Rest in peace, Elizabeth Edwards

By Edward Copeland

Elizabeth Edwards lost her battle with cancer at 10:15 a.m. Eastern time this morning. She was 61.

Here is The New York Times obituary.

Texas Republicans plot ouster of Jewish Republican House Speaker, want "true Christian leader" to take over

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Add this to the growing pile of evidence that bigotry is rampant in the Republican Party, and especially among the Teabaggers:

Last month, several Tea Party activists formed a right-wing coalition to oust Rep. Joe Straus (R) as Texas House Speaker. They began circulating emails with anti-Semitic messages against Straus, who is Jewish. The groups ran robo-calls and sent out e-mails demanding a "true Christian leader," and calling Straus' opponent, Rep. Ken Paxton (R), "a Christian Conservative who decided not to be pushed around by the Joe Straus thugs."

Last week, the Texas Observer's Abby Rapoport reported that she had obtained an email exchange between two members of the Texas State Republican Executive Committee (SREC) -- Rebecca Williamson and John Cook. "We elected a house with Christian, conservative values. We now want a true Christian, conservative running it," Cook said in one of the emails.

I could add this to our "Craziest Republican of the Day" series, or even to our "Elephant Dung" (tracking the GOP civil war) series, but this is isn't craziness or an example of how Republicans are at each other's throats, it's explicit anti-Semitism as a matter of desired party policy.

Cook later told Rapoport that he's "not bigoted at all" and "not racist," claimed (as bigots often do) that "some of [his] best friends" are Jewish, and explained that it's not about Jews or Muslims or whether he thinks "their religion is right," but even on the record, to a reporter, he was explicit about his agenda:

I got into politics to put Christian conservatives into office. They're the people that do the best jobs over all.

And that's not bigotry... how?

Ladies and gentlemen, once more, your 2010 Republican Party!

Barn Doors

By Carl

 

There's a bit of "too little, too late" in this:

While David Certner, legislative policy director for AARP, says his members fully support efforts to rein in federal spending, he adds that upping the age for Social Security eligibility isn't the right way to go about it. Raising the wage cap, currently $106,800, would be better, he says.

In truth, a very different scenario is playing out, and I'm pretty surprised that Certner is missing it: de facto, people are raising their own retirement ages significantly.

 

See, most Boomers and people like me immediately following them believed in the lie of a "job for life and a gold watch at 65". You know, pension, retirement, benefits. We planned our early work careers along those lines, and when the deep recessions of the 80s and 90s (and 00s) hit, we made some small adjustments. Sure, we lost our pensions along the way and were asked to contribute to 401(k)s, but only the really careful among us, like me, did so.

 

After all, we needed to buy cars, and pay for education and houses. And vacations from the jobs that were becoming harder and harder to do on our owns as we saw our co-workers laid off. And we swapped jobs because the new firm offered better salary and benefits, but then got laid off when the economy tanked a little.

 

But we managed to latch onto a new job in relatively short order and could put our houses in some form of financial order again.

 

In other words, that image we had of Dad going off to work until he retired with IBM or whomever had completely changed and we never noticed it. And we also never noticed that Social Security had gone, at the insistence of businesses and with the complicity of government, from a supplement to our retirement income designed to keep poor elderly folks from starving to death to many people's main source of retirement income.

 

Of course, there will be an element in this country that says "It's your own fault," blitheringly ignorant of the fact that they're in the same boat as well, but expecting a bailout. Too, you may recall the other myth that our homes would fund our retirement: the best investment, housing prices always go up, and so on. Those same scolders probably think this is still true, as well.

 

In reality, what's going to start happening now, particularly as more and more Boomers reach 65, is they'll simply ignore the calendar and keep working. They'll file for Social Security, make no mistake about it, but those benefits are tied to one's salary, reducing at a sliding scale as one grows older. For many, there would be no benefit to filing for Social Security.

 

In effect, then, they won't actually retire until closer to 70 or 75. Or...raising the actual retirement age significantly from 65 (62, for many).

 

The deficit reduction commission that President Obama has suggested that long term rises in the retirement age will save significant amounts of money, and it would. The GAO claims that these would be offset completely by hikes in disability claims, and there's some possibility ot that happening as well, altho I'd need to see their data, especially in light of the current meme of healthier living as opposed to what our parents and grandparents did (smoke, drink to excess, chemical additives, pollution, and so on).

 

The one thing no one can deny is, to talk about raising the retirement age right now is ludicrous, because it's happening already.

 

(crossposted to Simply Left Behind)

 

Tax deal

By Creature

Let's be clear, politically, Obama got everything he wanted out of the tax-cut deal. The point, right or wrong, was to separate himself from the liberal base and appeal to moderates and independents. The more we wail the more the White House cheers. It's Bill Clinton all over again. Mission accomplished.

Obama, Republicans reach tentative deal on Bush tax cuts, unemployment insurance

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Well. Let's pause for a moment.

(Pause.)

I still think Democrats, caving when they should have stood firm, lost the Bush tax cut issue to Republicans this year, an issue they could have used to portray Republicans for what they really are, the party of the rich, in the lead-up to last month's midterms, but...

I must admit, the deal President Obama and the Democrats have apparently reached with Republicans to extend all the tax cuts for two years, along with a regressive estate tax adjustment (favouring the super-rich), in exchange for a 13-month unemployment insurance extension and a kind of stimulus boost isn't so bad. As Ezra Klain explains:

There's some new stimulus in the form of the payroll-tax cut and the expensing proposals. The older stimulus programs that are getting extended -- notably the unemployment insurance and the tax credits -- probably would've expired outside of this deal. The tax cuts for income over $250,000 are a bad way to spend $100 billion or so, and the estate tax deal is really noxious.

