Hullabaloo

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

 
Think progress reports on the latest in vote suppression coming from the vote suppression innovators, Florida:

Two Florida state representatives told ThinkProgress they believe the larger than usual number of ballot initiatives were part of an intentional strategy aimed precisely at creating long lines and discouraging citizens from voting.

State Rep. Perry Thurston, the incoming House Democratic Leader, said:

Without a doubt it was intentional. The items in those amendments were not items that needed to be placed in our constitution. Such a long ballot that requires so much reading, you see so many of them were defeated. That, along with the cutting back on the days for early voting, the hours. You could just see it coming and it was gonna be turmoil. … It clearly was [the Republican majority's] intention to make it more difficult, and to discourage individuals. There is no way people should be waiting six to seven hours, but four to five hours is too long as well. It’s a sad reflection on our state when you require that kind of time to do something that’s not a privilege but a right.

Rep. Mark S. Pafford (D), agreed that the amendments were designed to slow down voting:

Basically what they did was load up the ballot so more people would have to take time either reading through or standing in lines of five to six hours in Palm Beach County— and make a decision after a long wait. I don’t think there’s any question that what occurred was designed to suppress voters in FL. … We had amendments – the ballot was full of things that, during the holidays, you don’t talk about at home. Religion and politics.

A lot of this seemed to backfire. People don't like having their voting rights manipulated and they proved it by standing in those long lines despite all the efforts to get them to turn away. But they do have lives to live and jobs to go to and it's not going to be as easy in off year elections.

It's truly a travesty that our democracy is subject to this kind of nonsense. If Democrats were smart they'd start running on the issue of electoral reform. I don't think they would pay for it at the polls. In fact, I think they would be rewarded. Americans can be thick sometimes, but I think they have been awakened to the fact that something's gone wrong here.


.
digby 11/14/2012 05:00:00 PM

 
Maybe people care about climate change after all

by David Atkins

Zogby has a post-Sandy poll showing the public increasingly concerned about climate change:

These results show the dramatic impact 2012′s extreme weather has had across party lines, with half of Republicans, 73 percent of independents and 82 percent of Democrats saying they’re worried about the growing cost and risks of extreme weather disasters fueled by climate change. It’s a major change from our December 2009 poll, which showed two-thirds of Republicans and nearly half of political independents saying they were ‘not at all concerned’ about global climate change and global warming. The political climate has shifted and members of Congress need to catch up with their constituents.

Among the poll’s findings:

Two-thirds of voters (65 percent) say elected officials should take steps now to reduce the impact of climate change on future generations, while just 27 percent say we should wait for more evidence.


A strong majority (57 percent) says climate change is adding to the severity of recent extreme weather such as Superstorm Sandy and the summer droughts. Concern is even deeper among key demographics, with 75 percent of Hispanics, 67 percent of African Americans, 65 percent of women, and 65 percent of voters 25-34 agreeing that climate change is fueling America’s extreme weather.

Seven in ten voters (69 percent) are greatly or somewhat worried about the growing cost and risks of extreme weather disasters fueled by climate change. Six in ten (58 percent) of Tea Party sympathizers are greatly or somewhat worried, showing a connection between climate action and fiscal responsibility.

Three times as many voters say the government is doing too little to protect America’s air, water, wildlife and other natural resources (44 percent) as say it’s doing too much (14 percent).

Asked to pick the highest priority to help solve America’s energy challenges, twice as many voters select renewable energy like wind and solar power (38 percent) than any other choice. Independents favor wind and solar over fossil fuels by a 4-to-1 margin – 48 percent pick renewable energy while just 12 percent select the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline and only 11 percent prioritize more oil and gas drilling on America’s public lands.

Two thirds of voters (67 percent) say they’re very or somewhat concerned that political donations by oil, gas and coal industries are influencing politicians in Washington to approve policies that benefit their corporations. The oil and gas industry alone made $59 million in political contributions in the 2012 election cycle and has spent another $104 million on lobbying so far in 2012, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

When asked which political party they trust more to protect America’s air, water, wildlife and other natural resources, twice as many voters choose Democrats (44 percent) than pick Republicans (24 percent). But independents are up for grabs, with 54 percent answering neither/not sure.

The big question is, when does it become politically acceptable to talk about it? How many more cities need to drown before this becomes a top-tier issue?


.
thereisnospoon 11/14/2012 03:00:00 PM

 
Keeping the "urbans" in their place

by digby

When the Republicans get introspective it's always interesting what psychic rocks they end up turning over:

As Representative Paul D. Ryan casts about to find an explanation for the defeat of the Republican presidential ticket, on which he was Mitt Romney’s running mate, he is looking to the nation’s big cities for answers.

“The surprise was some of the turnout, some of the turnout especially in urban areas, which gave President Obama the big margin to win this race,” Mr. Ryan said in an interview with WISC-TV back home in Wisconsin on Monday before returning Tuesday to Capitol Hill for the start of the lame-duck session.

“When we watched Virginia and Ohio coming in,” Mr. Ryan said, “and those ones coming in as tight as they were and looking like we were going to lose them, that’s when it became clear we weren’t going to win.”

Mr. Ryan, now a potential 2016 presidential candidate, has repeated the sentiment in subsequent interviews. And he is not the only conservative who has embraced the notion that a surge of voters in urban America gave Mr. Obama the prize, as many Republicans try to come to grips with how an election they believed was theirs for the taking instead got away.

When I worked in the movie business, I often had to deal with overseas buyers who would explicitly refuse to acquire what they called "urban" movies, because their audience allegedly didn't "relate." That euphemism never fools anyone.

I've rarely had a nice thing to say about Paul Ryan, but I have never thought he was one to pander openly to those members of the base who have, shall we say, somewhat old fashioned views when it comes to race. For all his faults I didn't think he was one of those guys.
But that certainly sounds like one of those guys. And considering the massive effort to portray those voters as attempting to steal elections through voter fraud, this excuse is even more sinister.

Also, Mr Very Serious Budget Wonk got his very serious analysis wrong. Again:

But pointing to urban voters for the Republican failure to win last week does not take into account that the Republican ticket also lost big in some rural, mostly white states, like Iowa and New Hampshire.

And there is little proof from the results of the election that urban turnout over all played the decisive role in swing states like Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia or Wisconsin, where Mitt Romney lost in Mr. Ryan’s suburban home district...

“What Paul Ryan misses is that the Republicans have been losing the urban vote for a long, long time,” said Marc Morial, the president and chief executive of the National Urban League.

Mr. Morial said he did not know why Mr. Ryan was focusing attention on the nation’s urban core as the cause of the Republican losses. But he said the decision by Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan not to attend his group’s annual conference was not a good sign that Mr. Ryan wants more outreach in the future.

Yeah, I'd say that bridge has probably been burned. And that may explain why Ryan's out there still fanning the voter fraud flames.


digby 11/14/2012 01:30:00 PM

 
More reasons why bipartisanship is largely dead, as appropriate

by David Atkins

I've explained before the core reasons why bipartisanship is dead (hint: it's racism and corporatism. Surprised?)

That's the so-called disease. But the symptoms make it even more pronounced. One of the closest Congressional races in the country was right in my backyard, in which Democrat Julia Brownley defeated Republican Tony Strickland. (Disclaimer: I'm the chair of the County Democratic Central Committee here.) A tightly competitive district should make for centrist, moderate politics, right? Well, not exactly. Former Republican-turned-indepedent Supervisor Linda Parks ran in the primary, essentially on the Simpson-Bowles ticket. She even declared that "restoring the nation's bond rating" was essential to creating jobs and improving the economy, a statement as laughably wrong as it is Village centrist orthodoxy. But she lost the open primary to a Tea Party Republican and a progressive Democrat despite being largely popular in the county. How did that happen? Well, the Ventura County Star's Timm Herdt has the tale of the tape:

California's independent redistricting process enabled this state to produce a few districts that are genuinely competitive -- not because they are politically moderate, but because they encompass multiple communities in which the sorting by education, income, ethnicity and other factors has produced conflicting political results. That is the case with Ventura County's 26th Congressional District. It is a competitive district not because it is politically moderate, but because it is politically schizophrenic.

I wrote yesterday about the city-by-city results, and how they show the extreme differences among communities within Ventura County. But on a micro level, the sorting is even more extreme.

Poring through precinct-by-precinct results I came upon a few that stand out for their political homogeneity.

