A collection of websites, news coverage, and commentary surrounding the Wikileaks releases. This collection includes documents released from the Afghan war diaries and the Iraq war logs, as well as the more recent release of the US State diplomatic cables. Please note, there are thousands of news articles, blog entries, etc. that are not listed below. To access these, the best way is to perform a search for the content you are interested in.
TIMESTAMPS
The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20110727012039/http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/
Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) on Tuesday bluntly told House Republicans to stop “grumbling and whining” about Speaker John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) new proposal for a limited debt-limit increase.
Cantor made the statement in a closed-door conference meeting, a Republican with knowledge of his remarks told The Hill.
Boehner and Cantor are trying to rally restive members of their caucus behind a plan that would authorize up to $1 trillion in new debt in exchange for $1.2 trillion in spending cuts and the promise of more in the future.
Some conservatives have balked at the proposal, however, and Boehner could not guarantee on Tuesday morning that the bill would pass the House, given Democratic opposition.
In the closed-door meeting Tuesday, Cantor praised Boehner’s leadership and acknowledged that “the debt-limit vote sucks.” But he told lawmakers they had only three choices: allow the country to default on Aug. 2, pass a Senate bill that Boehner has denounced as “full of gimmicks” and a “blank check” for President Obama or support the GOP leadership and “call the president’s bluff.”
Cantor “said to stop grumbling and whining and to come together as conservatives and rally behind the speaker and call the president’s bluff,” the Republican with knowledge of his remarks said.
It looks like Lil' Eric may have over-stimulated his troops. It will be interesting to see how the Tea Partiers react to being scolded by one of their own. For a clue, here's Erick Erickson:
The Democrats and Republicans in Washington may be trying to compromise, but they just aren’t that serious. They really aren’t. And now a bunch of House Republicans are going wobbly, backing down from holding the line, and willing to take John Boehner’s plan — a compromise wherein they are compromising only with themselves.
According to Forbes, a ratings downgrade would be worse than a technical default. Unfortunately, sources who have spoken to Standards & Poor tell CNN’s Erin Burnett that John Boehner’s plan — the one Allen West and others are lining up to support — would cause the U.S. to lose its AAA credit rating.
Why? No, ti has nothing to do with John Boehner embracing the McConnell idea of letting the President raise the debt ceiling without congressional approval and then letting Congress vote to “disapprove”. But it does that too.
No, it’s because the credit reporting agencies have said the U.S. Congress must show real cuts of $4 trillion or more. John Boehner’s plan doesn’t even come close in real dollar terms — excluding accounting gimmicks the credit agencies are not buying. John Boehner’s plan could best be called “Punt, Kick, and Pass.” It punts the problem to another stupid commission, kicks the can down the road, and passes more debt onto future generations.
So here is the great conundrum for the House GOP. Reid’s plan cannot pass the House. John Boehner’s plan probably can. Ultimately, John Boehner’s plan and Harry Reid’s plan are pretty close and both would probably result in a credit downgrade.
So this has now it's all about saving the country from a credit downgrade --- which has never been a serious issue before and is, in fact, complete bullshit. But reality left the building some time ago.
Now Boehner has to re-write his own plan because the CBO says it only saves 850 billion.
Fans of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories will be familiar with the legendary The Final Problem, which documents Sherlock Holmes' final confrontation with his nemesis, the villainous Professor Moriarty. In the conclusion of the story in which our master detective is supposed to have met his end, Sherlock and Moriarty duel in a wrestling match to the death on a cliff overlooking the treacherous Reichenbach Falls. Moriarty would not rest until Sherlock were killed, and Sherlock would not rest until Moriarty were captured. With neither man willing to cede the struggle to the other, they both are supposed to have pitched over the edge, locked arm in arm to the death.
It's an apt metaphor for what might happen in a world where Democrats were everything we wanted to them to be as we approach a default on the full faith and credit of the United States.
Let us imagine for a moment that we were to live in an alternate universe, one where every Democrat in Congress had a firm resolve and unbending backbone, and where the President of the United States were a true believer in the power of Keynesian policy, and an opponent of giving even an inch to the conservatives looking to dismantle the safety net. And let us presume that in this alternate universe, all Democratic officials from county selectman to President of the United States were incorruptible servants of the public good, unbeholden to corporate donors.
If this pleasant fantasy were made real, what might happen? Well, one might argue that the nation would never have been brought to this point. And there's a good reason to make such an argument. But in the absence of extending our fantasy to revision of history, what might transpire in our alternate universe as we approach default?
The answer, unfortunately, isn't much better than in our actual, corrupted universe.
The reality is that no matter what our political beliefs and strength of will might be, rational people in public policy know that the default ceiling must be raised. Defaulting on the full faith and credit of the United States is simply not an option.
Today's news brings yet more evidence of the same: John Boehner has introduced a preposterous plan to cut $1.8 trillion, including cuts to core entitlements like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The plan is already dead-on-arrival in the Democratic Senate and on the White House desk. Even in our imperfect Democratic establishment, this plan has zero chance of passing. And yet Boehner's biggest headache is not Democrats, but members of his own caucus, who feel the plan does not go far enough. Michele Bachmann, who readers should be reminded is leading the field of potential Republican aspirants to the Oval Office, has already declared that she and her allies will not vote for any increase in the default ceiling that does not include equal cuts to discretionary spending.
So if you are Democrat in our perfected alternate universe, what do you do? No vote to raise the ceiling is valid absent a vote of the Republican House, "Constitutional options" notwithstanding. Theoretically, you lay down a marker that starts your negotiating position at a clean increase in the ceiling. To which the zombie death cult responds that they won't vote for anything less than $2 trillion in cuts, including to basic entitlement programs.
Now what? Do you wait for market jitters and Wall St. overlords to bring the Republicans back in line? Wall St. types have already met in secret with Boehner and said that they were OK with small tax increases, but begged him to just make sure the default ceiling got raised already, so that their precious portfolios would be protected. Boehner knows the stakes. But the Teahadist wing of the GOP, about 60 Congressmembers strong, doesn't respect John Boehner much more than they do Nancy Pelosi. Boehner knows that he's already on his last legs with his caucus, and that Eric Cantor is just waiting for the opportunity to ease the Speaker into his political grave
Most of these people are openly or secretly hoping for the sort of Armageddon that they believe will finally destroy the welfare state once and for all in America--no matter the cost. Nor is it just the the conservative reps in Congress: a major portion of the GOP base wants no compromise whatsoever, even as the vast majority of the Democratic base believes that compromise is the best route. For a Democrat, there is little political risk in compromise. For a Republican, any wavering or compromise will likely be met with a primary challenge from Grover Norquist. As a Democrat, do you take the risk that the GOP will panic and see reason? Or do you risk instead that they double down, forcing you to give them the money in the hopes they don't shoot the hostage?
In short, do you let Professor Moriarty walk, knowing full well it probably means your death shortly thereafter but at least gives you a chance of survival, or do you lock arm in arm with him, plunging straight over the falls? You know only one thing: Moriarty will see it through to the end, either way. Or to use another, more ancient parable, do you allow the baby to be cut in two, or do you give it to the false mother in the hope that the American People will stand in judgment and award you custody of the economy in the future?