It's bad news for the deficit, though the White House and Congress are right to make the deficit less of a priority than economic recovery. And speaking of that economic recovery? This isn't enough, and it's not well targeted. The deal amounts to the White House throwing some bad money after good. But the end result is between $200 and $300 billion more in tax breaks, tax credits and unemployment insurance than there would've been if not for this deal (I say $200-$300 billion because of the uncertainty over what would've been extended in the absence of this package). That's better than nothing -- or to be more specific, better than backsliding.

He's right, of course, that the "stimulus" elements are really just "anti-contractionary," as "[m]ost of the money just keeps programs that are currently in effect from expiring," but at this point, with Republicans prepared to block everything, it's tempting to take what one can get.

In this case, something is indeed better than nothing, which is what it looked like Democrats would get before this deal.

And while the Democrats lost the issue this year, the obvious calculation is that they can win the issue in 2012, when they can run on extending middle-class tax cuts while letting the highly unpopular tax cuts for the wealthy expire, forcing Republicans to campaign as the party of the rich.

But here's the thing. If Democrats were too cowardly to make an issue of the Bush tax cuts this year, that is, if they recoiled from challenging the Republicans because they feared they'd be labelled pro-tax, why should we believe that they'll find the courage to do so in two years?

Whether or not the economy improves by then, the politics will essentially remain the same. Republicans will still try to make the case -- and, given how the media roll over for them, they'll be successful -- that a failure to extend all the Bush tax cuts (including for income over $250,000) constitutes a tax increase and, yes, that Democrats are big-government tax-and-spenders. True, there will be fewer Blue Dogs around, but it seems unlikely that suddently Democrats will want to engage Republicans on an issue they're so scared of losing -- and so instead lose by refusing to engage and allowing Republicans to get what they want.

The difference may be that Obama will be running in two years, and maybe he'll be able to make the case in the absence of Democratic fortitude, but, again, how can we be sure of this? If Obama finds himself down in the polls, might he not just abandon even the pretense of progressivism and run ever further to the right in the hope of capturing all those celebrated independents?

As Klein notes in a separate post, the deal "is looking more and more like the White House's opening gambit in the 2012 campaign."

Yes, but at what cost? And is this all just about Obama's re-election bid?

**********

Adam Serwer writes that the deal amounts to "a tremendous capitulation for Democrats and a huge win for Republicans" but that there's another side to it:

The good news is that a deal on tax cuts will pave the way for the Democrats to move forward on other important parts of their agenda -- repeal of don't ask don't tell and the START Treaty, since at least two Republicans have indicated a willingness to vote to repeal DADT if a deal on tax cuts is reached. Passage of the DREAM Act would make turn the lame-duck session into a significant net victory for Democrats, but even with substantial revisions to the bill and a CBO score showing the bill reduces the deficit, passage seems like a long shot.

Well, maybe, but the Republicans may make the case that the deal was more than enough compromise and cooperation and that they're not prepared to do anything more during the lame-duck session.

Given what we know of them, isn't that likely?

Klein suggests that "this process suggests that the next two years might be a bit more productive than some of us have been predicting," but to me that's just wishful thinking at best.

**********

And, again, what have Obama and the Democrats accomplished with the deal? A 13-month extension of unemployment benefits is better than nothing, but it's still only 13 months. What happens after that? Won't Republicans just let the benefits expire again?

As Taylor Marsh points out, it's "one year for workers" but "two years for bosses." The wealthy, as usual, would win out, while those who need help the most, also as usual, would get screwed.

And, meanwhile, there's this horrendous estate tax win for the Republicans -- also another win for the rich.

All Obama and the Democrats have succeeded in doing is postponing having to deal with the Bush tax cuts politically for two years.

You can call that "caving" or not, but it's certainly not leadership.

And won't Obama's takeaway from this just be that the only way to get anything done is to give Republicans what they want? Won't that be his "bipartisanship"?

**********

But perhaps it won't matter. Or, rather, perhaps we'll soon find ourselves back where we started. There may be a deal, after all, but it may not pass.

As David Dayen reports:

Senior Administration officials tried to cast their deal on the Bush tax cuts in a positive light, even as forces on the left and right were mobilizing against it. The deal is so shaky that the White House officials and the President would only call it a "framework." Several Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate are already either simply opposed, or dedicated to mobilizing for defeat of the package, and the Senate Majority leader delivered a terse one-line statement only agreeing to discuss it with his colleagues. The biggest news here is that this deal isn't done.

So we'll see. I suspect that significant changes will have to be made to appease enough opponents on both the left and right to sign on. And, even here, I suspect that most of those changes will be to appease Republicans, leaving the deal's Democratic opponents -- those progressives Obama doesn't much care for, those with the fortitude to stand up to the Republicans and the decency to stand up for the non-wealthy -- out in the cold.

And the resulting package will turn out to be even more Republican-friendly than this deal.

I don't really need to ask this question -- we've answered it already -- but how is it the Republicans can get what they want, more or less, even without controlling the White House and Congress?

And how is it the Democrats are so utterly lame?

**********

Okay, it's not all bad... not all bad... not all bad... and there are things to like in the deal.

And, yes, something may be better than nothing.

But is that really the new standard? And is that supposed to make us happy?