Consider two precincts in Downtown Oxnard that encompass homes and apartments on A, B and C Streets. In precinct 4342, Democrat Julia Brownley beat Republican Tony Strickland 745-158, or with 85 percent of the vote. In neighboring precinct 4361, Brownley won 406-58, which was an even bigger landslide, with 87.5 percent.

Meanwhile, up in the residential palaces around Lake Sherwood, at precinct 7050, Strickland trounced Brownley 563-180, winning 76 percent of the vote.

This is the polarized political world in which we live. Is it really any wonder why our elected representatives have problems with the concept of compromise?

No, it isn't. But that's not a bad thing. Republicans are incredibly wrong on every issue, and morally bankrupt to boot. But at least they have a semi-consistent worldview that makes some internal sense: free market good, poor people lazy and bad, tax cuts good, investment dollars create the jobs, therefore cut social services and taxes on the rich, and a utopia of deficit-free libertarian yet militaristic paradise will result. Progressives, of course, have a worldview based in reality.

But Simpson Bowles? The notion that both raising taxes and eliminating social services during the middle of a recession will "solve" a long-term problem instead of make it worse? The notion that S&P;'s downgrade is more important than the unemployment rate? That's not only stupid beyond words, there's also no political constituency for it. Not in the Oxnards of America, and not in the Thousand Oakses, either.

.
thereisnospoon 11/14/2012 12:00:00 PM

 
Fat Cat whine 'o the day

by digby

Oh God, please someone make them stop:

That's Jamie Dimond sniveling about how Obama needs to stop being so antagonistic toward business. I am reminded of one of my father's more annoying habits when I was a child: whenever I whined like that he'd point his finger in my face and say, "stop it now or I'll give you something to cry about." There are lots of things one could imagine would make Jamie Dimond cry. Raising his taxes "a little bit" is the least of it. Here's Jon Stewart on Whine Country:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

.
digby 11/14/2012 10:30:00 AM

 
Quick, let's make a deal (before the deficit goes away on its own)

by digby

You know that deficit that's killing us? The one we're going to fix by "asking the rich to pay a little bit more" and cutting benefits for everyone else? What if the scam is even worse than we thought?

Dean Baker spills some very inconvenient beans:

[T]he big stick for the deficit hawks was their story of huge deficits in the longer term. They attributed these to the rising cost of “entitlements,” which are known to the rest of us as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

While they like to push the notion that the aging of the population threatened to impose an unbearable burden on future generations, the reality is that most of the horror story of huge deficits was driven by projections of exploding private sector health care costs. Since Medicare and Medicaid mostly pay for private sector health care, an explosion in private sector health care costs would eventually make these programs unaffordable.

As some of us have long pointed out, there are serious grounds for questioning the plausibility of projections that the health care sector would rise to 30 or 40 percent of GDP over the rest of the century. Recently a paper from the Federal Reserve Board documented this argument in considerable detail.

Even more important than the professional argument over health care cost projections is the recent trend in health care costs. While the CBO projections assume that age-adjusted health care costs rise considerably more rapidly than per capita income, in the last four years they have been roughly keeping pace with per capita income.

In fact, in the last year nominal spending on health care services, the sector that comprises almost two-thirds of health care costs, rose by just 1.7 percent. This is far below the rate of nominal GDP growth over this period, which was more than 4.0 percent. While at least some of this slowing in health care costs is undoubtedly due to the downturn, it is hard to believe that it is not at least partially attributable to a slower underlying rate of health care cost growth.

CBO and other budget forecasters can ignore economic reality for a period of time (they ignored the housing bubble until after its collapse wrecked the economy), but if it continues, at some point they will have to incorporate the trend of slower health care cost growth into their projections. When this happens, the really scary long-term deficit numbers will disappear.

A projection that assumes that health care costs will only rise as a result of the aging of the population, and otherwise move in step with per capita income, will lop tens of trillions of dollars off the most commonly cited long-term deficit projections. It would cost some deficit hawks, like National Public Radio, more than $100 trillion of their long-term deficit story. This would be a real disaster for the deficit hawk industry.

This is why the Campaign to Fix the Debt and the rest of the deficit hawk industry will be operating at full speed at least until a budget deal is reached over the current impasse. If CBO adjusts its long-term health care cost projections downward then their whole rationale for gutting Social Security and Medicare will disappear. Now that is really a crisis.

I've been cynical about this whole exercise and don't believe we should do much of anything other than stimulate the economy for the time being. I know that this sense of panic over the the whole thing is a contrivance to force unpopular action. But I have to admit I didn't realize that we had evidence emerging that the deficit projections were already falling short and that there's good reason to suspect that they will be far short of what these fearmongers are selling.

But solving non-existent problems while avoiding real ones seems to be the new American way.

Has anyone even mentioned the fact that we still have 7.9% unemployment? Is that the new normal?

.








digby 11/14/2012 09:00:00 AM

 
The Grand Lie

by David Atkins

Part of what is so frustrating about any conversation about the "deficit" is the obviousness of the lies being told. Conservatives have a decades-long strategy that they have telegraphed since the Goldwater years. It's not complicated, and everyone in politics knows about it:

• 1) Claim that jobs and economic growth depend on tax cuts, especially on the wealthy. Claim that any cuts will pay for themselves. Both of these are lies, and everyone serious in public policy knows it.
  
  2) When revenues dwindle and deficits explode as they have under every Republican President since Nixon, blame "welfare" (a lie) and "spending" (another lie.)
  
  3) Let Democrats be the ones to take responsible measures to bring deficits back under control by sacrificing their own programs. Don't take responsibility for "starving the beast": let Democrats do it instead, and then blame them for it.
  
  4 When good economic times and minor tax boosts bring both the economy back to health and the deficit back in line, tell people that the government has too much money, and that they should "get more of their money back." This is an intentional strategy to drive up the deficit, forcing more cuts later.

That strategy isn't just politics. It amounts to direct economic sabotage--sabotage that everyone in politics and media knows is happening.

And it's happening again right in front of our faces. Twenty years ago a Democratic President was elected in poor economic conditions and saddled with a significant government deficit caused by Ronald Reagan's guns, butter and tax cuts policies. He wasn't perfect by any means, but he created good (if bubble-generated) economic conditions and the creation of federal budget surpluses. George Bush took those surpluses, convinced America to "get its money back", exploded the deficit with tax cuts mostly for the rich, squandered trillions on bungled and/or unnecessary wars, and helped crash the entire world economy.

Four years ago the nation elected a Democratic President whose primary job has been to save the economy from another Great Depression, while helping people's lives and reducing long-term budget problems. Healthcare reform itself was in large part an attempt to reduce budgetary woes arising from exploding healthcare costs. We had another election recently in which conservative ideas were rejected, and the President's approach reaffirmed by the American public.

Yet here we are again, held hostage to the same economic saboteurs using the same destructive tactics as they have for the last 40 years. And everyone paying attention knows about it.

The fact that everyone in the Village Media has bought into the deficit obsession as it were a real thing rather than simply the latest iteration of a decades-long tactic designed to further enrich the wealthy shows not just herd mentality and willful blindness. It shows a craven willingness to go along with direct economic sabotage and shameless lying in the guise of politics as usual.

It's moral tragedy on a grand scale.


.
thereisnospoon 11/14/2012 07:30:00 AM

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

 
Well at least we know we're free

by digby

From the taser files:

The fire was all around Dan Jensen.

He could see it. He could smell it. He could hear it.

It was close enough to touch. It was burning down his neighbor's house. It was creeping toward Jensen's own fence 10 feet away, and he started spraying the fire with his hose.

Police ordered Jensen to get back, and he complied.

But after a few minutes passed without firefighters arriving, a frustrated Jensen stepped forward and leaned down to grab the skinny gray garden hose once again.

That's when he heard the order.

"Hit 'em! Take him down! Tase him!"

Within moments, Jensen was on the ground. He felt electric.

"It was all over me," Jensen said. "Crawling all over me."

The 42-year-old commercial fisherman is still struggling to comprehend exactly how things deteriorated so quickly Thursday. He said he doesn't understand why police shot him with a Taser that night as he tried to battle a house fire at 3420 Beechwood Ter. N.

Jensen's family, friends and neighbors have been quick to defend him and accuse police of crossing a line.

