TM Connect


Use "My TM" for log in & register.

Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.

Archive | August, 2011

Two Parties = Too Few Choices Part II

Joyce L. Arnold: Liberal, lesbian, Independent, equality activist, writer.

Not that it was needed, but the Great Debt Ceiling Faux Crisis of 2011 provided yet another example of the failures and dangers of the Two Party Front for the Oligarchy. Vastleft, writing last week at Corrente, provides one conclusion: “In the blessed spirit of the unfettered marketplace … isn’t it time that the Republican and Democratic parties merged?”

In last week’s post I presented a bit of context and background regarding the need for challenging and breaking the institutionalized power of Democratic and Republican control in elections and in governance, though I primarily focus on the Left side of things. Comments, and a fair number of email exchanges, reinforced what I’m thinking: more people are joining, or at least listening to, those who are creating and building ways to work toward challenging and changing our failed two party system. I’ll repeat what I said before: I have no illusions about how difficult a task this is. But I also think it’s essential.

There are, of course, those who argue that the changes need to be made from within the Democratic Party. I respect that view, and power to everyone working at that. What I find troubling are the familiar arguments which generally seem to come down to: any and all efforts toward challenging and breaking the two party stranglehold on our nation are foolish and will only help the even more evil Republicans.

Here’s the thing, and it’s the reality recognized by, I’d guess, most who work outside, and inside, the duopoly: Serious efforts to break the two party stronghold Is. Very. Hard. Slow. Long-term. Work. It’s much bigger than Obama, as it was much bigger than W. It’s about much more than 2012. Or 2014 or 2016. The current political moment in the U.S. – created by both parties – is one of those times when more people look around for options. Or at least talk about wanting them. But anyone seriously involved in any of the multiple efforts – some of which have been around for years, some newly created – will know that to make fundamental changes to the entrenched two party system will take lots of time and lots of work. And there’s that big, glaring need for money.

There are no quick fixes. There can be short and effective bursts of activity – Tea Party. Ross Perot. Ralph Nader. Ted Kennedy. To change the perspective a bit, but still in the “how to change things” mode: The Suffragette Movement. The Civil Rights Movement. The Anti-War Movement. The Black Power Movement. The Chicano Movement. The Labor Movement. Agree or disagree with the goals of any of these, they made things happen. Some changes were of the more or less permanent nature, some not. But they didn’t do it by listening to people who told them it was impossible. In reality, of course, such efforts include set-backs, disappointments, and yes, failures. The work may not be nearly as much fun, and it certainly isn’t as sporadic and short-term, as cheering a Personality in Chief. Or for that matter, not nearly as easy as criticizing the “more evil” opposition.

Last week I listed several organizations and campaigns, some of the “third party” type, some more focused on reforming the Democratic Party. In comments, a few other suggestions were offered, and I have no doubt there are all kinds of other efforts going on, including at local and state levels, about which I know nothing.

After reading your thoughts, both here and elsewhere, I decided that instead of turning to look more specifically at some of the various projects and organizations in this post, it would be helpful to expand the reading list, so to speak. Plus, and very importantly, I wanted to invite / encourage you to join the effort. Rather than this series of posts only being about what I’m thinking and seeing, I’d love it if we continue what started with last week’s post – turn this into a way to share ideas, questions, discoveries, etc. There is no such thing as “The Answer,” of course, although from my perspective, “work together” seems an essential element.

In addition to sharing your thoughts and ideas in the Comments, Taylor has so graciously provided “In the News,” a blog for TM readers and commenters. If you haven’t, check it out in the right hand column. Among other possibilities, it’s an excellent place to expand on the organizations, campaigns, projects and whatever, in which you are involved, or are exploring.

I’d really like to know what you’re thinking and doing.

So for now, I’ll add some new links, as well as repeat last week’s list. Once again I stress these are only a selection, and I am primarily focusing on the Left.

My related posts:

Grading the Electoral College
Two Parties = Too Few Choices

Articles and Opinions

3rd Parties: What They’re For and What They Do, Rick Gaber
Directory of U.S. Political Parties
Primary Realities, spincitysd
“What is the history of ‘third parties’ in the United States?,” This Nation
“Why Third Parties?,” Robert Longley

Political Parties

Green Party, U.S.A.
Libertarian Party
New Progressive Alliance. (Thanks to a comment from noalternative last week). More at Firedoglake.
Working Families Party

Previously listed

Americans Elect
Coffee Party
Fair Vote
Independent Voting.org
No Labels
October 2011
Tequila Party
The Centrist Alliance
Votocracy

( Photo viaWatchingFrogsBoil )

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

So Much for Optimism

Paul Krugman tells the story, but here are the bloody facts:

At the close, the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index was down 60.27 points, or 4.78 percent, to 1,200.07. The Dow Jones industrial average was off 512.76 points, or 4.31 percent, to 11,383.68, and the Nasdaq was down 136.68, or 5.08 percent, to 2,556.39.

It was the biggest percentage drop since February 2009.

Aren’t you glad Pres. Obama and Congress avoided default?

Mr. Krugman might have a point. Maybe someone should do something?