George Will's argument for "engaged justices"

Guest post by Publius

Publius has lived in and spent most of his life thinking about Washington, D.C. He is an attorney, an avid sports fan, and the editor of The Fourth Branch. This is his first guest post at The Reaction.

(Ed. note: Along with what we already do here, I'm hoping to have more guest spots from bloggers I really like. We used to have a guest blogger every now and then, but when I was doing the Crooks and Liars blog round-up recently I realized I hadn't invited anyone to do a guest spot in ages. Let's get it underway again with Publius (alas, not his real name) from The Fourth Branch. As you'll see in this post, as well as at his blog, he is an extremely thoughtful commentator. His blogging tends to be admirably intellectual and academic (in a good way), and it's a pleasure to welcome him aboard. -- MJWS)

**********

George Will recently wrote a column entitled "The Case for Engaged Justices," in which he argues that the individual insurance mandate is unconstitutional and that if the Supreme Court acts as "engaged justices," as opposed to "activist justices," they will find the mandate unconstitutional. Mr. Will's column is replete with rhetorical flourish but lacks much critical thought.

Will begins by arguing that the debate over the insurance mandate's constitutionality is really a debate about whether Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce is "infinitely elastic" and says that "if the power is infinitely elastic, Congress can do anything -- eat your broccoli, or else -- and America no longer has a limited government."

First, an admission: If the Congress' power is infinitely elastic, then, yes, it has the power to do whatever it wants. That's not so much an argument by Will as a definition.

Second, a dispute: The debate over the insurance mandate isn't a debate over whether Congress has infinite power. It is, rather, a debate over whether Congress has the specific power to require Americans to purchase health insurance.

Such a proposal is not a wild leap from current laws that presumably Will finds constitutional. Take, for example, the requirement that all working Americans pay into Medicare. In essence, Congress has required Americans to purchase health insurance but to do so for other Americans (through a government-funded program) and not for themselves. Those distinctions aren't irrelevant, but are they so large that overcoming them means Congress must now be viewed as having "infinitely elastic" powers? Hardly.

Will argues that the legal answer to the constitutionality of the health insurance mandate can be found in an opinion of a Texas judge. In the Texas case cited by Will, a man dying of asbestos exposure sued a company for damages. The Texas legislature, after the suit was filed and the harm inflicted to the dying man, apparently passed a law immunizing the company (and others) from the lawsuit. The Texas judge held that the law violated the Texas constitutional prohibition on retroactive laws and that the lawsuit could proceed. Will concludes that the decision stood for the principal that legislative actions, even when intended to protect the general welfare (such as the insurance mandate), cannot trump constitutional limitations on power.

Will would do well to note that the case was not decided on U.S. constitutional grounds, and so its applicability is tenuous at best. Regardless of that significant distinction, it is perhaps even more significant to note that retroactive laws are expressly prohibited in Article I, Section 16 of the Texas Constitution as applied to a pending action. In other words, the "constitutional limitation on power" is clearly articulated in the Texas Constitution. Unfortunately for Will's analogy, that's not the case with the insurance mandate. Nowhere does the U.S. Constitution specify that "Congress shall not pass an individual health insurance mandate."

Will appears to argue that such a prohibition can be inferred from "the first words of the Bill of Rights: 'Congress shall make no law...'" Will ought to read the rest of the Bill of Rights. He would note that such language doesn't apply to the entire Bill of Rights, it applies only to the First Amendment (which involves speech, press, assembly and petition, and religion).

Oddly enough, Will concludes his argument with a statement that appears to favor the individual mandate. Will states (quoting in his first sentence the Texas judge from the case above):

"There is a profound difference between an activist judge and an engaged judge." The former creates rights not specified or implied by the Constitution. The latter defends rights the Framers actually placed there and prevents the elected branches from usurping the judiciary's duty to declare what the Constitution means. Let us hope the Supreme Court justices are engaged when considering the insurance mandate.

The issue in this case isn't one of "creating rights," which is what Will believes defines an "activist judge." The issue is defining the scope of Congress' power to take certain actions. It's highly unlikely the Supreme Court would hold, for example, that Congress can't pass the insurance mandate because Americans have a constitutional right not to buy health insurance if they don't want to buy it. In fact, if the Supreme Court acts under Will's definition of an "engaged justice," the Court could not make such a holding (the right not to purchase health insurance wasn't "actually placed" in the Constitution by the Framers).

(Cross-posted from The Fourth Branch.)

I have a simple question

By Carl 

Why?

I mean, I get that unemployment benefits could stand an extension, to be certain. Why not put that to an up-or-down vote on its own merits and let the Teabaggers and their relatives see what they have wrought?

Why not, for deficit reduction sake, let the goddamn moronic Bush tax cuts just die and pass a new set of targeted tax cuts? 

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Sen. Jon Kyl (Ariz.), the Republican whip, told different interviewers that they expect Congress to vote for the tax cuts, which have been in effect for almost a decade, to continue unaltered for at least several years in exchange for an agreement to extend an emergency unemployment program that expired last week for millions of people.

"Obviously, the president won't sign a permanent extension of the current tax rates. So we're going to have some kind of extension. I'd like one as long as possible," McConnell told host David Gregory on NBC's "Meet the Press." Moments later, he added: "I think we will extend unemployment compensation... We're working on that package... I think we're going to get there." 

We are trading the long-term benefits of a tax increase on those who are doing quite nicely in the current economy, thank you, for a few weeks' extension of benefits.

