TW: Are deficit commissions a great idea not really as they are merely a means to avoid the fundamental problem. But they are something and in this case another example of why fiscal policy is really just a political football punted around by the Republicans for their electoral benefit.
From Economist:
"The Democrats should embrace more Republican ideas. Republicans shouldn't then reject them
...the Republicans who complained to Barack Obama last week that they do, in fact, have some ideas were right. One idea Republicans had been pushing was a proposal for a bipartisan commission to recommend tough deficit-reduction measures. When Judd Gregg, the Republican senator from New Hampshire, and Kent Conrad, the Democratic senator from Nebraska, proposed the idea, most liberals dismissed it out of hand. The commission would have required the assent of 14 of its 18 members to make recommendations, and the recommendations would have required approval from supermajorities in both the House and Senate...
But then the Obama administration decided to embrace the idea. And, lo and behold...the Republicans promptly turned on their heels and repudiated it. Six of the bill's Republican co-sponsors voted against it. The justification was that mumble mumble tax increases mumble.
This was not a dignified spectacle. What it most strongly recalled was the old Bugs Bunny/Daffy Duck "Duck season, wabbit season" routine, where, as soon as Bugs says "Wabbit season", Daffy switches to "Duck season" and—pow!—Elmer Fudd blows him away. The conclusion is pretty clear. James Fallows lays it out here. Fred Hiatt lays it out here. And Ezra Klein lays it out here."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/republicans_and_deficit_commission
Showing posts with label Obama opposition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama opposition. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
My Fellow Americans...Such As They Are (cont.)
From NBC:
"A new Research 2000 poll of more than 2,000 Republicans...has some eyebrow-raising findings:
-- 63% of them believe President Obama is a socialist
-- 53% believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president than Obama is
-- 39% believe he should be impeached
-- 36% believe he wasn't born in the United States
-- 31% believe the president hates white people
-- 24% believe the president wants the terrorists to win
-- 23% believe their state should secede from the union"
TW: That any sane person believes Palin is qualified to be POTUS much less more so than Obama frames squarely the challenges of democracy in America. I realize many Dems wanted Bush impeached (not including me btw) but that was after he transformed a huge budget surplus into a deficit, invaded without cause Iraq, initiated torture as national policy and was overwhelmed by the Katrina disaster amongst other gems.
And that Obama who is in fact half "white" and was raised by his beloved "white" grandparents would hate "whites" in the minds of many Republicans speaks to them more than him.
Some on the left are pissed that Obama has not moved faster but ponder these stats first, he is not emperor. He is playing the cards he is dealt in terms of the American populace.
Bruce Bartlett's comment on the poll (and yes he worked for that deity of the right Mr. Reagan):
"I can only conclude from this new poll of 2003 self-identified Republicans nationwide that between 20% and 50% of the party is either insane or mind-numbingly stupid."
TW: I know many on the right feel condescended to but if you walk like a duck and talk like a duck then yeah you are fugging stupid. This does not mean opposition to Obama is stupid only support for ignorance and folks like Pence, Palin and Chambliss is.
"A new Research 2000 poll of more than 2,000 Republicans...has some eyebrow-raising findings:
-- 63% of them believe President Obama is a socialist
-- 53% believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president than Obama is
-- 39% believe he should be impeached
-- 36% believe he wasn't born in the United States
-- 31% believe the president hates white people
-- 24% believe the president wants the terrorists to win
-- 23% believe their state should secede from the union"
TW: That any sane person believes Palin is qualified to be POTUS much less more so than Obama frames squarely the challenges of democracy in America. I realize many Dems wanted Bush impeached (not including me btw) but that was after he transformed a huge budget surplus into a deficit, invaded without cause Iraq, initiated torture as national policy and was overwhelmed by the Katrina disaster amongst other gems.
And that Obama who is in fact half "white" and was raised by his beloved "white" grandparents would hate "whites" in the minds of many Republicans speaks to them more than him.
Some on the left are pissed that Obama has not moved faster but ponder these stats first, he is not emperor. He is playing the cards he is dealt in terms of the American populace.
Bruce Bartlett's comment on the poll (and yes he worked for that deity of the right Mr. Reagan):
"I can only conclude from this new poll of 2003 self-identified Republicans nationwide that between 20% and 50% of the party is either insane or mind-numbingly stupid."
TW: I know many on the right feel condescended to but if you walk like a duck and talk like a duck then yeah you are fugging stupid. This does not mean opposition to Obama is stupid only support for ignorance and folks like Pence, Palin and Chambliss is.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Oh Well...Populist Nonsense Makes For Better TV Anyway
From George Packer at New Yorker:
"The other day, I was lighting a fire with a copy of the Times from June 27, 2009 when my eye fell on an article about Republican objections to the health-care reform bill. Back then, the public option troubled Susan Collins, who also “said she would like to see the legislation ‘put more emphasis on health promotion, disease prevention, end of life care,’ as well as tax credits for small businesses and self-employed Americans to ease their access to health insurance.” Her fellow Mainer Olympia Snowe “said she was striving to produce a plan ‘that does not undo the current system in terms of employer-based coverage or the quality of our health-care system.’ ”
It occurred to me that these might be grounds for negotiation if Democrats end up needing to pick up a few Republican votes (a need that came to pass yesterday). And then, as the paper went up in flames, it occurred to me that pretty much every one of these objections and conditions was met in the bill that passed the Senate last month, without the benefit of Ms. Collins’, Ms. Snowe’s, or any other Republican’s support."
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker/2010/01/the-lonesome-death-of-post-partisanship.html
"The other day, I was lighting a fire with a copy of the Times from June 27, 2009 when my eye fell on an article about Republican objections to the health-care reform bill. Back then, the public option troubled Susan Collins, who also “said she would like to see the legislation ‘put more emphasis on health promotion, disease prevention, end of life care,’ as well as tax credits for small businesses and self-employed Americans to ease their access to health insurance.” Her fellow Mainer Olympia Snowe “said she was striving to produce a plan ‘that does not undo the current system in terms of employer-based coverage or the quality of our health-care system.’ ”
It occurred to me that these might be grounds for negotiation if Democrats end up needing to pick up a few Republican votes (a need that came to pass yesterday). And then, as the paper went up in flames, it occurred to me that pretty much every one of these objections and conditions was met in the bill that passed the Senate last month, without the benefit of Ms. Collins’, Ms. Snowe’s, or any other Republican’s support."
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker/2010/01/the-lonesome-death-of-post-partisanship.html
Monday, January 18, 2010
What the Fug?
TW: It appears the Dems will lose Teddy Kennedy's Senate seat and even if Coakley should pull it out it still speaks volumes. We get the governance we deserve as I say over and over. I must say I am disillusioned with America. I thought after eight years of destructive and paranoid bullshit emanating from the White House that folks might have actually been ready for some new approaches. Apparently not.
If folks think, Beckian/Limbovian/Cheneyesque/Foxy/Palineolithic soaked teabaggery is a viable governance strategy then our nation really deserves to slide quickly down the slope that was greased so effectively by eight years of W Bush/Cheney.
A friend of mine has been saying for awhile that what Americans really want is a modern Caesar, perhaps he is right. Wake up for crissakes!! Obama and this Congress were never given a chance to do anything much less screw things up. Yet somehow all of the BS induced by cutting taxes for the wealthy, cutting regulations regardless of their impact, making war like a hegamon and seeing if we could inject ever larger doses of religion into folks lives etc. etc. is the Dems' fault. "We waaaaant smaller guvmint" unless of course it entails more prisons, torture on demand, sacrificing liberty without remorse in an utterly futile pursuit of perfect security and bellicose foreign policy. Universal health care, who cares? But by God do not put MY bennies at risk. Do not institute measures that just might bend the cost curve.
