At Least He Knows A Mistake When He Hears One

You know you've stepped in it when one of your defenders maintains on your behalf that you "have great respect for women."  It is never a good sign given that Donald Trump himself has claimed "I have great respect for women."

Former Philadelphia mayor, Pennsylvania governor, and Democratic National Committee chairman Ed Rendell told The Washington Post's Dave Weigel of Donald Trump

Will he have some appeal to working-class Dems in Levittown or Bristol? Sure. For every one, he'll lose 1½, two Republican women. Trump's comments like `You can't be a 10 if you're flat-chested,' that'll come back to haunt him. There are probably more ugly women in America than attractive women. People take that stuff personally.








It is odd, as recognized here, that one "suggests in public that a woman's own appearance dictates just how she feels about Trump's frequent critiques of other women's looks or his fitness for the Oval Office." Still, there are more unattractive women than attractive women in America, just as there are more unattractive men than attractive women. It is an unfortunate condition of human anthropology or biology unavoidable for most of us, as Shel Silverstein and Bobby Bare seemed to understand over 35 years ago.







Nonetheless Rendell, as a public figure, is unable to speak the obvious and therefore took the more prudent course, telling reporters "it was dumb and insensitive and stupid, and if I offended anybody, I apologize."

Give the guy two points for acknowledging "it was dumb and insensitive and stupid," which is about as close as any public official or celebrity comes to saying "I was wrong." Take one point off for saying "if I offended anybody" and another half-point for the irrelevant "I apologize."

If I offended anybody? It is remarkable that someone could refer to a comment as "dumb and insensitive and stupid" and then confess to uncertainty as to whether anyone was offended. Of course, people were offended if it was insensitive and the "if" draws suspicion upon the sincerity of the entire apology.

Moreover, we need to disabuse ourselves of the notion that saying "I apologize" is an apology. Donald Trump does not demonstrate great respect for women by pleading that he has great respect for women. Neither does "I apologize" constitute an apology. My remark "was dumb and insensitive and stupid" is very good; the rare "I was wrong" is better.

"You know, it doesn’t really matter what [the media] write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass,” Donald Trump said in an interview in 1991.   What Ed Rendell said about women is nowhere near as bad as what Donald Trump stated then or has stated more recently. However.... really, there is no "however."










Share |

Hail To The Chief

Let's skip all the corruption-inducing money-raising from the Big Money Boyz (formerly known as "fat cats"), the seemingly endless speeches and debates, the choreographed political convention and, most of all, imposing upon voters in a democratic society the privilege of voting for their top leader.

Let's go right to the inauguration of Hillary Rodham Clinton as the 44th President of the United States.

Mrs. Clinton's nomination was heavily favored in 2008 but as Politico's Maggie Haberman reports, former Ohio governor (and Clinton acolyte Ted Strickland) maintains "Secretary Clinton's inevitability, or what appears to be inevitability, is something that is happening (on its own). So what to do about it? You accept it for what it is- a grass-roots movement. I don't know that there's a lesson to be learned from what happened several years ago.  The circumstances were very different then.

Acolyte is a little strong, but few descriptions of Ed Rendell are unfair.  The former Pennsylvania governor, critic of Social Security/Medicare, private-equity apologist, and fracking advocate contends "the rank-and-file Democrats, the political Democrats, the donor Democrats.... are of the strong belief that only Hillary can pull this (victory over the Repub nominee) off“.. People come up to me on the street and say 'How can I write a check to Hillary?' I've never seen anything like it, including in my own" campaigns."  And veteran Democratic strategist Tad Devine contends "I don't think... this tak of inevitability is a negative to her. I think it's more of an asset than a liability. She is stronger than any challenger has ever been. She has the strength of an incumbent president seeking reelection. That's her position... I don't see some anti-Hillary movement rising up in the Democratic Party. She's not a polarizing figure within the Democratic Party."