We can do better. I think if we tied the unemployment benefits to a jobs creation bill (and there has to be at least one in the hopper now), it sends a far better message that Congress, this Democratic Congress, has the interests of the working and middle classes at heart, and then let the tax cuts die just to prove it.

We're going to have to restructure taxes next session anyway, and the Democrats, curiously, will have a bigger say in that, since they don't have to wrangle 60 votes in the Senate.

Weird to say, huh? They had a 60 vote minority, and the influence of asshats from sparsely populated states like Nebraska and Arkansas was grossly overstated because of it. Now, we can basically tell the Nelsons and Lincolns of the Congress to fuck off. (I know, Lincoln lost. Good riddance.) Your "services" are no longer required.

We'll fight this fight on ideology now.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

The rage of the Narnia cultists

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Sorry, Liam Neeson. I appreciate the sentiment, I really do, and I wish Aslan really did symbolize "Mohammed, Buddha and all the great spiritual leaders and prophets over the centuries," but, alas, The Chronicles of Narnia is Christian propaganda, pure and simple:

Walter Hooper, [C.S.] Lewis's former secretary and a trustee of his estate, said the author would have been outraged.

"It is nothing whatever to do with Islam," he said.

"Lewis would have simply denied that. He wrote that the 'whole Narnian story is about Christ'. Lewis could not have been clearer."

He attributed Neeson's remarks to political correctness and a desire to be "very multicultural", adding: "I don't know Liam Neeson or what he is thinking about... but it was not Lewis's intention."

Like I said, it's propaganda, aimed at children. I read the books as a child. Now I know better. And the fact that the books and movies have been embraced by the Christianist right just makes it worse.

It's enough to turn me into a Harry Potter fan.

A dying GOP breed

By Creature

While I appreciate and praise the moderation expressed by Senator Lugar, I still don't see him breaking with his party on vote, after vote. Until he steps out of the GOP lemming-parade I can't take much solace from his moderate words.

Restrepo: Remembering again that war is real and John Wayne is long gone

By R.K. Barry

I saw a documentary a couple of days ago about American troops in Afghanistan. The film was made by Sebastian Junger and Tim Hetherington. It's called Restrepo.

What I found most interesting was a comment by the filmmakers that they have received strong positive comment both from those opposed to the war and those more hawkish.

This is the promotional description:

RESTREPO is a feature-length documentary that chronicles the deployment of a platoon of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan's Korengal Valley. The movie focuses on a remote 15-man outpost, "Restrepo," named after a platoon medic who was killed in action. It was considered one of the most dangerous postings in the U.S. military. This is an entirely experiential film: the cameras never leave the valley; there are no interviews with generals or diplomats. The only goal is to make viewers feel as if they have just been through a 90-minute deployment. This is war, full stop. The conclusions are up to you.

Whatever one's politics, I would hope that this film reminds them that we should never forget what we do to soldiers when we put them in a combat situation, that we should always make political decisions with a clear understanding of their implications for everyone involved.

I thought the film was extremely well done. I found it moving and an honest attempt to do justice to the experiences of soldiers doing the fighting. I highly recommend it. 

There are a lot of things I would want to say about what makes young men and women join the military and go to war. There are things about the relationship between decision-makers and those who carry out their orders about which, in a democracy, we should always be mindful.

There are things about what I think are justifiable views on patriotism and other forms less savory that I believe we should discuss.

But these weren't the kinds of thoughts I was having as I watched this film.

Maybe it's because I grew up in the kind of working-class neighbourhood in which a lot of kids went off to war, some as draftees and some who joined. Maybe this is the reason I have a lot of compassion for those who find themselves being shot at and having friends die in conflicts the political dynamics of which are probably not very clear to them.

I was too young to go to Vietnam but not too young to know of families devastated by its impact. Today, largely due to social class and maybe age, I don't know many young people who have gone off to war, but it's not a total abstraction to me either.

My workplace is not far from the coroner's office where some soldiers killed in Afghanistan are brought once repatriated. More than once I have stood on the sidewalk to watch a long procession of cars wend its way through downtown streets. On one occasion I saw what was undoubtedly a young widow in the lead car with the window open. I could see her clearly. The look of pain on her face is impossible to describe – there's nothing abstract about that at all.

All the debates: why young men and women choose to go to war; the extent that economic class plays an important role; whether we should ever have been in these wars at all; what supporting our troops really means – these things are important discussions.

I'd suggest you find this documentary – Restrepo – and that you remember that wars are fought by young people who, once the shooting starts, seem to want only to get back home.

These wars have been going on too long, so long that we have forgotten the sacrifices that we are expecting of our soldiers, except in speeches that have become so clichéd we no longer think about what the words mean.

So little do we now seem to care about the people we put in harms way that it wasn't even an honourable mention as an issue in the last round of campaigning.

How sad is that?

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

The great cave: How Obama and the Democrats have lost the battle over the Bush tax cuts

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(For my first two "great cave" posts, see here and here. And make sure to check out Dcap's great post on wealthy senators supporting wealthy Americans at the expense of everyone else from yesterday.) 

Aside from the fact that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy make absolutely no fiscal sense (and that America needs a far more progressive tax code), what really bothers me about how this has played out -- with the Senate voting yesterday against extending the cuts for the middle class but letting the cuts for the wealthy expire -- is that the Democrats should have been able to win the issue politically. As Ezra Klein wrote the other day (via Jonathan Chait):

It's very important to realize how strong of a hand Democrats had -- and to some degree, have -- on the Bush tax cuts. Right or wrong, the Democrats' original position on this was that the tax cuts for income under $250,000 should be extended, and the tax cuts for income over $250,000 should expire. The public agrees: 49 percent share the Democrats' position, 14 percent want all the tax cuts to go, and 34 percent want to see all the tax cuts extended. Put another way, 63 percent of Americans don't want the tax cuts for the rich extended.