Unfortunately, this isn't fiction, Sherlock doesn't have a secret grappling move to ensure his survival at Moriarty's expense, the American voter isn't nearly as wise as King Solomon, and we don't live in an alternate universe of Democratic perfection. This is the real world.
And in the real world, the choices are looking pretty grim. thereisnospoon 7/26/2011 04:30:00 PM |
Help wanted: Beggars, prostitutes and thieves
by digby
A recent review of job vacancy postings on popular sites like Monster.com, CareerBuilder and Craigslist revealed hundreds that said employers would consider (or at least “strongly prefer”) only people currently employed or just recently laid off.
Unemployed workers have long suspected that the gaping holes on their résumés left them less attractive to employers. But with the country in the worst jobs crisis since the Great Depression, many had hoped employers would be more forgiving.
“I feel like I am being shunned by our entire society,” said Kelly Wiedemer, 45, an information technology operations analyst who said a recruiter had told her that despite her skill set she would be a “hard sell” because she had been out of work for more than six months.
Legal experts say that the practice probably does not violate discrimination laws because unemployment is not a protected status, like age or race.
That's one way to keep the unemployment rate high and wages low. And the new austerity should help matters greatly. Obviously our policy makers believe that the country is in desperate need of more beggars, prostitutes and thieves. Those are jobs that are being created anyway.
I have a business idea. Who wants to incorporate and and sell themselves to jobless people as their "current job" for resume purposes? You could just charge a little fee if the person gets the job. Why not? It's no more immoral than saying people shouldn't be allowed to work if they aren't already working.
George Will is an ass. But he isn't a stupid ass, which is why this column today is such a good example of right wing tactics.
We all know that Barack Obama is not a populist. Defend him or criticize him, love him or hate him, it's clear that he's a technocratic mediator, a deal maker and an economic centrist at best. This may be pragmatic or ideological -- I do not know his heart. But there is one thing that's quite clear in all this and it's that he is about as close to being Huey Long as Andrew Breitbart is to being Edward R. Murrow. They sometimes use the same words, but they are speaking a very different language.
Will is doing a political job here, not an analytical one. He is serving the party with which he identifies by drawing a very tortured comparison between a Democratic president who proposed to cut trillions of dollars in spending in an economic downturn, who willingly put the New Deal and Great Society safety nets on the table as negotiating chips and is literally begging the Republicans to take him up on it --- and someone most people think of as a power-hungry, populist demagogue. The mere idea of the President using the executive branch for domestic initiatives is portrayed as offensive to democracy and the separation of powers, which is very convenient at a time like this (and a rule only in force during Democratic administrations.)
He is, of course, speaking to the Village, his home and only sphere of influence. Nobody in the country cares what he thinks. He's helping move the goalposts for the party, but he's also giving the Village media the way to excuse the insane behavior of the Republicans. This is his job.
There are conservative pundits who think for themselves and answer only to their readers and their consciences. George Will is not one of them. He's an operative and a very sophisticated one at that. And he's got his job cut out for him. If he's reduced to something this surreal and cartoonish it's a sign that they are truly getting desperate to find a way to explain what's become a tragic farce.
Proud to be an American, Where At Least I Know I'm Free by David Atkins ("thereisnospoon")
About a month ago I was met with an unfortunate occurrence. Somehow, in the process of drinking an iced tea with small granules at the bottom, I awkwardly swallowed a larger-than-usual granule. Having had a tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy in my youth, I have occasionally had the annoying misfortune of getting foreign objects lodged in the passage between the nose and throat. The granule felt as if it had found the same unhappy spot.
But unlike in past circumstances, the granule did not seem to dislodge. After taking steps to flush my sinuses and research the subject online, I came to the conclusion that it might simply be a scratch. But it certainly felt as though there was an object there, and I was having a sinus reaction accordingly. Unfortunately, it was also 8 o'clock in the evening, which meant that I had two choices: stick it out until morning and see a regular physician, or head to the emergency room. I'm not the type to go to the emergency room for colds or flu; I tend to use medical services sparingly. But the discomfort was intense. After much internal debate, I decided to go to the emergency room. After all, I was having a physical reaction to whatever it was that was making basic swallowing difficult. I have insurance, and whether it were a foreign object or just a scratch, it couldn't be too complicated or expensive.
I knew it would take some time to be seen; after all, my case was probably the least critical they had. So I brought a book and settled in for the long haul. After 3 hours waiting on the floor of the emergency room without even a chair to sit in, I was finally admitted. A harried doctor examined me for approximately 30-90 seconds with a regular scope, said he couldn't see anything but that there might still be blockage that he was unequipped to detect, said there was nothing else he could do, and sent me on my way. The actual visit took less than two minutes.
Today I got my bill. The total? $371. $371 for a three-hour wait, followed by a two-minute visit, with no procedures of any kind performed. And that's with pretty decent insurance.
This story should be an outrage. But, of course, it isn't. It's a completely typical occurrence in modern America, a most trivial complaint in a sea of raging injustice that bankrupts hundreds of families every day for the crime of having gotten sick.
But here's the rub: even such a trifling issue as the one I've described can serve an object lesson in the failure of conservative economics. I run a small business; most the work I do is performed in-house, but I do often employ subcontractors. The degree to which I employ them is predicated on demand: i.e., whether I can keep up with the workload without losing income by farming it out to others.
With an unexpected $371 to pay, I will be forced to take on more work myself, and be stingier about hiring a subcontractor. That decision will have a domino effect on all sorts of businesses and services that I and my subcontractors might use. In its own small way, it's a hit to economic growth.
But conservatives expect that I should be grateful for keeping my corporate tax rates low, even though those tax rates make almost zero impact on whether I hire a subcontractor or not. Remember: it's demand that drives hiring, not tax rates. Either there's too much work for me to handle comfortably or there isn't. A marginal difference to my tax percentage on end-of-year profits makes essentially zero difference to my hiring decisions.
But that $371 medical bill certainly does. To say nothing of the fact that it will dissuade me from seeing a physician next time something goes wrong--and that next time it might just be serious.
So thanks, conservatives, for fighting against a decent healthcare system to keep my corporate taxes low! You've done a great service...for somebody. But not for me as a small business owner. And not for my employees and subcontractors. And not for this country, which still yearns to be free of your small-minded, economically ignorant tyranny under the guise of "freedom from taxes." thereisnospoon 7/26/2011 10:00:00 AM |
We're all disaster capitalists now
by digby
We've been following the British austerity experiment here for the past few months in fits and starts. The early indications were that it was a disaster.
Dday fills us in today on the latest news which showed a horrible 0.2% growth in the second quarter (probably to be downgraded) after a previous two quarters of essentially zero growth. They are blaming it on Will and Kate and the Japanese Tsunami!
The excuses in this article are ridiculous: did the economy slow down because a lot of people missed the Tube stop at Notting Hill, too? Anyway, didn’t the William and Kate wedding produce a lot of economic activity?
