Month: May 2014

This is going to help you more than it helps us. Honest. #Kochs

by digby

Paul Waldman made a great observation about the Kochs that I think is worth thinking about a bit. He quotes saying this from AFP, in defense of their worldview:

“If the presidential election told us anything, it’s that Americans place a great importance on taking care of those in need and avoiding harm to the weak,” reads the AFP memo.

Echoing Charles Koch’s opposition to the minimum wage, it asserts that free market, low-regulation policies “create the greatest levels of prosperity and opportunity for all Americans, especially for society’s poorest and most vulnerable.” Yet, the memo says, “we consistently see that Americans in general are concerned that free-market policy — and its advocates — benefit the rich and powerful more than the most vulnerable of society. …We must correct this misconception.”

And then observes:

If you read closely, you see that this is actually a different kind of claim than free marketeers usually make. They often argue that unfettered markets will provide better outcomes for poor people than free markets with the help of a safety net will. And they argue that free markets are good for everyone. But this goes farther. Maybe I’m not sufficiently steeped in their rhetoric and dogma, but I don’t recall hearing too often that their policy agenda, which includes things like slashing environmental and worker safety regulations, cutting taxes for the wealthy, and eviscerating safety net programs, actually provides more benefits to the poor than to the rich.

It’s one thing to say, sure, when we cut capital gains taxes the wealthy benefit, but in the end it helps the whole economy. It’s another thing entirely to say that the greatest benefit from those tax cuts accrue to the poor.

That’s interesting, no? They don’t just believe in the trickle down or the “high tide raises all boats” thing, they believe that these policies directly benefit the poor more than the rich. It’s hard to understand why they think this although as Waldman points out it’s easy to see why they would need to. After all, to believe otherwise is to be a horrible person. And they don’t seem to want to be the purveyors of “tough love.”

However, there are plenty of Republicans and libertarians who do. Like the people who shouted “yeah!” when Ron Paul said it was just too bad if a person got sick without health insurance. Or those who cheer Rick Perry when he takes pride in being the record holder for most executions of any Governor. Certainly, all those people who thought Romney’s 47% remark was right on have absolutely no interest in helping the poor. (I won’t even go into the fact that most of them think the benefits got to the “you know whos” and they don’t like that one bit.)

It’s hard to know what the Kochs actually think is the mechanism for the poor benefiting more from their policies although, if I had to guess, it would be “liberty” the ultimate catch phrase of the right wing these days — which translates in Koch world roughly into “you are free to starve or work as a lackey, ain’t that grand?”

But hey, good luck to them finding a way to convince regular people that they are the ones coming out on top when the Kochs pocket another 50 billion. Most of us may be dumb about money but we aren’t that dumb.

.

Yah think?

by digby

It’s hard to see this new investigation as anything other than a political move to weaken Democrats heading into the midterm elections and undermine Hillary Rodham Clinton’s potential presidential bid in 2016, especially when Republicans immediately started using the existence of the select committee for fundraising purposes.” – Editorial Board, Concord Monitor 5/8/14

Of course that’s what it is. And the fact that it’s a nakedly partisan move is a feature not a bug. Republican voters like this stuff. A lot. In fact it’s been the life blood of the conservative movement ever since Watergate. (Every Democratic pseudo-scandal is “worse than Watergate” dontcha know?)

It’s always hard to know how the American people on the whole will respond. They’re often unimpressed with these shennanigans. But they are also subject to the notion that they’d be happier if the object of the scandal would just make way for someone else. Serious business to be done etc, etc., let’s just put this behind us. So it often works even though the people don’t believe the scandal is important or even real. They just want the lunacy to end. And that’s how the Republicans win.

.

by tristero

My friend Doug Smith, one of the founders of Econ4, sent me a link to a fascinating proposal to establish a maximum wage for employees of any company that wants to do business in Rhode Island:

The Rhode Island Senate’s Finance Committee is considering Senate Bill 2796….
Section 37-2-81 empowers and directs the head of the department of administration to establish rules and regulations that give priority in contract and/or subcontract awards to business enterprises whose best-paid executive receives compensation and/or salary equal to thirty-two times or less than the compensation and/or salary paid to its lowest-paid full-time employee.

A great idea, and if you live in Rhode Island, write your state senators and voice support.

Saturday Night at the Movies

Here it is, at long last: the ultimate “get over it.”

by digby

Wanna get your blood boiling? Read this piece of garbage from Matt Bai:

The truth is that Bush was never anything close to the ogre or the imbecile his most fevered detractors insisted he was. Read “Days of Fire,” the excellent and exhaustive book on Bush’s presidency by Peter Baker, my former colleague at the New York Times. Bush comes off there as compassionate and well-intentioned — a man who came into office underprepared and overly reliant on his wily vice president and who found his footing only after making some tragically bad decisions. Baker’s Bush is a flawed character you find yourself rooting for, even as you wince at his judgment.

But as is the way in modern Washington, it was never enough for Bush’s political opponents that he was miscast or misguided. He had to be something worse than that — or, more precisely, a lot of things worse. He had to be the most catastrophic president ever, in the history of ever. He had to be a messianic war criminal. Or a corporate plant looking to trade blood for oil. Or a doofus barely able to construct a sentence.

Oh STFU.

