Tag Archives: republicans

Moral hazard, part II.

Know what I hate? Well, I’m going to tell you. It’s when people intrude upon your deepest personal life, and then when you object, they accuse you of denying their right to – I don’t know – have everything exactly their way, I guess. That’s how I see the hyper-religious crowd who have been complaining about the mandate in the Affordable Care Act requiring employer-provided health insurance to cover contraception. Obama carved out an exception that should satisfy anyone – one that goes way beyond any necessary relief from what’s required, in my view. And still they are crowing about it, comparing it to religious persecution, even Nazi-ism in the more extreme cases.

The latest round has been in state legislatures from Georgia to New Hampshire, where the crackpot tea-party majority has proposed a “conscience” exception so broad it practically guarantees legal challenge. (These are the freaks who insisted, bizarrely, that all legislation be rooted in the Magna Carta, even though few of them have ever read the document in its entirety. Next, they’ll demand all proposed laws draw on neolithic cave paintings.) Then there are the fetal “personhood” statute and vaginal ultrasound bill in Virginia, scaled back in the face of massive protests by women in that divided state. This … from the party that was all about jobs, jobs, jobs during the 2010 election. See what happens when you trust them?

It should surprise no one that Republicans used the economy as a trojan horse to conceal their deeply unpopular, highly regressive right-wing social agenda. It was, after all, GOP-driven policies (aided, of course, by watery Democrats) that blew a massive hole in the federal budget back in 2001, expanding it in subsequent years with undeclared wars and unwarranted tax cuts for the wealthiest people in the country. Those tax cuts were supposed to have expired by now, but as every politician knows, that ain’t gonna’ happen … because no one has the spine to allow it. Meanwhile, we all pay the price. My city in upstate New York is starved for funds largely because the Feds are starving the States, and the States are passing the cuts along to municipalities. That and inaction on health and retirement reform (not privatization, but the kind that would work) is resulting in massive tax hikes at the local level – close to 20% for the coming fiscal year. This just to spare the Romneys of the world a return to the favorable income tax rates of the 1990s, when they gained plenty enough wealth, thank you very much.

The Republicans have nothing to offer on the economy. And unless we push them, neither will the Democrats.

luv u,

jp

Wingnut rodeo.

Florida has voted, though not in such high numbers as primary season 2008. One wonders if people are getting tired of the new normal of multi-million dollar negative ad buys. Romney has his victory, much sought after, though the contest is obviously not over yet. Perhaps people are getting the sense that none of these creatures has a strong grasp of what is wrong with our economy and how to set it straight. Perhaps they are looking at the republicans and at Obama and thinking, who amongst this lot is going to do what needs to be done to pull the vast majority of Americans out of this ditch?

Mind you, I’m not a total agnostic on this. There is a difference between the parties. I wish it were a bigger difference, but there’s no point in denying that it’s there. Obama hasn’t done anywhere near what he would need to do to restart this economy and get it going in a more sustainable direction. I don’t know that he’s particularly inclined towards making any bold steps forward on that front – he’s Captain Cautious in that respect. I have a lot of problems with his policies pretty much across the board, but there’s no doubt in my mind that Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum represent a boatload more trouble for all of us than another four years of Obama would.

The simple fact is this: presidential elections always boil down to a choice between two people. It’s a zero-sum proposition. One of those two people is going to be president. Presidential elections, in my view, represent the smallest part of what an engaged citizen should do to move the country forward, but we ignore them at our own peril. If progressives, the unemployed, the poor, the overworked…. the 99% sit out this election, we essentially consign ourselves to a permanent Bush administration. Whatever the outcome of the current wingnut rodeo, I can assure you that the next republican presidency will be Bush III: The Vengeance, featuring denizens of an increasingly radicalized republican establishment and all your favorite neocons. It will be 2001 all over again.

Just remember: these are the people who drove us into the ditch. Whatever else we do – organize, occupy, push for change, or just complain loudly – we have to keep them out of the driver’s seat.

luv u,

jp

Heading south.