24/7/365 opposition appears to be a very viable electoral strategy be very careful what you ask for. There will be one clear way to break gridlock- Caesarian methods.
Perhaps the Massachusetts loss will wake up the folks who apparently thought pulling one lever last year would fix everything. But that is almost certainly wishful thinking on my part.
From Andrew Sullivan:
"...there's no compromise with the current GOP. They make Gingrich look like Pope John XXIII. If they got back majorities in the Congress, there will be no debt reduction; there will simply be nihilism until they can try to beat Obama in 2012.
Secondly, there's a lie masquerading as analysis going around. And that is that the health insurance bill is some sort of radical idea, fomented by "radical leftists", etc etc. This is propaganda. In fact, the final bill is exactly where a sane compromise is to be found: near-universal coverage; no single payer; no public option; reforms for pre-existing conditions and other injustices; cost control mechanisms; Medicare cuts; deficit reduction. 16 years after the Clintons tried, it's a more moderate bill. It was widely debated in the campaign. It isn't perfect. It needs work. But it's a start.
The blame for the delay lies fundamentally with a GOP that is still intent on putting power before country, and decided the day Obama took office that he was such a threat to their beleaguered brand that they would oppose everything he proposed, demonize him as much as possible, forgo any cooperation, and then try to blame him for the recession, the wars, the unemployment, and the debt he inherited ... while never actually proposing any serious alternative on any of them.
It is a nihilist, populist, primal scream. And if the Massachusetts result is interpreted as a vindication of that strategy, we will have thrown away a very rare constructive moment for targeted government action to tackle the deep problems - healthcare access and cost, too much reliance on carbon energy, an empire bogged down in two quagmires, a debt that will soon threaten this country's currency - in favor of news cycle, tactical Rovian bullshit..."
If folks think, Beckian/Limbovian/Cheneyesque/Foxy/Palineolithic soaked teabaggery is a viable governance strategy then our nation really deserves to slide quickly down the slope that was greased so effectively by eight years of W Bush/Cheney.
A friend of mine has been saying for awhile that what Americans really want is a modern Caesar, perhaps he is right. Wake up for crissakes!! Obama and this Congress were never given a chance to do anything much less screw things up. Yet somehow all of the BS induced by cutting taxes for the wealthy, cutting regulations regardless of their impact, making war like a hegamon and seeing if we could inject ever larger doses of religion into folks lives etc. etc. is the Dems' fault. "We waaaaant smaller guvmint" unless of course it entails more prisons, torture on demand, sacrificing liberty without remorse in an utterly futile pursuit of perfect security and bellicose foreign policy. Universal health care, who cares? But by God do not put MY bennies at risk. Do not institute measures that just might bend the cost curve.
24/7/365 opposition appears to be a very viable electoral strategy be very careful what you ask for. There will be one clear way to break gridlock- Caesarian methods.
Perhaps the Massachusetts loss will wake up the folks who apparently thought pulling one lever last year would fix everything. But that is almost certainly wishful thinking on my part.
From Andrew Sullivan:
"...there's no compromise with the current GOP. They make Gingrich look like Pope John XXIII. If they got back majorities in the Congress, there will be no debt reduction; there will simply be nihilism until they can try to beat Obama in 2012.
Secondly, there's a lie masquerading as analysis going around. And that is that the health insurance bill is some sort of radical idea, fomented by "radical leftists", etc etc. This is propaganda. In fact, the final bill is exactly where a sane compromise is to be found: near-universal coverage; no single payer; no public option; reforms for pre-existing conditions and other injustices; cost control mechanisms; Medicare cuts; deficit reduction. 16 years after the Clintons tried, it's a more moderate bill. It was widely debated in the campaign. It isn't perfect. It needs work. But it's a start.
The blame for the delay lies fundamentally with a GOP that is still intent on putting power before country, and decided the day Obama took office that he was such a threat to their beleaguered brand that they would oppose everything he proposed, demonize him as much as possible, forgo any cooperation, and then try to blame him for the recession, the wars, the unemployment, and the debt he inherited ... while never actually proposing any serious alternative on any of them.
It is a nihilist, populist, primal scream. And if the Massachusetts result is interpreted as a vindication of that strategy, we will have thrown away a very rare constructive moment for targeted government action to tackle the deep problems - healthcare access and cost, too much reliance on carbon energy, an empire bogged down in two quagmires, a debt that will soon threaten this country's currency - in favor of news cycle, tactical Rovian bullshit..."
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
No Kidding!!
From Joe Klein at Time:
"A friend suggests that one of the reasons why support for health care reform has ticked upwards in recent days--and that support for the war in Afghanistan ticked upward after the President announced his policy--is that people hate DC gridlock, with its accompanying ration of pettiness. They want action and hope it works. I hope it works, too."
TW: I would file this under the no shit category. Why do you think the Republicans have adopted the oppose everything 24/7/365 approach. Because it works. And also because the corralary is true. If Obama with some Republican help was blazing trails with a united front to address climate change, health care, the economy etc. all incumbents would be polling through the roof, instead there is talk of a 2010 Republican wave. Folks like to say it does not but it does which is a shame (for the governance of our nation) but a reality of life.
"A friend suggests that one of the reasons why support for health care reform has ticked upwards in recent days--and that support for the war in Afghanistan ticked upward after the President announced his policy--is that people hate DC gridlock, with its accompanying ration of pettiness. They want action and hope it works. I hope it works, too."
TW: I would file this under the no shit category. Why do you think the Republicans have adopted the oppose everything 24/7/365 approach. Because it works. And also because the corralary is true. If Obama with some Republican help was blazing trails with a united front to address climate change, health care, the economy etc. all incumbents would be polling through the roof, instead there is talk of a 2010 Republican wave. Folks like to say it does not but it does which is a shame (for the governance of our nation) but a reality of life.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Governing an Entire Nation
TW: If the economy does not get markedly better the Dems will face a tough time in 2010, it has always been so regardless of the incumbent party. That said as long as Obama's numbers, which ultimately are the metaphor for the overall Dem numbers regardless of what folks might say, hold with the above; then the Dems and Obama will be fine. These numbers tell me that the Fox/Limbaugh wing of the American populace truly do not like our POTUS. As for the rest they appreciate (mostly) what the guy is trying to do.
Friday, November 20, 2009
My Fellow Americans...Such As They Are
From Ezra Klein:
"A couple of days ago, Ross Douthat and I spoke to a class that E.J. Dionne teaches. At some point, I was riffing about how it's a pretty odd political system in which a solid 45 percent of the people believe in death panels and yet public opinion on health-care reform is closely split. Douthat replied that he'd seen research showing that most of the people who say they hold extreme opinions do not, if questioned more deeply, hold those opinions. It's more of a group identification thing. I'm choosing to believe he's right, because I don't really know what to do with a polity in which 52 percent of Republicans believe ACORN stole the election from John McCain."
TW: I agree with Douthat, kinda. If pressed do people really believe this stuff, most probably not, but what group exactly are they identifying with?
From Andrew Sullivan:
"A new poll finds that 51 percent of Americans think canceling the rest of the stimulus would create more jobs. Derek Thompson is slack-jawed:
The idea that canceling the stimulus would create more jobs implies that passing the stimulus has actually killed more jobs than it's created, which is bonkers. Let's say you don't want to consider infrastructure spending or green technology spending or a single job that might have been created in the private sector. If nothing else, the tens of billions we've sent to state budgets have, without question, saved hundreds of thousands of jobs, like teachers, that are supported by state taxes. It's just a very basic fact.
They're watching Fox. Facts don't matter."
