Tag Archives: republicans

Game over.

Some storm, that Irene. Trouble is, it may – as so many recent catastrophic weather events have – turn out merely to be a taste of things to come. I can tell you, I’ve lived in the northeast for fifty years – that’s 350 dog years, young ‘uns! – and I have never seen anything like the flooding that has affected so much of northern and eastern New York. For chrissake, a street two blocks away from me was evacuated due to flooding… and we got just a very small piece of the storm. I shudder to think what might have happened to us if that storm had hit a bit further to the west.

Here’s the thing, though – this has been a disastrous year for weather pretty much everywhere. We’ve had tornados here in upstate New York. Multiple tornados. (My cousin saw three funnel clouds while out on the golf course that day.) Sure, we’ve gotten them before, but they were more like three in a decade, and not anything on a grand, midwestern scale. Just this morning, on NPR, the first three or four minutes of their news summary was taken up by extreme weather and other disasters – the aftermath of Irene in Vermont and New York, a tropical storm bearing down on New Orleans, record-breaking drought in Texas as well as wildfires there and in Louisiana. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve heard harried residents of some devastated town say something like “this is the worst ____ I’ve ever experienced” or “we haven’t had a ______ this bad in 60/80/100 years.”

Former NASA scientist James Hansen (denounced by conservative hacks as an “alarmist”) and others have spoken out for years on the forces behind this extreme weather. But you hardly have to be a rocket scientist to work this out. Our climate is more unstable than it’s ever been in our lifetimes – I think we can all acknowledge that. And as of a few years ago, we seemed to have something like a broad consensus that the burning of fossil fuels was a major contributor to global warming. I think at that time major corporations saw some profit potential in what was agreed to be an unshakeable truth. Since then, the financial crisis and the Great Recession have convinced them and their political allies that cash-strapped Americans can more easily be sold comforting lies than inconvenient truths. Now it’s all about getting the economy moving again, drilling out more oil and gas, and turning everything into cash.

There are perceived upsides to things like building a massive pipeline to carry tar sands oil from Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico. But there are enormous costs, as well. As Bill McKibben has said, the tar sands deposits represent an enormous carbon bomb waiting to go off. If it gets tapped more efficiently via that pipeline, it’s essentially “game over” in Hansen’s words, with costs previewed this past week in places like Montpelier VT and elsewhere.

luv u,

jp

Thinking small.

President Obama is on vacation this week, sort of. Him and about a thousand other people, bringing him information, taking his orders, blah, blah. I don’t know why he bothers, but… he does. With that job, you may as well assume that you’re going to be working straight for four to eight years. Even so, every American president since Carter has been determined not to seem like he’s barricaded in to the White House, manning his vigil in vain. So Obama, like his predecessors, takes a ceremonial vacation, and his detractors take aim. Of course, they would anyway. He has locked himself into Washington! He’s out of touch with (white) America! they would cry if he were to cancel his outing. May as well go, Barry.

Frankly, if he were to come back from the Vineyard with a Jobs / Recovery Act proposal that involves bold efforts to fund infrastructure projects, incentivize hiring, raise taxes on the rich, and so on, I would be the first to say that the man has earned his rest. But that is an extremely unlikely scenario. Obama, smart as he is, does not want to have to walk back every statement he has made about the debt since last year. That’s my best take on that. My worst is that he really believes that cutting spending, basic social safety net programs, and government investment in the short term will, as his Republican opponents believe, create jobs. If he doesn’t know they’re smoking crack on that one, we could be in for Japan in the 1990s.

Speaking of smoking crack, Texas Governor Rick Perry has launched himself headlong into the race to defeat Obama, entering amid a flurry of wild claims and random threats against the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Here’s a guy who has publicly referred to Social Security and Medicare as “ponzi schemes.” Seriously? This should not be hard to beat. Honestly, if Obama had just done what he needed to do, none of these freaks would stand a chance of winning. That it’s a race at all speaks to the weakness of his policies, not the strength of theirs…. because clearly, they’ve got nothing except tax cuts, tax cuts, and more tax cuts. And that’s nothing.

Will the president suggest a solution that is on the same grand scale as the problem, or is it small-bore policy all the way from here on out? We shall see.

luv u,

jp

Six of one, half-dozen of the other.