The republican presidential candidates are in Florida now, throwing punches at one another, making threats, and shifting course on immigration issues so fast it might give GOP voters whiplash. Former Speaker of the House and Pillsbury Doughboy Newt Gingrich appears determined to hold on to his tenuous lead, traveling from one end of the state to the other to toss around wild promises. In Miami, it’s regime change for Cuba (hard to see how that could go wrong); on the “Space” coast, it’s permanent bases on the moon by the end of a second Gingrich term. (What he probably means is that, by the end of his second term, the surface of the earth will resemble that of the moon, so the base issue will take care of itself.) It takes an ego the size of Gingrich’s – grandiose I believe is the proper term – to present arguments for re-election when one’s first primary campaign has barely gotten off the ground.

Gingrich’s grandiosity is wasted on these polite debates, though, and he knows it. That’s why he’s complaining so bitterly. When he gets a good shot in – “puts Juan Williams in his place”, as some in South Carolina have described it – and the crowd starts to cheer, you can see him begin to inflate like the Michelin Man. It is a wondrous sight to behold. This business of tamping down the audience’s enthusiasm is just, well… deflating for a veteran bomb-thrower like Gingrich. Perhaps this will give the GOP’s favored candidate, Romney, the boost he needs to edge out his corpulent rival. Damned liberal media! Newt told us it was all their fault!! Ah, the favored narrative… always a winner.

I love this red meat about Castro. For chrissake, guys! This stuff reminds me of Howard Phillips and his big, menacing map of Red China and scary cartoons about the People’s Army taking over the Panama Canal. It’s astounding to me that the Castro-bashing still resonates in present-day Miami, but I suppose surveys don’t lie. In any case, you’ve got Romney and Gingrich both imagining a day when Castro is in the grave, speculating on which imaginary afterlife landscape he will inhabit – the cloudy, white, feathery (if vaguely defined) paradise, or the strangely earth-like hell for which we have many concrete descriptions (including a useful floorplan from Dante). They might think for five minutes about the hellscape they would be consigning Cubans to in the event of regime change; something resembling Guatemala, I imagine. Not a favorable comparison, frankly.

And now Gingrich wants to conquer the moon – regime change goes trans-lunar. Should be a good race.

luv u,

jp

Best man.

The South Carolina food fight – a longstanding electoral tradition – is in full fury, the GOP candidates fighting like dogs, only this time with even bigger dogs – the Super PACs – duking it out in the same ring. This is typically when the worst tendencies come to the fore in the Republican party, and this year should be even uglier than the last two presidential cycles.

In any case, let’s look at some of what’s being said, shall we?

Gingrich in the last debate: “To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question in a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine.”

Hah! You’ve got to love this guy, don’t you? He finds it “appalling” that the media would stoop so low as to open a debate with questions of infidelity. Yes, this is the same Newt Gingrich that was Speaker during much of the Clinton administration – the same Newt who made that president’s extramarital dalliances a national issue, to the point of the first impeachment trial in the Senate since Reconstruction. Newt Gingrich, who led the nation to a constitutional crisis over a presidential blow job, is now appalled that his pseudo-romantic foibles are considered a matter of national concern. Welcome to the world you helped invent, big guy.

Romney in the last debate: “I’m someone who believes in free enterprise. I think Adam Smith was right. And I’m going to stand and defend capitalism across this country, throughout this campaign.”

Who can doubt that Romney stands for free enterprise? It’s the system that made him a multi-millionaire, with so much cash he needs to ship a fair amount of it to the Cayman Islands for safe (i.e. tax-free) keeping. The thing is, like so many modern-day “capitalists”, he has a very narrow understanding of Adam Smith – the man who had little sympathy for the “joint stock companies” of his day and who decried the “vile maxim of the rulers of mankind – all for me and nothing for anybody else.” Smith was a product of the Enlightenment, which of course puts him in a separate category altogether from these robber barons and bigots, who make me think of another more recent philosopher, John Dewey, who described politics as “the shadow cast upon society by big business.” True that.

Rick Perry: “I quit”

Domage. I, for one, will miss Cousin Rick, if only for all those songs he did for us.

luv u,

jp

Issues abound.

