Mitch McConnell offers lesson in Republican bullshittery

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Mitch McConnell was on the teevee yesterday laying the groundwork for Republican entrenchment in the next round of budget negotiations:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) vowed on Sunday that Republicans would force significant spending cuts in exchange for raising the debt ceiling even if President Barack Obama had to be "dragged kicking and screaming."

"What we're saying is that the biggest problem facing the country is our excessive spending," McConnell told NBC's David Gregory. "We've watched the government explode over the last four years. We've dealt with the revenue issue, and now the question is will the president lead? Why should we have to be bringing him to the table?"

Gregory pointed out that trillions of dollars in spending cuts had been part of last year's Budget Control Act and Republicans had refused to accept significant cuts in entitlement programs as a part of a larger deals offered by Democrats going back to debt ceiling negotiations in 2011.

"You can re-litigate the past if you want to," McConnell laughed. "I wish the president would lead us on the discussion rather than putting himself in the position of having to be dragged kicking and screaming to discuss the single biggest issue facing our future. You know, until we adjust the entitlements so that they meet the demographics of our country, we can't ever solve this problem. The time to solve it is now."

Good for David Gregory to stand firm against this nonsense, or at least to point it out for what it is.

Let's go through the bullshit:

First, the U.S. does not have a spending problem, it has a revenue problem, and the budget deficit could be eliminated simply by establishing tax rates at normal historical levels, as we saw during the Clinton years. (As the Times noted last month, "[t]he average federal income tax rate is at its lowest in more than 30 years.") And if there's a spending problem at all, it's with military spending, which is way too high. In fact, under Obama federal government spending is rising at the lowest rate since the '50s, while discretionary spending as a percentage of GDP is the lowest it's been since the same decade. There's no exploding safety net either.

Read more »

Paul Ryan, "an authentically dangerous zealot" with little experience

By Mustang Bobby

So it's Ryan.

What did I tell you?

Ryan Lizza has a profile of the candidate in The New Yorker, and he reacts to the pick in a blog post this morning:

For one thing, Ryan has no significant private-sector experience. Besides summer jobs working at McDonald's or at his family's construction company, or waiting tables as a young Washington staffer, Ryan has none of the business-world experience Romney frequently touts as essential for governing. In the run-up to his first campaign for Congress, in 1998, that gap was enough of a concern for Ryan that he briefly became a "marketing consultant" at the family business, an obvious bit of résumé puffing.

But Ryan's Washington experience is also light, at least for a potential President -- which, after all, is the main job description of a Vice-President. Ryan has worked as a think-tank staffer and Congressman, but he's never been in charge of a large organization, and he has little experience with foreign policy. Given how Sarah Palin was criticized for her lack of such experience, I'm surprised that Romney would pick someone whose ability to immediately step into the top job is open to question.

And the experience that Ryan does have is not exactly what voters are clamoring for at the moment. The bulk of Ryan's House career coincided with the Presidency of George W. Bush, during which he was a reliable vote for many Bush policies that have not aged well: Medicare Part D; the Iraq War; and the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Ryan told me that voting for all of that spending, which added trillions to the deficit, made him "miserable," but he'll need a better explanation in his October debate with Joe Biden.

Charlie Pierce:

Paul Ryan is an authentically dangerous zealot. He does not want to reform entitlements. He wants to eliminate them. He wants to eliminate them because he doesn't believe they are a legitimate function of government. He is a smiling, aw-shucks murderer of opportunity, a creator of dystopias in which he never will have to live. This now is an argument not over what kind of political commonwealth we will have, but rather whether or not we will have one at all, because Paul Ryan does not believe in the most primary institution of that commonwealth -- our government. The first three words of the Preamble to the Constitution make a lie out of every speech he's ever given. He looks at the country and sees its government as an something alien that is holding down the individual entrepreneurial genius of 200 million people, and not as their creation, and the vehicle through which that genius can be channelled for the general welfare.

Brace yourself for a lot of Eddie Munster comparisons.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

The right-wing obsession with President Obama's "obsession" with raising taxes

By Michael J.W. Stickings

We're hearing it all the time from Republicans these days: Obama's "obsessed" with raising taxes. It's the same old tired partisan bullshit, of course, and a blatant lie, but the uninitiated, those unaware of how Republicans do their thing, might be excused for thinking, upon hearing this over and over again, that the president is maniacally trying to transform America into some sort of retro-Scandinavian dystopia, Scandinavia before right-wing neo-liberalism arrived on the scene.

Take James Pethokoukis, for example. In his latest smearfest of a post at Reuters, Pethokoukis opens, as usual, by stacking the deck against reasonable debate and an appreciation of the facts:

It's the great mystery of the debt ceiling debate: Why is President Barack Obama so darn adamant about raising taxes?

Really, that's "the great mystery"? Well, I suppose it's no mystery why Republicans, even those who should know better (and probably do) have caved in to the Tea Party and are pulling the country towards financial, fiscal, and economic catastrophe.

But how exactly is Obama "so darn adamant"? Dismissing progressives altogether, not to mention his party's base, the president has responded to the debt ceiling crisis by playing aggressively to the center. He has put Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid on the table, much to our chagrin. He continues to negotiate with a Republican Party that refuses to compromise and that is essentially holding the process -- and the country -- hostage. Indeed, he appears to have positioned himself not as some sort of Big Government leftist (not that such leftists even exist anymore in the Democratic Party, or on the American left at all, they're just straw men created by the Republicans to scare people) but rather as a moderate Republican, as the sort of Republican who used to run the GOP. If this were the '90s, Obama, at least on economic policy, would be very much at home there.