Read full story · Comments { 16 }

Florida, Florida…

From Quinnipiac:

The national debt ceiling deal does not rescue President Barack Obama’s crashing job approval rating in Florida as he gets a negative 44 – 51 percent score among voters surveyed August 1 – 2, after the deal was announced, compared to a negative 44 – 50 percent score among voters surveyed July 27 – 31, before the deal, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

This compares to a positive 51 – 43 percent approval rating for President Obama in a May 26 survey by the independent Quinnipiac…

Florida voters surveyed after the deal say 50 – 42 percent that Obama does not deserve to be reelected, compared to a 47 – 46 percent split before the deal and 50 – 44 percent support for his reelection May 26.

Obama reelect didn’t learn a thing from watching George W. Bush. As awful as he was, and he was awful, people voted for him because he was strong, caring less that he was wrong.

Pres. Obama’s problem is that he’s not only weak, but he’s also been wrong on so many things.

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

Romney Hits Obama on China… and Scores

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

What Would Teddy Think Today?



Depends on which Edward M. Kennedy you’d ask.

Teddy Kennedy of 1978, who stood up to challenge Jimmy Carter no matter the cost, he might have one opinion of Barack Obama’s presidency.

I remember that Kennedy, while I stood in gas lines in New York City and watched how helpless America looked during the Iranian hostage crisis.

Today we can’t even talk about something as bold as a primary challenge to Pres. Obama, no matter that he’s earned it. The money juggernaut of Obama reelect is one reason, but with even progressives proclaiming no one can challenge Obama because he’s the first African American president, as Markos Moulitsas did with Keith Olbermann recently, it puts Barack Obama in a very special class of his own; one that elevates the politician over policy prescriptions that shore up our country’s overall health.

The Tea Party crazies wouldn’t be interested in this type of political etiquette, if you will. They want to win the argument through legislation, while managing to change the entire economic debate by taking on the GOP establishment and forcing an outcome the insiders couldn’t have come close to getting on their own. Tea Party outsider muscle helped Republicans beat Pres. Obama and his entire economic and political teams combined.

The Kennedy who endorsed Barack Obama in the star studded media extravaganza, covered by cable with full fanfare that would have been embarrassing to Edward R. Murrow, what would he think today of Obama’s presidency?

Sen. Kennedy proudly passed the torch, but Obama’s presidency as it stands today, well, it’s hard to imagine this is what Teddy had in mind.

Things aren’t getting better because the administration doesn’t even recognize that they are – that their boss is – the problem.John Aravosis

Read full story · Comments { 21 }

Matt Damon on Teachers

Pres. Obama has already telegraphed that he’s ready to work with Republicans, as the Administration prepares to privatize education, while changing the public school system under the mantel of “reform.”

Matt Damon played offense recently and he effusively heaped praise on the teachers who don’t get paid enough and take way too much grief for what they are paid.

But this is when Austerity’s grip, the need for more and better schools, and partnerships with businesses wanting to help offer more options tend to make some people simply ask Why not?

It’s not about qualified teachers with experience getting a living wage and some control over the task they’ve been asked to do.

Over to you.. …

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Barack Obama on a Bus Pitching Jobs

“Pivot [to jobs] is not an appropriate word. It is continuing the focus we have had…” (Via Sam Stein on Twitter)

That is the funniest thing I’ve read today, until I read this… From The Hill:

President Obama will travel the Midwest by bus this summer to talk up the White House’s job-creation efforts and to try to shore up political support in battleground states.

Obama will embark on a three-day tour, from Aug. 15 to 17. The administration said Wednesday that the trip had long been planned but wouldn’t outline an itinerary beyond saying the stops would be in the Midwest.

[...] “He looks forward to talking to the folks about growing the economy, creating jobs,” said White House press secretary Jay Carney at Wednesday’s press briefing.

Pres. Obama could step off of a bus in Missouri in blue jeans, a work shirt and steel toes, but nobody and I mean nobody is going to buy this stunt. The biggest mistake any politician can make is trying to be someone he isn’t and Barack Obama is not a bus guy. It’s an optics effort, but now his advisers better pray this pr move doesn’t turn into a Dukakis in a tank moment.

As for the jobs pitch, Matt Stoller and Digby team up for the tweet of the day, which really is the biggest failure of Obama’s presidency, though there are plenty of items from which to choose:

Screen capture at top from Huffington Post.

Read full story · Comments { 18 }

Bill Clinton Played Hardball and Won, Obama Paid Ransom and America Lost

“(Pres. Bill Clinton) beat the hell out of us first, for a year. He pummeled us for a year. … He didn’t roll over the second we walked in. … Then he out-negotiated us for a year. He brought us to our knees.” – Joe Scarborough

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Those were the days. A time when a Democratic president in the White House knew how to wage a political fight. Today, not only has Pres. Obama ceded our national economic policies to Republicans and Tea Party extortionists, but he’s managed to alter the entire debate forever.

What we have done, Larry, also is set a new template. In the future, any president, this one or another one, when they request us to raise the debt ceiling, it will not be clean anymore. This is just the first step. This, we anticipate, will take us into 2013. Whoever the new president is, is probably going to be asking us to raise the debt ceiling again. Then we will go through the process again and see what we can continue to achieve in connection with these debt ceiling requests of presidents to get our financial house in order. – Sen. Mitch McConnell

Joe Scarborough was there and explained it best back when the Gingrich revolution rolled into Washington, something I remember well. Joe also makes the Democratic argument starting at around 6:45, with the money quote at 11:45 on the video above.