"A couple of days ago, Ross Douthat and I spoke to a class that E.J. Dionne teaches. At some point, I was riffing about how it's a pretty odd political system in which a solid 45 percent of the people believe in death panels and yet public opinion on health-care reform is closely split. Douthat replied that he'd seen research showing that most of the people who say they hold extreme opinions do not, if questioned more deeply, hold those opinions. It's more of a group identification thing. I'm choosing to believe he's right, because I don't really know what to do with a polity in which 52 percent of Republicans believe ACORN stole the election from John McCain."
TW: I agree with Douthat, kinda. If pressed do people really believe this stuff, most probably not, but what group exactly are they identifying with?
From Andrew Sullivan:
"A new poll finds that 51 percent of Americans think canceling the rest of the stimulus would create more jobs. Derek Thompson is slack-jawed:
The idea that canceling the stimulus would create more jobs implies that passing the stimulus has actually killed more jobs than it's created, which is bonkers. Let's say you don't want to consider infrastructure spending or green technology spending or a single job that might have been created in the private sector. If nothing else, the tens of billions we've sent to state budgets have, without question, saved hundreds of thousands of jobs, like teachers, that are supported by state taxes. It's just a very basic fact.
They're watching Fox. Facts don't matter."
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Keeping Our Eyes On the Ball
TW: I respect George Will and to a lesser degree Mike Gerson but their bullshit columns about alleged Obama narcissism are waste of their talents. We have big issues as a nation without a doubt but we need to keep our collective eyes on the ball. These irrelevant process stories miss the substance of our challenges.
More examples let's talk AfPak. Obama met congressional leaders regarding AfPak. What was the story? Whether or not McCain and Obama had a snippy exchange. Who cares! Our Afghanistan commander McChrystal creates a report. What was the story? The "leakage" of the report, not the substance of the report. Is Obama moving fast enough? Too fast? Is he timid? Is McChrystal violating chain of command? Who cares! What we should care about is the substance of the momentous decisions our POTUS will be making over the coming weeks regarding that highly strategic matter.
From Ezra Klein
"...George Will accuses the Obamas of taking an "Olympic Ego Trip." He does this largely by a word count: "In the 41 sentences of her remarks," Will writes, "Michelle Obama used some form of the personal pronouns 'I' or 'me' 44 times. Her husband was, comparatively, a shrinking violet, using those pronouns only 26 times in 48 sentences." This echoed Michael Gerson's blog post from late September, in which he characterized Obama's speech before the United Nations as "Me. Me, at all costs; me, in spite of all terrors; me, however long and hard the road may be." Gerson said he could not recall another "major American speech in which the narcissism of a leader has been quite so pronounced."
Harsh words. But are they accurate? Language Logs' Mark Liberman had taken a look at this question once before. He republished his results today.
'I took the transcript of Obama's first press conference (from 2/9/2009), and found that he used 'I' 163 times in 7,775 total words, for a rate of 2.10%. He also used 'me' 8 times and 'my' 35 times, for a total first-person singular pronoun count of 206 in 7,775 words, or a rate of 2.65%.
For comparison, I took George W. Bush's first two solo press conferences as president (from 2/22/2001 and 3/29/2001), and found that W used 'I' 239 times in 6,681 total words, for a rate of 3.58% — a rate 72% higher than Obama's rate. President Bush also used 'me' 26 times, 'my' 31 times, and 'myself' 4 times, for a total first-person singular pronoun count of 300 in 6,681 words, or a rate of 4.49% (59% higher than Obama).
For a third data point, I took William J. Clinton's first two solo press conferences as president (from 1/29/1993 and 3/23/1993), and found that he used 'I' 218 times, 'me' 34 times, 'my' 22 times, and 'myself' once, in 6,935 total words. That's a total of 275 first-person singular pronouns, and a rate of 3.14% for 'I' (51% higher than Obama), and 3.87% for first-person singular pronouns overall (50% higher than Obama).'
But maybe something has changed. Maybe Obama is getting worse. Lieberman checked that, too.
As a result of this previous experience, I had a first-person-counting script all ready to go, and it took only a few seconds to check the new transcripts. This time around, Barack Obama's Olympic remarks included 26 first-person-singular words out of 1130, for a rate of 2.3%. This is slightly below his typical rate for presidential press conferences, and a bit more than half the rate of the George W. Bush pressers that I measured earlier (2.3/4.49 = 51%, to be precise)."
More examples let's talk AfPak. Obama met congressional leaders regarding AfPak. What was the story? Whether or not McCain and Obama had a snippy exchange. Who cares! Our Afghanistan commander McChrystal creates a report. What was the story? The "leakage" of the report, not the substance of the report. Is Obama moving fast enough? Too fast? Is he timid? Is McChrystal violating chain of command? Who cares! What we should care about is the substance of the momentous decisions our POTUS will be making over the coming weeks regarding that highly strategic matter.
From Ezra Klein
"...George Will accuses the Obamas of taking an "Olympic Ego Trip." He does this largely by a word count: "In the 41 sentences of her remarks," Will writes, "Michelle Obama used some form of the personal pronouns 'I' or 'me' 44 times. Her husband was, comparatively, a shrinking violet, using those pronouns only 26 times in 48 sentences." This echoed Michael Gerson's blog post from late September, in which he characterized Obama's speech before the United Nations as "Me. Me, at all costs; me, in spite of all terrors; me, however long and hard the road may be." Gerson said he could not recall another "major American speech in which the narcissism of a leader has been quite so pronounced."
Harsh words. But are they accurate? Language Logs' Mark Liberman had taken a look at this question once before. He republished his results today.
'I took the transcript of Obama's first press conference (from 2/9/2009), and found that he used 'I' 163 times in 7,775 total words, for a rate of 2.10%. He also used 'me' 8 times and 'my' 35 times, for a total first-person singular pronoun count of 206 in 7,775 words, or a rate of 2.65%.
For comparison, I took George W. Bush's first two solo press conferences as president (from 2/22/2001 and 3/29/2001), and found that W used 'I' 239 times in 6,681 total words, for a rate of 3.58% — a rate 72% higher than Obama's rate. President Bush also used 'me' 26 times, 'my' 31 times, and 'myself' 4 times, for a total first-person singular pronoun count of 300 in 6,681 words, or a rate of 4.49% (59% higher than Obama).
For a third data point, I took William J. Clinton's first two solo press conferences as president (from 1/29/1993 and 3/23/1993), and found that he used 'I' 218 times, 'me' 34 times, 'my' 22 times, and 'myself' once, in 6,935 total words. That's a total of 275 first-person singular pronouns, and a rate of 3.14% for 'I' (51% higher than Obama), and 3.87% for first-person singular pronouns overall (50% higher than Obama).'
But maybe something has changed. Maybe Obama is getting worse. Lieberman checked that, too.
As a result of this previous experience, I had a first-person-counting script all ready to go, and it took only a few seconds to check the new transcripts. This time around, Barack Obama's Olympic remarks included 26 first-person-singular words out of 1130, for a rate of 2.3%. This is slightly below his typical rate for presidential press conferences, and a bit more than half the rate of the George W. Bush pressers that I measured earlier (2.3/4.49 = 51%, to be precise)."
Monday, October 5, 2009
A Steep Hill To Climb...
TW: A screenshot of last week's hottest books at Amazon. When folks especially progressives lament the pace of reform be it health care, climate change, financial markets, social issues etc., one must recall a minority but a significant minority of Americans very much believe in Palin/Beck/End of World type concepts. America is a melting pot of many ingredients. Democracy is inherently cautious and slow to reflect all viewpoints not just the majority.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Ropa-Dope Politics
TW: This piece got into a fairly lengthy bit on how Obama employed some ropa-dope tactics during his community organizing days in order to defuse radical elements within the community. Will such an approach work with the "tea-baggers". We shall see although Sept surely seems more calm than August.