Even now, even with Republicans doing poorly in the polls over the debt ceiling crisis, even with Republicans divided and on the run, even after he turned the tables and backed them into a corner, gaining the upper hand, Obama continues to push for a Grand Bargain that includes massive spending cuts and only relatively small revenue increases (mostly by closing tax loopholes, not by actually raising taxes). The so-called Gang of Six re-emerges yesterday with a $3.7 trillion deficit-reduction package, a package that while bipartisan is Republican in terms of its priorities, a package that if passed may not actually benefit him politically, and Obama showers it with praise.

Now, maybe Obama is being so kind to it because he knows it will never pass the GOP-led House of Representatives, and so maybe he's still just trying to appeal to independents by presenting himself as open to compromise and serious about getting something meaningful done -- and so when the package goes nowhere he can let Republicans take the fall for sinking it. But he's been pretty consistent on the policy and at no point has he even come close to appearing obsessed with raising taxes. Not now, not before, not ever.

If anything, Obama is just being responsible. He knows full well, even if Republicans do not (and Pethokoukis does not), that the only way to solve America's deficit/debt problem over the long term is to increase revenue. And that can be done in part by closing loopholes and letting the Bush tax cuts, and particularly the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, expire. Though of course it was Obama who agreed with Republicans last fall to extend the tax cuts.

Pethokoukis also accuses Obama of violating Keynesianism by calling for tax increases. Well, I agree that the focus should be on economic stimulation (deficit spending) instead of deficit-cutting, but, again, Obama hasn't called for anti-stimulative tax increases. If anything, Obama wants more stimulus.

Obama's tax obsession becomes understandable when you realize the long game he's playing: Big Taxes to fund Big Government. Decade after decade. See, it's an almost universal belief among left-of-center journalists, economists, policymakers and politicians that Americans must pay higher taxes in coming years to cover the medical expenses of its aging population – not to mention all sorts of brand new social spending and green "investment." Dramatically higher taxes. On everybody. And if we have a debt crisis, maybe those tax increases come sooner rather than later.

This makes no sense at all. Across the board, taxes are at an extremely low level. Raising them slightly -- for example, by letting the Bush tax cuts expire -- would only mean a return to Clinton-era levels. And that was hardly an era of Big Government Socialism. In fact, it was a rather successful era for the economy. And if Obama's agenda is really all about "Big Government," what are we to make of his willingness to cut core entitlement programs? Is it all about health care? About, say, funding a government-controlled single-payer system? How could it be, given that the Affordable Care Act, while extending coverage to tens of millions, proposes only a reformed market-based approach to health insurance? Green investment? Please. Obama isn't even talking cap and trade anymore, and that, too, is a market-based approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, one that Republicans used to support (just as they used to support what's in the Affordable Care Act).

Okay, enough. I think you get the point. (If you don't, you need help.) Pethokoukis is just regurgitating the same old lies, the Obama-as-tax-loving-Socialist meme that has no basis whatsoever in reality.

If you really want to talk about obsession, look no further than these anti-Obama smearmongers on the right. They just keep repeating themselves, and looking increasingly desperate and stupid in the process.

How about a real government for the people?

By Distributorcap

We thought it was bad when Bush was in charge, but just look at the simpletons running the House of Representatives now. It's Titticut Follies meets Duck Soup.

Boehner, Cantor, McConnell, and the entire new crop of teabagging dingbats like Rand Paul and the freshmen reps give new meaning to the Peter Principle. Face it, we have a completely broken government put in power by a completely broken electoral system.

It is really time Americans took a hard look at our system and organization of government (which we won't) and change the things that are driving us into the cesspool (which of course we won't). For over 200 years we have basically followed the principles and doctrines of the founding fathers -- Madison, Jefferson, Adams, and all the other 18th-century scholars. Stability in the process of law has been our strength. It might now also be one of our greatness weaknesses. Plus, it is the 21st century, and most Americans are barely treated as 3/5 of a person.

The Amendments

So grounded are we in NOT changing, there have only been 27 amendments to the U.S. Constitution in over 200 years. Of the 27, some are not really laws to govern by but rather corrections to flaws and issues stemming from the original document.

The 18th and 21st amendments deal with prohibition (which in reality had nothing to do with government) and negate each other. The 23rd (electoral representation for D.C.) and the 19th (giving women the right to vote) are corrections to obvious flaws. One can argue the 20th (which deals with term-end dates), the 24th (poll taxes), and the 25th (presidential succession) are really just clarifications of early laws. And finally the last amendment, the 27th (congressional compensation), has nothing to do with the rule of law. That leaves 19 amendments that have dealt with shifting times and a more complex country. One could even argue that the 13th amendment, which abolished slavery, is not an amendment to govern but a correction to a horrible mistake. Many racists Republicans are gunning to get rid of the 14th.

And guess what, with so few changes to an ideology established in a period that bears little relationship to an era of instant information in a shrinking world, our government continues to detract from its original aspiration and devolve into an incredibly dysfunctional body. Sure, a large chunk of people (like the right wing and others) will say our Constitution is the single greatest document laying down the basis for the single greatest political system ever (it is not; it allowed George Bush to be elected). So how dare we tinker with it. Well, arrogance knows no bounds from people unwilling or unable to adjust to the world as it is. That attitude and a quarter gets you more worthless American currency and more Congressmen like Jim DeMint and Louis Gohmert.

Here is my two cents: The Constitution (and the political process) ain't working. It needs an extreme makeover. Think Joan Rivers. There are those who do not want change: those in power (who are more and more looking like a bunch of less and less intelligent media whores) and the (allegedly non-ideological) media, both of whom have very little incentive to alter the structure that put/keeps them in power in the first place. Almost anyone in government today (from all political bents) would poo-poo any suggestion of major constitutional rewrites. But to survive as a viable and thriving society in a world of diminishing resources, floundering leadership, and increased divisiveness, we must consider moderation to the very fundamentals that brought us to the place we are at. Change or die. Survival of the fittest.

Here are some of my thoughts – food for discussion. They are not wrong or right, just some ideas on improving a broken (yes, broken, dilapidated, and now dangerous) system.