The GOP understood this just fine: Back in July, Rep. Dave Camp, then the ranking Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, admitted that his party couldn't hold tax cuts for the middle class hostage in order to secure tax cuts for the rich. "I'll probably vote for it myself," he said of the Democrats' proposal. In September, John Boehner joined him. "If the only option I have is to vote for some of those tax reductions," he told Bob Schieffer, "I'll vote for it."

Democrats, it seemed, had won this one. They had the popular position, the president's veto pen and control of the Congress. But they simply refused to carry the ball over the goal line. Instead, they began negotiating with themselves, talking about millionaires' brackets and short-term extensions. Republicans noticed the Democrats' disarray and lost their fatalism: "Incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said on Bloomberg Television he was ready to instruct GOP members to vote down legislation Democrats plan to bring to the floor that would extend the expiring Bush-era tax cuts only for the middle class."

Now it looks like all the tax cuts will be extended, at least for the moment. But it's a baffling outcome. The structure of the situation favored -- and continues to favor -- the Democrats. No tax cuts pass without their support, and Republicans have previously admitted that their position isn't popular enough to prevail in a standoff. The only thing that's changed is that Republicans have realized Democrats aren't confident enough to enter a standoff. But it didn't have to be this way.

No, it didn't, but here we are, with the Republicans apparently having won by getting what they want, at least for now.

But don't the Democrats still have a chance to prevail -- at least politically? With yesterday's vote, they can now make the case more strongly than ever that Republicans oppose middle-class tax cuts and support tax cuts only when they're for the wealthy. Doesn't this reinforce the perception that the Republican Party is the party of plutocracy and greed? Can't Democrats use this vote against Republicans?

Ah, but they won't, because, as always, they're terrified of the Republicans and of being labelled the pro-tax party. And so they'll cave.

Because if nothing happens and all the Bush tax cuts expire, Republicans will say that the Democrats let them expire and thereby approved a tax increase for all Americans, appealing directly to the middle class even if their interests really lie with the wealthy.

Of course, it wouldn't really be a tax increase, it would be the restoration of pre-Bush sanity, and Democrats could respond by saying that they wanted to extend the tax cuts for the middle class (and, more specifically, for all income below $250,000, including for those who make more than that, that is, including for the rich) but that Republicans blocked them by demanding the extension of the highly unpopular tax cuts for the wealthy.

In other words, the substance of the matter aside, the Democrats could engage the Republicans politically -- and if the Republicans want to play politics, why shouldn't the Democrats?

Chait, alas, is right:

The fact is, blame for failing to extend the popular elements of the Bush tax cuts should be placed on Republicans. They're the ones who won't extend a bill like that without getting something (unpopular) in exchange. Instead, Democrats have simply assumed that they'll get stuck with the blame and there's nothing they can do about it.

I think the sense among liberals that Democratic leaders simply need to get tougher is generally overblown. It's usually not that simple. In this case, it really is. They took a strong hand and threw it away because they assumed in advance they can't win at politics.

Call it what you will -- it's fear, it's cowardice, it's ineptitude, it's losers behaving like losers. Even with a winning issue "handed to them on a jewel-encrusted platinum platter," as I put it the other day, Democrats -- and that includes the White House -- don't seem to have a clue.

Is it any wonder there was an enthusiasm gap in last month's elections?

Truth in Comics

By Creature



If it's Sunday, it's Truth in Comics.

Attention Teabag shoppers

By Distributorcap

Congratulations! Your insanity is only overshadowed by your stupidity -- you are sending foxes to the Congressional henhouse.

Today, the U.S. Senate voted on extending the Bush tax cuts for the middle class (or what is left of it) -- and not extending them for families earning over $250,000. It took 60 votes to break the filibuster (only in America does 60% equal a majority).

Guess what? With 41 Republicans (and some Democrats including Joe "the Douchebag" Lieberman), it did not pass.

So for those teabaggers out there who think these guys are on their side:

There are 100 senators, ALL of whom earn over or somewhat close to that $250,000 magical tax cutoff (the base salary is $174,000, and with the perks and other income they most come close). Income only tells half the story. What about net worth (the value of one's assets less liabilities and debt)?

• 84 are worth over $500,000
• 69 are worth over $1,000,000
• 28 are worth over $5,000,000
• 17 are worth over $10,000,000
• 3 are worth over $200,000,000 (Kohl, Kerry, Warner)

The median net worth (the mid-point) is $2 million. The average net worth is estimated to be $13,500,000 (Kohl, Kerry and Warner skew this).

These are the people "representing America" who get to  vote decide on the fate of tax cuts for "average American." These "everyday Americans" sit in a body that requires a 60% supermajority to get anything done, including the economic security of a majority of Americans.

For comparison sake:

The median net worth of an American household is $120,000. That is about 95% lower than the Senate median. The average net worth of an American household is $550,000 (folks like Gates and Buffet skew this number), but that is also about 95% lower than the Senate average.

So the average Senator is worth 95x the average American.

Let's just assume for a minute the mean and median income of the Senate is the base of $174,000 (it isn't, but lets be conservative). The median HH income in the U.S. is just under $50,000, 72% lower than the Senate. The average HH income is around $72,000 (again thank Gates and Buffet), 60% lower than the Senate.