Just a few comments on some current issues, now that the presidential primary season is well underway. And since the entire GOP field – with the occasional exception of Jon Huntsman – denies the existence of climate change, let me start by mentioning that here in upstate New York, where the typical January measures snowfall in feet, not inches, and where January temperatures are often subzero for days on end, it is raining and in the 30s. There is no snow on the ground and there hasn’t been, really, any significant snow yet this season. I’ve lived here most of my life and I can say that this is unprecedented in my experience. And yet when I mention the words “climate change” to people in connection with the fact that we appear to be locked in permanent November, they look at me like I have six heads. “Do you really think that’s what it is?” a friend asked me. He home-schools his son, by the way.

This, my friends, is the power of the fossil-fuel industry. Through their marketing and their political surrogates, they have taken a nation on the brink of consensus regarding climate change back in 2007 and turned it 180 degrees into deep denial. The great recession has helped in this regard, of course – jobs versus environment has always been an effective diversion. It has particular resonance now that the Democrats are effectively missing in action on this issue, running scared on the threat of nastiness from the other side. Welcome to the Alice in Wonderland election year.

Would that climate change were the only matter about which the major party candidates appear to know nothing. Here, for instance, is an excerpt from Willard “Mitt” Romney’s New Hampshire primary victory speech a few nights ago:

President Obama wants to put free enterprise on trial. In the last few days, we have seen some desperate Republicans join forces with him. This is such a mistake for our Party and for our nation. This country already has a leader who divides us with the bitter politics of envy. We must offer an alternative vision. I stand ready to lead us down a different path, where we are lifted up by our desire to succeed, not dragged down by a resentment of success. In these difficult times, we cannot abandon the core values that define us as unique – We are One Nation, Under God.

Okay, sure… there’s a lot that’s wrong with this. I think the most flabbergasting part, though, is the “bitter politics of envy” gambit. Who is advising this geezer? Someone who’s been living in a cave for the last year? For one thing, free enterprise doesn’t need Barack Obama or anyone else to put it on trial – it’s been doing a pretty thorough job on itself these past few years. I’m always astounded by these so-called free market evangelists who insist that government intervention is detrimental to economic growth in a world where command economies like China are eating our lunch and “European-style entitlement societies”, as Romney puts it, offer a far better standard of living than us even in the midst of a major debt crisis. Can they point to a single example of an unbridled capitalist economy in which the vast majority of people enjoy a rising standard of living? Thought not.

Lookout below. Looks like we may have another idiot president in the hopper.

The elect.

All that run up, and such an unsatisfying result. What a pity the election process never takes a break here in the U.S. of A. We’ve been in a near-constant cycle of electing people since 2008, with whole cable networks devoting resources to consideration of the various candidates ad infinitum. Still, here we are with two primary G.O.P. challengers who appear to disagree on very little … and who mutually argue that we should go straight back to the same policies that landed us in the hole and the end of the Bush administration. It’s a wealth-protection strategy, to be sure – wealth as concentrated in the hands of the extremely well-to-do. There really isn’t anything else on offer by either Romney or Santorum, except an early commitment to war against Iran. (That should be good for the economy.)

We have reached a point where the Republican party is inhabiting an entirely separate reality from the rest of us. In their world, there is no global warming, no inequality, no corporate dominance, no limits to American military might. They mark the beginning of the recession in the Obama administration, not the Bush administration. They see the national debt as the cause of unemployment. On their planet, the only problem with our electoral system is fraudulent voting – i.e. people (perhaps “illegal” immigrants) breaking federal law to usurp a franchise very few Americans are inclined to exercise legitimately. All domestically produced fossil fuel, in their tiny minds, is somehow reserved for use by Americans alone, not simply dumped into the global market and snapped up by whoever pays for it (i.e. how it actually works).

This being the case, their standard bearer could be pretty much anybody. No specialized knowledge required – sorry, Jon Huntsman – just a willingness to carry water for the richest people in America and a corporate culture that is not only making more profits than it has since the great recession hit but is also paying less in taxes than it was in 2008. Mitt fits the bill; so does Rick “man-on-dog” Santorum. Both potentially good stewards of our national top-down economy. In fact, any one of them, all the way down to cousin Rick Perry, would be acceptable to the moneyed overlords, though I think it’s clear that the preference of the institutional elite is Mitt Romney.

Still, with such flaccid support, they must wonder if the right-wing rabble might be getting out of hand. Mitt’s pathetic victory demonstrates that winning this year is what losing was four years ago.

luv u,

jp

Weeks away.