Elections

First I will say that I wish we had the parliamentary form of government like Canada, Britain, or Australia, where the party in power chooses the leader of government and can also fall from power before the end of the term. There are tons of pluses and minuses to this form of government. But for now I will work within the basic confines of the current government structure.

All elections should be held on Sunday (don't give me the lame excuses of Church or religion or the day of rest -- almost every other nation in the world votes on a weekend, and most churches today are political hotbeds anyway), so yhat people could vote and not worry about the kids at school or getting time off from work. Or if that doesn't suit you, have a two-day election Saturday and Sunday. EVERY polling place in the nation has the same equipment, all with paper trails. If you want early mail-in voting, fine. For the presidential elections, all polls close at the same time, 12 midnight ET, 9 pm PT, 6 pm in Alaska and Hawaii -- one day every four years is not too much to ask of a late-night election. This Tuesday nonsense is, well, nonsense and utterly ridiculous.

The campaigns go on way too long – they really become more of a turnoff and often evolve into a mudslinging anger-fest right out of As The World Turns. The 2012 campaign has been in full force for nearly a year (just watch any cable show and the handicapping is in full bloom). Stopping candidates from early or long campaigning is impossible and fraught with free speech implications, but you can limit advertising and debates to a narrow period of time. (I realize there are major freedom of speech issues with this as well, but what is more important, an honest debate or permanent campaigns to ensure pundits have a job?) The primary process sucks. It is long, expensive, and cumbersome. It should be divided into four regional super-primaries instead of a six-month drawn-out media party. The primaries should be about the candidates and issues, not about what the media wants in terms of covering the candidates and the issues (there is a big difference). Plus, it is expensive. We complain about all the money in politics, and all the donations. When you have a six-month primary system done on such a local-local level, it is bound to get very pricey.

(This issue of money and elections is a whole post unto itself.)

Presidential Election

The Electoral College needs major reformation or to be junked completely. My belief is to ditch the bitch -- get rid of it. It is an anachronism, developed (in my opinion) for arrogant and snobby reasons. The presidency is the only political office in the country that is elected by the entire country, and the current bizarre system allocates votes based on a lopsided and unfair weighting system. This is an electoral system that puts the states (or federalism) above the people (or populism). Votes in Alaska count much more than votes in California. It is a ridiculous and dispiriting procedure. And it is expensive. It is not one man, one vote, and it seems to me to be more Soviet-style than democratic.

We should have a national election where the winner is determined by a plurality of the popular vote, period. Sure, the "get to know the candidate" in more remote places will go away, but to my mind that is a small tradeoff for having every person count the same. Besides, with social media and invasive cable, every candidate is everywhere, everyday. Hand-to-hand campaigning would still be necessary, as would local stops. Right now a Republican would barely venture into New England or New York, a Democrat avoids the places like Kansas or Idaho -- that all would change. The Republicans in Massachusetts would have to be courted, just as the Democrats in Utah would have to be. Diehards would hate this, but too bad -- who cares what the diehard traditionalists think? The upside of this change far outweighs the downside, since the current system is ALL downside.

There is really no valid reason to keep the Electoral College other than tradition and the excuse that James Madison knew more than we did. Sure people will say it protects states' rights, minorities, and the two-party system. Protecting the two-party system is the last thing we should want. But is the presidency about the federal system or about representing the people of the nation?

Three times -- in 1876, 1888, and 2000 -- the candidate with the most popular votes lost to someone with more electoral votes. That is clearly not the will of the people but rather the will of the states. Why should someone in Wyoming have more say that someone in Oregon? The Declaration of Independence should be re-written to start "we the states" rather than "we the people" if that is what we really want from the presidency.

More importantly, we all know first-hand what happens when someone ignores the will of the people -- you get the idiocy of the self-anointed and power-hungry King George (yes we could have dumped him in '04, but if logic prevailed he should not have even been there for dumping). Plus, a little-revealed fact, the current Electoral College setup basically allows the electors to vote for whomever they want to. They do not have to vote for the candidate chosen by their state. While 24 states have laws to punish this, only ONE (Michigan) has the power to actually cancel that "faithless" vote. So in some surreal setting, a candidate could win the popular vote and the electoral vote and still not be elected president. Unlikely, but theoretically possible. This is not democracy, it is lunacy. To me, almost anything is better than the current Electoral College.

I go back and forth as to what would be best with regard to term limits for the president. As currently -- two four-year terms? One six-year term? No limit? I am not sure, but I lean towards one six-year term.

And oh, the Supreme Court cannot stop recounts, and if a justice fails to disclose his wife's income he is automatically impeached.

Congress

The District of Columbia either becomes or is treated just like a state for national political purposes. Zero discussion on this. The fact D.C. residents have no Congressional representation is ludicrous. They're held hostage by the Republicans since over 80 percent of all voters in D.C. are Democrats.

The House of Representatives continues to be population-based. I don't know what the magical number of reps should be, but for argument's sake I would up the number to 565, which is taking the U.S. population of 309,000,000 in 2010 and dividing it by the population of the smallest state (Wyoming at 545,000). Of course, you wouldn't want to change the number of reps every year or even every ten. Just keep it at the base of 565. Frankly, the larger number, the more unmanageable an already unmanageable body would become. Under this algorithm, New York would have 34 reps, while Colorado would have nine.

There should be no gerrymandering of districts -- districts should ONLY be reassigned if the state gains/loses a House seat every ten years after the Census. Districts should be redrawn by bipartisan committee, with strict guidelines, not by state legislatures (no weird shapes to get in certain groups, minorities, or parties in certain districts). You cannot keep all politics out of districting, but it can and should be limited.

Reps should be required to be present for a certain number or percentage of votes or else are admonished, fined, or kicked out. Terms should be increased to three years (these two-year terms practically require reps to start campaigning the day the are elected). One-third (188) could be elected every year, keeping a rotation.