"It was wrong," he said. "There's no way around it. … I was fighting a fire. I wasn't fighting police. I thought they were here to help me. Instead, they hurt me."

Police said they can sympathize with the stress Jensen was under. But they said he put himself and officers in danger when he refused to back down from fighting the fire.

Pinellas Park Capt. Sanfield Forseth told the Tampa Bay Times authorities could have even charged Jensen with obstruction, but decided against it.

But wait, you say. This man was putting himself and the authorities in danger and the police had no choice.

Really? How about this: turn off the water. Cut the hose. Pull him back. Talk to him.

Tasers are dangerous and not just to the public --- they obviously present an even greater threat to the critical thinking capacity of police officers. Once they have them in their hands it appears they are compelled to shoot first and ask questions later. The idea that you have to shoot a citizen full of electricity in this situation is absurd. Moreover, it's a fundamental abuse of authority under color of law. Imagine if they'd walked up behind him and hit him over the head with a baton. Or shot him in the leg. Just because it doesn't leave a mark doesn't mean it doesn't hurt.

They had no need to hurt him. Tasers just make it so easy.


.
digby 11/13/2012 05:00:00 PM

 
Nobody cares about the deficit

by David Atkins

Chris Hayes is a national treasure. Here he beautifully deconstructs the lie that is the fiscal "cliff" and the deficit trolls:


Politics in this country is built on so many intentional lies it's hard to disentangle them all.


.
thereisnospoon 11/13/2012 03:00:00 PM

 
QOTD: Glenn Beck

by digby

He moves in mysterious ways:

“Man, sometimes God really sucks,” 

No, that's not, as you might expect, a comment about the casualties from Hurricane Sandy or children dying of cancer. It was about the GOP's loss of the election.


.

digby 11/13/2012 01:30:00 PM

 
Windfall for the grown-ups

by digby

Regular readers know that I've been dogging this bogus "Fix the Debt" group for many months. It's long been clear that they are working on behalf of those who created the series of arbitrary deadlines called the "fiscal cliff" in order to press for cuts to entitlements.

It turns out they have another, more personal, agenda as well:

When a group of 86 large U.S. companies came out in late October in favor of fixing the debt it was seen as a rare example of corporate unity, and a wake up call on just how urgent an issue the growing federal deficit has become for business.

In a new report, the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), a liberal Washington think tank, argues that the group, called “Fix the Debt” is basically a larger version of an earlier Washington corporate lobbying group called “Win America”, and shares its focus on getting corporate money now being held overseas back into the United States with little or no taxes taken out.

Win America was pushing mainly for a lower tax rate on the repatriation of foreign earnings, but Fix the Debt is instead pushing for a shift by the United States to a territorial tax model. Under this kind of system, the companies would paylittle or no taxes on foreign earnings when those profits are brought into the to US. It’s especially beneficial to companies that earn a significant amount of profit in offshore tax havens.

Such a change would result in a $134 billion windfall for the 63 publicly traded companies in the Fix the Debt coalition, IPS calculates.

These are the people that were described like this in the Washington Post six months ago:

Anyone watching the Washington budget debate over the past decade must have wondered why there didn’t seem to be any grown-ups in the room — someone who could cut through what Honeywell’s Dave Cote calls the “hysteria, histrionics and hyperbole” and force the bickering children to agree on a reasonable compromise.

That’s what the voters want, what the economy demands and what country must now have to regain its confidence and its global influence.

Some grown-ups who have been noticeably absent from this conversation have been the heads of the country’s major corporations, who talk a good game about deficit reduction but haven’t invested the time, money and political capital necessary to jolt the political system from its dysfunctional equilibrium.

That’s about to change. Last week, the first battalion of CEOs showed up in Washington, reporting for duty.

Just what we need --- more generals.

.

digby 11/13/2012 12:00:00 PM

 
Ideological Showdown! (not really)

by digby

So the president is meeting with progressive groups and unions to get a sense of where they stand on the fiscal cliff. What good news. Maybe he'll finally get the message that it's not all about raising taxes it's also about not cutting vital programs for average Americans.

Unfortunately, that's not what reporters seem to think is going to happen. The only argument they seem to think is up in the air is how much the rich are going to be required to pay:

BLITZER: One of the most pressing issues right now for the president of the United States, how to avoid what's called the fiscal cliff. The president is planning a series of meetings with outside groups before sitting down with members of Congress. I'm joined by our chief White House correspondent, Jessica Yellin. Jessica, what's the strategy here?

JESSICA YELLIN, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Hey, Wolf. Well, you know, the president said he felt that one of the problems in his first term was he got stuck in, basically, a headlock with Congress. And he clearly doesn't want to start there in a second term.

So, in the next two days, he's meeting with labor leaders, progressive groups, business and opinion leaders, essentially, to get Democrats on the same page and shore up his own base before talking to Congress.

Now, afterwards, you can expect them to send out selling the message, pressuring members of Congress to pass whatever comes up the negotiations. Also, Wolf, to press the president on their own agenda for the fiscal cliff.

BLITZER: The Democrats, as you know, Jessica, they are certainly not all on the same page, are they?

YELLIN: No, they're not. And you know, we focus on how this is a struggle between the White House and Republicans. It's also a struggle within the Democratic Party. Some Democrats, they say, taxes should go up for families making $250,000 and more like the president. But some say that hits too many middle class families, especially urban and suburban areas.

They want the line to be higher, $500,000 or a million dollars and more. Those are the people who should see their taxes go up and then close deductions for those people, too. So, there will be challenges within the Democratic Party to get everyone together as well as within the Republican Party and some of those labor leaders meeting with the president also want to make sure he doesn't touch Social Security, Wolf.

BLITZER: The president repeatedly says he wants taxes to go up for people who make $250,000 a year or more. So, is that negotiable?

YELLIN: That's big question. You know, that is the official position of the White House. Last week, the president repeated that people making 250,000 and up must pay more was his phrase. He didn't say what rate they must pay. But the question is, will the president move of that? You know, he has made clear, the president has, that he learned lessons from negotiating in his first term.

And one theory is, he could be playing tough with this line and maybe it will be move. He does have a forcing mechanism this time around. Taxes automatically go up if Washington does nothing. So, he has extra motivation on his side to force a deal, maybe that number could change.

BLITZER: Because if Congress does nothing between now and the end of the year, taxes go up on everyone, not just on the wealthy, middle class families. Everyone will see a hike in their taxes starting January 1st.

YELLIN: It gives him more leverage.

BLITZER: Yes. All right. Thanks very much, Jessica, for that.

Now keep in mind that this is the Village POV. I suspect that the president will hear from some of the labor leaders and progressive groups that a few hippies here and they are a tiny bit concerned about the possibility that in the quest for the holy grail of "revenue" from millionaires that the Democrats are going to lose sight of the scope of cuts to vital programs for many millions of average Americans that will required to get them.

From what I can gather that's not high on the agenda. We are apparently on a grand crusade to get tip money from the wealthy and Democrats should be happy to agree to absolutely anything anything that will entice enough Republicans to take that deal. If a few million people have to be sacrificed it will be worth it. Nothing matters more than winning the rich people's chump change debate.

It's unclear how the White House is approaching today's meeting. According to this article by Sam Stein, the progressives are preparing to do battle over the so-called entitlements and will require that a deal features no benefits cuts:

This puts negotiators, mainly those inside 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., in more than just a small bind. During negotiations with House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) in the summer of 2011, the White House was willing to agree to cuts to Medicare, changes to the program's eligibility age, and deductions in Social Security benefits, even without demanding an end to the top-rate Bush tax cuts. A year and a half later, progressives are saying, essentially, don't make that deal again..

Some moderate Democrats are up for reelection in 2014, making them reluctant to cast tough votes. But they already passed the president's preferred tax cut package (raising rates only on incomes above $250,000) and the election results showed that they can run on a no-apology, Democratic platform and win.

"Every signal we've been getting from them is they want to fight this thing and stick to the lines they've drawn on taxes," said a top Senate Democratic aide who spoke about caucus sentiment on condition of anonymity. "We passed that bill already. That was a huge deal. At the times people pooh-poohed it. ... But having [Senators] Jon Tester and Claire McCaskill vote for that bill and win election is a huge deal in terms of morale and fortifying the ranks."

Again with the taxes. Oy. Can we all just agree that everyone in the Democratic party thinks taxes are the greatest thing that's ever happened to America and if we can get Republicans to allow us to raise them "a little bit" on rich people we will be the happiest people on earth?