From Economist:
"...The lesson the reader takes away from this episode in Mr Obama's book is clear: hysterical, confrontational tactics may be able to drum up a short-term crowd, but in the long run, they don't actually accomplish anything. The way to handle the ravers and conspiracy theorists is to let them have their rant, wait until the rest of the room stops taking them seriously, and then step in and work with the reasonable people to move the agenda forward. Does this strategy work? Well, over the past month and a half, as the rhetoric of right-wing protestors denouncing health reform has become increasingly unhinged, the passage of a major health-reform bill has quietly become a near certainty. True, Glenn Beck's influence on the right has grown to stunning proportions, and that influence will probably continue to grow for some time. It took people in Chicago a while to realise that folks like Rafiq al-Shabazz weren't going to get much done for them, whereas Barack Obama seemed to have a knack for finding people who would."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/09/reasonableness_is_a_political.cfm
From Economist:
"...The lesson the reader takes away from this episode in Mr Obama's book is clear: hysterical, confrontational tactics may be able to drum up a short-term crowd, but in the long run, they don't actually accomplish anything. The way to handle the ravers and conspiracy theorists is to let them have their rant, wait until the rest of the room stops taking them seriously, and then step in and work with the reasonable people to move the agenda forward. Does this strategy work? Well, over the past month and a half, as the rhetoric of right-wing protestors denouncing health reform has become increasingly unhinged, the passage of a major health-reform bill has quietly become a near certainty. True, Glenn Beck's influence on the right has grown to stunning proportions, and that influence will probably continue to grow for some time. It took people in Chicago a while to realise that folks like Rafiq al-Shabazz weren't going to get much done for them, whereas Barack Obama seemed to have a knack for finding people who would."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/09/reasonableness_is_a_political.cfm
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
40% Of Americans Want a Fundamentally Different Nation
Taegen Goddard:
"A new CNN/Opinion Research poll finds that 41% of Americans believe that President Obama's health care reform plan will lead to government panels withholding life-or-death treatments from patients. Said pollster Keating Holland: "That's a minority, but it's a pretty sizable one, and that could spell trouble for the White House."This comes after President Obama called such claims -- made by Sarah Palin and others -- as "lies" in his speech before Congress last week."
TW: This death panel meme has been around now for a couple of months. It is no longer a "rumor", folks at this point either believe their POTUS or believe Sarah Palin/Limbaugh etc., facts be damned (I am personally done trying to argue about it). This is where demagoguery leads. Little nuggets of truth are twisted into falsehoods which become embedded within the public's consciousness.
When folks lament the inability of our government to act decisively one should remember the results above. Folks choose to "trust" Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh over their POTUS. Such is the challenge of democracy. Are things getting worse? The only thing that provides (mixed) comfort for me is the knowledge that right-wing nuttery is not new and we have survived. What is new perhaps is their embrace by senior Republican leadership but the transition of the Barry Goldwater bloc into the leadership of the Republican party was already in motion by November, 1963 (and Goldwater himself would likely puke if he saw how far right some of his Republican colleagues have evolved). This genre of folks is reactionary with a perverse view of what constitutes "real" America.
From Vanity Fair:
"...[JFK biographer]Manchester...discovered that Dallas “had become the Mecca for medicine-show evangelists … the Minutemen, the John Birch and Patrick Henry Societies, and the headquarters of [ultra-conservative oil billionaire] H. L. Hunt and his activities.”
“In that third year of the Kennedy presidency,” Manchester wrote, “a kind of fever lay over Dallas country. Mad things happened. Huge billboards screamed, ‘Impeach Earl Warren.’ Jewish stores were smeared with crude swastikas.…Radical Right polemics were distributed in public schools; Kennedy’s name was booed in classrooms; corporate junior executives were required to attend radical seminars.” A retired major general ran the American flag upside down, deriding it as “the Democrat flag.” A wanted poster with J.F.K.’s face on it was circulated, announcing “this man is Wanted” for—among other things—“turning the sovereignty of the US over to the Communist controlled United Nations” and appointing “anti-Christians … aliens and known Communists” to federal offices. And a full-page advertisement had appeared the day of the assassination in The Dallas Morning News accusing Kennedy of making a secret deal with the Communist Party..."
From
"A new CNN/Opinion Research poll finds that 41% of Americans believe that President Obama's health care reform plan will lead to government panels withholding life-or-death treatments from patients. Said pollster Keating Holland: "That's a minority, but it's a pretty sizable one, and that could spell trouble for the White House."This comes after President Obama called such claims -- made by Sarah Palin and others -- as "lies" in his speech before Congress last week."
TW: This death panel meme has been around now for a couple of months. It is no longer a "rumor", folks at this point either believe their POTUS or believe Sarah Palin/Limbaugh etc., facts be damned (I am personally done trying to argue about it). This is where demagoguery leads. Little nuggets of truth are twisted into falsehoods which become embedded within the public's consciousness.
When folks lament the inability of our government to act decisively one should remember the results above. Folks choose to "trust" Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh over their POTUS. Such is the challenge of democracy. Are things getting worse? The only thing that provides (mixed) comfort for me is the knowledge that right-wing nuttery is not new and we have survived. What is new perhaps is their embrace by senior Republican leadership but the transition of the Barry Goldwater bloc into the leadership of the Republican party was already in motion by November, 1963 (and Goldwater himself would likely puke if he saw how far right some of his Republican colleagues have evolved). This genre of folks is reactionary with a perverse view of what constitutes "real" America.
From Vanity Fair:
"...[JFK biographer]Manchester...discovered that Dallas “had become the Mecca for medicine-show evangelists … the Minutemen, the John Birch and Patrick Henry Societies, and the headquarters of [ultra-conservative oil billionaire] H. L. Hunt and his activities.”
“In that third year of the Kennedy presidency,” Manchester wrote, “a kind of fever lay over Dallas country. Mad things happened. Huge billboards screamed, ‘Impeach Earl Warren.’ Jewish stores were smeared with crude swastikas.…Radical Right polemics were distributed in public schools; Kennedy’s name was booed in classrooms; corporate junior executives were required to attend radical seminars.” A retired major general ran the American flag upside down, deriding it as “the Democrat flag.” A wanted poster with J.F.K.’s face on it was circulated, announcing “this man is Wanted” for—among other things—“turning the sovereignty of the US over to the Communist controlled United Nations” and appointing “anti-Christians … aliens and known Communists” to federal offices. And a full-page advertisement had appeared the day of the assassination in The Dallas Morning News accusing Kennedy of making a secret deal with the Communist Party..."
From
Monday, September 14, 2009
Ignorant Populism
TW: Below was a reporter from the New Majority's view of the protest Saturday in D.C. The New Majority is a moderately conservative blog run by David Frum. For what exactly I would ask are these folks looking?
From New Majority:
"...I want Congress to hear this: No TARP, no bailout, no cap-and-trade, no socialist healthcare, no healthcare paying for abortions, no czars!”
...And then: “Balance the checkbook, give Medicare to those who need it, and get government out of my healthcare!”
Sarah Palin was without a doubt the unsaid queen of the 9/12 march. Of the many people I interviewed, about a dozen expressed solid support for a Palin candidacy, with all of the others at least open to supporting her.
Many were caught up in the fervor of Joe Wilson’s recent outburst. At moments, it seemed as if every other person was holding a “You Lie” sign. Joe Wilson, indeed, was a name I heard with much greater frequency than Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee (whose name crossed no one’s lips), and Tim Pawlenty. Floated names did include, however, Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck.
“All eyes are on Sarah Palin,” a man said. “Without her, McCain would have lost in a landslide.”
...“Quitting as governor was so smart,” another man said. “She got her leg out of a political beartrap. They were trying to sink her up in Alaska.”
...“Whoever follows the Constitution!”
...“We want Joe the Plumber, we want Suzie the Waitress. We want people with real lives. We’re sick to death of politicians and we’re sick to death of lawyers!” added another.