The point is that Britain rolled back demand during a time when the economy was already weak, and they are suffering through the consequences. Instead of looking at this as a problem to be avoided, US policymakers are on the verge of emulating it. And not even in a good way: the British plan was at least somewhat balanced, with tax increases along with the spending cuts. This shows that the idea of a “balanced approach” is still flawed, because either way, you’re reducing demand during a time with a demand shortfall.
What's most interesting to me about this is that the the Tories formed a coalition with the centrist Liberal Democratic party to put this program in place. Let's just say the similarities between their governing coalition and ours is pretty clear, although in their case the Prime Minister is admittedly conservative. I'm guessing they're searching madly for green shoots with a magnifying glass even as we speak.
Yesterday eventheliberal Nancy Pelosi said, "it is clear we must enter an era of austerity; to reduce the deficit through shared sacrifice."
Render Unto Caesar by David Atkins ("thereisnospoon")
Yesterday famed "Christian" pastor Rick Warren, wealthy author and megachurch leader, tweeted the following:
HALF of America pays NO taxes. Zero. So they're happy for tax rates to be raised on the other half that DOES pay any taxes.
After a firestorm ignited decrying this egregious mix of selfishness and ignorance, Mr. Warren deleted his tweet. But the screenshot is preserved for Internet eternity.
It obviously doesn't bear repeating for the thousandth time that, in fact, poor people do pay all sorts of taxes: FICA, sales, social security and wide range of others. It is true that the federal income tax is progressive. But it is the exception rather than the rule. The poor and middle class in this country still pay a greater share of their overall income in taxes than do the wealthy, who pay a lower effective rate than the rest of us when all is said and done.
But it's one thing for a cigar-smoking businessman to make this argument. That would be tolerable from a certain point of view. But it's particularly galling coming from a man who considers himself a man of the cloth, and who has become quite wealthy partly off a megachurch business that pays no taxes itself. It would be more than a stretch to think that Jesus Christ would have advocated that the poor pay higher taxes at a time of record income inequality, so that the rich might feed more heartily from the trough. Also, have they genetically engineered tiny camels that can pass through needle's eyes yet? We're clearly going to need a lot of them when all these ultra-wealthy "Christians" shed this mortal coil.
Far be it from an agnostic deist like me to suggest that "Pastor" Warren brush up on his Bible, but Matthew 23:27-28 might be relevant here:
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
There will come a point by David Atkins ("thereisnospoon")
Earlier today I listed a number of theories to explain President Obama's behavior during the default crisis. Doing the bidding of wealthy contributors is plausible, but then why insist on raising their taxes? Making a robotic technocratic choice for budget restraint has merit as a theory, but then why not just let the Bush tax cuts expire, and why go for Social Security, which is irrelevant? Perhaps the most likely rationale is purely political: the President is going after independent voters in advance of 2012, and making choices based on the belief that these independent voters want to cut government spending.
But then, once again, why Social Security? And why insist on cutting so much from discretionary spending? Your average independent voter has no idea what the difference between one and two trillion dollars is when it comes to spending outlays. The numbers are too big to comprehend for most people. Why not lay down a marker at, say, $500 billion in spending, with no cuts to Medicare or Social Security, and then "give in" to allow for $1 trillion in cuts? That would prove his "spending cut" bona fides to independent voters just as effectively as his current approach, while giving Republicans the "win" they so desperately crave.
None of it makes much sense. The truth may be a combination of the three theories, but even then it doesn't hang together. Unless you believe the final piece of the puzzle is that the White House actively wants progressives to howl with rage. I'll let brooklynbadboy take it from here:
The President made it very clear he wants cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Yes, the very Social Security that has nothing to do with the deficit. You don't have to rely on "rumors" also known as "reporting." He's said it himself....
The president is seeking less revenue than the tax increases advocated by Sens. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Mark Warner(D-VA), and Dick Durbin(D-IL). That's an extremely conservative bunch, excepting Durbin, and Obama's proposal was to the right of that. And don't forget that bit of supply-side "dynamic scoring" stuff (emphasis mine) that is straight out of the GOP playbook. Again, don't take it from me. Don't take it from the "anti-Obama media rumor mill." Don't take it from foaming at the mouth, overreacting, racist, bigoted, irrational, pony and rainbow loving liberal bloggers. That's from the President himself.
How did the president expect Democrats to react to his proposal?
brooklynbadboy then quotes the duly elected Democratic President of the United States:
But in the interest of being serious about deficit reduction, I was willing to take a lot of heat from my party — and I spoke to Democratic leaders yesterday, and although they didn’t sign off on a plan, they were willing to engage in serious negotiations, despite a lot of heat from a lot of interest groups around the country, in order to make sure that we actually dealt with this problem.
And then finishes with this:
He expected to take a lot of heat, not loving adoration.
If the presidents gets his big deal, he expects you, the Democrats, to be upset about it. Not cheering it. When and if he strikes a deal to cut Social Security, which has nothing to do with the deficit at all, which he himself says he is willing to do, he doesn't expect you to respond by saying "GO OBAMA! CUT MY SOCIAL SECURITY! HOORAY!" He expects you to be plenty pissed about the Grand Bargain. He expects you to respond with HEAT.
Don't take my word for it. Listen to the man himself. My message is "no need to worry, sir. I'm already there."
This theory, combined with the President's seeking the Independent vote in 2012, is the only one that actually makes sense. He wants the Left to be furious with him, as a proving point for his moderate and centrist chops. He wants the Right furious with him, too, which is why he's holding out for minor revenue increases that don't make that much difference in the long run, and don't do much to address income inequality. The revenue increases are an inflexible part of the negotiation precisely because he knows the Right will go ballistic over them.
The entire intent of the Administration would be, under this theory, to make both sides go ballistic so that the Administration can look like the only adult in the room to independent voters. Cutting Social Security is precisely designed to make the Left visibly cry out in anguish. And they're counting on the idea that the Republican market fundamentalist cult will so terrify the vast majority of Democrats come election season that they'll dutifully pull the lever for the Administration no matter what. They may be right. The President's fundraising total from small donors does seem to reflect a broad range of committed support.
But I wouldn't take that bet. As an activist on the ground, I can see firsthand how dispirited many of our core volunteers are at this stage. How long can the Democratic Party run headlong from its base even as Republicans eagerly rush to embrace theirs, before the liberal base gives up and goes home even if it means Michele Bachmann in the White House? It seems the President and his advisers are willing to test those limits. Time will tell if it blows up in their faces in 2012, or if they are vindicated.
I'm just not sure which result would be the worse for the country. thereisnospoon 7/25/2011 05:30:00 PM |
Where ya gonna go?
by digby
Ed Kilgore has a thoughtful piece in Salon about why liberal elites are so angry and why they have so little influence on the White House. It's the numbers, basically. president Obama still has the support of the vast majority of the Democratic party and the activist liberal base is unlikely to sit out the election. (And even if we did, it probably wouldn't make much of a difference.)
He brings up something in this that I think is an overlooked piece of this puzzle and one which I tried to write about in 2008 but the environment was so hostile that I gave it up:
Next time there is an open Democratic presidential nomination contest, the organized left will almost certain to make far greater ideological demands on candidates, and make a far less speculative choice of a favorite, than it did in 2008.