Consider this an open letter to the Congressional “Super Committee,” or gang of twelve – whatever you may wish to call them. (Keep it clean out there!) While you are considering how best to shaft poor, elderly, and working people (employed and unemployed) to bring greater benefits to our nation’s rich, I ask – nay, demand – that you consider these items:

How we got here. I’ve heard a lot of people in Congress, as well as various talking heads, putting their spin on the orgy of ignorance that led us to the creation of your Committee, as well as the series of missteps that led us to Standard and Poor’s decision to downgrade the nation’s debt rating. The factual answer to those questions is simple – the Republican party, a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America, was driven by its most radical faction (the so-called “tea party”) to manipulate the once mundane process of raising the debt ceiling for political gain. S&P’s judgment that our government can no longer make rational decisions about its debt is based on their recognition that, from now on, raising the debt ceiling will involve a similar political standoff.

The decision to politicize the debt ceiling legislation – really just an authorization to accommodate borrowing already mandated by Congress through the budget process –  has done perhaps irreparable damage to the faith and credit of the U.S. But even more importantly, it has backed us into a political process that is practically guaranteed to deliver to the G.O.P. precisely what they want: the gutting of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Who owes what. I’m not happy with president Obama, but the notion that he and the Democrats are responsible for exploding deficit spending is ludicrous. As the New York Times reported recently, based on figures from the CBO and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, $1.44 trillion of the national debt can be laid at Obama’s door; more than $5 trillion is attributable to his predecessor, including the FY 2009 deficit of $1.44 trillion, set before Obama took office.  The Bush tax cuts have contributed $1.8 trillion; unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have pitched in more than $1.4 trillion. How is this an issue of “entitlements” … unless that term can be used to describe tax cuts for wealthy people?

Seriously… (and apologies to Barney Frank) … are we going to ask 90-year-old ladies living on less than $20k to do without cost of living raises while allowing those who clear more than $250,000 a year to keep an extra $30 per thousand? I think not.

luv u,

jp

Cash poor.

Americans are hurting. Well… not all of us. Some of us – those who can claim the mantle of corporate “personhood” by virtue of a bizarrely generous judicial interpretation of the 14th Amendment –  are doing quite well, thank you very much. Profits are up, executive pay is up, personal wealth among the top 1% is up – in fact, virtually all of the gains realized through economic growth over the past ten years have been enjoyed by the very wealthy. This while the economic position of people in the lower strata of society – particularly communities of color – have seen what wealth they may have held (principally in their homes) wiped out. Blacks and Latinos have seen the gains of the past 30 years wiped away in less than 3.

With millions of people out of work, you would think Congress’s top priority would be job creation. That was what they ran on in 2010, not so much on debt reduction. The best the G.O.P. can manage is to twist the issue around to becoming a tortured argument for doing what the party always does – cut taxes on rich people. They want to allow rich folk to keep more of their money so that they will, in turn, hire some of the legions of unemployed. They cling to this belief, rhetorically at least, even when it’s clear that a) businesses already have multiple trillions in savings they are sitting on right now, and b) they have no intention of spending any of it on new hires so long as they can press their current employees to do the work of three, four, perhaps more. Ask anybody who’s got a job, and they’ll tell you – increased productivity is just the modern term of art for speeding up the assembly line.

Meanwhile, our national infrastructure is falling apart. Bridges in my upstate community are aged and crumbling, the water system is falling apart, roads are pitted and broken. With all this, the word that we get from Albany and Washington is austerity. It’s as if we have as a society decided that roads and bridges no longer need maintenance and repair, and that our highest calling is to keep taxes on companies and well-off people at historic lows. The vaunted debt ceiling compromise takes this tack – we don’t need to invest in ourselves, we’re told; we need to divest ourselves of all the trappings of modern society, from freedom of choice and to the freedom of driving downtown without having the highway crumble beneath you. That’s the essential philosophy of the tea party loomers in Congress.

This is what happens when 16% of American voters bother to go to the polls, as happened last Fall. Next time, folks, don’t sit on your hands.

luv u,

jp

Short takes, redux.

I’m going to take a few brief swats at some knotty issues that won’t yield much to such brief consideration, but nevertheless …. here goes.

Norway rampage. It’s hard to comment on last week’s massacre in Norway except to say that this was a nauseating crime by an evident Nazi-like lunatic with delusions of racist glory. Lock him up, folks.

Phony debt crisis. Here we are, caught between a Republican caucus dominated by fanatical newbies who know nothing about actually legislating and a Democratic leadership so willing to give away the store that the other side should freaking love them. I just want to mention again – it’s been said plenty of times, but it bears repeating – that raising the debt ceiling is a measure that would accommodate spending decisions already agreed to by Congress and the President – I repeat, it does not entail new spending. So we’ve reached a pass where budget items need to (a) win approval from both houses of Congress and be signed into law, (b) run the same gauntlet a second time in the form of appropriations bills, and (c) get past the blackmail play around raising the debt ceiling to cover funds already duly appropriated. This is why the G.O.P. wants to make the debt ceiling extension a two-step process – so that down the line, they can shake us down for more concessions. This is bogus as hell and should be denounced as such, every minute of every day.