Agreed: in all likelihood, Hillary Clinton will run for the Democratic presidential nomination; if she does, she'll probably be successful; and if nominated, she'll probably defeat her opponent.

But one of Mrs. Clinton's assets could, and with a diligent media likely would, prove to be an obstacle to either her nomination or her election. Devine reportedly "added that Clinton has been helped in part by being a team player with Obama and in part because her husband's poll numbers are now so high."  

The Bill factor.  William Jefferson Clinton (initially) helped his wife attain political credibility.   But now that she has built upon that foundation by being a United States Senator and Defense Secretary (and accrued a tremendous following on the way), President Clinton's record is fair game.  And his statements and actions will be so for the GOP in a general election, and they should be for Democrats during the nominating process.   One of the former has helped, in its small way, with a movement gaining traction in Repub states, especially now that, as CBS News explained

Louisiana is the fifth state to adopt a law that requires abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.

Opponents say the laws are designed solely to close abortion facilities. Supporters say they make health care safer.

Louisiana's house passed the bill by a vote of 88 to 5.

Democrat Katrina Jackson sponsored the legislation.

"It ensures that physicians that do abortions in Louisiana do so in a safe manner and they are also held to the same standards as any other physician doing surgeries in this state," said Jackson.

Dr. Radha Raman does not perform abortions, but she worries because the bill could force at least three of the five abortion facilities in Louisiana to close.

"The thing is, you're decreasing the access to care by a big percentage," she said.

But then, as they say: that's a feature (actually, asset) rather than a bug.

The article continues

Often, doctors in abortion clinics do not have local admitting privileges because they travel from town to town to do the procedure.

Raman expects her patients in New Orleans may have to drive 300 miles away to Shreveport for abortion services.

"They're going to be overwhelmed over there, they could be booked out for months," said Raman.

Louisiana's bill is modeled after laws in Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, and Wisconsin.

Louisiana would make five (as the accompanying map indicates), once Governor Jindal signs the bill.

But now there are six.   According to Tulsa World, the Oklahoma state senate has approved a bill which "would require abortion clinics to have on site during the procedure a doctor with admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the facility." The bill now goes back to the House, which likely will approve it and send it to Repub Governor Mary Fallin, who would sign it.

Do you want a beachfront property in Arizona ?  You'd have to compete for its purchase with Louisiana's Jackson (photo of the genius, from Tulsa World, below), who claims the legislation she sponsored "ensures that physicians that do abortions in Louisiana do so in a safe manner and they are also held to the same standards as any other physician doing surgeries in this state." She apparently doesn't understand an admitting privilege.

is the right of a doctor, by virtue of membership as a hospital’s medical staff, to admit patients to a particular hospital or medical center for providing specific diagnostic or therapeutic services to such patient in that hospital. Each hospital maintains a list of health care providers who have admitting privileges in that hospital.

Citing the definition, a Daily Kos blogger last November- in the midst of controversy over legislation in Texas- typed 

when there’s an emergency, admitting privileges become irrelevant. Under a1986 federal law known as EMTALA, hospitals are required to provide care to anyone who needs emergency care [with or without insurance, by the way.] This requirement includes pregnant women who need a life-saving abortion, are in labor, or are suffering the effects of a botched abortion. [Sadly, in 2011, a bill was passed in the U.S. House of Representatives that would have allowed hospitals to turn away patients arriving in the ER in need of a life-saving abortion or other medical help related to abortions. Fortunately, that bill went nowhere, but the fact that it was introduced at all is very disturbing. Opponents of that inhumane notion called it the “Let Them Die” bill.]

Think of it this way: If you’re walking down the street and have a heart attack, it doesn’t matter who your personal doctor is, or whether he/she has admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of where you are: You can be taken to any hospital emergency room, get admitted, and receive treatment, even if your doctor isn’t there, and even if you don’t know a doctor within 30 miles of the hospital.

