The Odd Link Between the NSA And Abortion

Now relocated from weekend mornings to weeknights, Chris Hayes continues his run as the best talk show host on MSNBC.  With a peculiar attraction to principle over personality, he may be heard veering from the company line on President Obama.

And so it was that Hayes recently appeared on the network's NOW with Alex Wagner (who herself contributes a powerful insight every year) to discuss (video below) the NSA spying scandal.  Wagner noted that the Pew Research Center found that in 2006 37% of Democrats and 75% of Republicans "accepted" the NSA surveillance program.  But by 2013, a radical shift had occurred: 64% of Democrats accepted the program while a lesser number, 52%, of Republicans supported it. In Twilight of the Elites, Wagner noted, Hayes had written "Because we cannot investigate and verify the millions of bits of knowledge that float through our lives, we outsource the vast majority of screening it all to others."   He explained to the MSNBC audience

What accounts for the change is people don't have a lot of information to operate on.  I mean we don't know much about this massive secret thing- that's why it's called secret.  And so what they do is they take cues from people they trust. And they say "you know what, I trust the Democratic Party or I trust Barack Obama."

To which I would add one word:  abortion.  The 2012 Democratic Party platform- not unlike that in previous years read-

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way.

The Republican Party platform, by contrast, in 2012 included

Faithful to the "self-evident" truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.

As the charts (way below, from the St. Louis Fed via Business Insider) below indicate, corporate profits are at an all-time high and wages as a percent of the economy are at an all-time low.  Corporate taxes (graph, from The Economist, way below) as a share of all taxes continue their downward trend and are at a near all-time low.   A Wall Street Journal analysis found that after the recession nearly 75 percent of all jobs created by 35 U.S. multinationals were created overseas.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court unleashed nearly unfathomable amounts of corporate cash upon the American political process in ruling for the rich and powerful in Citizens United. One of the more subtle results was described last September by Mike Lux in The Huffington Post:

I have begun having conversations with members of Congress on a regular basis who are factoring into their voting decisions the awareness that if they piss off a big money special interest, they will have to contend with a huge amount of cash -- hundreds of thousands, even millions -- being dumped into their race. Because so much of the money is not reported, they don't know for sure when it might come or if it will come, but the fear of making someone with a bunch of money mad is so much bigger than it used to be. Because the amounts being thrown into these races are so much bigger than they used to be, and because so much more of the money is secretive, the fear factor has grown exponentially.

And with all this money coming to bear on the American political system, allowing the rich and the powerful to dominate the poor and the middle class (which already had been losing ground) virtually shutting out the poor and the middle class, which already had been losing ground, comes this:

Two decades after President Bill Clinton promised to "end welfare as we know it," Americans blame government handouts for persistent poverty in the United States more than any other single factor, according to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released Thursday.

Given a list of eight factors and asked to choose the one most responsible for the continuing problem of poverty, 24 percent of respondents in the poll chose "too much government welfare that prevents initiative."

Progressives long have been concerned that so many middle-class, and not a few of the (non-minority) poor whose interests coincide more with the liberal policies and with the Democratic Party than with the Repub Party, nevertheless support conservative causes and candidates.    It is the abiding theme of Thomas Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas?, which in turn inspired Joan Walsh's unfortunately titled What's the Matter with White People? and so much of the critique by the populist left of American politics.

Now, Chris Hayes, making sense of Democrats opposing spying by the Bush Administration and favoring it in the Obama Administration- while Republicans do a reverse flip- provides a partial explanation for this phenomena. You know what, I trust Barack Obama or I trust the Democratic Party.

The obverse- to an even greater degree- is true of Republicans and conservatives.  So you have a Michelle Bachmann claiming the IRS "is going to be in charge of our health care;" that "scientists tell us that we could have a cure in 10 years for Alzheimer's" except for "overzealous regulators, excessive taxation and greedy litigators;" that the federal government is "taking ownership or control of 51 percent of the American economy;" that of every "three dollars in food stamps for the needy, seven dollars in pensions and benefits (go to) the bureaucrats who are supposed to be taking care of the poor."  Big government, regulation of the private sector, income taxes, govenment employees, lawyers who take on corporations, these are some of the right's emotional G-spots Bachmann has exploited; other Repubs have slammed the poor, unions, the minimum wage.