Back in the ’90s, William Jefferson Clinton had many things going for him Obama didn’t have during the debt ceiling debacle. First, as Kara Brandeisky writes in TNR, there was a roaring economy, but there were also no Republicans willing to take the country over a financial cliff.

Pres. Clinton had something else too. Yes, he became a Third Way centrist hated by progressives, but Clinton drew a line in concrete on what he would accept and not accept. But more importantly, he didn’t let the Republican extortionists set the terms of goddam debate.

November 9, 1995, a senior administration official told the Washington Post, “Our position is it does not matter what they put on this legislation, we are not going to accept anything but clean bills because we will not be blackmailed over default. Get it? No extortion. No blackmail. What you hear are their screams of complaint as they realize we are not, not, not budging on this.”How Clinton Handled His Debt Ceiling Crisis Better Than Obama

As Jonathan Chait notes as well, it’s not about looking at Bill Clinton’s centrist presidency, which was filled with compromises, with rose-colored glasses, which isn’t going to happen anyway.

Obama and his loyalists have gone overboard the same way George W. Bush did when he came in. Bush’s Anything But Bill strategy led to the demoting of the first terrorism export, then 9/11. Obama’s aversion to Bill Clinton’s politics, but also Obama’s arrogance in not learning the lessons of his presidency, especially his hardball tactics that go back to Lyndon Johnson, has now given Republican economics to America.

Worse yet, Obama has also told his adversaries that there isn’t anything he won’t do to avoid a confrontation, while simultaneously yielding the economic debate to Republicans.

Clinton may be a lot of things, but he wasn’t a political coward.

Read full story · Comments { 18 }

Pres. Obama’s Deficit Debacle, National Security, and Warmaking

I’ve been reading a lot about the Pentagon’s possible budget hit, with analysis all over the map. What this proves conclusively is that no one knows what will happen. That’s the real rub in Obama’s debt ceiling debacle. No one can possibly know the specifics in outlying years. There are too many unknown unknowables, to paraphrase big spender Rummy, which is proven by reading the myriad of opinions on what might manifest.

William Hartung, Director, Arms Security Project, Center for International Policy*:

“In the short-term, the budget deal crafted by the president and the congressional leadership gives the Pentagon virtually a free ride. It reduces projected Pentagon spending by less than one percent. These proposed reductions are further diluted by the fact that they will be counted against a broad ‘security’ category that will include the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies beyond the Pentagon proper. These miniscule reductions are unacceptable. Real cuts in Pentagon expenditures can be imposed without reducing our security. Any longer-term deal should reflect this reality.”

Andrew Bacevich, Professor, Boston University:

“The prospect of defense cuts ought to concentrate some minds in Washington. To avoid reductions that are arbitrary and capricious requires clarity of strategic purpose. The really big question is not how many billions should come out of the Pentagon’s bloated budget. No, the big question is this one: given our straitened economic circumstances and in light of the monumental catastrophes of the past decade, what is America’s proper role in the world? Simply reciting cliches about ‘global leadership’ won’t cut it. The time to make hard choices is at hand.”

Winslow Wheeler, head of the Strauss Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information, via Josh Rogin:

…said that the whole notion of the cuts is misleading anyway, because the numbers are being compared projections that were inaccurate in the first place.

“There will be reductions … but the actual figure is also masked by the fact that the debt deal is compared to a ten year CBO ‘baseline,’ which is [the fiscal] 2011 spending levels adjusted according to arcane rules and inflated by a highly unreliable projection of long term future inflation,” he said.

“The debt deal kicks the defense budget can down the road for this and future Congresses. People should not read precision and certainty into a political deal specifically designed to be uncertain and indistinct.”

From McClatchy:

Rather than cutting $400 billion in defense spending through 2023, as President Barack Obama had proposed in April, the current debt proposal trims $350 billion through 2024, effectively giving the Pentagon $50 billion more than it had been expecting over the next decade.

With the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan winding down, experts said, the overall change in defense spending practices could be minimal: Instead of cuts, the Pentagon merely could face slower growth.

“This is a good deal for defense when you probe under the numbers,” said Lawrence Korb, a defense expert at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning research center. “It’s better than what the Defense Department was expecting.”

[...] But the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform — known as the Bowles-Simpson proposal, for its two chairmen — proposed far deeper reductions last fall, saying the military could still maintain its power.

Korb, who studies defense budgets, said Congress could cut the defense baseline budget by $100 billion annually over the next decade and still spend more than it did during the height of the Cold War, adjusted for inflation. He noted that the baseline defense budget has climbed every year for 13 years, a record increase.

Anthony H. Cordesman from CSIS on the debt ceiling deal:

There is good reason why anyone who cares about the current legislation on the budget deficit should care about its near-term impact on national security:

  • The entire debate reflected a total disregard of the need for the State Department and other civil departments to play a major role in consolidating our victory in Iraq, supporting a transition to Afghan control in 2014, and preparing for the United States to play a major role in supporting democracy and political change in the Middle East.
  • This pressure comes at a time when the Defense Department has had years of growth in real spending, does little or no realistic long-term force planning, cannot control its manpower and procurement costs, and was already seeking cuts in programs between $78 billion and $400 billion. Even before the president added the goal of cutting the budget by $400 million over the next 12 years (long before the present debate), the Defense Department had planned to eliminate all real growth in defense spending after FY2013—which would reduce the total defense budget from $708 billion in FY2011 to $661 billion in FY2016—even if one assumes that the United States will still be spending $50 billion a year on its wars.
  • Not one word of the debate addressed the rise in the total interagency homeland defense budget to over $70 billion a year, a massive new effort that has grown with minimal efficiency and without adult supervision.
  • The new legislation layers a whole new set of cuts over the existing cuts forced on the defense secretary in preparing the FY2012 budget submission, which means massive new short-term pressure to find cuts—any cuts—in defense spending.
  • The debate that led up to the legislation produced a totally dishonest proposal for cuts in wartime spending amounting to $1 trillion dollars. This was matched by an equally dishonest Future Year Defense Program submission for FY2012 from the Defense Department, which claimed that the total cost of Afghanistan, Iraq, and the global war on terrorism would suddenly drop from $159 billion in FY2011 and $118 billion in FY2012 to a constant level of $50 billion in FY2013–2016. The real cost of our wars has to be over $75 billion in FY2013, and no one knows the out-year costs. As for the $1 trillion in savings, it would take 20 years to achieve a $1-trillion savings at a rate of $50 billion a year, and that would mean two decades in which the United States could not spend a dime on any overseas contingency.

But, the legislation is not going to survive in ways that have any real mid- or long-term impact. This becomes clear the moment anyone examines the real-world nature of the supposed longer-term plans for defense cuts in the legislation.

First, there is no way to usefully assess what the numbers involved actually mean or to regard them as politically credible. We are talking about making cuts to nonexistent plans and budget baselines some 12 years into the future.

Second, these cuts are to be made in undefined dollars, where no one can yet define current or constant dollars for the time period involved or estimate the extent to which the cost of defense rises faster than the average rate of future inflation.

Third, the cuts are purely political numbers that do not reflect any analysis of national security needs, where the cuts would come from, or the risk involved. They make no allowance for new contingency requirements. They are to be carried out over more than a decade without regard to future developments in the U.S. economy and competing needs for federal spending.

Fourth, the cuts are not based on any serious examination of the priority of national security spending relative to other discretionary spending and entitlements programs and sources of revenue. They do not look at the fact that national security—which everyone agrees is a legitimate priority for federal activity—costs less than 5 percent of a $14 trillion dollar economy even though we are still involved in two wars. They totally ignore the fact that it is the rising cost of medical treatment (rising from 5 to 6 percent of GDP in the past toward 19 percent) and the needs of an aging population (rising from 12 to 20 percent of the total) that is the key area that has pushed up our debt and deficit and where we need sound national programs—not simply budget cuts.

Fifth, the deadlines that could trigger the massive additional cuts are absurd. There is no credible way that the Special Joint Committee can really address the cuts that should be made in our national security efforts by November 23, 2011, or that the Congress as whole could properly evaluate the result for an up-or-down vote by December 23, 2011.

Lawrence Korb, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress; former Assistant Secretary of Defense*:

 ”The proposed deal does not go far enough in reining in a military budget which in real terms is higher than at any time since World War II. In fact, the total reductions over the next decade are likely to be less than the $400 billion proposed by President Obama.”

Heather Hurlburt, Executive Director, National Security Network*:

“If a congressional commission includes a serious, bipartisan review of defense strategy and expenditures, and abides by its recommendations, this is an opportunity for all sides to show they’re serious about constructing an American defense strategy that is effective and affordable for our times.”

ABC News:

On first blush it appears the $2.1 billion debt ceiling compromise hits the Pentagon’s budget pretty hard in the next decade, but the reality is that in the short term the $350 billion in defense cuts is smaller than what Pentagon officials had been preparing for. However, the deal also holds out the possibility that in the long term there could be even deeper cuts in defense spending if a bipartisan committee is unable to come up with an additional $1.2 trillion in savings by the end of this year.

…and just in case you haven’t been paying attention, which plays into Pres. Obama’s hands on national security, as well as obliterates the line between Democrats and Republicans, secrecy still rules (n/t Noah Shachtman of Danger Room).

The Senate Intelligence Committee rejected an amendment that would have required the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to confront the problem of “secret law,” by which government agencies rely on legal authorities that are unknown or misunderstood by the public.

The amendment, proposed by Sen. Ron Wyden and Sen. Mark Udall, was rejected on a voice vote, according to the new Committee report on the FY2012 Intelligence Authorization Act.

“We remain very concerned that the U.S. government’s official interpretation of the Patriot Act is inconsistent with the public’s understanding of the law,” Senators Wyden and Udall wrote. “We believe that most members of the American public would be very surprised to learn how federal surveillance law is being interpreted in secret.”

Finally, Adm. Dennis Blair, former United States Director of National Intelligence in the Obama administration, for all you wonks (substance starts at 3 min. in). Blair starts with a terrific quote from John Cleese, which is pretty perfect considering the absurdity we’ve all had to endure the last weeks.

*TM Note: Attribution on this quote has been changed.

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

Keith Olbermann: Incumbents’ Only Goals are Re-nomination, Re-Election, and the Pursuit of Hypocrisy

Once Mr. Olbermann came to Current TV I made sure our house changed our cable subscription so I could view his show on Al Gore’s network. He has not disappointed, especially last night.

While Lawrence O’Donnell bloviated on MSNBC, more worried about trying to dig himself out of bankrupt political analysis he offered on the debt ceiling, starting off by saying Pres. Obama “blinked” on the budget deal after brilliantly maneuvering the campaign, a ludicrous fact-free assessment, Keith was tearing down the House, Senate and White House, but more importantly, our political system, with a special comment that went far beyond what he’s ever done before.