It will be unlikely that we'll ever have the kind of leverage we had in 2008, with two candidates neck and neck for the nomination up to the very end and a totally pathetic opposition, unfortunately. But if liberals had resisted the urge to turn that primary into a season of American Idol, there might have been a chance to shape the administration in ways that would be difficult for him/her to escape.
Spilled milk. And for a variety of reasons 2012 is not a hospitable election for a primary challenge, regardless of how disappointed liberals are in the president. But the activist base and elite liberals are the tip of the spear. Being honest about what we see still has a purpose: to keep liberalism alive, motivate the base for other elections, build the progressive movement. And the activist base and liberal elites will have a hand in determining the president's legacy. Once he's done catering to these alleged Independents who want nothing more than to slash government to the bone, he's going to start thinking about that.
Mr. Breivik frequently cited another blog, Atlas Shrugs, and recommended the Gates of Vienna among Web sites. Pamela Geller, an outspoken critic of Islam who runs Atlas Shrugs, wrote on her blog Sunday that any assertion that she or other antijihad writers bore any responsibility for Mr. Breivik’s actions was “ridiculous.”
“If anyone incited him to violence, it was Islamic supremacists,” she wrote.
Gosh, that almost sounds like justification to me.
Interestingly, according to some right wing observers, his manifesto, which identifies with Geller and her fellow violent obsessives by name, he's actually a a jihadist himself:
This Norwegian terrorist was not a Christian or a conservative. He acted contrary to the teachings of the Bible and conservatives from Burke to Madison. He was instead a jihadist, blinded by an ideology who resorted to violence rather than engaging in a public debate of ideas. He was a coward who planted bombs and killed innocent people. For him, violence was the only answer. He claimed to be fighting jihadists…but he actually became one. He didn’t kill one islamist terrorist with his actions–only innocent Norwegians. Change the location, and he acted like so many jihadists in the Middle East. He became one of them.
I don't suppose it's even possible for the crusading right wingers who inspired this fellow to take a look in the mirror and wonder if that might be something they ought to think about themselves.
It is easy to get caught up in every rivulet of the default crisis as we approach the inevitable cascade of market panics followed by shock doctrine cuts to social services. It is easy to find fault with the Administration for its many flaws in handling the situation, and with Congressional Democrats as well.
But it's also important to remember the big picture. The big picture is that America is being held hostage by a conservative movement that behaves much more as a bizarre religious cult, than a legitimate political entity. It is perhaps the most dangerous cult to have ever held sway over a major nation-state in modern times.
It is a cult founded on a number of dogmatic beliefs that have no basis in reality. These are people who believe that the inflection point of the Laffer Curve is somewhere in the low single digits, and that cutting taxes to insanely low levels will magically lead to revenue increases. These are people who believe that government itself is basically unnecessary but for a private property protection scheme, and that the unfettered market will provide all that society needs, and will dole out the appropriate price for all goods, wages and services with zero inflation through the magic of the market. These are people who believe it is impossible for humans to affect the climate, and that it is better for humans to attempt to magically adapt somehow to a much hotter world than to do anything to even curb the behaviors that might be making it hotter. These are people who believe that the proper way to punish corporate evildoers is to not punish them at all, because people will simply stop purchasing from corporations that poison their water and air and crash their economies--because the average consumer presumably has the secret market-given wisdom, and magic powers necessary to make financial choices to punish Koch Industries and Goldman Sachs if necessary. These are people who view Objectivism as a legitimate and serious philosophical discipline, and the fictional works of Ayn Rand as gospel to live by.
The fact that no country on earth has attempted to operate by these principles in the modern era is irrelevant. These people do not operate according to facts, but according to a deep and abiding faith in a wholly untested set of principles that can only be put into place upon the destruction of the current order.
As with any cult, the prospect of Armageddon is not troubling to them. Thus, the answer to exponentially rising healthcare costs is to do...nothing. The answer to rapidly increasing global temperatures is to do...nothing. The answer to a devastating default on the faith and credit of the United States is to do...nothing.
The possible outcomes of any and every imaginable crisis are only two: 1) give the cult everything it wants, when it wants it; or 2) do nothing and let the world burn. Which is fine, because once the flames have died down, the cult can at last build their Kingdom here as it is in Milton Friedman's heaven. If healthcare costs explode, then the system collapses and the people who are left will only buy the healthcare they can afford at market prices. If global temperatures rise, then Social Darwinism will preserve the deserving. If the American economy collapses, then it can be rebuilt, minus the surplus population and those pesky Keynesian programs that kept it afloat and alive. 2nd Amendment remedies will deal with the lesser people who resist.
One can rage all day and night, and legitimately so, at the failures of the Left and Democrats over the last 30 years. It would take an encyclopedia to count them all.
But one also must remember that the American political system is facing perhaps the most dangerous enemy it has ever faced: an intransigent cult of individuals who simply do not care if everything goes down in flames around them, so long as the sacred tenets of the cult remain unchallenged.
The American political system was crafted by thinkers and philosophers deeply steeped in the Enlightenment. The Founders assumed that the competing elements of self-interest and cooperation, hinged on a delicate balance of powers, would be enough for men and women of Reason to, through fits and starts, ultimately find the best solutions for the problems facing the country based on evidence and argument. The system is built, in essence, upon the presumption of Reason. Of give and take. Of compromise.
The system was not built to handle a takeover of the system by an unreasoning cult. Big money has had outsize influence on our political system before, and the American People have managed to beat it back time and time again. But never before have we been faced with the sort of unified, concerted, intentionally reinforced delusion that besets our halls of power today.
Yes, it is true that the conflict within what passes for the Left in this nation is in part a fight over the power of Big Money to co-opt the political vehicles that are supposed to carry our preferred policies forward.
But even more than that, the conflict is about how to handle the metastasizing cancer that the market fundamentalist cult is perpetrating on our body politic. Some on the Left believe in the inherent intelligence and reasonableness of the American voter, and assume that by keeping a level head and appearing to be the most sensible person in the room, the public will ultimately reject the cult and its trappings, even if we must give significant ground in the meantime. Others see politics as a game of tug-of-war in which only one side is doing any real pulling, and believe that an equally forceful counterweight is needed in order to keep the cult from pulling us all over a cliff. I consider myself squarely in the latter camp.
But whichever of those two sides one agrees with, it's important to remember the big picture: our future is being held hostage by a cult that doesn't care if the world burns down so long as they get what they want. Dealing with the implications of that needs to be the top priority of serious thinkers in our political system if we hope to preserve it.
“Okay weasels,” Foxface announced, “now fill it back up.”
We set to work regarding the reloading the truck by hand, forming teams that passed debris.
“I hate this shit,” Jay said.
It was a contradiction I couldn’t understand. Jay felt enmity, but he was terrified of what he called “the outside.”
“But don’t you fell they are ripping you off?” I asked.
Jay scratched at the hard ground with a foot, scraping at the dust. When he looked back up, he said, “No-o-o.” He paused.” “No.”
