead?

Why go after Social Security of all things, since Social Security is funded longer than many other earned benefit programs?

And if Social Security must be paid for by directly tied payroll revenues, why not ask for them instead of unrelated revenues? Since Social Security doesn’t increase the deficit, why make it part of the conversation at all?

No one outside of MSNBC and the progressive blogs have even bothered to ask these questions. Why not?

.

Rallying the troops: the Wall Street charm offensive

Rallying the troops

by digby

The president is going to need the help of supporters to push through his budget proposals so he’s started a charm offensive:

President Obama met at the White House Thursday morning with a group of top Wall Street chief executives as part of the administration’s efforts to forge better relations with the industry and enlist them in efforts to sell his fiscal proposals.

The CEO group included Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs, Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan, Brian Moynihan of Bank of America, Michael Corbat of Citigroup, James Gorman of Morgan Stanley, John Stumpf of Wells Fargo, Bob Benmosche of AIG and several others.
[…]
But the Thursday meeting was expected by participants to focus more on the president’s efforts, most recently through his budget proposal, to reach a “grand bargain” on deficit reduction to take the threat of fiscal crisis off the back of the economy. Also expected to be on the agenda: the president’s support for sweeping immigration reform.

I’m going to guess this is one group that will be extremely happy to sign on to the Chained-CPI. After all, the wealthy corporate and banking class are the one’s behind this deficit obsession in the first place. And they are seizing their moment:

In a candid moment, otherwise known as a “gaffe,” former Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen said the efforts of corporate-backed Fix the Debt and other debt scolds is to create an “artificial crisis” that would extract federal spending reductions to reduce long-term debt.

Speaking at a gathering of students and business leaders at Lipscomb University in Nashville, Bredesen was joined by financier Tom Pagliara and Robert Bixby of the the debt-scolding Concord Coalition, a billionaire-financed mouthpiece similar to Fix the Debt. From the Tennessean:

The Tennessee Democrat said he and other members of the national Fix the Debt effort are trying to create an “artificial crisis” that would force Congress to bring the $16 trillion federal debt under control.

Yes, he said it out loud.

I don’t know the answer to why the wealthy are so obsessed with the deficit instead of actually boosting the economy or why they are specifically so hostile to “entitlements” — after all, they cost them very little money personally. The old idea that they were worried about interest rates doesn’t seem to be relevant anymore. The stock market’s doing great, their own fortunes are growing at a faster clip than they were before the financial crisis. Yet all over the world wealthy elites are insisting on using this “artificial crisis” to end government programs that benefit average citizens — and they can’t seem to communicate a cogent rationale beyond “debt is bad.”

Krugman speculates that they see this as a morality play wherein the rich are obviously the virtuous heroes (being rich and all) and the plebes are a bunch of lazy, immoral parasites who refuse to carry their weight. I think he’s probably right, but I’m going to speculate further that for many of them this is a result of guilt at their own gargantuan selfishness and greed. I can only imagine that it’s hard to live with yourself when you’re taking more and more of the wealth that humans create while everyone else is falling behind. It must require some psychological jiu-jitsu to look yourself in the mirror and believe that you deserve it.

That’s just my personal theory, and the truth is that it’s completely uninformed about the psychological make-up of the super-rich. I’ve met a few and they are the oddest people I’ve come across in life — it may be that their psychology is so unique that average people like me simply cannot understand it. (It’s also possible that they’re just as stupid as everyone else and believe what talking heads on TV tell them about the deficit. Since they aren’t affected by the horrors of the larger economy like everyone else is, they just consider them irrelevant.)

Anyway, the key question of why they believe that old people should starve while they hoard every last penny they get their hands on remains obscure. But the fact that they do believe it is indisputable. And as this report from DEMOS proves, the fact that the political elite of America is in their thrall  (as it is in nearly every Western democracy)  is also indisputable.

A notable area where the affluent have different priorities is deficit reduction, which wealthier Americans tend to see as more important than other economic priorities, such as job creation. Polls over the past two years have repeatedly found that while many Americans are worried about deficits and the national debt, addressing unemployment and improving the economy has consistently been a bigger priority for the public. For example, a June 2010 NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll found that 33 percent of Americans named job creation and economic growth as their top priority; 15 percent named “deficit and government spending.” Most polls throughout 2011 and 2012 found that the public remained focused on jobs and the economy over the deficit by two-to-one margins or more.Exit polling on Election Day found that 59 percent of voters rated the economy as the most important issue facing the country, compared to 15 percent who named the deficit.

This is why both parties are obsessed with deficit reduction. They are responding to their patrons and wealthy constituents.

President Obama famously presented himself as a transformational president in 2008. From his earliest days in office he has proclaimed that he wanted to do fundamental “reform” of our government’s structures and its relationship to its people. This is currently being defined as a battle between his priorities and the Republican vision of Paul Ryan. But the truth is that we are in a battle between the people’s priorities and the elite vision of those people the President is allegedly “enlisting” in his cause today (and who Paul Ryan blatantly calls the “makers.”)

Just yesterday the president was said to be anxious because “entitlements” were crowding out all the things he wanted to do.

Anxiety, not ideology prodded Obama to push for entitlement savings, people close to the president say. Obama has told people in his orbit that he feels “squeezed” by the rise of entitlement spending and sees it as a threat to getting anything else done, especially his plans for increased education and infrastructure spending.

Well guess what?

As you can see, the top priorities of the wealthy are the same as those priorities President Obama is afraid “entitlement” spending is threatening.

Now it’s true that the general public is also in favor of infrastructure and education. But they don’t prioritize it above everything else. Indeed, only education comes above Social Security in their list of priorities. Health care ties for number three.

Keep in mind that infrastructure, research and education, while they benefit everyone, are of particular benefit to private industry which profits handsomely from the taxpayers’ paying for these investments. Considering their misanthropic attitude to the general welfare of the nation in any other category, one can fairly assume that’s the only reason they support it.

This is what our political leaders are responding to. If the people benefit, that’s nice.  But clearly, the number one priority is fulfilling the needs and desires of the wealthy.

Think about this:

It shocks people when I tell them the deficit as a percent of GDP is already close to being cut in half (this doesn’t seem to ever make headlines). As Hatzius notes, the deficit is currently running under half the peak of the fiscal 2009 budget and will probably decline further over the next few years with no additional policy changes.

This report from Goldman Sachs says;

We expect the deficit to continue to decline and are forecasting a deficit of 3% of GDP or less in fiscal 2015. Some of this is policy-related. … But the more important reason, in our view, is that there is still a great deal of room for the economic recovery to reduce the deficit for cyclical reasons. …

So, if the deficit has been cut in half, why are we still pursuing a Grand Bargain? Because it’s not really about the budget deficit at all. Once more, here’s the president in January of 2009:

“What we have to do is to take a look at our structural deficit, how are we paying for government? What are we getting for it? And how do we make the system more efficient?”

This is the real “transformation” he was seeking. And it looked like this:

President-elect Barack Obama will convene a “fiscal responsibility summit” in February designed to bring together a variety of voices on solving the long term problems with the economy and with a special focus on entitlements, he said during an interview with Washington Post reporters and editors this afternoon.

“We need to send a signal that we are serious,” said Obama of the summit.

Who does that really serve? You be the judge.

.