Forget about the hundreds of thousands of dead people. He was really a nice guy.

I’m sorry, you want the job of president, there are no excuses for bad decisions on the level of the Iraq invasion. Sorry. It’s a rare leader whose record includes a major terrorist attack, an illegal invasion of a nation that didn’t attack it and a catastrophic economic crisis. I’d call that just a little bit special.

Basically, what’s Matt Bai is telling you in that condescending way that only the best of Villagers can muster: “get over it.”

Uhm no.

*And by the way, he was a doofus barely able to construct a sentence.

.

The kids are alright

by digby

Age is a state of mind, grasshoppers:

.

Their last stand?

by digby

Really? They have to be able to take their noisy ATVs anywhere they want or they aren’t free?

An illegal all-terrain vehicle (ATV) ride planned this weekend through Recapture Canyon in Utah is the latest flashpoint between anti-government activists and federal land managers. The illegal ride is already drawing criticism from the Navajo Nation, putting American Indian burial sites and cultural resources at risk, and has even forced the cancellation of a traditional Navajo Warrior welcome home ceremony for veterans.

Yet San Juan County Commissioner Phil Lyman (R-UT) and his supporters appear determined to defy federal law by riding their ATVs through Recapture Canyon, an area of southeast Utah known as a “mini-Mesa Verde” because it contains one of the highest densities of archaeological sites in the country.

Cliven Bundy, the Nevada rancher who has refused to pay more than $1 million in grazing fees he owes U.S. taxpayers, has reportedly urged his supporters -– who include armed militia members –- to join Lyman in Utah this weekend.

“We need to help the people of Blanding re-establish who is in control of the land,” said Bundy and his wife, Carol, in an email that was reported by E News. “This is your next stand. Will you be there to help them like you helped us?”

So only people who carry guns and ride around on noisy vehicles get to “control the land.” Good to know. The rest of us just have to put up with it. Because freedom.

*I think people should be able to ride ATVs and own guns. If Cliven Bundy wants to use his ranch as an ATV track and target range, have at it. But they don’t have a right to do whatever they want wherever they want to do it. The rest of us have rights too.

.

Starting the wave

by digby

I don’t know if 2014 is really going to be a big wave. And even if it is, I don’t know if it is anything but a normal part of the cycle. These second term midterms are often bloodbaths. But I certainly think that if the Republicans gain a bunch of seats it will be interpreted as something politically meaningful and that the wingnuttiest of wingnuts will take credit for it:

The Koch brothers’ main political arm intends to spend more than $125 million this year on an aggressive ground, air and data operation benefiting conservatives, according to a memo distributed to major donors and sources familiar with the group.
The projected budget for Americans for Prosperity would be unprecedented for a private political group in a midterm, and would likely rival even the spending of the Republican and Democratic parties’ congressional campaign arms.

The group already has spent more than $35 million on ads attacking vulnerable Democrats in key Senate and House races, according to sources, including Sens. Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Mark Pryor of Arkansas. The $125 million projection comes from a memo obtained by POLITICO, labeled as a “Confidential Investor Update” provided to major donors in March, but a source familiar with AFP called the figure a “very conservative estimate. We’re on track for more than that.”

The Kochs could spend a billion out of their own personal fortunes and still have 100 billion left. This is nothing. In fact, I’m a little bit surprised its so little. It’s probably a whole lot more.

So, get ready for a barrage of dishonest and misleading advertising. Where the quaint old grassroots Tea Party got to claim the victory in 2010, I’m going to guess everyone will give it to the Big Money Boyz in 2014. It’s all actually the same thing, of course. But the interpretation of election results is as important as the results themselves so it behooves the Democrats to think hard about how they want to spin this ahead of time. A loss could actually be spun positively if they play their cards right.

.

Haunted

by digby

It’s graduation day at Berkeley:

I’m sure he doesn’t care. He seems to be quite proud of his record. But it’s important to remind normal decent people of it from time to time. Just to keep the concept that torture is a taboo alive if nothing else.

Via

.

Carter was right, Reagan was wrong

by David Atkins

It’s little more than a symbol and a political statement, but symbols and statements are still important. Given the mockery of Jimmy Carter by odious conservatives for doing likewise, the White House putting solar panels on its roof is an excellent statement:

As with trickle-down economics and all else, Reagan and all his coterie were just plain wrong when they weren’t explicitly venal and corrupt. Putting solar panels on the White House was the right move to encourage greater adoption of renewable energy in the 1970s. It’s the right move now.

With little else to accomplish realistically over the next three years, there are increasing indications that the Obama Administration is going to look at least partially to climate change as a problem it can begin to deal with in some ways outside the scope of Congress. The smart money says the Keystone Pipeline is all but denied, and the Administration has been ramping up its climate rhetoric over the last few months.

Assuming this is genuine concern from the White House (and since climate change isn’t a big poll driver, there’s little reason to assume it isn’t genuine), it’s the right play for a President concerned about his place in the history books.

Future generations will come to despise the conservative establishment of the day just as most reasonable people despise the Confederates, the Hooverites, the McCarthyites and the Nixonians today. Future generations will also very likely look with 20/20 hindsight and see that climate change was bar none the most important issue of the early 21st century.

Getting this one right means getting it right for the history books. Validating Carter over Reagan is just the cherry on top of the political sundae.

.