The Senate should be adjusted for some population-based figures. Having two senators from Alaska and two from California is plain stupid and unfair. I propose the top 17 states get three senators, the next 17 get two senators, and the bottom 17 (remember D.C. is added) get one senator. 102 senators, voted by their full state. In addition, three senators are elected by the entire country, essentially stateless senators, for a total of 105. The party with the most senators is in charge. Six-year terms remain, with 1/3 up for election every two years. Same deal on the minimum number of votes as for the House. NO FILIBUSTERS unless the senator actually does his best James Stewart.

If you think that basing both Houses on some sort of population count will really tilt the Congress towards the big states too much, then let's go with the Senate remaining with two senators from each state (102 including D.C.), plus three at-large senators elected either regionally or nationally. These senators would not answer to any one state. Total: 105 senators. There is nothing magic about 100 senators other than the round sounding of the total. Before 1959, there were 96 Senators.

Both bodies should be required to remain in session a minimum of 230 days/year. NO DISCUSSION. This is not a country club. That still leaves six weeks vacation for all Congressmen and plenty of time for Boehner to play golf.

Supreme Court

For this body I have absolutely no issues with term limits -- there should be. These are not elected officials answering to the people, they are appointed, and appointed with politics squarely in mind.

Nine justices, 18-year term limit. Every two years one justice steps down as his/her term expires. This way every president would get to nominate at least two justices (resignation and death would cause an immediate refill of the seat, regardless of the term order, and the appointee would fill the remaining term). The president continues to nominate and the Senate continues approval. This way you would not be stuck with a Scalia or Thomas for a lifetime. The politics of the Supreme Court could change every two years depending on the rotation and the president. In today's court you can predict the vote on every case almost to a tee. There should be strict ethics and guidelines for justices with respect to politics and even the appearance of impropriety. No lunches with the Koch boys.

Chime in. Am I that out to lunch?

The political pendulum of potential revolution

Guest post by Nicholas Wilbur 

Nicholas Wilbur is an award-winning reporter and opinion columnist turned political junkie and critic. He is the founder of the blog Muddy Politics and lives in New Mexico.

(Ed. note: This is Nicholas's third guest post for us. You can find his first two, both on the Obama-GOP tax deal, here and here. -- MJWS)

********** 

A friend asked me recently, "Is there a revolution approaching?"

It was not a stupid question. Given the turmoil in Washington over tax cuts, immigration reform, unemployment benefits, gay rights versus military policy, the constitutional challenges to health-care reform, a quasi-filibuster in the Senate against affluence, and the continued existence of the government itself (via a controversial omnibus funding bill), revolution seems possible if not inevitable.

After the midterm elections, most assumed that the politicking and trash-talking of the campaigns would subside, that the lame-duck Congress would pass the last two months of the year making headlines only when reporters with a quota wrote fluffy filler features about golf games and vacation plans for the slew of Democrats retiring in January.

Obviously, that hasn't been the case. But political turmoil, brutal policy battles, inter-party fighting and even the near severing of the liberal base from the alleged liberal of the decade, the prophet of progressivism, the headman of hope, Barack Obama, are not signs of revolution.

They're signs of life in the most deplorable sense of the term – proof that, in a bittersweet, backward and still disappointing way, Washington is functioning. The fact that a socialist senator from Vermont carried the day as the No. 1 Twitter trend with his 8 1/2-hour filibuster means only that politics continues to provide ample entertainment for Americans, and – to the shame of too few Americans – for the rest of the developed world as well.

The truth is, revolution in America is a dream, a distant, out-of-touch fantasy with worse odds than a three-legged mule competing in the Daytona 500. A few will talk of it, a few less will listen, but fewer still will actually do anything to achieve it – mainly because nobody knows where to start, much less where to end.

Sen. Bernie Sanders’ filibuster speech proved this.

In talking about tax cuts for the wealthy, he went on for hours about rich people's control of the banks, the markets, the marketplaces – Wal-Mart, of course, not excluded. He railed against classism, inequality, education, poverty, corruption, and more – issues that millions of Americans fight for and against daily, whether volunteer social workers or over-paid corporate lobbyists.

And that is the dilemma.

It is the reason the majority of Americans generally tune out news from Capitol Hill. It is the reason politics is such a dirty word that patriarchs prohibit it as a dinner conversation topic. It is the reason so many feel helpless to the point of foregoing their most basic rights as United States citizens: voting.

There are too many issues to tackle, too many injustices to protest, too many wrongs to right – and not nearly enough time to adequately address them, even as a salaried member of Congress, who proved this by talking instead of marching, lecturing instead of fighting, and filibustering an issue all but decided after sitting on the sidelines as the policies that created these social ills were pushed through Congress, in many cases, decades ago.

Four thousand people began following Sanders on Twitter throughout and after his speech, and the blogosphere twitterpated with admiration, confusion, false hope, and a renewed longing for the long-abandoned utopian dream. The bleeding hearts fluttered anew with the romantic idealism of progressive revolution even as our elected members of Congress yawned and exited the building, knowing full well the difference between symbolic gestures and realistic political solutions.

It's difficult to gauge what is sadder, the fact that Sanders was correct and still ineffective in riling even his fellow lawmakers, or the fact that as his speech turned heads continent to continent, the most staunch supporters of his ideals did nothing but forward e-mails, "Like" Facebook pages, and "retweet" pragmatically impossible progressive talking points.

When unemployment begins to fall, steadily or slightly, the focus of American media consumers will adjust accordingly. The hostility of D.C. politics will be buried in the papers and ignored by the masses once again.

The truth was written by a Marine nearly four years ago on a wall nearly in Ramadi, Iraq, and it speaks beyond foreign policy: "American is not at war... America is at the mall."

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.)