“We have no leader right now. For now, this is a citizen’s movement. They must hear us. They work for us. The people have to lead this.”
I approached a man holding a gigantic sign bearing the word “Jesus.” “What brought you out here today?” I asked, and the man rattled off a list of offenses: cap-and-trade, the debt, the deficit, Obamacare.
“What does your sign have to do with that, if I may ask?” I replied.
“Well, first, look at your shirt. What’s on it?,” he asked. “Don’t look, but tell me what’s on it.”
“Well… it’s a dragon, hovering over a boat or something, across some mountains,” I responded.
“Right. A dragon. A serpent. It represents Hell.”
With that, he pointed to a woman walking by and said “What does this sign mean to you?”
“Jesus. My Lord and Savior, who died on the cross to save me from sin,” she answered.
“Do we know each other?” he asked her, to verify that she was not with his party, but I interrupted: “Wait, wait. That’s fine, but what I wanted to know was the sign’s relevance to today’s rally.”
“Well, we’re a Christian nation founded on Christian principles, and we need to get back to those,” the man responded.
“Jesus died,” the woman added, “so we could be free. We’re having that taken away from us.” She walked away, but the man continued: “Have you read the Gospel of John?” I said that I had. “Well, read it again. Five times this time. And don’t think of yourself. Read it carefully and ask yourself: who is this man? Who is this man? Because he must be either a liar, a lun — .” I again interrupted him and noted: “Yes, yes, C.S. Lewis’ trilemma. I’m familiar with all of this. He’s a good writer, but I’m not a believer.”
A woman I’d addressed earlier struck a similar tone. “Obama opposes the Bible. The Constitution is an extension of the Bible, because it was written by God-fearing men.” This woman, one-half of a couple that had come down from Michigan, was fairly elderly. Her husband added: “We’re seeing our freedoms taken away. We’re old. We’re afraid of the death panels. At first I was worried just about my grandchildren, but now we’re worried for us, too. But today’s turnout — I didn’t know whether it’d be one-thousand or whatever number of people, but this is amazing. It’s the answer to a prayer.”
One college-aged woman I spoke with was concerned with the next generation: “Young people have no idea what’s going on in this country. They don’t know the truth. I have to be a representative for our generation. I don’t want our rights taken away. They’re trying to take away free speech, our right to choose healthcare, ‘Under God’ from the dollar bill… that’s the way it’s always been. You take away God, and you hand over the United States to Satan. This country will go straight to Hell.”
I came to sympathize with the protesters I met. Their hearts are in the right place..."
http://www.newmajority.com/what-i-saw-at-the-912-march
From New Majority:
"...I want Congress to hear this: No TARP, no bailout, no cap-and-trade, no socialist healthcare, no healthcare paying for abortions, no czars!”
...And then: “Balance the checkbook, give Medicare to those who need it, and get government out of my healthcare!”
Sarah Palin was without a doubt the unsaid queen of the 9/12 march. Of the many people I interviewed, about a dozen expressed solid support for a Palin candidacy, with all of the others at least open to supporting her.
Many were caught up in the fervor of Joe Wilson’s recent outburst. At moments, it seemed as if every other person was holding a “You Lie” sign. Joe Wilson, indeed, was a name I heard with much greater frequency than Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee (whose name crossed no one’s lips), and Tim Pawlenty. Floated names did include, however, Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck.
“All eyes are on Sarah Palin,” a man said. “Without her, McCain would have lost in a landslide.”
...“Quitting as governor was so smart,” another man said. “She got her leg out of a political beartrap. They were trying to sink her up in Alaska.”
...“Whoever follows the Constitution!”
...“We want Joe the Plumber, we want Suzie the Waitress. We want people with real lives. We’re sick to death of politicians and we’re sick to death of lawyers!” added another.
“We have no leader right now. For now, this is a citizen’s movement. They must hear us. They work for us. The people have to lead this.”
I approached a man holding a gigantic sign bearing the word “Jesus.” “What brought you out here today?” I asked, and the man rattled off a list of offenses: cap-and-trade, the debt, the deficit, Obamacare.
“What does your sign have to do with that, if I may ask?” I replied.
“Well, first, look at your shirt. What’s on it?,” he asked. “Don’t look, but tell me what’s on it.”
“Well… it’s a dragon, hovering over a boat or something, across some mountains,” I responded.
“Right. A dragon. A serpent. It represents Hell.”
With that, he pointed to a woman walking by and said “What does this sign mean to you?”
“Jesus. My Lord and Savior, who died on the cross to save me from sin,” she answered.
“Do we know each other?” he asked her, to verify that she was not with his party, but I interrupted: “Wait, wait. That’s fine, but what I wanted to know was the sign’s relevance to today’s rally.”
“Well, we’re a Christian nation founded on Christian principles, and we need to get back to those,” the man responded.
“Jesus died,” the woman added, “so we could be free. We’re having that taken away from us.” She walked away, but the man continued: “Have you read the Gospel of John?” I said that I had. “Well, read it again. Five times this time. And don’t think of yourself. Read it carefully and ask yourself: who is this man? Who is this man? Because he must be either a liar, a lun — .” I again interrupted him and noted: “Yes, yes, C.S. Lewis’ trilemma. I’m familiar with all of this. He’s a good writer, but I’m not a believer.”
A woman I’d addressed earlier struck a similar tone. “Obama opposes the Bible. The Constitution is an extension of the Bible, because it was written by God-fearing men.” This woman, one-half of a couple that had come down from Michigan, was fairly elderly. Her husband added: “We’re seeing our freedoms taken away. We’re old. We’re afraid of the death panels. At first I was worried just about my grandchildren, but now we’re worried for us, too. But today’s turnout — I didn’t know whether it’d be one-thousand or whatever number of people, but this is amazing. It’s the answer to a prayer.”
One college-aged woman I spoke with was concerned with the next generation: “Young people have no idea what’s going on in this country. They don’t know the truth. I have to be a representative for our generation. I don’t want our rights taken away. They’re trying to take away free speech, our right to choose healthcare, ‘Under God’ from the dollar bill… that’s the way it’s always been. You take away God, and you hand over the United States to Satan. This country will go straight to Hell.”
I came to sympathize with the protesters I met. Their hearts are in the right place..."
http://www.newmajority.com/what-i-saw-at-the-912-march
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Cass Sunstein Is No Van Jones
TW: When a Van Jones situation happens it is almost all bad for the POTUS. POTUS and his staff look incompetent as someone with Jones' baggage should have never made it past their own filters. Some members of the POTUS base will be pissed that the POTUS did not fall on his sword in support of their own. And worst of all idiotic fools like Glenn Beck can proudly tag a scalp to their wall.
There is only one upside for a POTUS which is that folks like Beck and Fox Nation will almost always attempt to cross the bridge too far. With the scent of blood in the water they will keep foaming in search of new meat until they bash their heads into a wall. They are now gunning for Cass Sunstein. Cass Sunstein is a VERY good scholar without Van Jones baggage. Obama will fall on his sword for Sunstein (or else legitimately face the music of letting one's enemies run his administration which would be foolish and incompetent).
From Economist:
"HAVING vanquished Van Jones..., Republicans are now gunning for Cass Sunstein, Obama's nominee for regulatory czar. I thought Jones deserved the boot. He is a radical who flirts with utter nutters. Sunstein, by contrast, is one of Obama's better appointments.
As I've argued before, the White House needs someone who will take a cold hard look at which regulations are cost-effective and which are not. Sunstein is just the man for the job.
But Republican senators have put a hold on his nomination, and the blowhards of cable and talk radio are denouncing him from the rooftops.