Anyway, the White House believes they have things well in hand:

The White House also has more political capital now than before. The country just voted in favor of its agenda (parts of which can be accomplished if the president simply vetoes the alternatives). And in addition to a self-proclaimed, quasi-mandate on tax policy -- which Vice President Joe Biden mentioned last week -- there is a sense from within the administration of stronger trust from the base.

"The relationship has come a long way since last summer and it is important to our success that we continue to work well with the progressive community," said one top White House official. "Now, everyone won't agree with everything we do, but having good communication and a foundation of trust is critical to achieving our shared goals."

And our shared goals are? You guessed it -- tax policy. The rest? Well, I'm afraid everybody's got to have some skin in the game, shared sacrifice etc, etc...

Stein appropriately concludes his piece with a lugubrious comment from Third Way:

"I think the idea of thanking the base in some sort of unified, symbolic way is either fantastical or a mistake. I think that is what George W. Bush did in the beginning of '05, when he tried to privatize Social Security, which was the ultimate gift to his base and turned out to be a disaster for him and derailed the rest of his agenda," said Matt Bennett, senior vice president for public affairs and a co-founder of the centrist-Democratic think tank, Third Way. "Obama will have learned that lesson and won't try to hit a grand slam that will solidify his base."'

This is what it's come to: refusing to cut benefits to veterans, the elderly and the sick in order to solve a non-existent problem is considered giving a "gift" to the base. That's a sad comment on our alleged victory on November 6th.


.




digby 11/13/2012 10:30:00 AM

 
General indiscretions

by digby

Wait, what?

The FBI agent who started the case was a friend of Jill Kelley, the Tampa woman who received harassing, anonymous emails that led to the probe, according to officials. Ms. Kelley, a volunteer who organizes social events for military personnel in the Tampa area, complained in May about the emails to a friend who is an FBI agent. That agent referred it to a cyber crimes unit, which opened an investigation.

However, supervisors soon became concerned that the initial agent might have grown obsessed with the matter, and prohibited him from any role in the investigation, according to the officials.

The FBI officials found that he had sent shirtless pictures of himself to Ms. Kelley, according to the people familiar with the probe.

What in the hell is it with all these men sending "sexy" pictures of themselves to strange women? Has this exhibitionist streak always been a lot more prevalent than I knew and they just didn't have an outlet? WTH?

Anyway, the shirtless stud also turns out to be a wingnut, or rather a man who has a "worldview" that made him suspect "a politically motivated cover-up to protect
President Obama. The agent alerted Eric Cantor, the House majority
leader, who called the F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, on Oct.
31 to tell him of the agent’s concerns."

And how about this, from everybody's favorite general--- a man considered so above reproach that the congress actually voted to condemn an outside political group for using the word "betray - us" in the same breath as the great man:

According to the Wall Street Journal, Petraeus and Broadwell used pseudonyms to set up separate Gmail accounts which they used to communicate in secret. Their trove of "sexually explicit emails" were discovered only by accident after Jill Kelley, an acquaintance of Petraeus, complained that she was receiving threatening emails, which led FBI investigators to Broadwell's account and, in turn, to her X-rated messages detailing the affair.

The Journal explains:

FBI agents and federal prosecutors used the information as probable cause to seek a warrant to monitor Ms. Broadwell's email accounts.
They learned that Ms. Broadwell and Mr. Petraeus had set up private Gmail accounts to use for their communications, which included explicit details of a sexual nature, according to U.S. officials. But because Mr. Petraeus used a pseudonym, agents doing the monitoring didn't immediately uncover that he was the one communicating with Ms. Broadwell.

Oh yeah, this was the guy who was head of the most powerful spy agency in the world.

Am I the only one who feels as if the world is getting a little bit too surreal these days?

Update: Wow. I remember a conversation with Chris Hayes about the fact that the military is the last elite institution that seems to be unaffected by the failure of the meritocracy. Ooops:

In a new twist to the Gen. David Petraeus sex scandal, the Pentagon said Tuesday that the top American commander in Afghanistan, Gen. John Allen, is under investigation for alleged “inappropriate communications” with a woman who is said to have received threatening emails from Paula Broadwell, the woman with whom Petraeus had an extramarital affair.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said in a written statement issued to reporters aboard his aircraft, en route from Honolulu to Perth, Australia, that the FBI referred the matter to the Pentagon on Sunday.

I should probably make clear that I could not care less who these Generals are sleeping with. It's a bit odd that the head of the CIA would be dumb enough to leave a paper trail, but whatever. What I am finding interesting is the sudden acknowledgement of a zone of privacy among conservatives who love to control women's reproduction and sexuality and had a field day back in the 90s with a certain president's indiscretions. I'd like to think they are evolving ...

(And yes, I understand that the military has a rule against "adultery" but I think it's stupid.)


.
digby 11/13/2012 09:01:00 AM

 
California's supermajority: use it or lose it

by Robert Cruickshank

[Note: This piece originally appeared on Calitics. I am reposting it in its entirety here with the permission of its author, as I agree with every word. -- DA]

Democratic control of the California State Legislature is nothing new. Since 1970 Democrats have dominated the Capitol, with Republicans having only a narrow majority in the Assembly for a short 2-year period in the 1990s and never having control of the Senate in that time. But since 1978, Democratic majorities have been essentially meaningless. Proposition 13 required a 2/3 vote of the Legislature to raise taxes, a conservative attempt to seize power they had failed to win at the ballot box. In November 2012, Democrats finally won the 2/3 majority in the Legislature that had been so close in recent years.



The question on everyone's mind is now "what will Democrats do with their new power?" To hear California's punditocracy tell it, Democrats shouldn't do much of anything. These pundits, who have been slow to grasp the massive changes in California politics that have unfolded over the last few years, argue that Democrats should be ultra-cautious and resist attempts to make big changes. Larry Gerston provides a classic example of the genre:

Still two facts are clear. First, the Democrats need to be careful not to go so far that they upset those who put them in this exalted position. And second, the Democrats should not take fellow Democrat Jerry Brown for granted as an automatic ally, given Brown's penchant to not raise any taxes without voter approval.

Gerston, like the other pundits, completely misreads the situation. The only way Democrats can upset those who put them in this exalted position is to be hesitant and timid. As recent history shows, Democratic supermajorities always evaporate when they aren't used to solve deeper problems.

California Democrats have a supermajority because the new electorate has killed off the Republican Party, just as I said it would two years ago, and put Democrats in power to renew the California Dream by using government to rebuild social democracy and the prosperity it creates. Democrats didn't win because moderates swung their way, they won the same way President Obama won - by cranking out the progressive electorate to overwhelm the remnants of conservative California.

Here's the key: For Democrats to hold these new seats, they have to keep that base happy and engaged in politics. If they disappoint that base, if they fail to solve the problems of that base, those voters won't turn out in big numbers in 2014 and Democrats will guarantee they will lose the supermajority they finally won.

These pundits, almost all of them white men like me, do not understand this new situation. They're locked into the old mentality of politics, which held that majorities were won by getting enough moderate white support. Those days are over. Here in 21st century California, you win and keep power by engaging, empowering, and improving the lives of a diverse, progressive majority.

History proves this theory. In 2006 and 2008, Democrats won two big national elections, seizing first the Congress and then the White House. Obama's 2008 victory brought with it a Democratic supermajority in the Senate, finally reaching the crucial 60 vote threshold that had long eluded Democrats.

But instead of using this majority to solve the pressing problems facing the country, Democrats took a too-cautious approach. They passed a convoluted health care reform bill that few understood and that didn't excite the base. The February 2009 stimulus was good, if too small, but it wasn't followed up with any systematic job creation efforts. Immigration reform went nowhere. Labor unions and environmentalists sat and watched as their key legislative goals were abandoned. LGBT rights sat on the back burner until activists forced it to the top of the agenda on the eve of the 2010 elections.

The result was that in 2010, the electorate that won the 2006 and 2008 elections for the Democrats stayed home - and Democrats lost the House of Representatives as a result. In 2012, that electorate returned, and Republicans were dealt a smashing defeat.

