Tag Archives: democrats

Let’s make a deal.

There are few things in life more certain than eventual bipartisan agreement on screwing large swaths of our fellow citizens. While I’m glad there won’t be a repeat of the government shutdown / debt ceiling self-immolation ritual, this pattern of gradually ratcheting up the austerity gets very tiresome after two or three cycles. This time, the unemployed get thrown under the bus. What a great way to save money – take food out of the mouths of people who have been down on their luck for more than a year. Freaking 7% unemployment and they’re acting like the jobless are just plain lazy. That’s a truly criminal level of ignorance on the part of elected officials.

One thing, though. Let’s dispense with this notion that the Republicans are somehow against raising taxes. This has been thoroughly debunked since the House went red three years ago. Even before they took office, they killed the “Making Work Pay” tax credit, costing families like mine another $800 a year. Just last year they canceled the payroll tax holiday – another hike. Thanks, Mr. Boehner. This year, it’s a “fee” on air travel. Not something I take personally, but still … a tax by any other name.

And yet they still cling to this label, and the corporate media repeats the myth because it’s the simple thing to do, the path of least resistance. We are supposed to see the disagreements between the parties as a clash of equivalent versions of extremism, when the positions Democrats stake out in this decade are almost identical, save marriage equality, to those held by the Republicans fifteen to twenty years ago. They were conservative then. Democrats, by and large, are conservative now. Republicans are now driven by their hard right, which is more delusional than ever. This week, their leaders chose not to take their lead, but the path they are cutting is a highly conservative one, an extension of the austerity narrative, and one that will keep our economy in stasis for the foreseeable future.

Well, no shut down. Something to give one cheer for. Then it’s back to work.

luv u,

jp

Lies, etc.

The airwaves are thick with heated commentary on how President Obama overstated the simplicity of his signature health insurance legislation, popularly known as Obamacare. “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it,” was how the refrain went throughout his first term. It was an unqualified statement and, indeed, an emotionally potent oversimplification of the type we see in political rhetoric, I don’t know … how about all the time?

Right, so, he lied in the sense that what he said was not accurate for 100% of the people who have health insurance, 100% of the time. It is, however, accurate for about 95% of the people 100% of the time, and for the other 5%, only some of the time. If you have a super crappy individual health insurance plan with an enormous deductible and you signed onto Who lied about Obamacare? Seriously?it before implementation of the Affordable Care Act, sure, you can keep that dog – it’s grandfathered in. The insurance companies simply can’t continue selling those policies now that the law is in effect because – and this is important – THEY SUCK TOO BADLY, and because of that, they do not comply with the law.

To hear t.v. commentators of nearly every stripe talk about this, you would think individual life insurance is some kind of Eden from which subscribers are being exiled by pitchfork-wielding devils. Let me tell you, I spent many years in the private insurance market. I had a plan with Mutual of Omaha and one with Excellus BlueCross BlueShield. Mutual of Omaha paid for exactly nothing; the money went one way, from me to them. BCBS was mostly BS – I had a high deductible, as did my wife. I remember once going to my doctor because of a persistent cough, having to get some blood work, and being declared well. That cost me $500 (in 2005). My wife had an emergency room visit that came to $2,000. (She was fine, also.)

My point? Jon Stewart made it best. The people who are yelling “liar!” the loudest are the same ones that have been telling ridiculous lies about the ACA since its passage. In the liars hall of fame, Obama’s “never” clause ranks far behind “death panels” and not even in the same league as “Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction.”

luv u,

jp

Cheapskates “R” us.

This will be brief. I’m in the middle of a take-home mid term in Semantics. (Still a student at 54; Christ on a freaking bike.) Anyway…

Today is the day that extended SNAP (food stamp) benefits expire. Happy Halloween, everybody! SNAP was allocated some additional money in the stimulus package, way back in early 2009, when it almost seemed possible that our national government would do what needed to be done to rescue the economy. The assumption back then was that the economy would be generating enough prosperity by this time that SNAP benefits wouldn’t be needed.  Obama’s chief economic adviser at the time – a certain Dr. Pangloss, I believe – was certain Congress and the president would remain committed to putting people back to work.

Help us, Austerians!Then, of course, the Austerians came to power in 2011 and set us on the righteous path of Japan in the 1990s – the path we are crawling along today on our bloody hands and knees. Millions are still out of work, millions more under-employed with zero security, many more working their asses off and still needing SNAP benefits, still needing the support of food pantries. These millions of people are now the favored target of the Austerians. If people are in need, surely it’s their fault and not the fault of policymakers who will do anything rather than invest in economic growth. SNAP has grown to $80 billion a year! they exclaim. What’s their solution? Allocate money for, say, public works projects while interest rates are low so that we can repair and replace our aging infrastructure, invest in our future, and create jobs? God, no! Cut SNAP by $40 billion.