Sunstein's problem is that he has written a lot of thoughtful books which ponder difficult questions and explore a variety of possible solutions. This makes him easy to quote out of context. For example, an article in CNS news says:
Cass Sunstein, President Barack Obama’s nominee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), has advocated a policy under which the government would “presume” someone has consented to having his or her organs removed for transplantation into someone else when they die unless that person has explicitly indicated that his or her organs should not be taken. Under such a policy, hospitals would harvest organs from people who never gave permission for this to be done.
This is rubbish. He laid out this argument in order to dismiss it. If you read to the end of the article, you see that what he actually proposed was a system in which you would have to make a choice. When applying for a driver's license, you would have to tick "yes" or "no" to the question: would you like to donate your organs if you die? Sounds like a good idea to me. And, as Instapundit points out, it's nothing like the Monty Python scenario.
Another angle of attack concerns guns. The website StopSunstein.com quotes him as saying that:
"[A]lmost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine."
What he actually said was that:
"If [something the Supreme Court said in 1939] is taken seriously, almost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine."
He then adds:
"I am not insisting that there is no individual right to bear arms."
I don't agree with all of Sunstein's views, particularly the ones concerning animal rights. But he deserves better than this."
There is only one upside for a POTUS which is that folks like Beck and Fox Nation will almost always attempt to cross the bridge too far. With the scent of blood in the water they will keep foaming in search of new meat until they bash their heads into a wall. They are now gunning for Cass Sunstein. Cass Sunstein is a VERY good scholar without Van Jones baggage. Obama will fall on his sword for Sunstein (or else legitimately face the music of letting one's enemies run his administration which would be foolish and incompetent).
From Economist:
"HAVING vanquished Van Jones..., Republicans are now gunning for Cass Sunstein, Obama's nominee for regulatory czar. I thought Jones deserved the boot. He is a radical who flirts with utter nutters. Sunstein, by contrast, is one of Obama's better appointments.
As I've argued before, the White House needs someone who will take a cold hard look at which regulations are cost-effective and which are not. Sunstein is just the man for the job.
But Republican senators have put a hold on his nomination, and the blowhards of cable and talk radio are denouncing him from the rooftops.
Sunstein's problem is that he has written a lot of thoughtful books which ponder difficult questions and explore a variety of possible solutions. This makes him easy to quote out of context. For example, an article in CNS news says:
Cass Sunstein, President Barack Obama’s nominee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), has advocated a policy under which the government would “presume” someone has consented to having his or her organs removed for transplantation into someone else when they die unless that person has explicitly indicated that his or her organs should not be taken. Under such a policy, hospitals would harvest organs from people who never gave permission for this to be done.
This is rubbish. He laid out this argument in order to dismiss it. If you read to the end of the article, you see that what he actually proposed was a system in which you would have to make a choice. When applying for a driver's license, you would have to tick "yes" or "no" to the question: would you like to donate your organs if you die? Sounds like a good idea to me. And, as Instapundit points out, it's nothing like the Monty Python scenario.
Another angle of attack concerns guns. The website StopSunstein.com quotes him as saying that:
"[A]lmost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine."
What he actually said was that:
"If [something the Supreme Court said in 1939] is taken seriously, almost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine."
He then adds:
"I am not insisting that there is no individual right to bear arms."
I don't agree with all of Sunstein's views, particularly the ones concerning animal rights. But he deserves better than this."
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Cynical Opposition
From Paul Krugman at NYT:
"A brief thought, linking two people: Robert Samuelson and Greg Mankiw.
Both enjoy lecturing us on the need to take strong action — Samuelson demanding that we do something about rising health care spending, Mankiw that we join the “Pigou club” by taxing oil consumption.
But both can reliably be counted on to reject any actual proposal along these lines that either (a) has any chance whatsoever of becoming legislation or (b) is proposed by Democrats."
From Ed Yardeni via James Pethokoukis at Reuters:
"Proponents of ObamaCare repeatedly ask senior citizens if they are happy with Medicare. Not surprisingly, they love it. It’s free, and places few restrictions on the services and drugs that are covered by the program. Medicaid works the same way for non-senior citizens who are too poor to pay for health care insurance. So why don’t we all get Medicare? Because it is a fraud.
Ask doctors and hospital administrators about Medicare and Medicaid and they will tell you that it amounts to a theft of their services because the government doesn’t pay them enough to cover their expenses for the care they provide. So they pass those costs on to patients covered by private health insurance. This is why medical care prices are rising faster in the CPI–which includes workers’ out-of-pocket expenses, but not the government’s costs of coverage–than in the PCED, which includes both. Then the audacious proponents of more government in health care have the audacity to claim that costs are rising too fast because of waste, inefficiencies, and fraud in the privately-run system!"
TW: There are a couple of strains of Republican opposition- the neo-con, Hooverite, social conservative, populist baiters (Palin, Limbaugh, Fox News) and the reasonable but highly cynical folks. Am not sure which is worse.
Folks like Greg Mankiw and Ed Yardeni amongst others actually provide some intellectual heft to their party (frequently with a rational libertarian bent). Being loyal Republicans, however, their role has become lockstep opposition to Obama whilst launching endless suggested policies which while intellectually interesting have zero chance of enactment.
Their proposals include amongst others:
1) a carbon tax to address global warming and U.S. oil dependency (I fully support this)
2) opposition to Medicare (I empathize with their concerns although would not abolish it by any means)
3) taxing employee health care benefits (I fully support this)
4) removing many tax entitlements (i.e. mortgage interest deductions- I fully support this as well).
5) they supported "stimulus" but only in the form of tax cuts. Just like they have supported any and every tax cut since Reagan as they are mostly "supply siders" believing in the mystical powers of cutting taxes (primarily in the wealthy) to somehow generate increased tax revenues.
They cynically make quotes like the above about health reform to sew doubt and dissent about Obama's efforts. But their proposed alternative "solutions" are utterly impractical and they know it (this is the piece that chafes me about these folks). There is a reason only non-elected economists like Yardeni and Mankiw make such proposals, if a politician made them they would either never be elected or occupy a fringe seat like a Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul.
But the Mankiw et al. play an important role for the Republicans, they provide a raft for those moderates with libertarian streaks who like their theories and who do not identify with the neo-con, populist, social conservatives to take the easy road and oppose change.
"A brief thought, linking two people: Robert Samuelson and Greg Mankiw.
Both enjoy lecturing us on the need to take strong action — Samuelson demanding that we do something about rising health care spending, Mankiw that we join the “Pigou club” by taxing oil consumption.
But both can reliably be counted on to reject any actual proposal along these lines that either (a) has any chance whatsoever of becoming legislation or (b) is proposed by Democrats."
From Ed Yardeni via James Pethokoukis at Reuters:
"Proponents of ObamaCare repeatedly ask senior citizens if they are happy with Medicare. Not surprisingly, they love it. It’s free, and places few restrictions on the services and drugs that are covered by the program. Medicaid works the same way for non-senior citizens who are too poor to pay for health care insurance. So why don’t we all get Medicare? Because it is a fraud.
Ask doctors and hospital administrators about Medicare and Medicaid and they will tell you that it amounts to a theft of their services because the government doesn’t pay them enough to cover their expenses for the care they provide. So they pass those costs on to patients covered by private health insurance. This is why medical care prices are rising faster in the CPI–which includes workers’ out-of-pocket expenses, but not the government’s costs of coverage–than in the PCED, which includes both. Then the audacious proponents of more government in health care have the audacity to claim that costs are rising too fast because of waste, inefficiencies, and fraud in the privately-run system!"
TW: There are a couple of strains of Republican opposition- the neo-con, Hooverite, social conservative, populist baiters (Palin, Limbaugh, Fox News) and the reasonable but highly cynical folks. Am not sure which is worse.