I shut up.
I realized what I was seeing: this was a man who had given up, utterly.
[snip]
He had arrived here a destroyed man, beaten by life and the vagaries of the economy. Now he seemed brainwashed, like the cult members I’d written about for the newspaper. Like a cult, the foundation was exploiting his weakened state of mind in order to manipulate him. The work camp practiced classic sleep deprivation: it worked men hard and then roused them after just a few hours’ sleep to do it all over again, seven days a week. Jay said this was how it had been for the previous thirty days.
One must be defeated to be controlled.
And control is the point. When you have income inequality at the levels we have it in this country it is natural for the oligarchs and aristocrats to begin to get nervous. Even in America, the land of opportunity, the malefactors of great wealth have always worried that the polloi was going to use this "democracy" to wake up and grab a pitchfork. One of the ways to control that is social control.
There is, I've recently realized, an impulse among liberals to constantly reinvent the wheel and switch gears manically when things do not change rapidly enough. I suppose that's a natural function of the personalities that veer toward rapid change rather than conservation. But it's a political weakness, especially when it's in reaction to authoritarianism and economic intimidation.
I'm older now, so perhaps my newfound "patience" can be seen as resignation rather than wisdom. But I have learned a couple of things over these years: don't panic, don't drop out and don't despair. The reactionaries and revanchists aren't all powerful and the will to progress is as fundamental to humanity as breathing. Bad things happen, to be sure. But liberal focus and persistence can be a powerful antidote. We need to hang in.
From bad to worse to worst by David Atkins ("thereisnospoon")
As the default crisis negotiations enter what promises to be a rollercoaster week, Harry Reid and John Boehner are each bringing forward their own plans, neither of which much resembles Obama's desired "Grand Bargain" of entitlement cuts and revenue increases. It thus appears the American people are now down to three options in this default crisis mess: bad, worse, and worst. And when the least mind-numbingly awful plan is the one put forward by Harry Reid, it's clear the country is up a creek without a paddle:
The House speaker, John A. Boehner, and the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, were preparing separate backup plans to raise the nation’s debt ceiling on Sunday after they and the White House were unable to form a bipartisan plan that would end an increasingly grim standoff over the federal budget...
Mr. Reid, the Senate’s top Democrat, was trying on Sunday to cobble together a plan to raise the government’s debt limit by $2.4 trillion through the 2012 elections, with spending cuts of about $2.7 trillion that would not touch any of the entitlement programs that are dear to Democrats or raise taxes, which is anathema to Republicans.
President Obama could endorse such a plan, even though it would fall far short of the ambitious goal of deficit reduction and entitlement changes that he says are necessary to shore up the nation’s finances...
The contours of Mr. Boehner’s backup plan were not entirely clear, but it seemed likely to take the form of a two-step process, with about $1 trillion in cuts, an amount the Republicans said was sufficient to clear the way for a debt limit increase through year’s end. That would be followed by future cuts guided by a new legislative commission that would consider a broader range of trims, program overhauls and revenue increases.
The first thing to understand about these negotiations is that there is a clear dividing line between what Congressional Democrats want, and what the White House wants. The White House, for reasons that seem inscrutable and can be endlessly debated, really wants to put Medicare and Social Security on the chopping block.
Is that because it's what Wall St. and campaign contributors want? That theory has some resonance given the Democratic Party's capture by Wall St. over the past twenty years. But the theory falls apart when one considers the White House's firm stance on insisting on revenue increases and subsidy eliminations on those same wealthy contributors, including hedge fund managers. To the White House's credit, they have firmly insisted that at least token revenues be part of the deal.
Perhaps more plausibly, one might surmise that the White House really and truly believes that putting at least Medicare on the chopping block is necessary for the nation's long-term budgetary health, within the limitation that significant actions to address revenues and income inequality will not be on the table in the near future. That theory requires belief in a blindingly stupid political myopia, and nearly automaton-like appreciation for political technocracy on the part of the President and his advisers, but it would be in keeping with the Administration's approach to the healthcare problem: bend the cost curve where possible, within the presumed political realities imposed by Republicans. And yet that theory, too, is belied by the fact that regardless what one might think about the fiscal challenges faced by Medicare, there is absolutely no reason to consider changes to Social Security as part of any deficit-related deal, as it is a self-sustaining program that won't run out of funds until 2037 at the current rate. So from a technocratic standpoint, why touch it at all? To say nothing of the fact that, from a technocratic standpoint, it would be far easier and more useful for deficit reduction to simply use gridlock to allow the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to expire on schedule.
And if, as some suggest, the President is making a political calculation to "appear to be the adult in the room" in order to appeal to a slice of independent voters seen as critical for the 2012 election, why not do that without touching the third rail of Social Security? There are many ways to play Mr. Purple without going there. The question of what exactly is going through the heads of President Obama and his advisers may be the greatest mystery in all politics right now.
Congressional Dems who need to answer to their constituencies every two or six years have a little more political sense, and are standing fairly strong for now against both Obama and the GOP. Talk to many of them in private as I have recently, and one imagines having similar conversations at Netroots Nation: these folks are furious with the Administration, the GOP, and with the situation they're being put in, but there's not much they can do about it at the moment. So they're trying to get the best deal they can under the circumstances. Which brings us to the Reid proposal.
On the Senate side, Dave Dayen once again has a tremendous rundown (better than anywhere in the traditional media) of some the deals of the Reid proposal. The heart of it is this:
Given the numbers used here, I would guess that the outline of the cuts would be similar to what Nancy Pelosi suggested in a meeting with bloggers on Friday. It hinges on an accounting gimmick that would “reduce” deficits based on drawing down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Because CBO essentially calculates the cost of war based on the previous year’s cost, by capping war spending at a lower number you “save” a good deal. As Pelosi described it, that could add up to $1 trillion to the total savings.
So you can get to $2.5 trillion pretty easily, then. Take the $1 trillion from the wars, add $1.2 trillion in agreed-to cuts from the discretionary budget, and add $200-$300 billion from foregone interest payments and you’re there.
This is obviously not a great deal, with its $1.2 trillion in cuts to the discretionary budget (we don’t know exactly where those cuts will fall). But compared to digging into entitlements, it’s better than some of the other ideas.
Boehner's "deal" hasn't even come into form yet, but would likely entail even more cuts, no tax increases, and a reprise of this same fight once again prior to the 2012 election, which is a non-starter for Democrats.
The fact that $1.2 trillion in discretionary spending cuts, with not even a hint of an attempt to provide further economic stimulus or address income inequality, is the best deal currently on the table is truly depressing. But that is what comes of 30 or more years of an increasingly extreme Republican party, and a Democratic Party that has actively declared that "the era of big government is over" while doing little to prepare ground for a rhetorical counterattack beyond the shifting sands of its own moderation and "reasonable" position. thereisnospoon 7/25/2011 09:30:00 AM |
We don't yet know what the final deal to raise the debt ceiling will be. But now that Harry Reid is developing a proposal with $2.5 trillion in cuts and nothing in revenues, it's a safe bet that it won't include any tax increases. Which means that whether Republicans realize it or not, they've won. The question now is whether they can stop.