Libya disaster. There is substantial evidence that our “humanitarian” intervention in Libya is costing a significant number of civilian lives in and around Tripoli. It is also obvious, at this point, that the opposition does not have sufficient strength, popular support, or weaponry to prevail, just as it is obvious that we really, really, really want them to prevail. So what exactly are we looking to accomplish in Libya, after all? “Days, not weeks”? Really, Barry? That Rumfeldian pronouncement has crumbled before our very eyes. This was a fool’s errand – one the French took the lead on, but which we were a bit too willing to sign onto. And now we have yet another war that won’t go away.

On leaving Iraq. As I write these words, our government is working hard on convincing Premier Al-Maliki to allow us to leave a residual force in Iraq. This is a ludicrous idea. Our prolonged presence (i.e. troops on the ground beyond the date agreed to by the Bush administration) will fuel the very forces of unrest we complain about in Iraq – the same forces Saddam Hussein complained about, not coincidentally. (Like him, we are obsessed with the suppression of dissent there.) I strongly advise the Obama administration to get out before the lid blows off of the place, as Seymour Hersh has predicted will happen sometime next year. (Best not discount his predictions too much.)

That’s all I’ve got. See you on the other side of Debt-a-geddon.

luv u,

jp

Lemmington D.C.

My dad never said it to me, but growing up I heard it said by adults to impressionable young people many times. The conversation would go something like, “But, dad… all my friends are going. Why can’t I?” And dad (or whoever) would say, “Well, if they all jumped off a cliff, would you do that, too?” It’s such a staple of parentage as to be cliche, but I’m not certain the G.O.P. class of 2010 was ever confronted with that type of challenge when they were in short pants. (Perhaps they are still in short pants – I’ve only ever seen most of them from the waist up.)

There’s nothing particularly unique about this attitude. It is, however, being applied in a very, very destructive way right about now. I will be charitable and suggest that perhaps many of these freshman House members (and some of their more senior colleagues) simply do not understand the gravity of the situation. Having said that, I’m going to do what people who say “having said that” inevitably do and say the complete opposite. I think it’s very possible that they know their failure to raise the debt ceiling is going to result in disaster, and that they hope that will gain them political points and cost the president more than a few. The Norquist-endorsed promise never to contemplate higher taxes under any circumstances is a very attractive position for conservatives and watery republicans like Boehner. It’s very, very shiny. Also, the consequences of breaking that promise are painful for them to contemplate. So …. over the cliff we go!

I’ve gotten agitated about this impasse over the last couple of weeks, as some of you readers know, and last night I took it upon myself to write my representative, Richard Hanna (R-NY) and ask him to be the adult in the room, show some leadership, and get his caucus to stop using the debt ceiling as a cheap bargaining chip. It was a respectful, serious letter – very unlike me. This is the response, in essence:

I voted no on H.R. 1954 which would implement the President’s request to increase the debt limit by $2.4 trillion. The bill did not include any spending cuts or budgetary reforms. I do not support raising the debt limit without any spending cuts or budgetary reforms. I do, however, understand that raising the debt limit will eventually be necessary and I hope that when the time comes it is accompanied by reforms that put our nation on a path to long-term fiscal responsibility. This will ensure that the dollar remains the world’s reserve currency and that the United States maintains a solid credit rating, boosting our fragile economic recovery and job creation.

Okay, so he’s another lemming, basically. He supported the efforts of his caucus to politicize the debt ceiling vote, and though he admits that raising it “will eventually be necessary,” he hopes it will be accompanied by “spending cuts or budgetary reforms”. He then expresses the hope that the austerity measures he advocates will bring about the credit security that his conference’s game of chicken – which he apparently supports – is threatening to blow to smithereens.

This isn’t the first time otherwise sensible legislators have followed wingnuts off a cliff. But it just may prove to be among the most disastrous.

luv u,

jp

Barry’s hand.

The ongoing debate over raising the debt ceiling has dominated another week’s worth of news coverage. Now Moody’s has put the U.S. government “on notice” – something I thought only Stephen Colbert could do – that our debt rating may be downgraded if the current impasse continues. As I mentioned in my last rant, this is a manufactured crisis. It’s a standoff not over debt yet to be incurred, but debt already booked by Congress by virtue of budget items already agreed to. There is no reason for this threatened default other than to make political points… and yet it continues, even though the downside risks are substantial.