Folks like Greg Mankiw and Ed Yardeni amongst others actually provide some intellectual heft to their party (frequently with a rational libertarian bent). Being loyal Republicans, however, their role has become lockstep opposition to Obama whilst launching endless suggested policies which while intellectually interesting have zero chance of enactment.
Their proposals include amongst others:
1) a carbon tax to address global warming and U.S. oil dependency (I fully support this)
2) opposition to Medicare (I empathize with their concerns although would not abolish it by any means)
3) taxing employee health care benefits (I fully support this)
4) removing many tax entitlements (i.e. mortgage interest deductions- I fully support this as well).
5) they supported "stimulus" but only in the form of tax cuts. Just like they have supported any and every tax cut since Reagan as they are mostly "supply siders" believing in the mystical powers of cutting taxes (primarily in the wealthy) to somehow generate increased tax revenues.
They cynically make quotes like the above about health reform to sew doubt and dissent about Obama's efforts. But their proposed alternative "solutions" are utterly impractical and they know it (this is the piece that chafes me about these folks). There is a reason only non-elected economists like Yardeni and Mankiw make such proposals, if a politician made them they would either never be elected or occupy a fringe seat like a Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul.
But the Mankiw et al. play an important role for the Republicans, they provide a raft for those moderates with libertarian streaks who like their theories and who do not identify with the neo-con, populist, social conservatives to take the easy road and oppose change.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Health Care Reform In Perspective
TW: The very tedious, vacuous and frustrating process by which health care reform is being contemplated can be depressing. I still think a bill will get done, it will be deeply flawed my only hope is that it will be better than nothing despite the powerful interests aligned against most of it. There are very legitimate conservative arguments which should be integrated into the bill but for the most part the Republicans are chosen to focus on fear mongering without raising them as suggestions. To suggest actually actionable measures would be to create an environment of bi-partisanship which they clearly wish to avoid in favor of cutting Obama's knees out from under him and set the stage for a 2010 comeback.
Putting all of this to the side, Begala makes some good points about where this reform effort compares to the 1930's effort to pass social security.
From Paul Begala in the WaPo:
"I think my fellow progressives ought to give Max Baucus and other members of the Senate Finance Committee a little breathing room as they labor to produce a health-care bill that can garner enough votes to pass the Senate.
Progressive politics is, in my view, a movement, not a monument. We cannot achieve perfection in this life, and if that is our goal we will always be frustrated. The right has far more modest goals: At every turn, its members seek to advance their power and protect privilege. I've never seen the Republican right oppose a tax cut for the rich because it wasn't generous enough; I've never seen them oppose a set of loopholes for corporate lobbyists because one industry or another wasn't included. The left, on the other hand, too often prefers a glorious defeat to an incremental victory.
...No self-respecting liberal today would support Franklin Roosevelt's original Social Security Act. It excluded agricultural workers -- a huge part of the economy in 1935, and one in which Latinos have traditionally worked. It excluded domestic workers, which included countless African Americans and immigrants. It did not cover the self-employed, or state and local government employees, or railroad employees, or federal employees or employees of nonprofits. It didn't even cover the clergy. FDR's Social Security Act did not have benefits for dependents or survivors. It did not have a cost-of-living increase. If you became disabled and couldn't work, you got nothing from Social Security.
If that version of Social Security were introduced today, progressives like me would call it cramped, parsimonious, mean-spirited and even racist. Perhaps it was all those things. But it was also a start. And for 74 years we have built on that start. We added more people to the winner's circle: farm workers and domestic workers and government workers. We extended benefits to the children of working men and women who died. We granted benefits to the disabled. We mandated annual cost-of-living adjustments. And today Social Security is the bedrock of our progressive vision of the common good.
Health care may follow that same trajectory. It would be a bitter disappointment if health reform did not include a public option. A public plan that keeps the insurance companies honest is, I believe, the right policy and the right politics. I believe subsidies should extend to as many Americans as need help and that the hard-earned health benefits of middle-class Americans should not be taxed. I believe insurer abuses like the preexisting-condition rule should be outlawed. The question is not whether I or other progressives will support a health-reform bill that includes everything we want but, rather, whether we will support a bill that doesn't..."
Putting all of this to the side, Begala makes some good points about where this reform effort compares to the 1930's effort to pass social security.
From Paul Begala in the WaPo:
"I think my fellow progressives ought to give Max Baucus and other members of the Senate Finance Committee a little breathing room as they labor to produce a health-care bill that can garner enough votes to pass the Senate.
Progressive politics is, in my view, a movement, not a monument. We cannot achieve perfection in this life, and if that is our goal we will always be frustrated. The right has far more modest goals: At every turn, its members seek to advance their power and protect privilege. I've never seen the Republican right oppose a tax cut for the rich because it wasn't generous enough; I've never seen them oppose a set of loopholes for corporate lobbyists because one industry or another wasn't included. The left, on the other hand, too often prefers a glorious defeat to an incremental victory.
...No self-respecting liberal today would support Franklin Roosevelt's original Social Security Act. It excluded agricultural workers -- a huge part of the economy in 1935, and one in which Latinos have traditionally worked. It excluded domestic workers, which included countless African Americans and immigrants. It did not cover the self-employed, or state and local government employees, or railroad employees, or federal employees or employees of nonprofits. It didn't even cover the clergy. FDR's Social Security Act did not have benefits for dependents or survivors. It did not have a cost-of-living increase. If you became disabled and couldn't work, you got nothing from Social Security.
If that version of Social Security were introduced today, progressives like me would call it cramped, parsimonious, mean-spirited and even racist. Perhaps it was all those things. But it was also a start. And for 74 years we have built on that start. We added more people to the winner's circle: farm workers and domestic workers and government workers. We extended benefits to the children of working men and women who died. We granted benefits to the disabled. We mandated annual cost-of-living adjustments. And today Social Security is the bedrock of our progressive vision of the common good.
Health care may follow that same trajectory. It would be a bitter disappointment if health reform did not include a public option. A public plan that keeps the insurance companies honest is, I believe, the right policy and the right politics. I believe subsidies should extend to as many Americans as need help and that the hard-earned health benefits of middle-class Americans should not be taxed. I believe insurer abuses like the preexisting-condition rule should be outlawed. The question is not whether I or other progressives will support a health-reform bill that includes everything we want but, rather, whether we will support a bill that doesn't..."
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Plus ça Change, Plus C’est la Même Chose. (cont.)
From Paul Krugman January 2008:
"...First, those who don’t want to nominate Hillary Clinton because they don’t want to return to the nastiness of the 1990s — a sizable group, at least in the punditocracy — are deluding themselves. Any Democrat who makes it to the White House can expect the same treatment: an unending procession of wild charges and fake scandals, dutifully given credence by major media organizations that somehow can’t bring themselves to declare the accusations unequivocally false (at least not on Page 1).
The point is that while there are valid reasons one might support Mr. Obama over Mrs. Clinton, the desire to avoid unpleasantness isn’t one of them..."
TW: Krugman likes to pat himself on the back, he does so here by pulling out one of his own quotes from 18 months ago. He was a vocal and prominent Clinton fan, but in this case he was right. The above describes to a tee the current environment.
"...First, those who don’t want to nominate Hillary Clinton because they don’t want to return to the nastiness of the 1990s — a sizable group, at least in the punditocracy — are deluding themselves. Any Democrat who makes it to the White House can expect the same treatment: an unending procession of wild charges and fake scandals, dutifully given credence by major media organizations that somehow can’t bring themselves to declare the accusations unequivocally false (at least not on Page 1).
The point is that while there are valid reasons one might support Mr. Obama over Mrs. Clinton, the desire to avoid unpleasantness isn’t one of them..."