Our political collapse to vested interests has little to do with which side is president, because whether Obama or Romney, Huntsman, Perry or Bachmann, these people at this level are too bought off to touch. All of these people are equally bankrupt because they’re all competing in the same beauty pageant of power run by big business, Wall Street and special interests, as Al Gore said so eloquently last night as well.

Our problems go well beyond Democratic or Republican choices, which now hold no hope, no change and no answers. It’s not about third parties either. It’s about anyone who is outside the system and is progressively committed to standing against the austerity craze that will crash our country if something isn’t done about it.

Your challenge is to first send a message to the people in Washington. Then it’s to find alternatives to the current political class and choose him or her instead of the cowardly status quo.

TRANSCRIPT

I close, as promised, with a Special Comment on the debt deal.

Our government has now given up the concept of right and wrong.

We have, in this deal, declared that we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all political incumbents are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Re-nomination, re-election, and the pursuit of hypocrisy.

We have, in this deal, gone from the Four Freedoms to the Four Great Hypocrisies.

We have superceded Congress to facilitate 750 billion dollars in domestic cuts including Medicare in order to end an artificially-induced political hostage crisis over debt, originating from the bills run up by a Republican president who funneled billions of taxpayer dollars to the military-industrial complex by unfunded, unnecessary, and unproductive wars, enabled in doing so by the very same Republican leaders who now cry for balanced budgets – and we have called it compromise. And those who defend it have called it a credit to a pragmatic president who wins some sort of political “points” because, having stood for almost nothing here, he gave away almost nothing for which he stood.

It would be comical if it were not tragic.

Either way, it is a signal moment in our history, in which both parties have agreed and codified that the political structure of this nation shall now based entirely on hypocrisy and political self-perpetuation.

Let us start with the first of the Great Hypocrisies: The Committee. The Republican dogs can run back to their corporate masters and say they have forced one-and-one-half trillion dollars in cuts and palmed off the responsibility for them on this nonsensical “Super Congress” committee.

For two-and-a-half brutal years we have listened to these Tea Party mountebanks screech about the Constitution of the United States as if it were the revealed word and not the product of other – albeit far better – politicians. They demand the repeal of Amendments they don’t like, and the strict interpretation of the ones they do, and the specific citation of authorization within the Constitution for every proposed act or expenditure or legislation.

Except this one.

Where does it say in the Constitution that the two houses of Congress can, in effect, create a third house to do its dirty work for it; to sacrifice a few Congressmen and Senators so the vast majority of incumbents can tell the voters they had nothing to do with this?

This leads to the second of the Great Hypocrisies: how, in the same breath, the Republicans can create an extra-Constitutional “Super Congress” and yet also demand a Constitutional Amendment to force the economic stupidity that would be a mandated balanced budget. Firstly: pick a side! Ignore the Constitution or adhere to it.

Firstly, pick a side, ignore the constitution or adhere to it. And of what value would this Mandated Balanced Budget be? Our own history proves that at a time of economic crisis, if the businesses aren’t spending, and the consumers aren’t spending, the government must. Our ancestors were the lab rats in the horrible experiments of the Hoover Administration that brought on the Great Depression, in which the government curled up into a ball while it simultaneously insisted the economy should heal itself, when, in times of crisis – then and now – the economy turns out to be comprised entirely of a bunch of rich people who will sit on their money no matter if the country starves.

Forgotten in the Republican Voodoo dance, dressed in the skins of the mythical Balanced Budget, triumphant over the severed head of short-term retrenchment that they can hold up to their moronic followers, are the long-term implications of the mandated Balanced Budget.

What happens if there’s ever another… war?

Or another… terrorist attack?

Or another… natural disaster?

Or any other emergency that requires A government to spend a dollar more than it has? A Constitutional Amendment denying us the right to run a deficit, is madness, and it will be tested by catastrophe sooner than any of its authors with their under-developed imaginations that can count only contributions and votes, can contemplate.

And the third of the Great Hypocrisies is hidden inside the shell game that is the Super Congress. The Super Congress is supposed to cut evenly from domestic and defense spending, but if it cannot agree on those cuts, or Congress will not endorse them, there will be a “trigger” that automatically cuts a trillion-two or more – but those cuts will not necessarily come evenly from the Pentagon. We are presented with an agreement that seems to guarantee the gutting of every local sacred cow from the Defense Department. Except if the Congressmen and Senators to whom the cows are sacred, disagree, and overrule, or sabotage the Super Congress, or, except if for some reason a 12-member Committee split evenly along party lines can’t manage to avoid finishing every damned vote 6-to-6.

We’re cutting Defense. Unless we’re not.

The fourth of the Great Hypocrisies is the evident agreement to not add any revenues to the process of cutting. Not only is the impetus to make human budget sacrifices out of the poor and dependent formalized… but the rich and the corporations are thus indemnified, again, and given more money not merely to spend on themselves and their own luxuries, but more vitally, they are given more money to spend on buying politicians, and legislatures, and courts, buying entire states, all of which can be directed like so many weapons, in the service of one cause and one cause alone: making by statute and ruling, the further protection of the wealthy at the expense of everybody else, untouchable, inviolable – permanent.

The White House today boasted of loopholes to be closed and tax breaks to be rescinded — later.

By a committee.