Just a few hurried comments on the events of the day. (The events of the day are keeping me from the events of the day. Shall I say that a second time?)

Cain Mutiny. Presidential candidate Herman Cain has some more difficulties maintaining his myth of marital bliss, and this may be a game stopper for him. Naturally the death knell may come about over something that doesn’t matter a damn. Aside from his family, who the hell cares who he sleeps with, so long as it’s consensual and doesn’t involve minors, animals, etc.? Somehow this seems to bother people (and the mass media) more than the fact that the man has given zero thought to anything having to do with public affairs. He must be the first presidential candidate I’ve ever seen fail to give an opinion when someone asks him about something like the Libya intervention. He had to ask the interviewer what side Obama (i.e. the United States) was on. What the … ? Has the man been living in a pizza box? He is running for the G.O.P. nomination and apparently has no concept of what the pro-life and pro-choice positions actually mean.

Why the hell does this man want to be president? He smells to me like a cut-out for the Koch brothers, but what he says is that God encouraged him to run. Personally, I think God may have just been trying to order a pizza.

Deficit of Imagination. They’re sparring over the payroll tax cut – otherwise known as The Only Tax Cut That Needs To Be Paid For. With the Occupy movement receiving eviction notices from coast to coast, Congress is managing to turn the conversation back to debt with a good bit of help from the major news organizations. I heard Joe Scarborough sparring with Sherrod Brown about Medicare costs and showing “courage” by acknowledging that those costs were tantamount to a cancer on the body politic. His solution? Cut, cut, cut. Which is basically shift the burden onto the elderly, the ill, etc.

I didn’t hear Brown say this (he may have), but the courageous position to my mind would be to advocate expanding Medicare to cover everybody. The reason we have deficit Medicare spending projected for the next few decades is simple – we are subsidizing the profitability of private health insurers, who get to cover the least costly consumers while the government covers the most costly ones (i.e. the ones private insurers don’t want). The courageous thing to do would be to say, we can’t afford this model any longer.

I’m waiting to hear that from someone. Anyone?

luv u,

jp

Race to the bottom.

Just a few scratched out thoughts, here. Working on a paper. WTF for? Just because.

Bachman Overdrive. Heard Michele Bachmann on NPR this morning, hawking her book “Core of Conviction”. It wasn’t a hardball interview, but not the softest either. Her concept of governance appears to rest on the notion of electing a filibuster-proof GOP majority in the Senate. Short of that, um…. punt, I guess. Interesting, though, that the minimal requirement for running the country is now the achievement of a nearly impossible super-majority in the U.S. Senate. What she either can’t (out of stupidity) or won’t acknowledge is that any Republican majority in the Senate, be it 51 votes or 61 votes, will almost certainly do what the Democrats were too polite to do in January 2009 – essentially gut the power of the filibuster so that they wouldn’t need a super-majority to pass every piece of legislation, no matter how inconsequential. Her party has made filibuster the default condition in the Senate. My guess is that that would change with a change in that house’s leadership.

Mean Little S.O.B. Gingrich has never been a favorite of mine – nor of practically anyone’s, I suspect – but his current campaign for president is remarkably nasty even by his low standard. The only flicker of humanity I’ve seen in him thus far has been his call to implement a bracero-like program for undocumented immigrants who have been here for many years. That will likely cost him with Republican voters, just as it did cousin Rick Perry, who voiced support for education benefits for undocumented youngsters. You could see the stifled glee on Romney’s face when Gingrich rolled out that position during one of the recent debates. No need to worry, though. Gingrich has kept to his standard of dickishness, intoning an almost Nixonian contempt of the Occupy Wall Street movement, exhorting them to take a bath and find a job, etc. Earth to Newt: it’s no longer 1971, man. That dog won’t hunt.

Neocon FAQs. And who was asking the questions at the last GOP debate? War planners Paul Wolfowitz and Fred Kagan, as well as Cheney extreme-right-hand-man David Addington. Little question as to who will be running foreign policy under the next Republican administration. The wild men in the wings are waiting for that call.

No doubt this primary process will result in a GOP candidate that represents the worst and most discredited political tendencies currently on tap. Can hardly wait.

luv u,

jp

Rorschach president.