Also, if a woman is at home and experiences a pregnancy-related emergency, emergency responders will transport her to the closest hospital, regardless of where her doctor has “admitting privileges,” and—again, under federal law–she’ll be cared for there, no admitting-privileges questions asked.

It’s also important to realize that the notion of admitting privileges does not jibe with contemporary norms in inpatient hospital care. Today, many hospitals employ staff physicians to provide inpatient care, and whether an abortion provider has admitting privileges at a particular hospital plays little or no role in determining which hospital may be best suited to care for the patient.

As the Oklahoma bill was considered by the state senate, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma told RH Reality Check that admitting privileges laws "are nothing more than smokescreens to their real intent of restricting access to reproductive health-care services."   However, they are the third leg of Bill Clinton's prescription- "safe, legal, and rare"- for abortion.  If anyone is paying attention, the inevitable President Clinton 45 will not be able to avoid confronting whether this is a positive legacy of her husband's presidency.




Share |

Really Bad Advice

Elizabeth Warren isn't going to challenge Hillary Clinton (or anyone else, but especially Hillary Clinton) for the Democratic presidential nomination.  But that didn't stop former Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell, who poses the debate inside his party as between "economic populists" and "economic realists" from remarking

You can certainly do things to promote a fairer economic reality, but it can’t be the be-all and end-all of the government.   Wait and see how populist Bill de Blasio is when he actually has to govern...

Look at the turnout in New York. It’s not like you had people pouring out of their homes to support the populist message…If Elizabeth Warren ran in the Democratic presidential primary, she gets 15-18 percent, tops.

Of course, if polls also show a miniscule vote for Rendell in a hypothetical Democratic presidential primary- or they would, if he were to be included in them.  He is not, because he has shown as little interest in running for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination as has Elizabeth Warren.  And we all know that anyone can predict the Democratic nominee thirteen months into a presidential election cycle, as it is now.  In an NBC News/Wall street Journal survey taken December 6-8, 2005, Senator Barack Obama came in fifth at a whopping 5%- no doubt Rendell, who became an avid Clinton supporter, would have discounted Obama's chances.

Or he would have if he had summoned the same courage, or nerve, to criticize Barack Obama as he has the "economic populist."  In a classic case of the "straw man" argument, Rendell- who defended private equity twice in the presidential campaign while the Obama campaign decried its abuses- maintains economic fairness "can't be the be-all and end-all of government."

The public, however, would beg to differ.  A new poll

from the Democratic-aligned Public Policy Polling (PPP) and MoveOn.org has found that by overwhelming margins, voters want Social Security expanded — not cut.

The PPP poll asked voters in five House districts and five states whether they wanted Social Security expanded or cut. The districts were in Arizona, California, Massachusetts and New York, while the states were Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina and Washington.

On the question of whether to cut Social Security, respondents answered in the negative by more than 70 percent in nine out of 10 instances (the lone outlier still opposed cuts by 66 percent). When it came to expanding Social Security, the responses were similarly one-sided: an average of 65 percent supported the proposition.

Notably, almost 70 percent of respondents said they’d be less likely to support a candidate who backed Social Security cuts.

That poll was conducted by Public Policy Polling (PPP) on behalf of MoveOn.org. But an AP-NORC Center poll taken in August-September yielded similar results.  Respondents were asked whether they favored or opposed four measures, and the propositions and the responses are below.


Raising the cap on income subject of Social Security taxes, so that those with bigger incomes pay taxes on more of their wages:

favor: 61%                 oppose: 25%                  don't know: 10%        refused to answer: 3%


Reducing Social Security benefits for seniors with higher incomes:

favor: 41%                 oppose: 44%                  don't know: 11%        refused to answer: 4%

Gradually raising the age at which people can begin receiving Social Security benefits:

favor: 29%                  oppose: 58%                 don't know: 10%        refused to answer: 2%

Changing the way Social Security benefits are calculated so that the annual cost of living raises are smaller:

favor: 21%                   oppose: 62%                don't know: 11%        refused to answer: 6%



Clearly, Americans are opposed to means-testing Social Security, to raising the age of eligibility, and to changing the index to reduce benefits, while supporting raising the cap on Social Security taxes. But not onlmost individuals support this populist approach to "a fairer economic reality," so does the Massachusetts senator (video of The Young Turks' Cenk Uygur impressions, below) whom Rendell is cautioning us about.   Rendell  warned against emphasizing economic fairness after Senator Warren on November 18 took to the Senate floor to explain (transcript here)

I rise today to talk about the retirement crisis in this country – a crisis that has received far too little attention, and far too little response, from Washington.