As another point of reference, only 34% of American HHs earn over $65,000, 17% have incomes over $120,000, and under 3% have an income over $200,000.

Two-thirds of Americans live in HHs with incomes under $65,000! Who needs the break?

The nation (including the teabaggers) sit idly by as people who are worth 95x more than the average American household decide whether that typical American family will be able to pay their mortgage or rent, clothe themselves, heat their houses, or feed their kids. With this 60 vote supermajority, the Republicans, who have been adamant about continuing the tax cuts for everyone, including the uber-rich, are holding the extension of tax breaks hostage to 97% of the population -- who need every cent -- over a barrel to pay back the 3% who don't.

Note to teabaggers: The median net worth of the Republicans in the Senate is $4.1 million. The median net worth of the Democrats is $3.2 million.

And guess what? A big CHUNK of those 97% voted for those $4.1 million-assholes like Kyl, McCain, Corker, Inhofe, Grassley, and the King Anus of them off, Mitch McConnell. You get what you pay for.

Some more facts about the folks the Senate has decided to take hostage to ensure the welfare of the 3%:

• 83% of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1% of the people.
• 61% of Americans "always or usually" live paycheck to paycheck, which was up from 49% in 2008 and 43% in 2007.
• 66% of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans.
• 36% of Americans say that they don't contribute anything to retirement savings.
• 43% of Americans have less than $10,000 saved up for retirement­.
• 24% of American workers say that they have postponed their planned retirement age in the past year.
• Over 1.4 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy in 2009, which represente­d a 32% increase over 2008.
• Only the top 5% of U.S. HHs have earned enough additional income to match the rise in housing costs since 1975.
• For the first time in American history, banks own a greater share of residentia­l housing net worth in the U.S. than all individual Americans put together.
• In 1950, the ratio of the average executive'­s paycheck to the average worker's paycheck was about 30 to 1. Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 to 500 to one.
• The GDP has risen by 67% since 1980, while the median HH income has risen by only 15%

And we wonder why there is a economic mess in this country. Look who is deciding policy, people who have ZERO stake or ZERO experience in the struggle of 300,000,000 people, including the teabaggers who have insanely enabled this to go on.

Why waste all that typing on an email

By Creature

As you guys have become acutely aware of, I have no time to blog (or, I'm so dispirited, I don't feel much like it). However, I have had time to have some spirited email exchanges, see my last two substantive posts, with a very moderate buddy (and reader) who insists on making the false equivalency argument that both the Left and the Right suck ass and are only interested in destroying the other. I call him a militant moderate. Well, we got into another row yesterday after I sent him a link to this Tom Tomorrow comic:



And the "discussion" flowed:

Him: Calling me a tepid moderate seems out of line on a nice Friday morning – and, besides, as you have noted before, I am pretty militant in my moderatism.

Here is what I do not get: You and your southpaw crew apparently think that the right is out to deliberately destroy and run the US into the ground (just like the right thinks the left is). That is my main problem with the battle lines that have been drawn. I simply just refuse to believe that either side is thinking “how can I, not only obstruct the other side, but DESTROY the country today.” Each side believes what they are doing is right, and both sides want what they see as “the best for the country.” You can disagree with their theory, but I just cannot believe that one side or the other wants the country to implode – cue you calling me naïve….

Me: You’re naïve.

If the left were as absolutists as you think then maybe you’re right. However, the left (or should I say Obama) has been bending over backwards to meet in the middle (the health plan was a GOP plan from the '90s and Mitt's from when he was governor of Massachusetts, the tax cuts were larded into the stimulus to satisfy the GOP—and they still didn’t vote for it, Cap & Trade was a GOP idea—-I could go on) and they have gotten nothing in return. They may not want to destroy the country, but they want to destroy Obama, make sure he’s a one-termer. It’s politics over the good of the country. This is what I’m talking about and you never acknowledge this. You are blinded by your militant moderation.

Him: I think we have played this record before.

Why do they want to “destroy” Obama? Because in their minds, according to their political theories, he is not doing what is best for the country.

Why did the left want to “destroy” Bush – for EXACTLY the same reasons – they didn’t agree with his politics and thought he was taking the country in the wrong direction.

Why did the right want to “destroy” Clinton? You get the point.

Me: Right, but I just gave you concrete examples of the Left trying, in good faith, to deal, so it’s not the same. Can you at least admit that?

Also, too, the Left gave Bush every opportunity and benefit of the doubt at the start (pretty much until Iraq). The battle cry to destroy him did not happen until then (not even from me). Obama got no such luxury (and he didn’t even send people to die in an illegal war of choice).

Here’s a thought experiment for you: If 9/11 happened under Obama what would the GOP do? Now, think back, when 9/11 happened the country and all Dem politicians were overwhelming supportive.

And another one: If Lehman’s collapse and the banking crisis of Sept. '08 happened under Obama, what would the GOP have done? It happened under Bush and the Dems banded together to help despite that fact that it helped a GOP President.

I’m just saying it’s not as black and white as your middle-of-the-road mind would like.

Him: Hypotheticals are not really useful. I know which conclusion you draw, but I do not believe you can play “what if” like that. Do you seriously think that the GOP would not rally behind the president in the face of an attack on the country? Also, you make it sound like the left was doing Bush a favor – they were overwhelmingly supportive because it was the right thing to do.

Yes, you provided one example. If you are representing to me that in the history of American politics, the Right has always been obstructionist, and have NEVER tried to deal in good faith, I guess an uninformed guy like myself would have to take you at your word. Is that what you are telling me?