The hypocrisy of the right and the real cost of smaller government

By R.K. Barry 

This is the kind of thing that surprises no one, but let's talk about it anyway. 

Chuck Todd from NBC, among others, reports the following from an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll: 

66% of voters in the survey say cutting spending was a "major" reason in their support of a candidate in the midterms, a whopping 70% of adults say they are uncomfortable with cuts to Medicare, Social Security, and defense programs -- which just happen to be the biggest sources of federal spending. Another 59% say they're uncomfortable about raising taxes (on gasoline, for example) or changing the tax code (like eliminating deductions on home mortgages) to reduce the deficit. And another 57% are uncomfortable about raising the Social Security retirement age to 69 by 2075 to reduce the deficit. 

Yup, all these people want smaller government. They just don't want anyone to do anything that would actually make it smaller. 

Hard to believe, but apparently a lot of people vote with limited regard for what their preferred candidates say or fail to say. During the campaign, on election day, and ever since, Republican politicians have been dodging the question about what they would cut to make government smaller to deal with the deficit/debt. And for some reason their supporters let them get away with it. 

Even now, Republican-speaking-points-of-the-moment are that we all need to have an "adult conversation" about what has to go, which is just code for the fact that they still don't want to talk about it. And of course the reason these politicians don't want to talk about it is that they know the people who voted for them don't really want to talk about it. No, these Tea Partiers and fellow travelers think that government will get smaller by a simple act of will or that if there is any pain it will be endured by those who deserve it. 

I'm not surprised. I'm just saying that I hope all those people who think they were voting against incumbents because they believed conservative candidates had an acceptable plan to achieve cuts are having just a little bit of buyer's remorse. 

Turns out those folks you voted for don't have any answers either, at least none you're going to like. And the thing is, they knew they didn't have any answers. Man, who saw that coming and do you feel stupid yet? You got hosed.

Truth in Comics

By Creature


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

The U.S. National Security State

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Make sure to read this -- all of it: "A hidden world, growing beyond control," by Dana Priest and William M. Arkin of The Washington Post, a terrifying exposé of the post-9/11 national-security state:

The top-secret world the government created in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work.

Glenn Greenwald is right (and read his post, too):

We chirp endlessly about the Congress, the White House, the Supreme Court, the Democrats and Republicans, but this is the Real U.S. Government:  functioning in total darkness, beyond elections and parties, so secret, vast and powerful that it evades the control or knowledge of any one person or even any organization.

The Founders, I suspect, would not be amused.

When government goes kaput

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Government is broken, say the American people, according to a new CNN poll:

Eighty-six percent of people questioned in the poll say that our system of government is broken, with 14 percent saying no. Of that 86 percent, 81 percent say that the government can be fixed, with 5 percent saying it's beyond repair.

This is higher than it was just a couple of years ago.

But... is it? Is government really broken?

Let's not overlook the fact that much of public perception at the moment is driven by seriously negative economic considerations, with the economy still struggling, unemployment still a problem, and uncertainty very high.

Much of it, too, is driven by the ugliness of the legislative process -- sausage-making, as they say.

The "widespread frustration," as Steve Benen calls it, is understandable. The abject failings of the process in Washington -- on health-care reform, for example -- really do seem to amount to "a national scandal, which directly undermines our strength as a country."

But I think Steve is right that much of the frustration can be traced directly to the obstructionism-at-all-costs of the Republican opposition, and that it is imperative that Democrats break through that barrier:

[I]f those who feel that the government is broken don't know and/or understand why, the palpable aggravation is of no value. The key is for Americans -- who neither know nor care about things like "filibusters," "cloture votes," and "holds" -- to appreciate the role congressional Republicans have played in shutting down the American system of government. It's a disgrace that regular folks seem wholly unaware of.

It's also a reminder to policymakers that, while some of the frustration may be ideological, much of it is also the result of the public growing impatient, waiting for progress that isn't happening...

When folks perceive their government as "broken," I suspect it's because of what the president identified -- a perception that policymakers simply can't solve obvious problems in need of solutions.

It speaks to the need for Senate Democrats to do whatever it takes -- reconciliation, nuclear option, anything -- to get the legislative process moving again.

In other words, Democrats, don't let the poll numbers scare you off, and don't equate the public's frustration with firm opposition to your agenda.

It's simple. Actually getting stuff done -- and, with your large majorities, stuff can get done despite persistent Republican obstructionism -- will show that government isn't broken.

Take health-care reform, the specifics of which remain popular. Ultimately, you'd reap the political benefit of enacting change and breaking the perceived paralysis in Washington. Not to mention that it's the right thing to do.

So, yes, government is "broken," in a sense. But some courage and conviction on the part of Democrats, who in '06 and '08 were entrusted with power at both ends of Pennsylvania Ave., would prove that the problem is fixable, or at least that it can be overcome, and that government can still address the very real problems facing Americans with assertive, responsible action.

Why 60?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I would like to see us at 60. I would like to see some bipartisan support for this bill,

said Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) on CNN yesterday.

That's great, Senator, so would I, and so would many of us. But let's be realistic, no? It feels like I've said this a million times already, but the Republicans, save perhaps for one half of the Maine delegation, aren't interested in reform and are actually doing everything they can to obstruct, to block, to oppose, to lie, to propagandize, and, basically, to make sure that meaningful reform -- that is, reform with a public option, but pretty much any reform that means anything other than more of the failing status quo -- never sees the light of day. I mean, honestly, did you ever take Chuck Grassley seriously? If so, do you still? If so, you need a reality check.

And why 60? Because you genuinely believe in supermajority rule? Because you believe that reform of any kind, or especially such significant reform, requires more than a simple majority? Please note, the Republicans for their part don't believe this themselves. Remember how they rolled over for Bush?

Or is it rather because Republicans, along with their media mouthpieces, including in the MSM, have convinced you that 60 is the magic number, that anything less is undemocratic, even un-American?