A similar phenomenon recently took place in a West Coast legislature. In 2006 and 2008, Democrats won 2/3 majorities in Washington State. Just as in Congress, however, Democrats failed to use that majority to solve major problems. Democratic leaders in Olympia chose the path of caution, worried that they would lose the swing seats if they moved too boldly to address the state's revenue crisis, create jobs, or improve schools. But because of that caution, Washington State Democrats failed to reward their electorate, and lost that supermajority in 2010 anyway.

Political reality, then, makes it absolutely clear that Democrats need to deliver meaningful improvements to people's daily lives if they are going to keep their supermajority. However, that doesn't mean they should just pass whatever they want. Legislators should assume any tax increase or substantial policy action will be put on the ballot for a referendum by wealthy conservatives. Democratic leaders will need to work hand-in-hand with California's progressive movement to determine and then implement a reform agenda over the next two years. Only by a coordinated effort will that reform agenda withstand the certain counterrevolution from the rich that would come at the November 2014 ballot.

What should that agenda look like? Here are just a few ideas:

• Make it even easier to vote. Online voter registration was a big key to the Democratic victories this fall, but there's still a lot of work to be done to make it easier for people to express their democratic rights. Same day registration is a good place to start.
• Bring even more revenue to the schools. Even with the passage of Prop 30, there's still a lot of work to do to fix education. As Scott Lay of the Community College League pointed out on Twitter late last week, Prop 30 brings in $200 million for community colleges - but they've faced $800 million in cuts since 2008. Prop 30 will help California's public schools, but they've been underfunded since 1978 and the new revenue won't fully fix that problem. What's the answer - an oil severance tax? More closed loopholes, something voters showed they'd support by passing Prop 39? More taxes on the rich? Whatever the means, California's schools still need help.
• Make sure every Californian gets good health care. There's no excuse now for not passing single-payer, nor is there any excuse for even something as simple as rate regulation for the current private insurers. Health care in California took a lot of cuts since 2007, and the federal health care bill won't fully reverse those problems. Vermont is moving toward a single-payer system. California should join them.
• Do something to create jobs. Recovery is still slow in California, it's uneven, and wages aren't rising as fast as they should. A comprehensive job creation strategy, likely involving direct government hiring, should be high on the agenda. Matching this with clean energy would be a good start. Infrastructure repair makes sense too. And while they're at it, a solution to the ongoing foreclosure crisis would be especially wise from both an economic and a political perspective.
• Fix the Constitution. California's constitution has serious problems that get in the way of effective government. The Democratic supermajority can't amend the constitution itself, but it can propose new amendments without having to raise a dime for signature gathering to do so. Well-funded neoliberal groups like California Backward, whose Prop 31 got clobbered, and Nicholas Berggruen's Think Long group, are likely to come up with their own fixes. Democrats should preempt them with sensible changes.

What might those look like? Fixing Prop 13 would be a good start - a split roll, perhaps? Eliminating the 2/3 rule for local tax revenue is probably a more likely win than eliminating the 2/3 rule for the legislature, and with transportation measures in LA and Alameda counties "failing" even with 64% support, the need for a fix is clear. Dems could even be bold and abolish the useless State Senate and tripling the size of the Assembly. And a fix to the initiative process, whatever that might be, would be especially appropriate after the Munger insanity this year.

That's a brief list, and I'm sure there's a lot more that can and should be listed. But the point here is that unless California's Democratic supermajority uses its power to fix some of the state's deeper problems, they absolutely will lose that supermajority in 2014.


.
thereisnospoon 11/13/2012 07:30:00 AM

Monday, November 12, 2012

 
Failing up and getting paid well to do it

by digby

Incentives:

Citigroup said Friday that the former CEO, who resigned last month in a management shakeup, will receive an “incentive award” of $6.7 million for his work at the bank this year. Former president and chief operating officer John Havens, who stepped down along with Pandit, is getting $6.8 million, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The two men will also continue collecting deferred cash and stock compensation from last year, awards valued at $8.8 million for Pandit and $8.7 million for Havens.
The company suffered a profit loss of 88 percent during the third quarter, when Pandit supposedly earned his “incentive award.” During his time at Citi, Pandit made some $260 million in total compensation, even accounting for the year he took a $1 salary during the financial crisis.

But hey, I'm sure he'll be denied a loophole or two and some sort of deduction so it's not as if he won't be sharing in the sacrifice. It's not as if this obscene practice is going unchecked.


.

digby 11/12/2012 05:00:00 PM

 
Calling their bluff on secession

by David Atkins

The drearily predictable calls for secession in the wake of the re-election of the first African-American president have already begun:

In the aftermath of last week's presidential election, residents in at least nineteen states have put up petitions on the government's "We the People" petitioning website seeking the right to secede from the rest of the country.

While the petitions themselves may not be significant, the reaction could be.

Petitions for secession filed from Louisiana and Texas have already received well over 10,000 signatures. Per the website's own rules, petitions that garner 25,000 signatures or more within 30 days require a response from the Obama administration.

Here's the thing about that:



Red states, by and large, are moochers. They can't sustain themselves. If California were to secede, the state would have a balanced budget (or nearly balanced.) If Alabama were to secede, it wouldn't be able to pay for its stop signs.

Now, the standard and safe response to calls for secession from the Right is to toe the President's line that we are one people and one nation, not two Americas but a United States of America. That's a great line. But it's not really true. It's not true culturally or even geographically. The same free-state vs slave-state divide that has existed since the founding of this nation is still more or less with us today, in almost the same geographic locations.

This isn't to say that secession is justified or remotely desirable. It isn't. A lot of good people would be badly hurt in red states by a Red State secession. We can't and shouldn't leave them behind.

But at a certain point, as long as these dependent Republican fools are declaring themselves John Galt producers, fantasizing themselves "makers" in a country of takers, it may be important for progressives to simply call their bluff and dare them to secede. They won't do it, and we wouldn't allow it when all is said and done.

But like a good parent with a rebellious teenager who thinks they know it all, sometimes the best course is to say, "Fine. Then leave. Good luck paying your bills!" That sort of response might at least give them pause to consider their actual fiscal realities.

.
thereisnospoon 11/12/2012 03:12:00 PM

 
From God himself

by digby

.

digby 11/12/2012 01:30:00 PM

 
And one of these days we'll find those WMDs too ...

by digby

In case you were wondering how the villagers are seeing the "Grand Bargain", here's a good example:

ZAKARIA: And we are back with Ken Duberstein, John Podesta and David Gergen, all White House hands, all of whom have served in second terms.

John Podesta, what does President Obama do to ensure that the United States does not fall off the fiscal cliff? You've already seen there is much debate about this.

And many people on the left, Paul Krugman in the New York Times, are saying do not make a deal just for the sake of making a deal. Hold out and call the Republicans' bluff.

PODESTA: Well, I think that this election set this up as one in which the president one on the basic argument that taxes needed to go up, particularly for the wealthiest Americans, they need to pay a little bit more to try to solve the deficit problem. And I think he's got to stick with that. The one thing he was clear about was that he wasn't going to sign a bill that extended high-end tax rates from the Bush era.

Now, he's going to have to negotiate with the Republicans. If they have ideas on how to raise taxes from that group, I'm sure he's willing to listen to them.

But I think, right now, he can't -- he's got to be successful in creating this fiscal framework that gives him the revenue he needs to make the investment that he wants for the things like education, infrastructure, science and tech that he talked about to the American people.

So he's going to have to, I think, be tough, but prepared to compromise and he's going to have to be clear to the American people what his priorities are.

ZAKARIA: David Gergen, people -- you know the Republicans already keep saying that there's no mandate here, but my reading is close to John Podesta's which is the president did talk about the need for investment, about the need for education, science, research, infrastructure and he talked about how to pay for it.

Will that translate into leverage on Capitol Hill?

GERGEN: Some, but not a lot and I think that -- you know the truth is the president clearly campaigned on raising taxes on the wealthy. He obviously campaigned about protecting education and infrastructure. And he ought to be tough on that as John says.

But I think the big question is how do you -- how do we avoid the cliff? I think we can. I'm optimistic we can. I think people in Washington often are dumb, but they're not crazy and they're simply not going to take us into another recession I think.

But the danger is this; the president has to decide, look, do I want a grand bargain or do I want to isolate and fight it out over this tax increase on the wealthy.

I think if we get hung up on that issue, there is a higher chance we're going to go over the cliff. The issue ought to be how do we get revenue that's going to help settle this grand bargain?