Right, its not black and white, but its not either black and every single shade of gray on the one side and only the purest white on the other, like the left often represents.

Me: You’re killing me.

“If you are representing to me that in the history of American politics, the Right has always been obstructionist, and have NEVER tried to deal in good faith, I guess an uninformed guy like myself would have to take you at your word. Is that what you are telling me?”

What I’ve been trying to tell you, and you so stubbornly won’t hear, is that times have changed. Jeez. Yes, there was a time when there was dealing in good faith. I long for those times. Newt in '94 changed ALL that and they’ve gotten worse ever since. I long for those magical times where Tip O’Neil and Ronald Reagan sat down to deal. It just doesn’t happen today. They do not give Obama an inch. Hell, Clinton gave them everything they wanted (welfare reform, anyone) and they IMPEACHED him anyway. This is what you refuse to see. Again, times have changed. Now, this is a message Dems (and especially Obama) must get too. They still think they can deal in good faith, but there’s none right now. Maybe that will change, but that is not the reality of today.

Him: Ok, Ok, jeez, keep your pants on. I do not refuse to see anything.

Your Clinton point is weak. I am sure you don’t mean that the GOP should have ignored Clinton's lies on the stand (that is what he was impeached for, right? That is a question), because Clinton scratched their back?

Me: I give up.

Him: Quitter.

Me: Just call me Sarah.

What do Bulgaria, Jordan, Poland, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States have in common?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

According to the recently-released Pentagon report on Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT), they're the only countries in the world that ban gays in the military.

Nothing against the good people from these other five countries, but that's not exactly good company to be in.

Now, I suspect that countries like, say, Saudi Arabia don't allow gays in the military either, but such countries do not generally allow gays in society either.

These six countries have explicit policies in place banning gays in the military.

**********

I got this from Fred Kaplan's excellent piece at Slate on the Pentagon report. (I highly recommend it.) And, in case you missed it, the report's findings are definitive:

Much of the study reports and analyzes the results of a survey sent to 400,000 active-duty members of the armed services (115,052 of whom responded), as well as surveys of more than 40,000 military spouses and several workshop forums and face-to-face interviews.

The top line is that 70 percent of those surveyed say that repealing DADT -- and thus working, eating, sleeping, showering, and fighting in the same room or on the same ship, plane, or battlefield with service members who say they're gay -- will have a positive, a mixed, or no effect (in other words, won't have a bad effect) on accomplishing the mission.

Yes, there is obviously still a good deal of opposition in the military to gays being allowed to serve openly -- and John McCain and others are emphasizing that opposition to the exclusion of all else. But the numbers are actually even more definitive:

Among members of the armed forces who have actually worked with someone they believe to be gay, 92 percent say that the unit's effectiveness is very good, good, or "neither good nor poor" (in other words, at very least, not bad)...

As the report puts it, the apparent "misperception that a gay man does not 'fit' the image of a good warfighter... is almost completely erased when a gay service member is allowed to prove himself alongside fellow warfighters."

The results are overwhelming. The military is ready for gays to be allowed to serve openly. And it will be much easier for them to serve openly than it was, say, to integrate the military racially in Truman's day, when, as the report notes, there was overwhelming opposition to blacks being allowed to serve alongside whites.

The country has come a long way, the military has come a long way, and there's no good reason to keep gays out.

Though, of course, McCain and his ilk keep trying. Kaplan concludes:

The evidence, the polling data of service men and women, the testimony of senior officers, the everyday experiences of living and fighting, the imperatives of national security, as well as the obvious moral standards of contemporary life -- all point to, at the very least, a shift in the burden of proof on whether DADT should be repealed. It's no longer valid, and it's clearly a pretense, to call for further studies, further surveys, closer questioning. If McCain and the others oppose repeal, they have to come up with some new reason -- or fall back on the oldest, most unpalatable reason -- why.

But there is no "new reason" that has any validity. And so let's just spell it out. The real reason they keep up their opposition is indeed "unpalatable." It's called bigotry.

And so, for all his supposed pro-military cred, McCain finds himself in opposition not just to the military's civilian and chief military leadership (including not just Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff but perhaps America's most revered current military commander, including by McCain, Gen. David Petraeus) but to the rank-and-file as well.

And, as Kaplan notes, the issue isn't just about rights but about national security (something McCain claims to care deeply about), as DADT has resulted 13,000 "involuntary discharges," including of key language experts who are essential to the military's efforts around the world. In opposing the repeal of DADT, then, McCain is not just promoting bigotry but undermining the military and weakening national security.

To be fair, President Obama and Senate Democrats have been dragging their heels, but, while Republicans will undoubtedly keep trying to put new roadblocks in the way, there's no excuse anymore. The military has spoken. It's time to repeal DADT.

(For more on McCain's opposition to repeal and the deeply flawed arguments against repeal, see LindaBeth's excellent post from yesterday.)

Craziest Republican of the Day: Eugene Delgaudio

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I've been quite busy the past couple of days, so I'm only now getting to a few stories that I've been wanting to blog about. Like this one -- which takes our CRD series to a whole new level (until you remember that they're crazy like this a lot). Via Jonathan Chait, Virginia's WTOP reported on Wednesday on a local Republican who would appear to be as ignorantly bigoted as they come:

A conservative Loudoun County lawmaker says controversial airport pat-downs by the Transportation Security Administration are part of a "wide-scale homosexual agenda."

Eugene Delgaudio, a Republican representing Sterling on the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, made the comments in a widely distributed e-mail sent in his capacity as president of the conservative nonprofit Public Advocate of the United States.