Again, why 60? Why such reverence for filibuster-proofness?

The U.S., lest we forget, does not have a simple unicameral system. It's not a system in which a simple majority can do whatever it wants whenever it wants. There are checks and balances. In this case, any reform bill would have to pass two legislative bodies and receive the approval of the president -- and then be subject to Supreme Court review, if challenged.

As it happens, lest we forget -- lest you not be clear about this, Senator -- the Democrats, your party, currently have fairly large majorities in both houses of Congress. There's also a Democrat in the White House. So why all the effort to give in to Republicans? Sure, I can understand the desire to reach out, to seek bipartisan support, to craft a reform bill that isn't merely a Democratic bill. Again, though, the Republicans have had their chance, have they not? Democrats have gone above and beyond what they ever needed to do, and Republicans, in their way, have responded as they usually do, with nothing but contempt.

And so why 60? What's wrong with 58 or 59 to go along with the Democratic majority in the House -- and with President Obama?

Do what's right for the country, Senator. Do what's right, period.

Quote of the Day: Jonathan Chait on who, or what, is really to blame for the whole health-care debacle

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Well, the Republicans are to blame, of course. But, for Democrats, here's some much-needed perspective from TNR's Jon Chait:

The Senate is what controls the process. That's the chokepoint for any health care bill. The question isn't how badly Obama wants a public plan, or how much he cares about bipartisanship. It's whether moderate to conservative Democrats in the Senate will filibuster a bill that has a public plan or lacks GOP support. Everything else is details.

In other words, it's not all Obama's, or even primarily Obama's fault. And if Democrats, and especially the more progressive ones, want to lay some blame, they should look no further than the Senate.

I sort of buy this and sort of don't. Obama certainly could have done more -- and should do more -- to promote meaningful health-care reform with a robust public option. But he's also a realist, and there's only so much he can do, not just given these structural/institutional limitations but given how much political capital he's already spent on the stimulus package and the bank and auto bailouts.

And the key is not so much to secure the support of obstructionist Republicans opposed to reform, including the three in the Gang of Six, but to keep moderate/centrist Democrats in the fold. Which is easier said than done, of course, what with the likes of Joe Lieberman, Mary Landrieu, Max Baucus, Kent Conrad, and Ben Nelson now doing their best Republican impressions. (It's also a bit rich for the generally moderate/centrist Chait to be calling upon liberals in the party to try to oust these more right-leaning Democrats. For more on this, see Greenwald.)

There is still hope for reform, of course. With Republicans looking more and more like the obstructionists they are, and showing more and more that what they really want is not compromise but no reform at all, Democrats are slowly but surely turning away from the possibility of a bipartisan bill, realizing that, if reform is to get done, they'll have to go it alone. Whether they'll be able to or not, given the Republican-lite positions of Lieberman et al., remains to be seen, just as it remains to be seen whether Obama will put a stop to the phony "post-partisan" niceties and lead the fight for meaningful reform. Which may be his plan, after all: Make a show of reaching out, genuinely, to Republicans, allow Republicans to expend their energy refusing to negotiate in good faith, move in and promote a Democratic bill while Republicans are relegated to the sidelines, blamed for their obstructionism, and emerge with what he wanted all along.

Once again, I fear I'm being naively optimistic. Regardless, I think Chait is right that it's hardly all Obama's fault. He can only do so much, after all, and there is only so much that can be done with members of his own party blocking the way.

Well, it's not same-sex marriage legalization, but...

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It's something, and it's certainly not meaningless, and, well, it's a major step in the right direction:

President Obama will announce [today] that he is extending federal benefits to include unmarried domestic partners of federal workers, including same-sex partners, White House officials said [last night].

Obama will sign an executive order implementing the change in the Oval Office, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity to avoid upstaging the president's announcement.

The move would give partners of federal employees access to health care and financial benefits such as relocation fees for moves. The State Department announced a similar extension of benefits last month, with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton calling it "the right thing to do." [I posted on that here.]

But it's not nearly enough. How about repealing "Don't ask, don't tell," the stupid, bigoted policy that effectively keeps (open) gays and lesbians out of the military, or pushes them out? And how about taking some leadership on same-sex marriage (as some governors and state legislatures are)?

That, apparently, is not change Obama believes in. As much as I like and admire him, his conservatism on these key gay rights issues is a major blight on his presidency.

"Activists and Candidates"

By Carol Gee

It takes both activists and candidates to make our political system work well. Each new era brings in new generations of both citizen categories. Matt Blizek at Democracy for America recently used that phrase in his e-mail to me. It was striking to think that we all could be trained together. That activism was used in the same breath with candidacy, was a pleasing thought. To quote Matt's piece:

When Gov. Howard Dean founded Democracy for America, he insisted that one of our core missions would be training a new generation of activists and candidates in states all across the country.

And that's exactly what we've done.

The DFA Campaign Academy has trained over 10,000 activists and candidates at nearly 100 weekend trainings in 38 different states -- we're not going to stop now.

The election is over, the 111th Congress is working successfully to pass legislation, and Tuesday night our new President spoke to the Congress and to all of us about his plan for next steps. CQ Politics had the story: "Obama pledges an America 'Stronger than Ever." Craig Crawford's blog Trail Mix at CQ Politics adds a nice touch. "Introduction inflation grips Congress." And, like thousands of activist bloggers, a fellow member of the Political Voices of Women Blog Community covered the Presidential Address that night.

President Obama talked about the economic recovery legislation just passed by Congress. And there is much more to come regarding energy, education and health care. President Obama expects a healthy national debate on reforming health care. Democrats.com has a way for citizens to "Tell Congress we want single payer health care" (2/16/09), if that is your preference. Mitch Stewart at Organizing for America, the new iteration of the Obama campaign website, now under the DNC sent an interesting e-mail on Monday that really pertains to those of us who helped get the stimulus bill passed. He said,

"Your representatives need to hear from you when they vote for the change you mandated in November. Doing what's right can be thankless when the culture of Washington tries to make political games out of the issues that matter to everyday Americans.