Perhaps you know this about me, but I’ve never been one to associate support for official Israeli government policy with support for Israelis. There is plenty of dissent in Israel around the conflict with the Palestinians, so I don’t know why anyone on this side of the ocean should feel reluctant to criticize actions that merit criticism. There is such demagoguery on this issue in the U.S., though, that very few people speak their minds, particularly those in the political class. However, to the extent that words and actions matter, I would have to say that Barack Obama has been at least as big a booster of the right-wing Israeli government as his predecessor, and in concrete terms – military aid, security coordination, etc. – arguable and even bigger one.

That’s why the hue and cry over Obama’s Israel policy, initially aimed at procuring a Republican victory in Anthony Weiner’s old Brooklyn district, seems so unmoored from reality. Where did they get this idea that Obama is somehow “soft” on support for Israel? I think I can guess – from somebody’s racist best friend. This appears to be an effort to crack Obama’s support amongst Jewish voters via yet another attempt to dog-whistle his “otherness” – in essence, his black identity – in a part of the country with a history of tension between black and Jewish residents. Republican candidates see an opportunity here – that’s why they’re more expulsionist than Avigdor Lieberman. That’s why we were treated to the spectacle of Rick Perry dancing with Rabbis.

Just to be clear, I do not support Obama’s policy toward Israel/Palestine. But to suggest that he is somehow anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian is just … well, that’s your crack talking. With respect to his actions and rhetoric as president, nothing could be further from the truth. And yet the Republican field senses a vulnerability on this issue, so they’re more than happy to exploit it. I can never quite work out whether these people are amazingly clever or astoundingly ignorant. Either the Republicans don’t know that he’s essentially operating from their right on this issue, or they’re race-baiting him in a not-too subtle way. Either way, it is doing neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis any good. It’s just helping to generate more bad policy.

More bad policy is just what we don’t need. But all you Likud-hawks out there, never fear: Obama is squarely in your corner.

luv u,

jp

Eight is enough.

Though I didn’t intend to do so, I did in fact watch part of the Republican debate at the Reagan Library on Wednesday night. At the outset, I have to say that this election season is front-loaded beyond all comprehension. For chrissake – no one has actually voted in any real sense, and yet we’ve already seen a major candidate – T-Paw – drop out, seen others alternately being accorded front-runner status, seen the declaration of a “two-man race” for the G.O.P. nomination, etc. What the hell… it’s bad enough that we are now in perpetual election mode (i.e. all of last year and much of 2009 was taken up with the mid-terms; all of this year with 2012). Can we just let the voters sort this out?

Having said that, on to the debate. The moderator’s attention first trained on THE NEXT NEW THING: RICK PERRY, who is, in fact, a very old thing. Perry (no relation) has gotten a lot of pop-culture credit for job creation. Every time I hear this, I think of an Onion headline from back when a previous Texan was in the White House – the headline went something like “Bush to U.S. Businesses: Create Millions of Shitty Jobs.”  I think it’s kind of a Texas thing, because many of those great Texas jobs that are not either in government or in the extractive industries are of the low-wage, no benefits, no security type. Anyway, here is what the governor had to say:

You want to create jobs in America? You free the American entrepreneur to do what he or she does, which is risk their capital, and I’ll guarantee you, the entrepreneur in America, the small businessman and woman, they’re looking for a president that will say we’re going to lower the tax burden on you and we’re going to lower the regulation impact on you, and free them to do what they do best: create jobs.

This is the kind of trope you hear from all of the G.O.P. these days. It’s those job-killing (low to non-existent) taxes and those job-killing (incredibly lax) regulations that are killing those jobs! Hokum. I have to think these people are just garden-variety liars, because they all look old enough to remember some substantial portion of recent history. If they think for five minutes, they’ll realize that the reason we have high-tech industry and something we call the internet is because public investments were made over the course of decades, mostly through the Pentagon system. I don’t know why these people can’t simply admit that the Federal government, with its enormous buying power, can play a significant role in prompting the development of new technologies and new industries, and has a history of allowing the privatization of innovations that the government paid to procure.

It’s not rocket science. Wait… actually, it is. That was funded by the government, too. More on these clowns later.

luv u,

jp