The Democrats, true to form, have an alternative to this draconian policy: Cut $4 billion from SNAP. Screw the poor, only not so much; that’s their considered answer. Now they’ll work on a compromise that will cut somewhere, I suspect, closer to the GOP number. While they hash this out, today’s expiration of the SNAP extension means the average family receiving the benefit will get $35 less a month with which to feed their families. This makes an enormous difference to families already on the edge.

This is why we suck. Let’s just stop sucking, right?

luv u,

jp

Bugs in the system.

So the government’s Affordable Care Act web site doesn’t work. Does that surprise anyone? It’s a big, honking, outsourced engineering project that has had the budget axe swinging over it for the past three years. It’s been under constant threat of being defunded or declared unconstitutional, subjected to incessant political attack in Washington and around the country by a party dedicated to disabling it anyway that they can.

The fact is, the most dysfunctional part of the Affordable Care Act is Medicaid expansion, not because it doesn’t work but because half of the states in the union have refused to participate, even with 100% funding from the federal government. We hear so much about the Web site being a piece of shit (and rightfully so), and yet I don’t see anyone on the right wringing their hands over the fact that something like 7 million people, the vast Four star general in war on healthmajority of whom are working poor, will have no access to health coverage simply because the governors and legislatures in their state capitals are intent on making a political point. Throw needy (working!) families under the bus, and that’s fine. But build a buggy Web site? Unforgiveable!

It’s pretty clear, in fact, why Republicans are pulling the rug out from under their needy constituents. Chris Hayes interviewed an Ohio state representative on Wednesday night, and while the fellow tried his best to conceal his objection to Medicaid behind some blather about legislative process, he eventually got around to saying that Medicaid was a program people would get “locked into” because they would enjoy the benefit so much, it would be a disincentive for them to raise their standard of living to the point where they wouldn’t receive it anymore. Health coverage makes you lazy. The same old G.O.P. and conservative Democrat trope about welfare, still with us after all these years. They don’t like owning up to it, but it’s still there.

I have to say that this nationwide refusal by Republicans to sign on to Medicaid expansion is certainly one of the most craven domestic policy decisions I have witnessed in my adult life. Hearing them complain about a Web site would be laughable … if this were a laughting matter.

Once again – they’re the reason our kids are ugly.

luv u,

jp

One way out.

Let me preface this tirade with the admission that I am no fan of bipartisanship. I agree with Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) on the notion that nothing of any great value has come out of it in recent decades; in fact, quite the opposite. The Iraq War, the USA Patriot Act, etc. If that’s how sausage is made, we should consider eating something other than sausage.

That said, we are faced with some fundamental problems with respect to our rapidly eroding ability to govern ourselves at the national level. A handful of tea party House members, maybe 40, from heavily gerrymandered districts have become the tail that wags the Congressional dog, in essence. They have every incentive Discharge petition?to continue and even enhance their extremism, as that is the only way they can please their hard-right constituencies back home. Around that core is another probably 40-50 House republicans terrified of being challenged by tea party types in the next round of primaries. Boehner needs these folks to maintain his speakership, so he goes along as do most of what remains of the GOP caucus. Hence, a list of demands is attached to a 60-day continuing resolution – not even a budget – with the same treatment threatened for the debt ceiling vote in a couple of weeks.

What’s to be done to keep us from toppling over a more dramatic precipice than the one we encountered in 2008? I think it’s time for a coalition government in the House. Get a majority of Republicans and Democrats to support a centrist or even a center-right candidate for Speaker, one who will agree to advance the following objectives: (1) keep the government open and funded at whatever level; (2) raise the debt ceiling well in advance of each deadline; (3) negotiate on a budget deal to cover more than six months to a year (i.e. plan ahead).

This would not be a progressive coalition by any means. But given the current make-up of the House, it’s hard to see how else we can keep the lights on and prevent the collapse of our financial system. We need to put the tea party minority in a box; to wall them off from the levers of power. If we don’t, the current crisis will continue and will be repeated again and again. And given the fact that the best we can hope for in the CR debate is the continuation of sequestration-level funding of federal programs, a centrist coalition hardly seems like a worse outcome.

Though I’m not happy about it, I think this is the way out of this mess. Let me know what you think.

luv u,

jp

Hair on fire.

Good lord almighty, Fox news must be in pig-heaven right now. Three running Obama administration scandals, each one ten times bigger than Watergate and Iran-Contra combined. This should be a solid excuse for Congress not to do anything about (1) creating jobs and infrastructure, (2) getting our national security state under control, and (3) doing something to fight global warming.