How substantial? Default – or even near-default – could cause a global financial disruption on a scale that would dwarf that of late 2008. At the very least, a downgrade of the investment rating of U.S. Treasury bonds would be not only unprecedented but extremely costly, making service on our existing debt far more costly, blowing an even bigger hole in the federal budget. If that alone were to happen it would be bad enough. But these facts just don’t seem to register on Capitol Hill.

It’s often been said that, in a Democracy, we get the government we truly deserve. Last fall, the American people – by voting or by abstaining to do so – sent to the House of Representatives a class of Republicans that amount to the American version of the Taliban. The core of this class are fanatical believers in their own delusions; they see reality as a nefarious socialist plot. Fueled by tea party faux-populism, the new G.O.P. goes beyond their party’s traditional obsession about cutting taxes. Anything – anything – that brings more revenue to the Federal government is to them an unacceptable burden on the American taxpayer. (i.e. rich people. They apparently don’t consider burdensome the enormous costs displaced to workers, pensioners, etc. as a result of the massive cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs they demand.) That much is a given. The only wild card is in the president’s hand – what will he sacrifice to appease them?

This is what we voted for, whether we realize it or not. More likely not, since the Republicans did not advertise this part of their program. (It was going to be jobs, jobs, jobs, remember?) While it’s far from the only thing we need to do as citizens, it’s obvious that voting is essential… just as it’s clear that we need to hold our leaders – namely Obama – accountable when they give away the store.

luv u,

jp

Fighting ground.

Okay, let’s get one thing out of the way at the start: very few people enjoy paying taxes. To that I can only add my own personal observation that the people who seem to complain the loudest about taxes are the ones who can most afford to pay them. They have an excellent means of making their complaints heard, too – it’s called the Republican Party. In fact, in service to those who would pay not a single dime more than the historic low rates they’re paying today, the G.O.P. is creating a default crisis out of whole cloth by linking the authorization of additional borrowing to the conclusion of a draconian budget agreement that will gut the essential social programs they have always sought to defund, privatize, etc.

The two things, of course, have nothing to do with one another in the real world. Raising the debt ceiling is merely addressing financial commitments that have already been agreed upon. It is something the Republicans have gladly passed many times before under their own presidents, as well as under Democrats. They have seized upon it because it offers an opportunity to, in effect, put the entire nation up against a wall until we give up on the idea of not spending our elderly years in penury. (That’s sooooo 1960’s of us.) The Republicans see an opportunity here to realize what they could never accomplish during George W. Bush’s tenure – privatization of Medicare, pirating Social Security, and locking in massive tax cuts from now until perdition. And they sense, perhaps correctly, that the Democrats don’t have enough fight in them to stop it.

I will gladly crib Bernie Sanders, Keith Ellison, and Dean Baker on this – Social Security is not – repeat, not – part of any budgetary problem. It is fully self-funding for the next 25 years with no changes whatsoever. How many programs can make that claim? The G.O.P. and spineless Democrats merely want to pirate the fund to pay for extending Bush tax cuts for the richest people in the country. Regarding Medicare and Medicaid, they are single-payer systems dedicated to the elderly, poor, disabled, and stricken amongst us. The rest of us – those who are relatively young, fit, and almost never need a doctor – are reserved for the profit of private insurers. Single payers systems only pay for themselves when everyone – sick and well, old and young, rich and poor – participates in them. If we want to solve the funding problem, we need to decide whether we can continue to afford contriving a profitable market for companies like BlueCross.

In short, the deficit hawks in the Republican caucuses are blackmailing us into funding tax breaks for wealthy people – including the fuckers who caused the financial crisis – by crippling our already inadequate social safety net.  I say, call their bluff. This is ground worth fighting for.

luv u,

jp

Winding it down.

Obama announced his plans to reverse the Afghan “surge” over the next year and a half – news that appears to have pleased no one in the political world. I guess he shares the Alan Simpson belief that if you piss everyone – everyone – off, you must be doing something right. It just makes me wonder if the guy ever considered trying to please somebody, sometime. A very typical Obama approach, this withdrawal strategy – right down the muddle in the middle. It’s a lot like his solution to health care reform, Wall Street reform, etc. Basically half-measures where double-sized efforts are necessary. Putting a bandaid on a compound fracture. Cured!