A committee that has yet to be formed.

There are no new taxes. Except the stealth ones, enacted on 99 out of 100 Americans by this evil transaction. Every dollar cut from the Safety Net is another dollar added to the citizen’s cost for education, for security, for health, for life itself. It is another dollar he can’t spend on making a better life for himself, or at least his children. It is another dollar he must spend instead on simply keeping himself alive.

Where is the outrage over these Great Hypocrisies? Do you expect it to come from a corrupt and corrupted media, for whom access is of greater importance than criticizing the failure of a political party or defending those who don’t buy newspapers or can’t leap website paywalls or could not afford cable TV?

Do you expect it to come from a cynical and manipulative political structure? Do you expect it from those elected officials who no longer know anything of government or governance, but only perceive how to get elected, or how to pose in front of a camera and pretend to be leaders? Do you expect it from politicians themselves, who will merely calculate whether or not it’s right based on whether or not it will get them more contributions?

Do you expect it will come from the great middle ground of this country, with a population obsessed with entertainment, video games, social media, sports, and trivia?

Where is the outrage to come from?

From you!

It will do no good to wait for the politicians to suddenly atone for their sins. They are too busy trying to keep their jobs, to do their jobs.

It will do no good to wait for the media to suddenly remember its origins as the ‘free press,’ the watchdog of democracy envisioned by Jefferson. They are too busy trying to get exclusive DETAILS about exactly how the bankrobbers emptied the public’s pockets, to give a damn about telling anybody what they looked like, or which way they went.

It will do no good to wait for the apolitical public to get a clue. They can’t hear the clue through all the chatter and scandal and diversion and delusion and illusion.

The betrayal of what this nation is supposed to be about did not begin with this deal and it surely will not end with this deal. There is a tide pushing back the rights of each of us, and it has been artificially induced by union-bashing and the sowing of hatreds and fears, and now this ever-more-institutionalized economic battering of the average American. It will continue, and it will crush us, because those who created it are organized and unified and hell-bent.

And the only response is to be organized and unified and hell-bent in return. We must find again the energy and the purpose of the 1960′s and early 1970′s and we must protest this deal and all the God damn deals to come, in the streets. We must arise, non-violently but insistently. General strikes, boycotts, protests, sit-ins, non-cooperation take-overs – but modern versions of that resistance, facilitated and amplified, by a weapon our predecessors did not have: the glory that is instantaneous communication.

It is from an old and almost clichéd motion picture that the wisdom comes: First, you’ve got to get mad.

I cannot say to you, meet here or there at this hour or that one, and we will peacefully break the back of government that now exists merely to get its functionaries re-elected. But I can say that the time is coming when the window for us to restore the control of our government to our selves will close, and we had damn well better act before then.

Because this deal is more than a tipping point in which the government goes from defending the safety net to gutting it. This is wrong, and while our government has now declared that it has given up the concept of right-and-wrong, you and I… have not, and will not, do so.

Good night, and good luck.

Read full story · Comments { 25 }

The Final Splash After the ‘Dive’

Matt Taibbi gets this exactly correct.

The Democrats aren’t failing to stand up to Republicans and failing to enact sensible reforms that benefit the middle class because they genuinely believe there’s political hay to be made moving to the right. They’re doing it because they do not represent any actual voters. I know I’ve said this before, but they are not a progressive political party, not even secretly, deep inside. They just play one on television.

For evidence, all you have to do is look at this latest fiasco.

The Republicans in this debt debate fought like wolves or alley thugs, biting and scratching and using blades and rocks and shards of glass and every weapon they could reach.

The Democrats, despite sitting in the White House, the most awesome repository of political power on the planet, didn’t fight at all. They made a show of a tussle for a good long time — as fixed fights go, you don’t see many that last into the 11th and 12th rounds, like this one did — but at the final hour, they let out a whimper and took a dive.

[...] It strains the imagination to think that the country’s smartest businessmen keep paying top dollar for such lousy performance. Is it possible that by “surrendering” at the 11th hour and signing off on a deal that presages deep cuts in spending for the middle class, but avoids tax increases for the rich, Obama is doing exactly what was expected of him?

It’s not news that Barack Obama is Wall Street and big biz’s minion, we saw that in his sell out on health care, propping up too big to fail, the list goes on and on, but he’s got lots of company in the Democratic party. On the Republican side it’s worse.

So now that it’s all over Barack Obama gets ready to have a big birthday party to celebrate his own cold self, the American middle class, minorities and the jobless are left with a president who not only doesn’t understand they’re plight, but doesn’t care to address it, anymore than he or the Democrats care about progressivism.

Thinking forward, progressives and Democratic activists have another choice to make, as they face their own irrelevance. To keep propping up the Democratic party, which in the era of Barack Obama has come to mean absolutely nothing near what it once was. Or to tear the place down by walking away from Democrats to find another solution, at least for your singular vote, so you don’t become part of the problem, too.

But let’s put aside the notion that one of the big two parties is different from another. In the debt ceiling debacle we learned even more starkly they are not. The final debt deal makes that apparent.

What everyone saw play out is that the only group that revealed any political character, however crazy, was the Tea Party. Whether progressives have the strength and will to create their own vein inside the Democratic party is very much in doubt, because in the end they all voted to rescue the President from his own feckless leadership.