You're part of a powerful grassroots movement that can change that dynamic.

[regarding calling your legislator] Here are some suggested talking points for your call:

- I'm calling to thank [Congress member's name] for supporting the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
- I'll be watching closely online and in the news how taxpayers' money is spent in the implementation of this Act.
- I encourage [Congress member's name] to continue working with President to lift America out of this economic crisis.

Activists also write in addition to talking to your Senators and Representatives. And we link to each other more than to newspapers, it seems. I recently found this at blogasm: "50% of links on Technorati Top 10 blogs lead to other blogs. Only 4% lead to newspapers" (2/22/09). One of the most successful bloggers, FDL's Christy Smith wrote a piece that I highly recommend, "Bloggers as watchdogs: Liberal blogging in a Democratic administration" (2/21/09).

Activists in my state of Texas usually have our hands full. For example, ACLU of Texas supports the Fifth Circuit suit challenging the Texas legislature's addition of the word "pray" to activities permitted during schools' mandatory moment of silence, because it is already protected in the Constitution. In another case (2/11/09) ACLU of Texas wanted help: Please contact the Office of the Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Justice and request that it conduct a full investigation of RCDC, the Reeves County Detention Center.

Reference -- ProPublica introduced Change Tracker: Tracking Change in Washington (2/19/09). It "watches pages on whitehouse.gov, recovery.gov, and financialstability.gov so you don’t have to. When the White House adds or deletes anything— say a blog post, or executive order—ChangeTracker will let you know, if you sign up for the alerts.

See also Behind the Links, for further info on this subject.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Updated Obama Primer

By Carol Gee

"Barack Obama 1-2-3-4-5"

This post was first written on 3/22/08. For today I've updated the original a bit and reposted it. It amounts to a little "pocket reference" for keeping connected with (or regarding) President Obama.

Obama on the Web - In chronological order:

Barack Obama and Joe Biden: The Change We Need -- Obamba Blog, Obama Store: This is the original campaign web site, Obama for America*.

The Inauguration of President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden -- This was the site of the Presidential Campaign Committee, fronted by Senator Dianne Feinstein.

USA Service.0rg -- This was the web site that was used with the thousands of volunteers who participated in the MLK National Day of Service on January 19.

Welcome to the White House -- The main website of President Obama's administration. It replaced White House.gov in the blink of an eye at noon on January 20. It can also be reached via a link (click Executive Branch) at "Federal Government" at USA.gov.

USAspending.gov -- is the result of legislation authored by Senators Obama and Coburn in 2006 and launched in 2007. To quote Obama,

"We should do everything we can to ensure that the American public can easily access and track how the Federal government does its business," said Senator Obama. "Our government took an important step last year by launching USASpending.gov and giving ordinary citizens an important tool to hold Washington accountable.

"*Obama for America becomes Organizing for America" in a merger with the Democratic Party. David Plouffe, the Obama campaign manager, will remain involved. Former Governor Tim Kaine has replaced former Governor Howard Dean as Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Marc Ambinder explains (1/17/09):

The Obama political machine is merging with the Democratic National Committee.

The President-elect launched Obama 2.0, or Organizing for America, this morning with a YouTube video.

An Obama political aide said that OFA will be housed at the Democratic National Committee, resolving a longstanding debate about whether the entity should be separate.

A press release prepared by OFA calls the organization "the next phase" of the Obama organization, and will offer "volunteers the continued opportunity to work for change in their communities by organizing in support of reform in Washington."

From the original post -- March 2008

Barack Obama: My Space

Barack Obama: Wikipedia

3/18/08:" The Speech" from NYT Obama on Race

Foreshadowing References -- I found it interesting to see his progression in print as I wrote the first post.

Roots -- From Voice of America, "Obama Receives Hero's Welcome at His Family's Ancestral Village in Kenya" Nairobi 27 August 2006.

National oratory -- Barack Obama: 2004 Democratic Convention Speech

Environment -- From Grist/Muckraker Barack Star :"Illinois Senate candidate Barack Obama's got green cred." By Amanda Griscom, 04 Aug 2004 To quote:

"Environmentalism is not an upper-income issue, it's not a white issue, it's not a black issue, it's not a South or a North or an East or a West issue. It's an issue that all of us have a stake in," Obama shouted. "And if I can do anything to make sure that not just my daughter but every child in America has green pastures to run in and clean air to breathe and clean water to swim in, then that is something I'm going to work my hardest to make happen."

The crowd went bananas in response to this call for unity across ethnic and socio-economic lines, as though they'd been waiting for exactly this kind of dynamic leader to free environmentalism from the perception that it's predominately a white upper-middle-class issue.

Obama's environmental activism stretches back to his undergrad days at Columbia University, during which he did a three-month stint with a Ralph Nader offshoot organization trying to convince minority students at City College in Harlem to recycle. Later, when he worked as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago, he fought for lead abatement in the Altgeld Gardens neighborhood.

Harvard Law Review -- Barack Obama in New York Times Feb. 6, 1990, "First Black Elected to Head Harvard's Law Review." To quote:

The new president of the Review is Barack Obama, a 28-year-old graduate of Columbia University who spent four years heading a community development program for poor blacks on Chicago's South Side before enrolling in law school. His late father, Barack Obama, was a finance minister in Kenya and his mother, Ann Dunham, is an American anthropologist now doing fieldwork in Indonesia. Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii.

''The fact that I've been elected shows a lot of progress,'' Mr. Obama said today in an interview. ''It's encouraging.

''But it's important that stories like mine aren't used to say that everything is O.K. for blacks. You have to remember that for every one of me, there are hundreds or thousands of black students with at least equal talent who don't get a chance,'' he said, alluding to poverty or growing up in a drug environment.