And many working-class and middle-class conservatives, who ought to be aggravated by the economic destruction wrought by Republicans as they please their corporate masters, soak it up.  They buy it because Bachmann and other conservatives have purchased their trust by their determined opposition to reproductive freedom.   Say, as she has and others have implied, "I am 100 per cent pro-life" and "believe in moving toward and promoting a culture that values and respects the sanctity of life" and you've bought a lot of credibility with pro-life persons on matters completely unrelated to reproductive freedom.

As it is with abortion, so it is with NSA spying.   Just as most Democrats (foolishly) trust President Obama, pro-life Republicans (foolishly) trust pro-life politicians and their party on a whole range of issues.  Partisans on both sides, though, need to consider Digby's words "I think the one thing we might want to ensure people know is that these government agencies exist outside 'our guy' and 'their guy.' Presidents come and go but the NSA is forever."



 

Share |

God On Their Side



Perhaps you remember Michelle Bachmann remarking in May, 2011 in Iowa  “Well, every decision that I make, I pray about, as does my husband, and I can tell you, yes, I’ve had that calling and that tugging on my heart that this is the right thing to do.”   Coincidentally, that same month at a fundraiser in Texas, Governor Rick Perry commented "God was dealing with me.  At 27 years old, I knew that I had been called to the ministry. I've just always been really stunned by how big a pulpit I was gonna have. I still am. I truly believe with all my heart that God has put me in this place at this time to do his will."   (Perry prayed to the Almighty also last year to put an end to the drought in Texas.    God listened but apparently didn't give the Governor the answer he was seeking, as the drought grew worse.)


There was Mr. 9-9-9, Herman Cain, who six months later told the Georgia Young Republicans "I prayed and prayed and prayed.  I'm a man of faith, I had to do a lot of praying for this one, more praying than I'd ever done before in my life. And when I finally realized that it was God saying that this is what I needed to do, I was like Moses. 'You've got the wrong man, Lord. Are you sure?'"

Even spouses of candidates were not precluded from claiming divine sanction.   Karen Santorum, who said it was the passage of "Obamacare" that "put fire in my belly," maintained it was "God's will" that her husband run for the GOP presidential nomination.

Neither Bachmann, Perry, Cain, or Santorum ever had a chance to get the Republican nod.    (Of those in the race, only Newt Gingrich ever had a chance to derail Romney.)     So perhaps God chose not to intervene in the race or instead did so, deciding to hand each of the four an unequivocal defeat.   None of the four, however, was a darling of the mainstream media, perhaps because (the first) three were marginally serious candidates and arguably, simply not serious at all.

But the chairman of the House Budget Committee, Representative Paul Ryan of Ohio, an Ayn Rand acolyte and spokesman for the 1%, has been portrayed by the naive media as a thinking person's politician and breath of fresh air.    Then on Sunday, Ryan on ABC's This Week contended

What Ms. Kennedy and others were saying is that this is a new government-granted right. We disagree with the notion that our rights come from government, that the government can now grant us and define our rights. Those are ours, they come from nature and God, according to the Declaration of Independence — a huge difference in philosophy.

In a thorough take-down of Ryan's remark today, a dailykos blogger points to this portion of the preamble of the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

Ryan did not pause to tell us why God decided to punish the citizens of, say, Somalia, Libya, Syria, and mainland China with few rights.     Apparently, neither nature nor God decided to extend generosity, at one time or another, toward billions of people throughout the world.

Fortunately, the Repub heavyweight, thought to be on Mitt Romney's short list of running mates, probably is not so ignorant of the Constitution and devoid of common sense to believe what he said.     Already idealized by the Village as an "economic conservative" (i.e., someone who wants to drop taxes on the wealthy and explode the budget deficit), Ryan likely figures he has to shore up support among cultural conservatives in the party.     Still, his statement is part of a pattern of politicians in the Gas and Oil Party to imply that they, and they alone, know the mind of the Lord and have his cell phone number.



Share |

Entitled To Her Own Facts

True, Michele Bachmann will not become the Republican presidential nominee in 2012 (or beyond). Nor will she be the vice-presidential nominee, as her popularity among candidates dip below chain-store pizza enthusiast Herman Cain. She exists mainly for entertainment value, operating much as a sound track does for television sitcoms, laughing loudly at anything even vaguely humorous uttered by one of the male presidential candidates during debates.