I spent most of my career studying the economic pressures on middle class families – families who worked hard, who played by the rules, but who still found themselves hanging on by their fingernails. Starting in the 1970s, even as workers became more productive, their wages flattened out, while core expenses, things like housing and health care and sending a kid to college, just kept going up.

Working families didn’t ask for a bailout. They rolled up their sleeves and sent both parents into the workforce. But that meant higher childcare costs, a second car, and higher taxes. So they tightened their belts more, cutting spending wherever they could. Adjusted for inflation, families today spend less than they did a generation ago on food, clothing, furniture, appliances, and other flexible purchases. When that still wasn’t enough to cover rising costs, they took on debt – credit card debt, college debt, debt just to pay for the necessities. As families became increasingly desperate, unscrupulous financial institutions were all too happy to chain them to financial products that got them into even more trouble -- products where fine print and legalese covered up the true costs of credit.

These trends are not new, and there have been warning signs for years about what is happening to our middle class. One major consequence of these increasing pressures on working people – a consequence that receives far too little attention – is that the dream of a secure retirement is slowly slipping away.

A generation ago, middle-class families were able to put away enough money during their working years to make it through their later years with dignity. On average, they saved about 11% of their take home pay while working. Many paid off their homes, got rid of all their debts, and retired with strong pensions from their employers. And where pensions, savings, and investments fell short, they could rely on Social Security to make up the difference.

That was the story a generation ago, but since that time, the retirement landscape has shifted dramatically against our families.

Among working families on the verge of retirement, about a third have no retirement savings of any kind, and another third have total savings that are less than their annual income.Many seniors have seen their housing wealth shrink as well. According to AARP, in 2012, one out of every seven older homeowners was paying down a mortgage that was higher than the value of their house.

And just as they need to rely more than ever on pensions, employers are withdrawing from their traditional role in helping provide a secure retirement. Two decades ago, more than a third of all private sector workers – 35% – had traditional, defined benefit pensions – pensions that guaranteed a certain monthly payment that retirees knew they could depend on. Today, that number has been cut in half -- only 18% of private sector workers have defined benefit pensions.iii Employers have replaced guaranteed retirement income with savings plans, like 401(k) plans, that leave the retiree at the mercy of a market that rises and falls, and, sometimes, at the mercy of dangerous investment products. These plans often fall short of what retirees need, and nearly half of all American workers don’t even have access to those limited plans.This leaves more than 44 million workers without any retirement assistance from their employer.

Add all of this up – the dramatic decline in individual savings and the dramatic decline of guaranteed retirement benefits and employer support in return for a lifetime of work – and we’re left with a retirement crisis – a crisis that is as real and as frightening as any policy problem facing the United States today.

With less savings and weaker private retirement protection, retirees depend more than ever on the safety and reliability of Social Security. Social Security works—no one runs out of benefits and the payments don’t rise and fall with the stock market. Two-thirds of seniors rely on it for the majority of their income in retirement, and for 14 million seniors – 14 million – this is the safety net that keeps them out of poverty.vi God bless Social Security.

And yet even Social Security has been under attack. Monthly payments are modest, averaging about $1,250,and over time the benefits are shrinking in value.This puts a terrible squeeze on our seniors.