And if the Republicans -- if you can get Republicans to agree to a framework that really will seriously increase revenue and increase the tax burden on the wealthy, the president's got to keep on that. But do it within the framework that also agrees to some sort of sense of entitlement reform and put that into next year.

I think that's a much more productive way than if we isolate on this question of whether we're going to raise questions on the elite, both sides are now dug in and we could easily go over the cliff.

I think it ought to be wrapped into the bigger discussion of how do you get revenue. 

ZAKARIA: Ken, so far, what I've been struck by is the Republicans have been remarkably flexible on the issue of immigration. Even Sean Hannity now says he has -- his position, in that wonderful Washington word, has evolved.

And he -- but no such evolution on the issues of taxes. Both Boehner and Mitch McConnell said tax rates simply will not go up period.

DUBERSTEIN: Yes, but I think you're missing the second part of the sentence which is that they are willing to consider new revenue. There are lots of ways, in that old expression, to skin a cat.

And I thought John Boehner the other day was quite emphatic in saying we are open to new revenues under the right framework.

Dave Gergen is absolutely correct. I think this is a two-step deal. I think it is too ambitious with too little time to get to the grand bargain in the so-called lame duck session of the Congress.

But I think that you can scrape together enough to avoid sequestration and avoid the fiscal cliff or fiscal slope. Remember, they have to come up with only about $100 billion. I know that sounds weird, but $100 billion, to get -- to set that aside.

Between spending cuts and perhaps some loophole closes, I think they can raise it. But you can't confuse that with the long-term deal.

ZAKARIA: John Podesta, does the math work though, which is if you close deductions for the wealthy people, can you raise enough revenue? I think that's the fundamental question.

PODESTA: Well, I think, you know this became a really contentious issue in the campaign. I think the only way to do that and to raise enough revenue is to actually take a big bite out of the middle class. That was the import of the Tax Policy Center's analysis of the Romney tax plan.

Fascinating Villager gobbledygook, don't you think?

But this just slayed me:

ZAKARIA: And I think what the Republicans would argue, David, is that the big problem is tax hikes are here to stay and spending cuts tend to fritter away. You know the spending restraint is maintained for a year or two. 

GERGEN: Exactly.

Right. Because if there's one thing the congress really hates to do it's cut taxes, particularly for the top earners:

And lord knows it's dead easy to raise money for needed social programs. Just ask the team who negotiated Obamacare. At lest Gergen has some sense that it goes both ways (although it doesn't...)

ZAKARIA: Is there a way to do a deal where you put in place super majority or (inaudible)? That is to say, you know, if you now want to go outside of this framework and raise spending again, you need 66 percent votes. 

Something like that so that Republicans are assured that you don't have a two-tier system where the tax hikes are permanent, but the spending cuts are a one-year deal.

GERGEN: That would be a very smart way to go. I think you have to put some protections in there for both sides, frankly. And that has a lot of merit to it.

I come back to this notion about whether the -- I think it's perfectly fair for the president to say we need more revenue and, within that context, you know, I promised the American people the burdens would go -- the wealthy would have to pay more.

But you can do that within the framework of Simpson-Bowles. Simpson-Bowles didn't ask for tax increases or increases in the rates. What it asked for was to go through tax reform and lower the rates in fact.

So, there you have it.  Back to the magical, pain free solution (for people with money)  known as "tax reform."

This is why, my friends, we can't have a nice country. Our top opinion leaders are caught in a feedback loop of misinformation, delusion and self-interest. We just had an election and nobody voted for the president because they wanted to cut vital programs. But that's what everyone says has to happen right now in a lame duck session because congress and the White House over two administrations passed some laws and made some agreements that are all expiring and they are treating those expiration dates as if they were handed down by Moses and can only be fixed if we slash debt immediately. That's nonsense from beginning to end.

.
digby 11/12/2012 12:00:00 PM

 
They always sound chastened. But are they?

by digby

Peggy Noonan went on TV this week-end and said what a lot of Republicans are saying:

"One of the things I think the party will have to do now is listen to certain voices, such as up here in New York, Heather Higgins of IWF (Independent Women's Forum). She has been some time to party political professionals the answer is not to drill deep into the base; the answer is to expand the base. And that is through going to people, that is through conversation, that is through talking to them about the issues that they care about. It is not operating from 'up here' with big ads that just press people's buttons; it's operating in a way like the Obama campaign did. It's going down on to the ground and talking to people. It's labor intensive, but it's a way of growing. It's a wake of persuading people, which I think Republicans have gotten kind of bad at," she said.

I can't help but be a little bit amused by all this. Recall that in 2009, Noonan was similarly upset at Sarah Palin and the angry attitudes of the right wing. She was very taken by Obama's inaugural speech:

It was a moderate speech both in tone and content, a serious and solid speech. The young Democrat often used language with which traditional Republicans would be thoroughly at home: The American story has never been one of "shortcuts or settling for less," the journey "has not been . . . for the fainthearted—for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasure of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things" who have created the best of our enduring history...

This was not the sound of candidate Barack Obama but President Obama, not the sound of the man who appealed to the left wing of his party but one attempting to appeal to the center of the nation. It was not a joyous, audacious document, not a call to arms, but a reasoned statement by a Young Sobersides.

The right wing was very chastened in the wake of Bush and McCain and said they were looking for ways to moderate and work with the new president.

Then this happened:

[ FEB 28 2009 ]

(CNN) - Rush Limbaugh brought a cheering crowd to its feet several times Saturday in Washington as he called on fellow conservatives to take back the country in the keynote speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference.

"We conservatives have not done a good enough job of just laying out basically who we are because we make the mistake of assuming that people know. What they know is largely incorrect, based on the way we're portrayed in pop culture, in the drive-by media, by the Democrat party," the conservative talk show host told a mostly-young crowd of energized supporters.

Limbaugh's impassioned remarks, punctuated by chest-thumping, fist-pumping and chants of "USA" from the crowd, capped off three days of talk at CPAC focusing on rebuilding the Republican Party.

"He played to his crowd here," CNN Political Editor Mark Preston said. "And this crowd is now energized, something we haven't seen from Republicans, certainly not conservatives, since the November election."

Limbaugh used his self-described "first national address," which ran more than hour longer than his allotted 20 minutes, to criticize President Barack Obama for inspiring fear in Americans in order to push a liberal agenda of "big government."

"He wants people in fear, angst and crisis, fearing the worst each and every day because that clears the decks for President Obama and his pals to come in with the answers which are abject failures, historically shown and demonstrated. Doesn't matter. They'll have control of it when it's all over. And that's what they want," Limbaugh said.

"They see these inequalities, these inequities that capitalism produces. How do they try to fix it? Do they try to elevate those at the bottom? No, they try to tear down the people at the top. "

Limbaugh also dismissed the notion of bipartianship as a "false premise" given the diverging views of the Democrat and Republican parties on a variety issues, among them, the recent $787 stimulus package signed by Obama.

"Bipartisanship occurs only after one other result. And that is victory," he said.

"What they mean is we check our core principles at the door, come in, let them run the show, and then agree with them," he said.

You'll recall that all the Villagers gasped at the audacity. But that broke the spell.

Will it happen again? Who knows? But I wouldn't count on Noonan's "kinder, gentler" Republican attitude to hold any more than it did the first time.

.



digby 11/12/2012 10:30:00 AM

 
The so-called trial balloon in black and white

by digby

Bob Woodward said yesterday that he'd received the private negotiating documents outlining what the White House was prepared to agree to in the 2011 budget showdown. Here's what he said:

"This is a confidential document, last offer the president -- the White House made last year to Speaker Boehner to try to reach this $4 trillion grand bargain. And it's long and it's tedious and it's got budget jargon in it. But what it shows is a willingness to cut all kinds of things, like TRICARE, which is the sacred health insurance program for the military, for military retirees; to cut Social Security; to cut Medicare. And there are some lines in there about, "We want to get tax rates down, not only for individuals but for businesses." So Obama and the White House were willing to go quite far."

You can see the documents here:

I was assured by insiders and professionals over the past year that I was wrong to believe that the White House had ever put SS and other vital programs on the chopping block. I was told that this was merely a trial balloon which was immediately shot down. It didn't look that way to me at the time, the reporting didn't indicate that and doesn't look that way to me now. This was a real offer.