One thing is very clear, Pres. Obama and the Democrats in power are not your friend, but neither are Republicans. How you react and what you do about that is up to you, but after the debt ceiling anyone saying it matter’s who is president, either Obama or Romney, is either kidding him- or herself or too lost in fan politics to trust.

Read full story · Comments { 38 }

Biden on Point, while Republicans Balk at ‘Professor Obama’s lectures’

(Official White House Photo by Sharon Farmer)

It always comes down to relationships and Pres. Obama just doesn’t have them. Joe does.

An interesting back story put together by Politico’s Glenn Thrush, Carrie Budoff Brown, Manu Raju and John Breshnahan.

[...] With the talks going nowhere Saturday morning, the White House made “our last play,” according to a senior administration official, calling on Biden’s long-time connection to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). [...]

McConnell wanted to negotiate primarily with Biden, concerned that other Democrats, especially Obama, would prove to be less trustworthy bargaining partners.

“Biden’s the only guy with real negotiating authority, and [McConnell] knows that his word is good,” said a senior GOP staffer close to the talks. “He was a key to the deal.”

… GOP House staffers were burnt out after months of fruitless meetings at the White House that they had taken to calling “joke meetings” or worse still, “Professor Obama’s lectures.”

[...] “There was nothing these far-right guys would say yes to,” said a leadership aide close to the talks. “It became clear that they were going to be intransigent no matter what.” …

Whether it’s been Afghanistan and Pakistan or the latest debt ceiling talks, nobody has turned out to be more valuable to Pres. Obama than Vice President Joe Biden.

…notwithstanding the… umuncomfortable moments that arise.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Pelosi: Give me a ‘Satan Sandwich’ with ‘Satan Fries on the Side’

BREAKING… HOUSE PASSES ‘SATAN SANDWICH’

It was 1978 and Jimmy Carter was on his way down, down, down, and Donna Summers, disco and Reaganomics was on the way in and up. So, if in the 21st century we’re going to revisit Republican economics of the ’80s, we might as will bring back disco too.

Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi made her announcement in her own inimitable way.

From former Sen. Russ Feingold, founder of Progressives United:

“The debt ceiling deal should remove any doubt of the power corporate interests have over our government. That deal, hammered out by the president and Republican Congressional leaders, places the burden of reducing our long-term budget problems on average Americans, while the wealthiest individuals and corporations are given a free pass. Americans are willing to bear their share of the burden of addressing our nation’s long-term budget problems, but those sacrifices should be shared by all.”

Next…

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly from the Debt Deal
Reaction from Max Richtman, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare Executive VP/Acting CEO

“America’s seniors have been terrified by threats that their life-sustaining Social Security checks wouldn’t be delivered this month if the federal government were to default. So there is some good news in this debt deal if it passes; default will not deny millions of American seniors the benefits they’ve earned. However, that’s small consolation because it never should have come to this in the first place.

For too long, middle-class Americans and their families have been held hostage while anti-tax crusaders threaten American default unless vital programs, like Social Security and Medicare, are slashed. Unfortunately under this debt deal, those programs will still be under attack – this time by a newly-created ‘Super Committee’ of just 12 members of Congress tasked to cut programs by $1.5 trillion dollars. This committee plan will be fast-tracked to force it through Congress with no amendments allowed and little time for debate.

Americans of all ages and political persuasions know that Social Security and Medicare have not caused this economic crisis and do not support cutting these programs to pay down the debt. Yet, Washington continues to use these vital programs, and the Americans they serve, as bargaining chips in a quest to balance the budget on the backs of working class Americans and their families.

Our work is clearly cut out for us. The House Speaker has said he will appoint only “Super Committee” members opposed to revenue increases. Leaving the debate right where we started…100% benefit cuts and 0% revenue…except this time, the proposal will bypass the normal Congressional process. That makes it even easier to force middle-class benefit cuts to pay for billionaire tax breaks and corporate loopholes. This is no way to run a country. And the over 3 million members and supporters of the National Committee will continue to deliver that message loud and clear, focusing our efforts on this Super Committee as well as the rest of Congress and the White House.”

From the CBO:

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated the impact on the deficit of the Budget Control Act of 2011, as posted on the Web site of the House Committee on Rules on August 1, 2011. The legislation would:

  • Establish caps on discretionary spending through 2021;
  • Allow for certain amounts of additional spending for “program integrity” initiatives aimed at reducing the amount of improper benefit payments;
  • Make changes to the Pell Grant and student loan programs;
  • Require that the House of Representatives and the Senate vote on a joint resolution proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution;
  • Establish a procedure to increase the debt limit by $400 billion initially and procedures that would allow the limit to be raised further in two additional steps, for a cumulative increase of between $2.1 trillion and $2.4 trillion;
  • Reinstate and modify certain budget process rules;
  • Create a Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to propose further deficit reduction, with a stated goal of achieving at least $1.5 trillion in budgetary savings over 10 years; and
  • Establish automatic procedures for reducing spending by as much as $1.2 trillion if legislation originating with the new joint select committee does not achieve such savings.

Are you feelin’ it yet? Let’s dance, baby.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Tea Party Politics is Crazy, But They Won

“The “hobbits” won.”Mark Thiessen

This is what happens when the man in the White House doesn’t have the leadership character for the job.

As for all those analysts, including a lot of progressives and new media sites, who tried to stuff the Tea Party in the racist bin thinking that would be enough, you have been humiliated by the small government crew that was at the foundation of what became an astroturf movement the media glommed on to, while Democrats actually believed they weren’t for real.