Bachmann is, further, one of a kind. At last night's GOP presidential debate (transcript here) in New Hampshire, she called herself "a federal tax lawyer. That's what I do for a living." Apparently, being a member of Congress is a mere hobby to Bachmann, who neglected to mention that her service as a "tax lawyer"- long past- was with the dreaded I.R.S.. Later, she would claim "I spent my whole life in the private sector," presumably confused about the status of the Internal Revenue Service.

Presumably confused. Criticizing the Community Reinvestment Act, she maintained "if banks failed to meet those rules, then the federal government said we won't let you merge, we won't let you grow." Switching gears later, Bachmann condemned the "Dodd-Frank bill" (Dodd-Frank Consumer Protection and Wall Street Reform Act), claiming "I have spoken to - to Iowa bankers, and they told me that they are going to see the collapse of community banks.... all across the state." One moment she wants to see community banks "merge" with national banks (not unlike piranha "merge" with other fish); the next moment it's a calamity.

Bachmann did not explain why the legislation would lead to "the collapse of community banks"- or name any of these banksters or the institutions they represent. If you let your mind wander a bit, it might have sounded like Bachmann claiming "a woman" told her the HPV vaccine led to mental retardation in her son. That charge was virtually debunked; the one about the community banks probably will go unexamined.

It always has been too easy to imply that Representative Bachmann is ill-informed, a flake, or makes rash judgements. But her remarks, including comments about the Community Reinvestment Act and about the alleged government role in the financial meltdown, or about the Independent Payment Advisory Board, may be prompted by something simpler.

In this debate, the giveaway occurred when Bachmann claimed

We asked him not once, but three times, "President Obama, what is your plan to save Medicare?"

and the president mumbled and he didn't give an answer the first time, the second time. And the third time the president said something very interesting, Karen. He said Obamacare.

Yes, because President Obama always refers to health care reform as "Obamacare."

But it's all okay. Representative Bachmann, asked about the source of her "spiritual growth," has attributed it "to the teachings of Jesus Christ and to the Old and New Testaments."

Some might call that slanderous.

Share|

Stop The Madness- Or Silliness


A stopped clock, as the tired cliche goes, is right twice a day and John King was right at least once last night during the Repub presidential debate (transcript here) he hosted in Manchester, New Hampshire. In the midst of a chat about immigration, King noted "There are an estimated maybe 20 million illegal immigrants in this country. People have different numbers."

In 2005, two Bear Stearns employees estimated the number of illegal immigrants at 18-20 million. Now, more than six years later, that number somehow has dwindled to 12 million as claimed by most observers, primarily because others do it, and 20 million might be discomfiting.

Still, it is tempting to ridicule CNN's King for asking each candidate a frivolous question "to learn a little bit more about these candidates and their personalities." Especially, that would be, given the burden of serious issues, such as the impending cataclysm if the U.S.A. does not reduce the national debt by demolishing Medicare, Medicaid, disaster relief, and almost anything that isn't the Defense Department.

But that would be too easy. So, instead, consider that one candidate gave by far the best answer, which indicates why that individual has as much chance of being the GOP nominee as, say, Markos Moulitsas.

Tim Pawlenty, asked if he preferred Coke or Pepsi, promptly gave the correct answer: Coke. Queried "Blackberry or I-Phone," Ron Paul replied simply "Blackberry." Asked "American Idol" or "Dancing With The Stars," Newt Gingrich immediately responded "American Idol."

A few of the candidates, thankfully, gave the questions as much thought and attention as they deserved: 1-2 seconds. So did Herman Cain, who when asked "Deep dish or thin crust?" replied "deep dish." Which probably is a good reason to avoid Godfather's Pizza.

But Michelle Bachmann recognized a political opportunity when she saw it. She was asked "to you, Elvis or Johnny Cash?"

That put her in a bind. Presley was the king of crossover; starting as primarily a country performer, he morphed into largely a rock performer with considerable appeal to country music fans. Johnny Cash was a country singer but generally without the hard edge that characterized (and made great) the genre of his era. They both had an appeal across the music spectrum, making difficult any effort Bachmann might have made to reach out to a subset of voters with her answer. So, being underrated as a politician, she replied, courageously, "That's really tough. That's really--- both."

When King followed up with "both," Bachmann said "yes," and a moment later added "I've Christmas with Elvis" on my iPod."