The question now is whether or not the Democrats are willing to go that far again in order to avoid the "fiscal cliff" (assuming that we get the holy grail of millionaire tip money, which looks likely) or whether they will pull some of this back. One can certainly see Republicans shrieking like banshees that they made the supreme, ultimate sacrifice of asking the rich to pay a teensy bit more in taxes and now the Democrats won't "meet them halfway." But you never know. Let's just say this doesn't make it any easier.

Incidentally, in case you are wondering what the "Superlative CPI" is, it's another word for the Chained CPI, which Social Security expert Eric Kingston explains here:

(T)he chained CPI or also called the superlative CPI that’s being proposed by some members of the “super committee” and has been discussed in the deficit reduction discussions, that alternative simply does not pass the smell test. It would only make a situation we have today worse. We are not adequately in my opinion and in the opinion of others adjusting for inflation. Today the chained CPI, if it’s implemented, will further reduce benefits. A woman who retires at age 65 living ’til age 75 will get a benefit of about $600 less in real dollars 10 years later at age 85, about $950 or so less at age 95 – if she lives so long – it would be roughly $1,400 less than it would have been if the chained CPI is put into effect.

“The consumer price index for the elderly which the Older Americans Act asked to be developed by the Bureau of Statistics. CPI-E for Americans over 62 is a far superior measure of inflation, but it too is less than perfect but it’s certainly better than what we have in play today.

“In terms of the impact of inflation on older households and on persons with disabilities, the public would be very well served if initially the CPI-E were to put into effect and if Congress requested further development and testing of price indices.

“We all have an interest in an accurate CPI. Democrats and Republicans all have an interest in that. The problem I think we have today is we do not have an accurate CPI. I think if we get a more accurate CPI, it would in fact not increase but adjust benefits. We don’t want a national policy that says the longer you live the less purchasing power your Social Security has. That’s what we will have if we implement the chained CPI. It is also arguably what we still have today because the current CPI does not fully adjust for it.

“The implications, by the way, of the chained CPI on the SSI program are even more deleterious, because it would both cut benefits in the beginning – before people get benefits – and it will also be cutting their benefits after that. Whether implemented in 2011 or 2021, the chained CPI will violate promises that Congress and the president have made that there would be no changes to Social Security benefits affecting people 55 and over. It’s bad policy, and it’s also terrible public relations.

According to that document, the White House proposed to implement the chained CPI starting in 2015, although they said they'd cushion the blow for the poorest among the beneficiaries so that's nice.

Oh, and they agreed to "alter" the medicare eligibility age. I have to assume they didn't mean to lower it.

Now perhaps they can get the Republicans to kick in a little bit more millionaire chump change this time so the cuts to vital programs aren't so drastic. But if this offer is still on the table --- which it was as recently as last spring --- I think we have the baseline from which they are all working from.

I can certainly see why, with the election over, Republicans like Bill Kristol are saying to take the deal. It's a great deal for them.  I always figured they'd pull that trigger eventually. They aren't that stupid.




digby 11/12/2012 09:00:00 AM

 
More GOTV won't help the GOP, Part II

by David Atkins

I mentioned earlier that despite the insistence of many conservatives that the problem isn't their message but rather the lack of a voter turnout operation to match that of the Democrats, it just isn't true:

Because, simply put, there are many more progressive voters in this country than conservative ones, and conservative voters are much more reliable. If we could guarantee 100% turnout, Republicans would never win another national election.

As effective as the Obama ground game was, Democrats still have a great deal of room to grow our vote among the young and the economically disadvantaged who traditionally vote much less frequently. Republican voters are a smaller (and shrinking) share of the electorate and effectively turn themselves out to vote. Also, as Digby has noted here in the past, most of the conservative "cusp" voters are social conservatives whom the evangelical and hardcore Catholic churches are already working hard to turn out. Ralph Reed didn't just go away.

Then there's the fact that money just isn't as good at buying a ground game as it is at buying TV. A good ground game is much less effective if the people working the ground don't really believe in the cause. Paid precinct walkers are notoriously unreliable and constantly fake data if their hearts and souls aren't in the game.

Despite some high-profile failures, we're starting to learn just how significant the real Republican voter turnout operation was:

And yet, in the end, evangelicals voted overwhelmingly for Mr. Romney — even matching the presidential vote of Mormons: 78 percent for Mr. Romney and 21 percent for Mr. Obama, according to exit polls by Edison Research.

“We did our job,” said Mr. Reed, who helped pioneer religious voter mobilization with the Christian Coalition in the 1980s and ’90s, and is now founder and chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition. He said that his organization outdid itself this year, putting out 30 million voter guides in 117,000 churches, 24 million mailings to voters in battleground states and 26 million phone calls.

“Those voters turned out, and they voted overwhelmingly against Obama,” Mr. Reed said. “But you can’t be driving in the front of the boat and leaking in the back of the boat, and win the election.

“You can’t just overperform among voters of faith,” he continued. “There’s got to be a strategy for younger voters, unmarried voters, women voters — especially single women — and minorities.”

Much as Republicans might fantasize, better GOTV won't fix this problem. They don't have a tactical problem. They have a values problem. A majority of the American public simply doesn't want what they're selling.


.
thereisnospoon 11/12/2012 07:30:00 AM

Sunday, November 11, 2012

 
"It is best not to straddle ideals"

by digby

I have had the great pleasure to screen a couple of episodes of Oliver Stone and historian Peter Kuznik's new series for Showtime called The Untold History of the United States. I'll have more to say about it later on, but I did want to highlight this one bit that Michael Moore posted on his site today.

In 1940, as most of the world was fighting and the US was still struggling to come out of the depression, Roosevelt was heading for an unprecedented third term. He wanted to dump his conservadem VP John Nance Garner because of his hostility to the New Deal and nominate his Secretary of Agriculture, the liberal Henry Wallace. The conservadems tried to block Wallace at the convention and an exasperated Roosevelt wrote a letter to be read to the gathered delegates. This is that letter:

Franklin D. Roosevelt Letter to the Democratic Convention

July 18, 1940

Members of the Convention:

In the century in which we live, the Democratic Party has received the support of the electorate only when the party, with absolute clarity, has been the champion of progressive and liberal policies and principles of government.

The party has failed consistently when through political trading and chicanery it has fallen into the control of those interests, personal and financial, which think in terms of dollars instead of in terms of human values.

The Republican Party has made its nominations this year at the dictation of those who, we all know, always place money ahead of human progress.

The Democratic Convention, as appears clear from the events of today, is divided on this fundamental issue. Until the Democratic Party through this convention makes overwhelmingly clear its stand in favor of social progress and liberalism, and shakes off all the shackles of control fastened upon it by the forces of conservatism, reaction, and appeasement, it will not continue its march of victory.

It is without question that certain political influences pledged to reaction in domestic affairs and to appeasement in foreign affairs have been busily engaged behind the scenes in the promotion of discord since this Convention convened.

Under these circumstances, I cannot, in all honor, and will not, merely for political expediency, go along with the cheap bargaining and political maneuvering which have brought about party dissension in this convention.

It is best not to straddle ideals.

In these days of danger when democracy must be more than vigilant, there can be no connivance with the kind of politics which has internally weakened nations abroad before the enemy has struck from without.

It is best for America to have the fight out here and now.

I wish to give the Democratic Party the opportunity to make its historic decision clearly and without equivocation. The party must go wholly one way or wholly the other. It cannot face in both directions at the same time.

By declining the honor of the nomination for the presidency, I can restore that opportunity to the convention. I so do.

Plus ca change, yada yada yada, eh?

By the way, he didn't have to deliver it because Eleanor managed the floor for Wallace and he made it on the ticket. What happened to him in 1944 and beyond is another, thoroughly depressing, story that is covered in depth in the Showtime series.

.

digby 11/11/2012 03:00:00 PM

 
QOTD: Bill Kristol

by digby

Ready to deal:

Conservative commentator and Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol said Sunday the Republican Party should accept new ideas, including the much-criticized suggestion by Democrats that taxes be allowed to go up on the wealthy.

"It won't kill the country if we raise taxes a little bit on millionaires," he said on "Fox News Sunday." "It really won't, I don't think. I don't really understand why Republicans don't take Obama's offer."

"Really? The Republican Party is going to fall on its sword to defend a bunch of millionaires, half of whom voted Democratic and half of whom live in Hollywood and are hostile?" he asked.