In the e-mail -- reported by WUSA9 -- Delgaudio also says the TSA's non-discrimination hiring policy is "the federal employee's version of the Gay Bill of Special rights."

"That means the next TSA official that gives you an enhanced pat-down could be a practicing homosexual secretly getting pleasure from your submission," he wrote.

That's right, this guy thinks the TSA's enhanced airport security is all one big gay conspiracy to get action. It's hard to know where to begin, but, really, why bother? If you honestly believe this, you're not just an ignorant bigot but a complete and utter moron.

I'm no fan of all this enhanced security (or whatever you want to call it), much of it supposedly justified through trumped up (if not outright manufactured) threats and promoted through government- and industry-sponsored fearmongering, scaring Americans into a state of terrified submission, accepting ever more authoritarianism and to give up their freedom to a creeping police state, but this, needless to say, is ridiculous.

It is, of course, incredibly insulting to gays and deeply ignorant of their sexuality (and all of our sexuality). As if this is how they get off. As if they're incapable of having meaningful sexual relations.

But, again, why bother? Delgaudio and the many who think like him are stupid, crazy, hateful people.

But maybe this is just the usual homophobia of the self-loathing right-wing bigot. Maybe he gets turned on by these pat-downs and is lashing out. And maybe he needs not just a pat-down but a full-body erotic massage, to set him, er, straight. (Yes, it would move.) The TSA wouldn't do it, but I'm sure he can find someone who would.

Can we all just agree that McCain won't ever support DADT's repeal?

By LindaBeth

The DADT report is out, and as suspected, it shows a military that is rather unfazed by the idea of gays and lesbians in the army being allowed to be openly gay or lesbian. This report was the BIG CONDITION that John McCain had on repealing DADT. That is, of course, after his prior condition that military leaders support the repeal actually came to pass. Now that the military leaders and service members have demonstrated their support for the repeal, McCain should support it, right?

Of course not! Now he has new objections to why the demonstrated support isn't enough to win his. He wants to have a study on the DADT study! It should be abundantly clear by now that the repeal of DADT will never win McCain's support, no matter how many high ranking members and reports tell him we should--because members support it and because it's just the goddam right thing to do. McCain is reneging on his earlier pledges to act because he doesn't want it repealed and will keep coming up with excuses as to why he shouldn't support DADT's repeal. Even if it means disagreeing...with himself.

Last night's Daily Show hits the nail on the head:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Gaypocalypse Now
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor The Daily Show on Facebook

Watch here in Canada.

This is just one issue among McCain's several flawed lines of thinking regarding this policy: 

• As long as gays and lesbians don't say anything, they are fine: not true, there are many ways that officers get around this, including invading privacy, to find out if someone is gay, aside from their telling.
• Not being able to "tell" is a fine way to live: I'd like to see heterosexual people live the way gays and lesbians have to in the military, without photos of their partners, without being able to fly back home in the case of serious illness or death of a partner, without being able to say "I love you" on phone calls, of having to hide all those little things that part of our everyday lives that "reveal" our sexuality.
• It's not hurting the military: anytime well-qualified women and men that we've invested time and money into is discharged under DADT, we lose.
• The right question isn't how would repeal affect the military, but should it be repealed: no, this is a matter of justice. If service members don't really care about gays and lesbians being open, then it won't disrupt unit cohesion. If it won't disrupt unit cohesion, there is no logical argument for why it shouldn't be repealed, even for conservatives.
• We should make civil rights decisions based on what won't disrupt the dominant group's lives or how people "feel" about it, rather than on what's right: if we had asked the south if schools and lunch counters should integrate, what would the response have been? In fact, the military was much less supportive of racial integration than they are of DADT. But the military integrated because it was right, not because it was popular. One important way that prejudice can be overcome is by contact in conditions of equality (i.e. peer-peer). Our nation's institutions should lead the way, not lag behind.

And who crowned McCain king of all things military? McCain is part of the old guard, the old ways of thinking--he's part of the generation who did not encounter gays and lesbians in every day life and his prejudice is steadfast. It's time to let the new blood make these decisions.

(Cross posted to Speak Truth to Power)

Earmark this, Teabaggers!

By Michael J.W. Stickings

So the Teabagging Republicans are so very fiscally responsible, right? And, putting principle before politics, they're so very much against all those politics-as-usual earmarks, right? Er, not so much:

Members of the Congressional Tea Party Caucus may tout their commitment to cutting government spending now, but they used the 111th Congress to request hundreds of earmarks that, taken cumulatively, added more than $1 billion to the federal budget.

According to a Hotline review of records compiled by Citizens Against Government Waste, the 52 members of the caucus, which pledges to cut spending and reduce the size of government, requested a total of 764 earmarks valued at $1,049,783,150 during Fiscal Year 2010, the last year for which records are available.

"It's disturbing to see the Tea Party Caucus requested that much in earmarks. This is their time to put up or shut up, to be blunt," said David Williams, vice president for policy at Citizens Against Government Waste. "There's going to be a huge backlash if they continue to request earmarks."

Well, they're not going to shut up, but I doubt they'll put up either. They'll play the anti-earmark card if they think it can win them votes, but ultimately they'll all figure out that winning votes back home means bringing home as much bacon as possible.

But there'll only be a backlash if they're not given a free pass by the media, and if their partisan hypocrisy is exposed for what it is.

Behind the rhetoric, it's still politics as usual, just with an extreme right-wing twist.