Brilliant answer. She loves Elvis, doesn't say she likes him more than Cash, and even through a little shlock religiosity in there with "Christmas with Elvis." No doubt the traditional version of the music, on her I-Pod. We do Christianity high-tech in the Bachmann household, and make sure everyone knows it.

But if Bachmann was playing to the nation's Repub voters- and she was- Romney was determined to appeal to New Hampshire voters, many of whom have fled the high taxes of Massachusetts while maintaining their sports loyalties, all the better to claim a Boston heritage when convenient. King asked "Imagine you're getting to the barbecue joint. Maybe it's here in New Hampshire, maybe it's South Carolina ordering some wings. Spicy or mild?"

Remembering his new image- the Man Who Can Be Photographed Only Without A Tie, even if inchorent with the dark suit he wears- Romney responded "oh, spicy. Absolutely," adding "And, by the way, Bruins are up 4-0....." (in the sixth game of the Stanley Cup finals.) Pandering to the audience, but then, he really, really, really, does want to win that first in the nation primary.

But the best, and dumbest, answer of the night came from Rick Santorum, probably because his question was the first inkling of this obnoxious approach. Queried "Leno or Conan," the former Pennsylvania Senator replied, clearly uncomfortably, "Probably Leno. But I don't watch either. Sorry." Himself uncomfortable- but insufficiently- John King responded "All right. That's all right. That's the answer -- the answer is the answer."

It is candor like that which has made Santorum a bad politician and has made him along with Herman Cain (never held elective office) and Newt Gingrich (yesterday's news) as likely to be the GOP presidential nominee as is Joe Biden. The proper answer to each question was "don't watch either" or "don't like either" or "don't watch either" "Randy Travis" (video below) or "Johnny Paycheck" (video way below) or "calzone" (o.k., maybe not that one).

Share|

For The Moment, Romney Standing Tall(er)


There are several reasons to criticize Mitt Romney. His reaction to the assassination of Osama bin Laden, however, is not one of them.

The remarks of potential GOP presidential candidates are interesting, if not telling. Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann and Mike Huckabee emphasized the evil of Islamic terrorism. Huckabee commented "Welcome to hell, bin Laden. Let us all hope that his demise will serve notice to Islamic radicals the world over....," though Huckabee welcoming someone to hell is rather curious, unless Mike figures he himself already is there. Bachmann expressed her "hope that this is the beginning of the end of Sharia-compliant terrorism," neglecting to offer endorsement or support to non-Sharia-compliant terrorism.

But enough nitpicking. Sarah Palin found time to congratulate the military, the intelligence services, the Special Ops forces, the American people, and America, but somehow not President Obama:

Americans tonight are united in celebration and gratitude. God bless all the brave men and women in our military and our intelligence services who contributed to carrying out the successful mission to bring bin Laden to justice and who laid the groundwork over the years to make this victory possible. It's a testament to the hard work and dedication of these brave Americans who relentlessly hunted down our enemy.
This is a victory for the American people, for the victims who were heartlessly murdered on September 11 and in Al Qaeda's other numerous attacks, and for all the peace-loving people of the world.

May God bless our troops and our intelligence services, and God bless America!

Newt Gingrich was more generous, praising President Bush but especially President Obama, the latter for having "continued and intensified the campaign in both Afghanistan and Pakistan." Gingrich giving credit to a prominent Democrat harkens back to his explanation on September 1, 2000 about then-Democratic presidential nominee Al Gore:

In all fairness, it’s something Gore had worked on a long time. Gore is not the Father of the Internet, but in all fairness, Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet, and the truth is—and I worked with him starting in 1978 when I got [to Congress], we were both part of a “futures group”—the fact is, in the Clinton administration, the world we had talked about in the ’80s began to actually happen.

But the sleaze award goes to former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, who used the occasion to credit Bush:

This is terrific news for freedom and justice. In the hours after the 9/11 attacks, President Bush promised that America would bring Osama bin Laden to justice - and we did. I want to congratulate America's armed forces and President Obama for a job well done.

This was, unlike the statement of Gingrich, an effort to imply that the former President was the commander-in-chief most responsible for bringing bin Laden to justice. The praise for Obama was grudging, for his predecessor effusive (and misleading): "President Bush promised that America would bring Osama bin Laden to justice." He just forgot to add that it would occur only after he relinquished the presidency.