With tens of millions of people more financially stressed as they approach retirement, with more and more people left out of the private retirement security system, and with the economic security of our families unraveling, Social Security is rapidly becoming the only lifeline that millions of seniors have to keep their heads above water. And yet, instead of taking on the retirement crisis, instead of strengthening Social Security, some in Washington are actually fighting to cut benefits.

Just this morning, the Washington Post ran an editorial mocking the idea of a looming retirement crisis. To make sure no one missed the point, they even put the words “retirement crisis” in quotation marks. No retirement crisis? Tell that to the millions of Americans who are facing retirement without a pension. Tell that to the millions of Americans who have nothing to fall back on except Social Security. There is a $6.6 trillion gap between what Americans under 65 are currently saving and what they will need to maintain their current standard of living when they hit retirement. $6.6 trillion—and that assumes Social Security benefits aren’t cut. Make no mistake: This is a crisis.

The call to cut Social Security has an uglier side to it, too. The Washington Post framed the choice as more children in poverty versus more seniors in poverty. The suggestion that we have become a country where those living in poverty fight each other for a handful of crumbs tossed off the tables of the very wealthy is fundamentally wrong. This is about our values, and our values tell us that we don’t build a future by first deciding who among our most vulnerable will be left to starve.

I hold deep values, and I look at basic facts. Today, Social Security has a $2.7 trillion surplus. If we do nothing, Social Security will be safe for the next 20 years and even after that will continue to pay most benefits. With some modest adjustments, we can keep the system solvent for many more years – and could even increase benefits.

The tools to help us build a future are available to us now. We don’t start the debate by deciding who gets kicked to the curb. We are Americans. We start the debate by figuring out how to create better efficiencies, how to make small changes that will make the system fairer, how to grow the pool of those who contribute, how to rebuild a system that every single one of us can rely on to make sure that there is a baseline in retirement that no one falls below.

We don’t build a future for our children by cutting basic retirement benefits for their grandparents. No, we build a future for our kids by strengthening our economy, by investing in education and infrastructure and research, by rebuilding a strong and robust middle class in which every kid gets a chance—and the most vulnerable have a strong safety net

The most recent discussion about cutting benefits focused on something called the Chained-CPI.Supporters of the chained CPI say that it’s a more accurate way of measuring cost of living increases for seniors.That statement is simply not true. Chained CPI falls short of the actual increases in costs that seniors face, pure and simple. Chained CPI? It’s just a fancy way of saying cut benefits.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics has developed a measure of the real impact of inflation on seniors. It’s called the CPI-E, and, if we adopted it today, it would generally increase benefits for our retirees—not cut them.

Social Security isn’t the answer to all of our retirement problems. We need to find ways to tackle the financial squeeze that is crushing our families. We need to help families start saving again. We need to make sure that more workers have access to better pensions. But in the meantime – so long as these problems continue to exist and so long as we are in the midst of a real and growing retirement crisis – a crisis that is shaking the foundations of what was once a vibrant and secure middle class – the absolute last thing we should be doing is talking about cutting back on Social Security. The absolute last thing we should do in 2013 – at the very moment that Social Security has become the principal lifeline for millions of our seniors -- is allow the program to begin to be dismantled inch by inch.

Over the past generation, working families have been hacked at, chipped, and hammered. If we want a real middle class – a middle class that continues to serve as the backbone of our country – then we must take the retirement crisis seriously. Seniors have worked their entire lives and have paid into the system, but right now, more people than ever are on the edge of financial disaster once they retire—and the numbers continue to get worse. That is why we should be talking about expanding Social Security benefits – not cutting them. Senator Harkin from Iowa,

Senator Begich from Alaska, Senator Sanders from Vermont, and others have been pushing hard in that direction. Social Security is incredibly effective, it is incredibly popular, and the calls for strengthening it are growing louder every day.

Mr. President, the conversation about retirement and Social Security benefits is not just a conversation about math. At its core, this is a conversation about our values. It is a conversation about who we are as a country and who we are as a people. I believe we honor our promises, we make good on a system that millions of people paid into faithfully throughout their working years, and we support the right of every person to retire with dignity.