Corporate wingnut titans can funnel money into a movement, but if they don’t have front men and women with principle who’ll go down for the cause it hardly matters. Yes, there are racists in the Tea Party, no doubt about it, but by overplaying the theme while amateurs railed against Washington, Democrats and progressives missed the movement’s power by a mile. The carnage left today is the result.

It all began with Sarah Palin, which progressives and new media sites ignored or vilified. Her power has risen and she’s finally fallen, but through health care and the 2010 election, no person was more powerful or impacted the Tea Party presence more than Sarah, allowing them to take center stage in Washington and accomplish the defeat of progressive economics, because their opponent, Pres. Obama, wasn’t up to the job.

Having a pretty spokes model has worked before and the Democrats were no more prepared for Palin and the Tea Party than they were for Ronald Reagan. Democrats and progressives should just count their lucky stars that Palin is gone and Michele Bachmann’s lack of maleness makes her an untenable choice for the GOP boys’ club who seem to be hoping the televangelist huckster Rick Perry can do it for them, as Mitt Romney faces a whole new set of very real challenges to his candidacy. Pres. Obama may be the Democratic poison political pill, but he’d beat Perry in a walk.

With Fox News Channel behind the Tea Party, just like they did during the Bush era, Republicans and the mighty Right, however wrong their policies, have pummeled the Democratic party and progressives into submission, at least for the moment, through the rise of Obamanomics.

So, it’s time to give credit where it’s due and it’s not to political analysts like Lawrence O’Donnell who not only blew the McConnell call, but also his analysis on Obama, while huffing and puffing for 20 minutes every night in his opener and saying absolutely nothing worth remembering today.

Obamanomics is here and the country is stuck with it; an orphaned idea hollowly culled from Republicanism that ignores jobs and growth for cuts, cuts, cuts, while discounting that it’s the middle class and “working stiffs” who fuel demand that inspires corporations to create jobs in the first place.

The Tea Party played Pres. Obama and the Democratic party for the craven, purposeless, unmotivated political class they are; a group of individuals who stand for nothing but promoting celebrity over philosophical muscle that may not be perfect, but has at its heart the welfare of the people above all.

While the details of the debt ceiling deal remain fuzzy, this much is clear: Barack Obama may be president, but the Tea Party is now running Washington.Peter Beinert

Read full story · Comments { 19 }

Republicans Fake Pres. Obama Out of his Shorts

For the deal itself, given the available information, is a disaster, and not just for President Obama and his party. [...] Make no mistake about it, what we’re witnessing here is a catastrophe on multiple levels. It is, of course, a political catastrophe for Democrats, who just a few weeks ago seemed to have Republicans on the run over their plan to dismantle Medicare; now Mr. Obama has thrown all that away. And the damage isn’t over: there will be more choke points where Republicans can threaten to create a crisis unless the president surrenders, and they can now act with the confident expectation that he will. – The President Surrenders, by Paul Krugman


Waking up naked on Monday morning in front of the world is embarrassing. It’s even worse when people looking at you are laughing.

It left Obama loyalists in disarray, grasping for a way to handle the onslaught of outrage. TPM had an interesting way to go at it, providing headlines with question marks, emails from outraged readers, while Obama fell off a pedestal he’d never earned in the first place.

But regurgitating puma-esque headlines? It was not just sad, but disgraceful.

Buyer’s remorse?

Pres. Obama is our president and no matter your political party we all needed him to stand up to the Tea Party extortionists, who in the end proved the only principled people, however crazy their politics, in this mess. That they provided Mitch McConnell with the weapons he needed should go without saying at this point. That they unmasked progressives in Congress as not having half their courage does as well.

What was needed from the President’s loyalists was someone to do political analysis that pointed the blame where it belongs: Pres. Barack Obama, who not only surrendered, but set up a situation where we all get to revisit his cowardice until 2012, while Republicans now know beyond a reason of a doubt he hasn’t the character for his job.

Hillary Clinton is not only irrelevant in this discussion, she doesn’t deserve to be mentioned, because she’s so far out of Obama’s disastrous political “surrender,” to use Krugman’s words, that it’s unfair to drag her back in. Unfortunately, at the height of Pres. Obama’s collapse, some loyalists had nothing else to offer but Clinton redux.

Sen. Mitch McConnell used Barack Obama like a cat plays with an insect. Not quite wiping him out with the first swipe, just when you think it’s safe, your adversary closes in for the final assault. The only thing Obama had left at the end of the weekend was the whine and last gasp of a presidency that will continue, but doesn’t mean anything anymore, because he’s left the United States economically crippled for the foreseeable future.

The New York Times editorial page eviscerated the deal:

There is little to like about the tentative agreement between Congressional leaders and the White House except that it happened at all. The deal would avert a catastrophic government default, immediately and probably through the end of 2012. The rest of it is a nearly complete capitulation to the hostage-taking demands of Republican extremists. It will hurt programs for the middle class and poor, and hinder an economic recovery.

Politics isn’t Hollywood, but until people quit playing it as a reality show or a casting call, picking their favorite celebrity and thinking personality is the answer, relying on celebrity talk show hosts who pronounce politicians as “The One,” we’ll get bad endings and short stories about people who leave carnage in their wake, without ever caring what happens when they’re gone.

Read full story · Comments { 16 }