Donald Trump and former Utah governor Jon Huntsman generously praised the Obama. But Trump is a sideshow, entertaining though he is, and Huntsman, as an appointee (ambassador to mainland China, a post from which he now has resigned) of this president, is as likely to be the next Repub presidential nominee as I am.

That leaves us with Mitt Romney (and Herman Cain, but why bother?). The former Massachusetts governor stated

This is a great victory for lovers of freedom and justice everywhere. Congratulations to our intelligence community, our military and the president. My thoughts are with the families of Osama bin Laden's many thousands of victims, and the brave servicemen and women who have laid down their lives in pursuit of this murderous terrorist.

Yes, that's right. He commended the incumbent, Democratic president with no reference to the previous, Republican president. Hopefully, Romney will not "walk back," "clarify," or otherwise dilute his comment. Assuming he stands firm- or probably even if he doesn't- he'll need to expend much of his energy watching his back.

Share|

Reconstructing Bachmann


In August, 2010 Paul Krugman, in his New York Times column entitled "The Flimflam Man," took on Paul Ryan's Roadmap for America's Future and noted

News media coverage has been overwhelmingly favorable; on Monday, The Washington Post put a glowing profile of Mr. Ryan on its front page, portraying him as the G.O.P.’s fiscal conscience. He’s often described with phrases like “intellectually audacious.”

But it’s the audacity of dopes. Mr. Ryan isn’t offering fresh food for thought; he’s serving up leftovers from the 1990s, drenched in flimflam sauce.

New Congress, same Ryan. Then it was tax cuts for the wealthy, the safety net, and Social Security; now it's tax cuts for the wealthy, the safety net, and Medicare. Now the attack on the middle class is in the form of "A Roadmap for America's Future." Krugman, justifiably, gloats:

Last year, when I described Paul Ryan as a flim flam man, many Beltway types were deeply annoyed. They had decided that he was serious and sincere — worthy of receiving fiscal responsibility awards — and did not want to hear any negatives. And even after the cracks in the House budget proposal became apparent, much of the commentariat clung to the view that whatever you might think of Ryan’s priorities, he really is serious and sincere.

But he isn’t.

Over at The New Republic, Jonathan Chait (e.g., "Debunking Ryan's Latest Spin," "A Nice Word About The Ryan Plan," "And Now, A Not-Nice Word About The Ryan Plan") has taken on the task of debunking Ryan's latest claims and eviscerating his plan. It is a critical role, given Ryan's influence, power, and popularity with a traditional media that idolizes him as "serious." Chait notes that the Wisconsin Republican's "assurances that leaving Medicare unchanged for those over 55 while phasing it out for those younger will never effect (sic) current beneficiaries are almost certainly false." He links to the Center for American Progress, which explains

As Ryan’s budget put it, “While there would be no disruptions in the current Medicare fee-for-service program for those currently enrolled or becoming eligible in the next ten years, all seniors would have the choice to opt into the new Medicare program once it begins in 2022. No senior would be forced to stay in the old program.”

That opens up the possibilities of private plans trying to lure away the healthiest beneficiaries (as is currently the case in Medicare Advantage) and of health care providers abandoning traditional Medicare patients for the higher reimbursement rates of private insurers. For chronically ill seniors who are more likely to remain in fee-for-service Medicare this means two things: higher costs (as the healthier beneficiaries exit the risk pool) and fewer doctors.

But if Ryan is (and he is), in Krugman's words, the "flimflam man," Michelle Bachmann is the "flimflam woman." Posting on RedState.com on Thursday, she argued

We must keep our promises to those who receive Medicare benefits, and those who are nearing the age of Medicare eligibility.

Though quoting her in context, Media Matters placed that line in bold and maintained

As Bachmann hinted toward, it does not "keep our promises" to those nearing the age of retirement, not to mention their children and grandchildren.

Joan McCarter at DailyKos reprints the Media Matters post and similarly contends

You know that there's a serious problem with this plan when Rep. Michele Bachmann, of all people, starts to back off.

The really serious problem, however, is when Media Matters and a Daily Kos blogger get their hopes up as they are taken in by Bachmann's statement.

We must keep our promises to those who receive Medicare benefits, and those who are nearing the age of Medicare eligibility. Ryan has written that his plan "preserves the existing Medicare program for those currently enrolled or becoming eligible in the next 10 years (those 55 and older today)."