This line kind of sums up my own personal frustration with the president:

“Thanks to our intelligence professionals and Special Forces, we killed Osama bin Laden, the only leader that al Qaeda had ever known. This was a victory for all who have served since 9/11. One soldier summed it up well. “The message,” he said, “is we don’t forget. You will be held accountable, no matter how long it takes.”

Yep, well… that memory / accountability argument is a bit flawed. When it comes to our own bona fide war criminals – people who smashed a country to pieces, killing hundreds of thousands, causing millions of refugees, many of whom will never again see home, etc., we need to “look forward” and not engage in settling scores. Theirs? They pay. Bin Laden had much, much to answer for, no question. But so do George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Douglas Feith, and others in the last administration. They cooked up a case for a war that killed more Americans than Bin Laden killed on 9/11. So what if it looks politically awkward; did they do it or not? If they did the crime, they should do the time. It’s a venerable conservative position.

Of course, Obama’s got blood on his hands now, as well. In politics there’s an old saying about not breaking the other guys’ rice bowl. With someone as cautious as this president, rice bowls have never been safer.

luv u,

jp

Debatable.

I didn’t watch the whole cattle-call Republican presidential debate, but I have seen and heard some extended excerpts. So without too much fanfare, here are some random thoughts from a worker bee whose hive is quite a bit smaller than Mitt Romney’s son’s basement.

Santorum (a.k.a. Mr. Google):
“The reason we’re seeing this second dip is because of energy prices, and this president has put a stop sign … against oil drilling, against any kind of exploration offshore or in Alaska, and that is depressing. We need to drill. We need to create energy jobs, just like we’re doing, by the way, in Pennsylvania, where we’re drilling 3,000 wells this year for gas, and … natural gas prices are down as a result.”

Not a surprise that he’s a big fan of hydrofracking. What he’s got wrong is the part about Obama stopping off-shore drilling – That’s beyond ludicrous. (God knows, I wish it were true after that BP spill. )

Pawlenty:
“We’re proposing to cut taxes, reduce regulation, speed up this pace of government, and to make sure that we have a pro-growth agenda.”

First of all, what’s this “we” about? Got a mouse in your pocket? Second… cut taxes? Again? So much for fiscal responsibility. These guys have exactly one idea. No, wait – two: Reduce regulation. (See BP, above.) That will “speed up this pace of government” as we approach the cliff.

Guy Smiley (Romney):
“This president has failed. And he’s failed at a time when the American people counted on him to create jobs and get the economy growing. And instead of doing that, he delegated the stimulus to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and then he did what he wanted to do: card-check, cap-and-trade, Obamacare, reregulation.”

As an expert on outsourcing, one would think he’d get this one right. Actually, Obama outsourced about a third of the stimulus to Romney’s party, in the form of tax cuts. That’s why it’s gone flat in two years. Oh, and… Obama didn’t get card check or cap and trade, mostly because he didn’t fight for them.

Gingrich:
“The Reagan recovery, which I participated in passing, in seven years created for this current economy the equivalent of 25 million new jobs, raised federal revenue by $800 billion a year in terms of the current economy, and clearly it worked. It’s a historic fact.”

Nice try, Newt, but as usual your history is full of holes. Reagan ran massive deficits every year, dropped billions on military Keynesianism (a.k.a. stimulus), raised taxes several times, and maintained a high degree of protectionism despite his free trade rhetoric. Are you sure you were awake during the eighties? I sure as hell was. (Didn’t sleep a wink with that freak at the helm.)

Bachmann:
“I just want to make an announcement here for you, John, on CNN tonight. I filed today my paperwork to seek the office of the presidency of the United States today. And I’ll very soon be making my formal announcement.”

I think it’s entirely plausible that Bachmann didn’t know she was at a presidential debate. She might have thought it was a clambake.

Cain:
“First, the statement was would I be comfortable with a Muslim in my administration…. When I said I wouldn’t be comfortable, I was thinking about the ones that are trying to kill us.”

Look, godfather – when you’re on that stage full of white folks, you don’t have to resort to racism simply to compete. There are more dignified ways.

Paul:
“I served five years in the military. I’ve had a little experience. I’ve spent a little time over in the Pakistan/Afghanistan area, as well as Iran. But I wouldn’t wait for my generals. I’m the commander in chief. I make the decisions. I tell the generals what to do. I’d bring them home as quickly as possible. And I would get them out of Iraq as well. And I wouldn’t start a war in Libya. I’d quit bombing Yemen. And I’d quit bombing Pakistan.”

Quote of the night. This just makes way too much sense for a Republican debate.

luv u,

jp