. . . On his goals in his new post, Mr. Obama said: ''I personally am interested in pushing a strong minority perspective. I'm fairly opinionated about this. But as president of the law review, I have a limited role as only first among equals.''

Therefore, Mr. Obama said, he would concentrate on making the review a ''forum for debate,'' bringing in new writers and pushing for livelier, more accessible writing.

. . . Professors and students at the law school reacted cautiously to Mr. Obama's selection. ''For better or for worse, people will view it as historically significant,'' said Prof. Randall Kennedy, who teaches contracts and race relations law. ''But I hope it won't overwhelm this individual student's achievement.''

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Inauguration Wednesday

By Carol Gee

Wednesday's promised analysis of my predictions made yesterday:

Inauguration (January 20)... In advance, here is my fantasy, my prediction --

The day will be cold and gray. The crowds will be huge, millions, in fact. And they will be well-behaved, for the most part. Except for those people desperate to use one of a limited number of Porta-Potties. It could get ugly. Not everyone will be able to use their cell phones or Blackberries at the same time, due to overloading of the system. But eventually everyone will get home and get back in touch.

The day was cold and sunny, bright and beautiful. Estimates of crowd size centered around two million. They were well-behaved. Initial reports were that there were no arrests. Cell phone service was reported to be "problem-free" to "spotty." Extensive research proved unsuccessful as to whether there were enough Porta-Potties. Perhaps one of my readers knows. Finally, it is too soon to tell whether there are still lost souls wandering around in Washington D.C.

The moods will be wide-ranging -- excited, joyful, moved to tears, confused, anxious and relieved. People, filled with optimism, will have a spirit of helpfulness, of generosity and of shared community. They must be prepared for a great deal of celebration and stress, all at the same time. And they will have to be rather physically fit. The walks will be long, the pavement hard, the grass bumpy and the seating nonexistent. The people who come to see the Inauguration will be kids,... adults and a few very fit Seniors. They will come in all colors and from many different nations in addition to the USA. They will get tired and hungry...

The crowds appeared to be universally happy and excited. Many did shed tears. And there was a great amount of apparent camaraderie. I did read scattered reports of impatient incidents, however. As promised bridges were closed and security was extremely tight. The people all seemed young and vigorous and very diverse. Indeed, many were from out of the country. No one looked ravenously hungry, though we speculated that some "ate mayonnaise sandwiches" in order to make the trip.

The people who are participants in the Inauguration will be well organized, patient, nervous or excited and overcome with emotion at times. There will be lots of Democrats, some Republicans who are required to be there because of their office, and some who want to be there because it is of historic importance. Most will wish President Obama and the First Lady well. Security will be omnipresent and as tense as at any time in memory... And the media will cover it all.

Under close observation participants seemed to be well organized, though the parade did run somewhat late. Everyone looked relatively patient. I detected that President Obama was a bit nervous at the beginning of his speech. Who would not be so, upon seeing the sea of humanity covering the Mall? Chief Justice Roberts' slight oath flub could have been because he is a newbie at oaths of office. Rep. John Boehner never looked happy. President and Mrs. Obama greeted, and were greeted by what seemed like, everyone. Security stopped everyone at the door of the vewing stand. Each party dutifully waited to be announced. I watched MSNBC and C-SPAN; the coverage was different but generally good.

The Inaugural speech will be magnificent and memorable to the millions watching. The Inaugural Poet will wax poetic. The Bible will be Lincoln's, and it will carefully be returned to where it belongs. All the Obamas will be beautiful and stylish. All the Supreme Court Justices will look distinguished. The bands will march smartly in straight lines. The parade will be on time, as will all other elements of the ceremony. And, the day... will make African-Americans and all Americans proud that history is being made in a profoundly important way.

The inaugural speech was not the best speech ever given by the new President, but it served is purpose very well. The domestic/political/economic aspects were adequate and will be functional as a plan for where to begin work. But it was in addressing the world where the speech soared. My favorite line was about "unclinching your fist" to "shake the hand" of unfriendly countries. The Poet was a wonderful wordsmith, modern, powerful and talented. Her cadence was striking. One of my favorite very intimate visuals was when Michelle Obama held the Lincoln Bible for the administration of the oath to her husband. I liked the humanity displayed by the Supreme Court justices: Roberts not perfect, Alito insulted enough to skip the ceremony and O'Conner still robed. The parade, running late like most parades, gave us bands that were as American as apple pie, contrasting in capability, all happy to be included. My favorite parade moment was seeing Montana Senator John Tester astride his steed. The Obamas made up time as they went from Inaugural Ball to Ball. Important history was made on Tuesday.

The power to govern will quickly pass from party to party, peacefully. The White House will get to work quickly, Tuesday afternoon, actually. People from other countries may wonder how we manage to do it this way for hundreds of years. And some may wish they were American. Others will go home and vow to work harder for better government, or peace or maybe revolution. And many others will go back to their own nations feeling that the earth is a bit smaller, and that we are all neighbors, able to be united in spirit despite differences.

The torch of governance passed peacefully from "43" to "44." Now former President Bush listened calmly as his successor subtly took him to task as he spoke to the crowd and the world. And the crowd booed Mr. Bush, it was reported. The new skeleton White House staff were whisked by van to take over at noon. Those outside of the United States, who watched all this, will indicate by their actions as time passes, what they make of the transition between administrations.

The time has come to close. These are my predictions and assumptions. I will post again, post-Inauguration to let you know how I did. Have a great day. Enjoy, celebrate, reflect and hug those you love. Today is January 20, 2009. I thought it would never come. And now it here; I intend to enjoy it to the fullest.

And it is time to close today's post. Where I lacked information I invite my readers to fill me in. I hope that all of you had as good a Tuesday as we enjoyed. It was a magnificent new beginning, for which we had waited 8 years.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)