Apparently it depends on what the definition of "win" is:
@EWErickson: John Boehner just got played for a fool. Headlines are Reid is offering bigger cuts than Boehner & no tax increases.
It's not really about policy, you see. It's about who is perceived to be crying uncle. And in GOP world, no matter how much a Democrat offers up in tax and spending cuts, unless they are capitulating to aRepublican plan to slash spending and cut government without any compromise, it's just not a win.
This is an interesting insight into what they want, actually. And if it weren't for this, the President (and now the Democrats) could probably have mitigated this a bit by fighting like hell for a clean debt ceiling and then giving in at the end instead of constantly "offering" what they thought the Republicans wanted only to have them up the ante:
"Obama’s political advisers have long believed that securing such an agreement would provide an enormous boost to his 2012 campaign, according to people familiar with White House thinking. In particular, they want to preserve and improve the president’s standing among political independents, who abandoned Democrats in the 2010 midterm elections and who say reining in the nation’s debt is a high priority. In many ways, it has been a remarkable transformation for a Democratic president who had made the centerpiece of his first year in office a massive spending bill to boost the economy and the expansion of health insurance. The risk for Obama now is that his pursuit of a far-reaching package could deeply disappoint his Democratic allies who believe he may be giving away too much."
His need to take credit for the greatest spending cuts in history has pushed the Republicans to ever more excessive demands in order to make him cry Uncle -- which is really all they care about. Perhaps if he were just a little bit less accommodating they would have been more inclined to take yes for an answer.
but sadly, when both sides want to be seen as the greatest spending cutters in history it becomes a race to the bottom and that's what happened here.
“It’s a political and policy gamble — the idea that people would welcome a large deal when it required middle-class Americans to sacrifice, even down the road, at a time when they have fewer resources,” said Neera Tanden, chief operating officer at the Center for American Progress and former domestic policy adviser in the Obama administration.
Administration officials said the shift fits with Obama’s vision of what his presidency should look like.
“The president ran for the office to bring both parties together to solve big problems. That’s what he is trying to do here, even if it comes with political pain,” Dan Pfeiffer, White House communications director, said in an e-mail.
I suppose "political pain" is one way to describe it.
Elizabeth Drew writes essentially the same story in the NY Review of Books. It has been obvious to close observers for a long time.
I suppose since he didn't explicitly call the victims of the Norweigian terrorist "Little Eichmans" he won't be pilloried:
Kevin MacDonald, Professor of Psychology at Cal State Long Beach, writing on the conservative eZine Alternative Right, admires Anders Breivik for his analytic skills and clarity of thought:
In general, however, it must be said that he is a serious political thinker with a great many insights and some good practical ideas on strategy (e.g., developing culturally conservative media, developing youth organizations that will confront the Marxist street thugs, gaining control of NGOs).
To be sure, Professor MacDonald has some quibbles with Breivik for failing to call out the "Jewish media control" in Norway (and in Europe and America) , but in general the attack on multiculturalism is spot-on:
In any case, he is certainly right in characterizing multiculturalism as an ideology of hate. Note particularly his anger at the action of the Labour Party in England in opening the gates of immigration in order “to humiliate the right-wing opponents of immigration.” As he notes in several places, multiculturalism is hatred of Europeans and their culture masked by humanism
Professor MacDonald is fan of Anders Breivik's manifesto, but what about his actions? What about the massacre of of the scores of young Labor Party activists? Again, MacDonald is clear in support of the "conservative Christian knight":
It remains to be seen what the long term effect of his actions will be. There is certainly great revulsion at the murder of young people. However, I suppose it is possible that in the long run European elites will understand that the glorious multicultural future will not be attained without a great deal of bloodletting and realize they will have to change their ways. Indeed, one of his insights is that in the long run “the multi-cultural neocolonial regimes will either have imploded or have become very Stalinist.” I agree.
Dave Neiwert has a full rundown on the "intellectual" framework for this including some very interesting ties to American right wing conservatism.
I happen to believe in academic freedom and free speech so I think this fellow should be allowed to say whatever he wants. But it's quite interesting to see a right wing professor basically endorsing terrorist activity (his disclaimer about the "revulsion at the murder of young people" notwithstanding.) It's his right, of course, but I have to wonder if he would have had the nerve to say it if the victims had been American and if the the same shunning and protest would follow as what happened in the Ward Churchill incident:
*On September 12, 2001 Ward Churchill published a controversial essay about the September 11, 2001 attacks, entitled "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens". In that essay, Churchill argued that American foreign policies provoked the attacks and questioned the innocence of some of the 9/11 victims, characterizing them as part of the infrastructure of an imperialist government, and as "little Eichmanns". National attention was drawn to the essay in January 2005, when Churchill was invited to speak at Hamilton College in New York as a panelist in a debate titled "Limits of Dissent".
Hundreds of relatives of 9/11 victims protested against Churchill's scheduled appearance at Hamilton. Joan Hinde Stewart, Hamilton College president, said that the college was committed to his right of free speech and would not be rescinding the invitation. As publicity about this controversy grew, the Colorado Legislature unanimously passed a resolution labeling Churchill's remarks "evil and inflammatory." Colorado Governor Bill Owens, a Republican, stated Churchill should be fired and asked the university to dismiss him. New York governor George Pataki, also a Republican, called Churchill a "bigoted terrorist supporter." Local media in Colorado and in the Hamilton College area broke the story and conservative bloggers such as Little Green Footballs and Free Republic began posting hundreds of comments critical of Churchill. Two days later the national media took note.
From New York City to Niagara Falls, N.Y., hundreds of gay and lesbian couples across the state began marrying on Sunday — the first taking their vows just after midnight — in the culmination of a long battle in the Legislature and a new milestone for gay rights advocates seeking to legalize same-sex marriage across the nation.
In other news, I have decided to break off my engagement to my fiancee to fulfill a sudden, uncontrollable urge to marry my birds. Both of them. I look forward to a life of henpecking, but that's the price of an open mind. And it's all New York's fault.
On a more serious note, though, there is another interesting angle to the marriage equality story, and it's an economic one:
There are also a variety of same-sex wedding celebrations, some with commercial or promotional overtones, on the agenda over the next days and months.
On Monday night, three gay couples will wed onstage at the St. James Theater after the evening’s performance of the Broadway musical “Hair.” On Saturday, two dozen couples will marry in two pop-up chapels that are to be installed in Central Park. And the Fire Island Pines resort is promoting three same-sex wedding packages, one featuring a private ferry ride “complete with your own crew of drag queens.”
The argument over same-sex marriage isn't just an emotional, civil rights and religious argument. It's an economic argument, too. Marriage means increased economic benefits for same-sex couples. It means money spent on weddings. Money spent on honeymoons. Money spent on anniversaries. Money spent on divorces.
Marriage is a tool of job creation. Conservatives want to prevent gay couples from becoming job creators in this capacity. Job creators who build demand for services that serve real people in the real economy, usually delivered by small business, the real driver of economic growth.