Let’s just examine these, one at a time:

Benghazi. This is bullshit. Quite frankly, the only reason why we are hearing anything about this incident eight months after the fact is because the Republican nominee decided to politicize it on the very day it occurred. Does anyone remember this? Romney jumped all over Obama’s shit because he claimed that the administration’s expressions of regret over that bogus pseudo-porn movie denigrating Muslims amounted to apologizing to the terrorists who blew up the consulate. That prompted the White House to get out in front of the investigation into what had happened … probably too far out in front, frankly. At the time, protests were occurring all over the Muslim world related to that video. They chose initially to come down on that side of what was then a cloudy issue.

Where are the jobs, Mr. Boehner? IRS Targeting of Tea Party groups. Indefensible action on the part of the IRS. Though for all of those whose hair is on fire over this, it should be noted that all of the groups who applied, I believe, were ultimately given tax exempt status. Recall, too, that the IRS harassed anti war groups during W. Bush’s administration, but that wasn’t the end of it. There was domestic surveillance and infiltration of political organizations on the left. There were mass arrests and beatings. For chrissake, they even had the Defense Intelligence Agency spy on the Thomas Merton Center! Given the degree of governmental dysfunction that’s attributable to the tea party, it is a bit hard for me to get overly worked up. Wrong, yes … but on the scale of wrongs, this is kind of puny.

Justice Spying on the AP. Welcome to the national security state! We’ve only been living in it my entire life through. The last administration began the open practice of sweeping up all phone calls and email (not that the NSA wasn’t doing that before W). Bradley Manning is still in jail for telling the truth. This is a major problem, but not surprising, and basically the product of national security policies that have gone largely unchallenged by the now outraged corporate press.

Short answer: Don’t use this as an excuse for continued dysfunction. Mr. Boehner: never mind repealing Obamacare for the 27th time. Where the hell are the jobs?

luv u,

jp

Chain gang.

The thing that keeps popping into my mind as more details of the president’s budget emerge is the notion of how small-bore our political leaders are about everything. We face enormous problems – climate changes, massive unemployment, deindustrialization, economic inequality, rampant militarism, an out-of-control justice and penal system, rampant gun violence, and so on – and yet our politicians behave like the wizened, stingy little men they are and fail again and again to recognize the scale of what’s confronting us. Obama is no exception, his desire to reach a “Grand Bargain” with the Republicans so overriding that he appears to have forgotten who stood out in the sun, rain, whatever, for hours and voted for him last November.

Think bigger.
Think bigger.

Honestly, it’s hard to imagine that a Democratic president, serving in the wake of two decades of steady decline for the poor and working class, would opt for a plan that would cut the meager supplemental retirement checks of elderly people in order to preserve preferential treatment for the nation’s wealthy, who have been doing just fine since the Reagan years, thank you very much. He talks about balanced approaches and shared sacrifice, but what he seems to forget is that the vast majority of us have already carried more than our share of sacrifice. Many have paid with their jobs/careers, others with their homes, their retirement funds. And they are supposed to give up more on top of that? Ludicrous.

This is not a new formula, nor is it a surprise. Obama has been signalling this decision for a few years. He is just following the example of previous Democratic party presidents, particularly that of Bill Clinton, who was a master triangulator and who ruled in a way that assumed the poor, the workers, people on the left, and people of color had no where else to go politically. The only remedy for this cynicism is push back. Politicians respond to public pressure – it there is any “law of gravity” in politics, that is it. Look at how quickly the Occupy Wall Street movement changed the conversation over a year ago. It has since drifted back to austerity and small-mindedness, but that can be overcome. Look at the gun debate, at immigration, at gay rights. There is movement because politicians are looking at the masses of people moving these issues forward.

So… if anyone is going to save the poor, the disabled, the elderly, from a greater level of penury (imposed to service the interests of the rich), it will be us. Make a ruckus…. or they’ll fuck us. That is all.

luv u,

jp

 

Better than worse.

Election’s over. Dodged another bullet there. That was close … sort of… if three million human votes and about 100 electoral votes is a thin margin. Thank you, black people, brown people, and women for saving us (i.e. white men) from ourselves once again. Without your help, John Bolton would likely be the next secretary of state. You should be very, very proud of what you kept us from doing – that being, quite literally, driving this country into yet another war. Now it’s merely possible that we will have a war with Iran, not likely. A dangerous state of affairs, to be sure, but not a guaranteed catastrophe. Nice work.

Post-election used to be a time to reflect on what happened, what was decided. There appears to be some of that going on, though probably not enough. Suffice to say that the predictions on the center-left were far more accurate than those on the popular right. It was more than a little cheering to see Karl Rove scrambling for data on Fox News after Ohio was called for Obama. This can’t be right! It would mean all of our assumptions are massively skewed! Welcome to the world of fact, fat boy. Couldn’t happen to a better guy. Wish I could be a fly on the wall the next time he speaks with Sheldon Adelson and some of the other rich wing-nuts who gave him millions of dollars to crush Obama, Sherrod Brown, and others.