He's not the first one to say this, of course. David Koch came out for higher taxes on millionaires in exchange for deep cuts to every federal department, so that's good. And Lindsay Graham was on board months ago:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Tuesday urged Mitt Romney to embrace revenues as part of a plan to stave off the automatic spending cuts set to take effect next year.

“If he gave his blessing, it would be easier for Republicans,” Graham said of the presumptive GOP presidential nominee.

In a discussion with reporters, Graham said his Republican colleagues are torn over whether to agree to consider revenues – such as tax loopholes and fees for government services – as part of a deal to avert the spending cuts, called sequestration.

I'm hearing top Democrat Chris Van Hollen right now on Fox promise major entitlement reform, which the Republican all agreed was terrific although they disagreed on the details. Republican Bob Corker said he was relieved that Democrats are finally ready to make the necessary cuts for the long term.

I still hold with what I wrote before:

Huck [Graham] is one of those angling to keep most of the defense cuts off the table. So, he's out there lobbying his brethren to "close loopholes" and raise "fees" for government services instead. And what about the cuts? Well, it goes without saying that they are written in stone.

There was a time when I would have assumed that this was baked in the cake. It's the smart move, after all. The Republicans agree to "sacrifice" by backing some meaningless "revenue", both sides protect their defense contractors and they get to cut a bunch of necessary and important services for average people and pretend like it hurts them more than it hurts us. It's a beautiful austerity package all dressed up as a "balanced approach." Why in the world wouldn't the Republicans eagerly take this deal?

Well, we've seen that they are just that obstinate. When offered a Grand Bargain to slash the hell out of everything for very little in return they walked away before so there's no reason to think they won't do it again. And perhaps that means they are a little bit smarter than we realize. Having walked away before, the Democrats have no illusions that the GOP will lose their nerve. So, if everyone agrees that the end of the world is nigh if they don't reach agreement, the Republicans are in a good position to extract every last concession for very little in return.

And since the Democrats have made it clear that the only hill they will die on is the "revenue" hill, the Republicans can probably get away with offering up Huckleberry's fake "sacrifice" and the Dems will sell it as a win. If the lame duck goes the way it has in the past, we'll probably see some unemployment insurance and maybe a payroll tax cut thrown in to trap the liberals. ( Who knows? Maybe they'll throw in some promise to repeal DOMA?) Just keep in mind that the price for those things is likely to be further degradation of the safety net and an immediate contraction of federal dollars at the worst possible time.

So, I don't care about this chump change he's talking about and neither should the Democrats. Raising some tip money and promising to close a loophole that will open up the next day somewhere else is not a win. If they do this thing I surely hope they don't insult us and ask us to clap louder this time. I might have to hurt somebody.

.







digby 11/11/2012 01:30:00 PM

 
Escaping the cult

by digby

Spencer Ackerman has written a fascinating piece about how a reporter, himself, got drawn into the vortex of David Petraeus' charisma:

The uncomfortable truth is that a lot of us who’ve covered Petraeus over the years could have written that. It’s embarrassingly close to my piece on Petraeus’ legacy that @bitteranagram tweeted. And that’s not something you should fault Petraeus for. It’s something you should fault reporters like me for. Another irony that Petraeus’ downfall reveals is that some of us who egotistically thought our coverage of Petraeus and counterinsurgency was so sophisticated were perpetuating myths without fully realizing it.

None of this is to say that Petraeus was actually a crappy officer whom the press turned into a genius. That would be just as dumb and ultimately unfair as lionizing Petraeus, whose affair had nothing to do with his military leadership or achievements. ”David Petraeus will be remembered as the finest officer of his generation, and as the commander who turned the Iraq War around,” emails military scholar Mark Moyar. But it is to say that a lot of the journalism around Petraeus gave him a pass, and I wrote too much of it. Writing critically about a public figure you come to admire is a journalistic challenge.

Conversations with people close to Petraeus since his resignation from the CIA have been practically funereal. People have expressed shock, and gotten occasionally emotional. It turns out, Mansoor sighed, “David Petraeus is human after all.” I wonder where anyone could have gotten the idea he wasn’t.

Read the whole thing for how it happened to him. I would hope that all political reporters would read this and apply the lessons to themselves. What Spencer describes is a very human inclination, particularly when you are young, to allow oneself to be drawn into the aura of powerful and accomplished people (particularly those who are good at manipulating those around them.) Journalists more than anyone else must learn to resist that human impulse. Spencer's account shows just how challenging that can be. Good for him for recognizing it. That's very rare --- and admirable. Would that more of his cohorts were able to see how the same thing has happened to them in other political arenas.

It's certainly not going to happen to the Village elders who are still in deep mourning at the passing of their favorite General's reputation. It's truly as if they've suffered a death in the family, which is just ... ridiculous. The Man Called Petraeus has always been a silly mythic figure and these old timers, at least, should have been learned long ago to resist a man in uniform. A very embarrassing show all around.


.
digby 11/11/2012 12:00:00 PM

 
Did Petraeus foul the nest?

by digby

11/11/12:

David Gergen — a friend of Gen. David Petraeus as well as the woman he reportedly had an extra-marital affair with — said on “Face The Nation” this morning that great men have affairs — and that those relationships can be very important to them in difficult times.

“I would hope people would remember that there have been other great leaders in this country … Remember President Eisenhower, when he was General Eisenhower, Kay Summersby, how important that relationship was to him,” Gergen said.

“Remember Franklin Roosevelt and Lucy Mercer, how important that relationship was to him during the second World War.

“I think we have to be understanding that, as the saying goes,” Gergen stammered, “the best of men are still men, men at their best.”

He's not being inconsistent. Exactly ...

11/2/98:

"We have our own set of village rules," says David Gergen, editor at large at U.S. News & World Report, who worked for both the Reagan and Clinton White House. "Sex did not violate those rules. The deep and searing violation took place when he not only lied to the country, but co-opted his friends and lied to them. That is one on which people choke.

"We all live together, we have a sense of community, there's a small-town quality here. We all understand we do certain things, we make certain compromises. But when you have gone over the line, you won't bring others into it. That is a cardinal rule of the village. You don't foul the nest."

.
digby 11/11/2012 10:30:00 AM

 
Does anyone think it's time we talked about what they are going to cut yet?

by digby

The chastened GOP is now ready to discuss making the supreme sacrifice of (temporarily, of course) closing a couple of loopholes in the tax code. It's tough on them. After all, this is about millionaires being asked to give up a tiny little portion of their fortunes, which could even mean they will be short a million or so of what they planned to leave to their grandkids in 20 years. I mean, that's really gotta hurt, right?

“To have a voice at the bargaining table, John Boehner has to be strong,” said Representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma, one of the speaker’s lieutenants. “Most members were just taught a lesson that you’re not going to get everything that you want. It was that kind of election.”

The divide between Mr. Obama and Mr. Boehner appears wide. In their Saturday addresses, the president demanded immediate House passage of a bill approved by the Senate that would extend the expiring Bush-era tax cuts for households earning under $250,000, while the speaker said raising tax rates on anyone would be unacceptable.

But beneath the posturing, both men were keeping open avenues of negotiation. Mr. Obama was careful to call for more revenue, not higher tax rates, a demand that could be fulfilled by ending or limiting tax deductions and credits, a path Mr. Boehner has accepted.

The question over what to do about the expiring tax cuts would be swept aside if the parties could reach an agreement before then to overhaul the tax code completely — and render obsolete the current structure of six income tax rates, all of which would rise on Jan. 1.

So we have the general outlines of what revenues Boehner and the Republicans are willing to accept. Good to know. Does anyone have any idea what cuts the president and the Democrats are willing to accept in return? It seems as though it might be time to have a little chat about that because it appears that they've all agreed to accept some temporary chump change as a Big Victory and the Republicans may very well have wised up enough to recognize that now's the time to take the deal.

So, what do you think the Republicans will demand for the tremendous sacrifice of closing a couple of loopholes? What will be the price for this huge sacrifice?

I don't know, but I do know that the president once before agreed to 2 dollars in cuts for every dollar in revenue. He's said just recently that as Commander in Chief he can't go along with big defense cuts, so don't look for much money there. So, where are the cuts going to be? I'd think we could have at least as energetic discussion of that as these ephemeral revenues everyone's so obsessed with.


.
digby 11/11/2012 08:53:00 AM