But as we all know, there is only one kind of "job creator" a conservative cares about, and it's the kind that doesn't actually create jobs.
Funny Twitter conversation with White House spokesman Dan Pfeiffer:
Rory Cooper RT@CollegePolitico:From what @pfeiffer44 tells me the President will sign any debt deal that congress sends him http://t.co/sHBUdXm
Dan Pfeiffer: no, I said I believed a short term can't pass congress not shld it
Rory Cooper: Q: "Do you see a scenario where the house & senate pass a deal but the President doesn't sign it?" @pfeiffer44 A: "No"
Dan Pfeiffer: right, bc i dont see the congress passing a short term bc Dems oppose it and boehner needs dems #nicetry
Rory Cooper: Fair enough, but you are saying that the WH doesn't see a bill coming from Congress that you will oppose.
Twitter is often a confusing medium so I forgive anyone for being misunderstood. But it does seem clear that the president is willing to sign any bill that gets presented to him. He's just assuming that the Democrats will not sign of on anything that he doesn't approve. And I would assume that's correct.
However, it might be useful for the president to be able to distance himself from the bill at this point, and Boehner seems to need to pretend that it's coming from congress not the White House, so this language could be intentional. (Or not -- it could just be twitter nonsense.)
"People like you and me that have done well in life need to sacrifice a little more."
Gosh that would be really generous of them to agree to "sacrifice" a little more. I wonder what that "sacrifice" would feel like to them? From what I hear many of them would become so depressed they couldn't rouse themselves to get out of bed and go to work because it just wouldn't be worth it to them. And then all of us will suffer because these are the job creators who generously allow us to make them money as long as they don't have to pay taxes.
I don't know what that kind of "sacrifice" feels like and I never will. But people who are scheduled to have their Social Security and Medicare benefits cut are required to share in that sacrifice so I have an inkling -- everyone has skin in the game and all that.
Here's a little factoid to think about:
The average monthly Social Security benefit for a retired worker was about $1,177 at the beginning of 2011.
The median yearly income for Americans in retirement is about $30,000 per year.
I have a sneaking suspicion that these millionaires have no idea what this allegedly "equal" sacrifice means to those people. Here's a little example from the Rude One:
The old lady at the pharmacy counter obviously wore an adult diaper. That tell-tale sharp urine scent half-masked by sweet-smelling chemicals emanated from her, and the Rude Pundit stood right behind her yesterday, waiting to pick up the pills that prevent him from going on a five-state killing spree. She was getting three prescriptions. The total was $6.00. This puzzled the old lady. She had never paid anything before, and even this seemingly small amount was obviously causing her consternation. The cashier checked with the pharmacist, who said that there had been a minor change to her plan, and now she had to pay a little for the scrips, a buck-fifty, three bucks. She apologized and put aside the couple of other things she was going to purchase to pay for the medicine.
The Rude Pundit didn't know if the change had been to Medicare or to a supplemental plan, but, either way, she was being asked to contribute more than she had before, which she did.
And clearly, she didn't have it to spare because she had to put back her other items I had an encounter like this recently myself. This "tip" money to wealthy people is the difference between medicine and orange juice to people who have to live on $1100.00 a month.
In a country in which the above exists, it is depraved to cut social insurance and health care programs for people who are old and sick and cannot work. The idea that those people should be asked to "share" in the alleged sacrifice of millionaires who leave more money in the seats of their corporate jets than these people have left over at the end of the month is outrageous..
When that level of wealth inequality exists but the government insists that little old ladies be forced to "pay more" so they'll be " more responsible" (and call it shared sacrifice!) something has gone fundamentally wrong. Fix that, we fix the country.
It looks like we got us a full blown Centrists Revolt on our hands. First there's the Super Congress, which plans to allow nothing but Very Serious Grown-ups to gather in backrooms to decide what to tell the children (also known as citizens) they are going to have to do. Should be awesome. Maybe they can do elections like too. It would save a lot of money. And we're going to need it. For catfood.
But that's nothing to the re-emergence of the perennial Third Party for the Radical Middle. The last time they brought in Jack McCoy and called it Unity 08. Today Tom "suck on this" Friedman announces the latest incarnation, creatively dubbed "Americans Elect."
Thanks to a quiet political start-up that is now ready to show its hand, a viable, centrist, third presidential ticket, elected by an Internet convention, is going to emerge in 2012. I know it sounds gimmicky — an Internet convention — but an impressive group of frustrated Democrats, Republicans and independents, called Americans Elect, is really serious, and they have thought out this process well. In a few days, Americans Elect will formally submit the 1.6 million signatures it has gathered to get on the presidential ballot in California as part of its unfolding national effort to get on the ballots of all 50 states for 2012.
Oh Goody. These are people who evidently think the political center is between Barack Obama and the Republicans. Think about that for a moment.
Dave Weigel shares this bit of background on who Friedman and the Centrists see boldly challenging the status quo:
At the Aspen Ideas Festival, I'd heard him muse, to an audience of the sort of people who wouldn't laugh at "Americans Elect," that Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles should consumate their partnership as a presidential ticket.
Fortunately these wealthy gadflies come up with something like this in almost every election and it inevitably goes nowhere. Here's a little trip down memory lane:
January 07, 2008
By The Time They Got To Wankstock
by digby
Following up on D-Day's post below, may I just reiterate how predictable it is that the Bloomer Wankstock has now decided to insist that the candidates "renounce partisan bickering"? D-day wonders what that means:
If the Democrats want to let the Bush tax cuts expire for those making $200,000 or more, and the Republicans don't want any expiration, is the bipartisan position letting the tax cuts expire for those making (infinity-$200,000)/2?
Actually, that's not it at all. "Partisan bickering" means the Democrats proposing to let the Bush tax cuts expire. Period. You see, it's divisive for Democrats to even hint that the Republicans have been on the wrong track. We need to move on from that kind of partisan ugliness and "get something done" which is actually get nothing done.
What the Bloomberg discussions and the calls for bipartisanship are all about is to narrow the range of options for the Democratic nominee. That's part of what I was illustrating with the David Boren sketch of yesterday.
Look, the real agenda here is to cut the heart out of the economic populist pitch that's shown to be very popular among the grassroots in both parties thus far. The standard bearers of that pitch may not make it to the finish line, but there's a strong possibility that their effect will be felt in the coming campaign. In 1992, health care and the deficit became the defining issues of the campaign not because Bill Clinton came into the campaign running on them but because a fluke health care campaign by Senator Harris Wofford was taken up by Bob Kerrey and others in the primaries --- and the deficit was flogged as the greatest threat to western civilization by a bipartisan group of "centrists" called the Concord Coalition --- and a little nutcase named Ross Perot.
As they did then, the villagers, plutocrats and the aristocrats have to put a stop to any populist/progressive policies as quickly as possible. They substitute progressive policies with calls for "fiscal responsibility" and knee-cap populist sentiment with these cries for "centrist solutions." One tried and true method is to set up a situation where conciliation is supposedly the take away message from the voters and then blame the change agents when the other side plays the victim. The Republicans are very good at staging the hissy kabuki, which will, as usual, twist the Democrats into pretzels as they try to battle it back. (I have seen nothing from any candidate that indicates they have the skill to change that particular dynamic.)