Right. So… what we’ve got is something very much the same as we had before, minus some very bad actors – namely congress members Joe Walsh, Allen West (it appears), and so on. The administration still has its many problems, namely targeted killing, extralegal detention, craven lack of effort on Israel/Palestine, soft commitment to expanding employment, etc. But as I’ve said many times to friends and family, same is better than worse. That’s enough reason to vote. I think many, many Americans were smart enough to see that this was the case, and many stood in lines for ridiculous stretches of time to cast their votes.

God bless them. They saved our sorry asses to fight another day. That’s something to celebrate.

luv u,

jp

W.B.G. (We’ll be gone)

Back before the start of the financial crisis in 2008, the guiding principle of Wall Street bankers was i.b.g./y.b.g. – when the whole thing comes crashing down, “I’ll be gone and you’ll be gone.” We will get away with it. That was prescient, to say the least. They pretty much did get away from it, except a handful of bad actors that hurt the wealthy as well as the ordinary. (Bernie Madoff is one of those.)

As we stand at the cusp of another presidential election, witnessing the terrifying aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, it’s clear that for the “conservative” (i.e. statist reactionary) side of the political equation, i.b.g./y.b.g. appears to apply to the climate crisis as well. Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has adopted his party’s Luddite stance on global warming, advocating massive expansion of fossil fuel extraction, processing, and use and joining the crackpot consensus on the right that sees extreme weather as a series of unfortunate (and wholly unrelated) accidents best ignored.

That the G.O.P. standard bearer can maintain this position after a year of unprecedented extreme weather is remarkable. That he can do it in the wake of Sandy’s devastation is pathological. Madness though it may be, it has a goal: profit. Romney is fighting for his class, and fighting hard. He is the champion of short-term gain, narrowly shared.

His beloved Keystone pipeline is case in point. Romney speaks of this project as a means of “energy independence”. I’m guessing he’s not ignorant enough of global markets to think that any resulting fuel would simply be shared amongst Americans. Any oil produced in the U.S. goes into the global market. Even more importantly, Keystone would carry tar-sands sludge, mixed with toxic chemicals, down to refineries on the Gulf coast where it would be refined into diesel fuel and shipped to China. The bottom line is, well, the bottom line. Who cares if it contributes mightily to the collapse of our ecosystem? They make their money, then i.b.g. / y.b.g., right?

Trouble is, w.b.g. (we’ll be gone), too. That plainly won’t do. Do the right thing on Tuesday, and send Romney back to his mansion and his $100 million I.R.A.

luv u,

jp

After party.

Just some random thoughts on the major party conventions, now that they’re over. Don’t have a lot of time to write this, so it’s going to be… well, random.

Tale of Two Crackers. Bill Clinton’s big speech on Wednesday night capped what seems to me like a political rehabilitation of monumental proportions. At some point, everybody started loving Bill Clinton, and he has become a major statesman … or as close to that as you can come in this age. It wasn’t terribly surprising to see this process happen with Ronald Reagan, who – despite having a spotty popularity rating during his presidency – the media always portrayed as wildly popular, and around whom an image-enhancement industry of sorts has been at work since his departure. But Clinton? Does anyone remember how denigrated he was throughout his presidency? I suppose people have gradually come to the realization that things weren’t so bad in the 1990s … since everything since then has pretty generally sucked.

That brings me to the second cracker – W. Bush. During Clinton’s long speech, while people were hanging on every word, it was hard not to think of W’s total absence from his own party’s convention, both in person and in rhetoric. If this election is truly about a competition between two distinct approaches to government, this contrast speaks volumes about the degree to which each vision (1) has a record of success and (2) is something its proponents can advance with confidence.

Turnaround. Is America ready for a turnaround, Romney-style? I think we’ve already gotten a piece of that. Matt Taibbi’s recent reporting on Mitt Romney’s history at Bain Capital illustrates a bit of what we can expect from a Romney administration. The short story is this: Like the corporate raiders of the 1980s, Bain would do leveraged buy-outs of companies – basically buy them on credit with relatively little money down. The resulting debt would then be held by the company. Then they would compel the company to monetize its assets for dividend payments to its new shareholders – the people at Bain and its partners. What is left is the husk of a company that had already been under stress before Bain’s arrival and is now buried under a crushing debt burden, its assets sold off to enrich others.

That’s the Romney plan for America, in a nutshell. The G.O.P., if elected, will do what it always does – borrow massively (i.e. leverage), cut taxes for the rich (i.e. dividend payment to investors), privatize (i.e. monetize assets), and deregulate. You don’t need an MBA to figure out where that’s headed.

luv u,

jp