Rendell probably realizes Warren will not run for President in the near future.  As Alex Pareene notes of the corporate community panicked by the senator

They’re not afraid that Warren will run for president, they’re afraid that she’ll be so popular that other senators will start acting like her. They’re worried that she’ll have money to direct to candidates who share her views. They’re worried that Warren might embarrass Democrats into passing stricter bank regulations. They’re worried that finance’s iron grip on the Democratic Party might weaken. The impetus for writing the editorial was Third Way’s realization that Warren was sabotaging the decades-long project that turned cutting Social Security into a bipartisan goal. A lot of money and time was spent encouraging elite consensus around “entitlement reform,” and suddenly a bunch of senators are talking about making the programmore generous. That, of course, is a wildly popular idea, judging by all polling conducted on the subject, but the anti-populism backlash relies on reinforcing the common Washington idea that it is brave to oppose policies most people want and would benefit from. The bankers and CEOs who back Third Way understand that their policy preferences have won out in the Democratic Party in spite of popular opinion.

"We don’t start the debate by deciding who gets kicked to the curb. We are Americans," says the Massachusetts Senator in a message too radical for Ed Rendell and others whose financial interests might be gored if the nation seriously addresses its retirement crisis.












Share |

The Cloak of Cultural Liberalism



Blue in the Bluegrass quotes Firedoglake quoting The New York Times, whose reporter Thomas Kaplan writes "Bucking a trend in which states have been seeking to restrict abortion, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo is putting the finishing touches on legislation that would guarantee women in New York the right to late-term abortions when their health is in danger or the fetus is not viable."

BITB succinctly comments

Don't fall for it. The biggest obstacle to progressive legislation on all issues, including abortion, is the money influence of the financial industry. 

We know who owns the repugs, and know what to expect from them as a consequence.  Far more dangerous are the Democratic politicians whose social liberalism hides their eagerness to betray the working class.

Give her (or, less likely, him) a 98%.  The ranks of such Democrats are growing, unfortunately, and include such individuals such prominent politicians as Bill Clinton, Cory Booker, and Ed Rendell.  Though surrogates of Barack Obama, all three criticized their party's presidential nominee when in May, with Mitt Romney's nomination was all but certain, the President had the temerity to point out

When you're president, as opposed to the head of a private equity firm, then your job is not simply to maximize profits.  Your job is to figure out how everybody in the country has a fair shot. Your job is to think about those workers who get laid off and how are we paying them for their retraining?”

I think there are folks who do good work in that area, and there are times where they identify the capacity for the economy to create new jobs or new industries.  But understand that their priority is to maximize profits. And that's not always going to be good for communities or businesses or workers.

It should come as no surprise that private equity enthusiasts are held in high esteem by the mainstream media, nor that the former have been generously supplied with funds by the industry.     (For Clinton, see here; for Booker, here; for Rendell, here.)   But as the aforementioned blogger suggests, we should not be impressed by the cultural liberalism which "hides their eagerness to betray the working class."  The analysis is excellent, but would have been more timely and potent if she had included an additional phrase.  Following the word "abortion," the words "and same-sex marriage" should have been added.

As Karen Heller of The Philadelphia Inquirer reported last month, executive director Carol Tracy of the Women's Law Project has noted abortion "is absolutely critical to women's participation in society, and certainly in the workplace.  Roe is the core. It's the basis for all other women's rights.  If you can't control your reproductive health, you can't fully participate in society."

Tt is not accidental, however, that while advocating policies enriching the 1% at the expense of the 99%, Clinton, Booker, and Rendell all have come out in support of same-sex marriage, Andrew Cuomo's signature issue.  Same-sex marriage has nothing to do with power arrangements, and support for the policy keeps the former President, the would-be New Jersey Senator, and the former Pennsylvania Governor invited to all the right parties... where, perhaps, they can exchange hugs and handshakes with individuals such as this this man.




Share |