TW: Krugman likes to pat himself on the back, he does so here by pulling out one of his own quotes from 18 months ago. He was a vocal and prominent Clinton fan, but in this case he was right. The above describes to a tee the current environment.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
This Will Not Be So Funny Someday
TW: The rest of the quote is "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure". Every Obama supporter from day one (back in 2007) has feared an assassination attempt. Personally I regard it as inevitable and only hope the assassin is either unlucky, incompetent or the Secret Service is able to thwart it.For some reason I can imagine a Muslim (with a permit etc. or maybe even another white guy) being allowed to stand outside a W. Bush rally so serenely yet well-armed. I know for sure the Limbovian/Fox wing-nuts would have gone ballistic.
This is all good fun for the Republican base now...Should such an attempt ever occur there will be many with blood (or at least attempted blood) on their hands. And then we would see what happens when the majority gets very angry. There is responsible opposition and irresponsible opposition.
From The Standard St. Catherine Ontario:
"A new book, "In The President's Secret Service," says Obama receives as many as 30 death threats a day, 400 per cent more than those made against his predecessor, George W. Bush."
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
End Of Life Fearmongers Are the Worst Kind Of Scum
TW: There are few who have not dealt with end of life issues at some level. They are some of the most stressful, ethically wrought and emotional processes with which responsible adults deal.
The effort by the Palins, Gingrichs, Limbaughs etc. to lie, cheat or steal in order to kill health care reform partially by stoking irrational fear and confusion about the end of life implications of the health care reform effort should give pause to all of their supporters. Many Republicans claim to ignore their leaders but I call BULLSHIT, if you actually do not agree with this approach then stand up and say so instead of meekly mumbling "oh it is just politics" or "they don't really mean that".
From Joe Klein at Time:
"...It is difficult to bear the nihilist cynicism of mainstream Republicans like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh on this issue. The cruelty inherent in scaring the elderly to score political points is beyond reprehensible. I've had recent personal experience with this issue. In fact...
I've spent quite a bit of time with my elderly parents--they're both 89 and have been together since the age of 5--trying to help them steer their way through some difficult decisions, and trying to guarantee that their decisions about the rest of their lives will be honored, even if they have lost the ability to announce those decisions themselves. This isn't easy. My mother and her two sisters are quite frail and entirely dependent on my father, who has made no specific plans about what should happen to them should he lose the ability to take care of them. He has a living will, he thinks. My mother has often said that if she becomes severely debilitated, "Just let me die." But I'm not sure she has made that clear in a legal document. My father is reluctant to talk about these sensitive subjects and has resisted signing a power of attorney, to be activated if he becomes incapacitated.
My father grew up during the Depression and like many of his peers, he doesn't like spending money on services he suspects are unnecessary. End-of-life counseling on issues like living wills and powers of attorney is something he could clearly use--from a skilled professional who, unlike me, knows the best way to describe these things and the easiest way to enact them--and he would be more likely to take advantage of this service if it were offered free-of-charge, and regularly updated, by Medicare. Although, even then, I have to admit I'm not sure he'd want to take advantage of it.
I could say a lot more about this situation, about the details that make it particularly difficult, but those details are, of course, private. Suffice to say that I am personally appalled and outraged that Republicans like the nitwit Palin and the showbiz demagogues Limbaugh and Hannity have chosen this particular subject to exploit. It is an issue that needs sunlight and careful explanation. It involves the saddest and most lonely moments of life--and with a population living longer and longer, it is one that affects ever increasing numbers of parents and children.
I can understand conservatives who oppose government activism as a matter of principle. They say they hold their beliefs as a matter of respect for the rights of the individual. But the sort of scurrilous campaign they are conducting--the seditious fear-mongering that is the main staple of their public diet--is a matter of profound disrespect and incivility toward the individuals whose rights they claim to cherish. The sort of people who would conduct such a campaign can only be described as ingrates."
ADDENDUM Update from Klein: (TW: Americans deserve the governance they get. I know most Americans could give a shit about how they look to others around the world but we are really undeserving of world leadership at times):
"Senator Chuck Grassley has announced his membership in the Limbaugh mainstream of the Republican Party on the non-issue of Death Panels. This is the man who is the lead Republican negotiator in the Senate Finance Committee's effort to create a bipartisan health care bill--and he either (a) hasn't the vaguest notion of what's in the bill or (b) he is so intimidated by the ditto-head-brown-shirts that he is trying to fudge a response to keep them happy. Either way, he should be ashamed. And once has to wonder about the fate of the Senate Finance Committee deliberations if this is what the Administration is dealing with."
The effort by the Palins, Gingrichs, Limbaughs etc. to lie, cheat or steal in order to kill health care reform partially by stoking irrational fear and confusion about the end of life implications of the health care reform effort should give pause to all of their supporters. Many Republicans claim to ignore their leaders but I call BULLSHIT, if you actually do not agree with this approach then stand up and say so instead of meekly mumbling "oh it is just politics" or "they don't really mean that".
From Joe Klein at Time:
"...It is difficult to bear the nihilist cynicism of mainstream Republicans like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh on this issue. The cruelty inherent in scaring the elderly to score political points is beyond reprehensible. I've had recent personal experience with this issue. In fact...
I've spent quite a bit of time with my elderly parents--they're both 89 and have been together since the age of 5--trying to help them steer their way through some difficult decisions, and trying to guarantee that their decisions about the rest of their lives will be honored, even if they have lost the ability to announce those decisions themselves. This isn't easy. My mother and her two sisters are quite frail and entirely dependent on my father, who has made no specific plans about what should happen to them should he lose the ability to take care of them. He has a living will, he thinks. My mother has often said that if she becomes severely debilitated, "Just let me die." But I'm not sure she has made that clear in a legal document. My father is reluctant to talk about these sensitive subjects and has resisted signing a power of attorney, to be activated if he becomes incapacitated.
My father grew up during the Depression and like many of his peers, he doesn't like spending money on services he suspects are unnecessary. End-of-life counseling on issues like living wills and powers of attorney is something he could clearly use--from a skilled professional who, unlike me, knows the best way to describe these things and the easiest way to enact them--and he would be more likely to take advantage of this service if it were offered free-of-charge, and regularly updated, by Medicare. Although, even then, I have to admit I'm not sure he'd want to take advantage of it.
I could say a lot more about this situation, about the details that make it particularly difficult, but those details are, of course, private. Suffice to say that I am personally appalled and outraged that Republicans like the nitwit Palin and the showbiz demagogues Limbaugh and Hannity have chosen this particular subject to exploit. It is an issue that needs sunlight and careful explanation. It involves the saddest and most lonely moments of life--and with a population living longer and longer, it is one that affects ever increasing numbers of parents and children.
I can understand conservatives who oppose government activism as a matter of principle. They say they hold their beliefs as a matter of respect for the rights of the individual. But the sort of scurrilous campaign they are conducting--the seditious fear-mongering that is the main staple of their public diet--is a matter of profound disrespect and incivility toward the individuals whose rights they claim to cherish. The sort of people who would conduct such a campaign can only be described as ingrates."
ADDENDUM Update from Klein: (TW: Americans deserve the governance they get. I know most Americans could give a shit about how they look to others around the world but we are really undeserving of world leadership at times):
"Senator Chuck Grassley has announced his membership in the Limbaugh mainstream of the Republican Party on the non-issue of Death Panels. This is the man who is the lead Republican negotiator in the Senate Finance Committee's effort to create a bipartisan health care bill--and he either (a) hasn't the vaguest notion of what's in the bill or (b) he is so intimidated by the ditto-head-brown-shirts that he is trying to fudge a response to keep them happy. Either way, he should be ashamed. And once has to wonder about the fate of the Senate Finance Committee deliberations if this is what the Administration is dealing with."
Friday, July 31, 2009
When the Fringe Rules
(from Research 2000)
TW: Democracy depends upon a well-informed populace. The "birther" movement is not about birth certificates of that I have no doubt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)