They bank on the fact that people will understand that since the Republicans spent the country into oblivion and the wars without end must be funded or the boogeymen will kill them in their in their beds, we just can't afford new programs when the nation needs to "sacrifice." (Yes, now they will ask for sacrifice...)
The November election will take place against that background of economic distress, which ought to be good news for candidates running on a platform of change.
But the opponents of change, those who want to keep the Bush legacy intact, are not without resources. In fact, they’ve already made their standard pivot when things turn bad — the pivot from hype to fear. And in case you haven’t noticed, they’re very, very good at the fear thing.
You see, for 30 years American politics has been dominated by a political movement practicing Robin-Hood-in-reverse, giving unto those that hath while taking from those who don’t. And one secret of that long domination has been a remarkable flexibility in economic debate. The policies never change — but the arguments for these policies turn on a dime.
When the economy is doing reasonably well, the debate is dominated by hype — by the claim that America’s prosperity is truly wondrous, and that conservative economic policies deserve all the credit.
But when things turn down, there is a seamless transition from “It’s morning in America! Hurray for tax cuts!” to “The economy is slumping! Raising taxes would be a disaster!”
It's "divisive" you see, to question such things. But we must deal with the deficit, which in beltway CW means spending cuts. (William Cohen called the deficit "fiscal child abuse" today at Wankstock.)
The compromise, if there is one, will be no new taxes and no new programs. Voila: the status quo.
And it isn't just domestic policy. The very "serious" foreign policy clerisy is terribly worried about divisiveness too. Here's Michael O'Hanlon offering his special brand of village wisdom in the WSJ this morning:
[T]here are nonetheless two problems with Mr. Obama's Iraq views that call into doubt his ability to build a truly inclusive American political movement. First, he seems contemptuous of the motivations of those who supported the war. While showing proper respect for the heroic efforts of our troops, he displays little regard for the views of those many Americans who saw the case for war in the first place -- even as he has called for a more civil and respectful political debate.
[...]
Politically, Republicans will surely try to paint any policy of rapid, complete withdrawal as Democratic defeatism. Mr. Obama needs to think hard about whether his uplifting message of hope is really bulletproof enough to withstand these charges -- and about whether his Iraq views truly reflect the non-ideological, nonpartisan wisdom of the American people that he seeks to lead.
The CW is emerging on all fronts. The conservative political establishment is obviously very worried about a rejection of the status quo of earthquake proportions.
I do not believe that it is impossible to beat it back, but we have to be clear eyed about the forces that are being gathered to defeat this. They will not go quietly, and once a Democrat is in office, they will use all of their formidable powers to keep them constricted within a narrow range of acceptable policy options.
I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade. I've long extolled the virtue and necessity of inspiration and participation in politics and real democratic mandate would be a powerful weapon. But real change isn't going to be simple and it isn't going to be easy, no matter how big a mandate for a strong progressive agenda the Democrats are able to achieve. This is a massive ship we're trying to turn and while it's necessary to have a talented captain at the helm, it takes more than that to counter momentum. We're just beginning to see the movement that's necessary to change course.
The ship's steering mechanism seems to be broken. Anybody know how to fix it?
The confidence fairy strikes back by David Atkins ("thereisnospoon")
Dave Dayen has been tremendous in his coverage of the default crisis generally, and his latest take on the S&P shakedown of the U.S. economy is no exception:
This concern about the markets has happened very suddenly. All of a sudden there’s a belief that a clean increase or a small debt deal with a minor amount of spending cuts would not be enough to avoid a downgrade. Standard and Poor’s basically forced this by saying that they would downgrade if there wasn’t a $4 trillion deficit deal in the next 90 days. The claim is that this has been caused by political leaders attaching the debt limit to a deal on reducing the deficit, and the inability to reach an agreement, the political stalemate, has led the markets to lose confidence.
But this is absolutely crazy. The market was up 2% last week. 10-year Treasuries are at 2.96%. There’s no difference between this week and last week in terms of the country’s deficit problem. This is about perception, and it doesn’t seem to even be about the perception of the actual market. It’s about the perception of someone at Standard and Poor’s. The rating agencies, which played a major role in the financial meltdown, has just up and put a gun to the head of the country and demanded austerity in the middle of a jobs crisis. Are you kidding me?
Washington certainly deserves blame for attaching a huge lift of deficit reduction to the debt limit, which is so routine but which has such adverse consequences. But this is completely irresponsible on the part of not just DC but the rating agencies. The word “collusion” comes to mind, with the elites of the world demanding that their tax cuts be paid for with someone else’s money.
Dave is right to suspect some form of collusion, given the close relationship between Wall St. and Washington's most powerful players in both parties. Anyone familiar with the history of the TARP fiasco and the effort to whitewash the MERS scandal would be wise to consider the possibility of foul play here.
But on the other hand, this is also an inevitable consequence of Washington gamesmanship when it comes to the markets. Contrary to deeply held conservative beliefs, markets are fundamentally irrational. Jokes about confidence fairies notwithstanding, markets are as susceptible to both panic and irrational exuberance as any herd of wild animals. When push comes to shove, the masters of the financial universe are no smarter or more rational than anyone else: they just happen to siphon a lot more money off the rest of the economy through esoteric means than do the rest of us.
And just like a herd of not-too-bright animals, all it takes to start a mini-panic is for just one of the players to get nervous. In the case of today's financial markets, the first people to get nervous will be either the ratings agencies or the bondholders. The ratings agencies have taken a lot of fire for overinflated ratings in the past, and are now likely to overcorrect by trying to get ahead of the market, lest they be seen again as the functionally useless entities they really are. In that sense, it's no surprise that S&P would be the first to get wet feet. The bondholders, on the other hand, have remained fairly confident that some sort of deal will happen to avert disaster--though that confidence could certainly evaporate by Monday, particularly if the ratings agencies get spooked and the Asian markets tank. Remember that the supposedly brilliant bondholders were dumb enough to believe that the initial TARP vote would sail through Congress, then panicked like schoolchildren before a crowd of vicious raptors immediately thereafter. Much as these people like to elevate themselves as the smartest guys in the room to justify their obscene wealth, they're not terribly bright or savvy.
Have any economic fundamentals changed between now and last week? No they haven't. It's true that the economy is already being hurt to some degree by the ongoing impasse. But fundamentals don't really drive the market. If they did, the market wouldn't be soaring as the real economy continues to tank. The market is driven by perception, panic, exuberance and greed, particularly among the wealthy classes and their friends.
As I've argued before, market jitters are just the next act in the kabuki play, the necessary condition for nervous nellies in each caucus to give in and go along with whatever villager-approved Grand Bargain is on the table. It's not a question of if it happens, but when.
Now it's certainly possible that this isn't happening. But it's a little weird to me that the top political reporter at NBC news is just now considering it.
FWIW, Geithner also says that they will need to have Democratic votes to get this done. Pushing it up to the very edge of Armageddon is a very good way to make that happen.