Although Ryan does not acknowledge the dangerous option CAP noted, the scheme does largely leave Medicare in place for individuals at least 55 currently- which no different than Bachmann's vow to "keep our promises to those who receive Medicare benefits, and those who are nearing the age of Medicare eligibility." She conceded nothing, "hinted" nothing, and merely repeated Ryan's promise not to abolish Medicare for old (and nearly old) people. Those currently under 55 will be out-of-luck; tax cuts are so much more important- and that goes for Michelle Bachmann as well as for Paul Ryan.

Share|

A Win For Bachmann


If today's interview on ABC's Good Morning America is any indication, Representative Michelle Bachmann (R-MN), who is considering a presidential bid, is ready for prime time.

George Stephanopoulos had a legitimate excuse to bring up the "birther" issue (video and relevant portion of transcript, here, from ABC News) because one of the congresswoman's supporters in Iowa has introduced in Des Moines a bill which reportedly would require presidential (and vice-presidential) candidates to produce a birth certificate. Bachmann neatly switched the issue to a similar bill, vetoed yesterday by Governor Brewer, in Arizona. Implying- without stating- that she agreed with the governor of her own party, Bachmann commented "I have no problem giving my birth certificate, it wouldn’t bother me at all. I’ve got one, its authenticated, take it." Bachmann had casually and effectively inferred that President Obama could also offer a birth certificate, but did so without explicitly calling on him to do so or doubting his American origin. Nor did she definitively state that Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A.- not a good idea to tell your most avid supporters they are stupid, ill-informed, or simply wrong.

After Bachmann pirouetted from (the discomfort of) Iowa to (the comfort of) Arizona, Stephanopoulos, understandably anxious to get a straight answer out of the the Minnesotan, explained "According to the bill ‘a candidate for president or vice president shall attach to and file with the affidavit a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate certified by the appropriate official in the candidate’s state of birth.'" Bachmann stated "right" and Stephanopoulos continued

Well I have the president’s certificate right here. It’s certified, it’s got a certification number. It’s got the registrar of the state signed. It’s got a seal on it. And it says 'this copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.'

Alert the press! After a couple of years of controversy (legitimate or otherwise) over Barack Obama's birth, George Stephanopoulos has uncovered the birth certificate of the son of Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama!

Except that he hasn't. Stephanopoulos unveiled Obama's Certificate of Live Birth, which does in fact include the assurance "this copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of any birth in any court proceeding." (On his blog, Stephanopoulos referred to it as the Certificate of Live Birth though while linking to factcheck.org, which inaccurately labeled it "the original birth certificate.") It is possible that the original birth certificate, recently sought unsuccessfully by the Governor of Hawaii (an early supporter of Senator Obama), does not exist- and may never have existed. But after he commented about a bill requiring "a birth certificate," Stephanopolous intended to misinform the audience when he contended "Well I have the president’s certificate right here." Not surprising, then, that Stephanopoulos hesitated (ever so slightly) between the words "president's" and "certificate," casually omitting "birth."

Wisely, Bachmann let it go and, summoning her inner machismo, asserted "I take the president at his word and I think– again I would have no problem and apparently the president wouldn’t either. Introduce that, we’re done. Move on." Stephanopoulos had set out to get his guest on the record as being revealed as a "birther"- or opposing the action of a supporter in the critical, early state of Iowa- and had accomplished neither, in effect agreeing with Bachmann's conclusion "I guess it's over."

It was a good, and failed, effort by a veteran journalist.... and a seasoned performance by a veteran politician.

Share|

Beyond "Civil"

There has been a misunderstanding. Some of its is intentional, some unavoidable, probably some due to the 'fair and balanced' obsession of our President.

It is, of course, President Barack Obama who pleased virtually everyone (honestly) when in his speech at the memorial in Tucson he commented (transcript here)

But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized, at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do, it's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we're talking with each other in a way that -- that heals, not in a way that wounds....

And if, as has been discussed in recent days, their death helps usher in more civility in our public discourse, let us remember it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy -- it did not -- but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to the challenges of our nation in a way that would make them proud.

The remark had something for both sides: conservatives eager to deny any responsibility for the climate of violence, liberals pointing to the need for "a more civil" discourse in the public square. But it was, on balance, little more and no less than a call for "civility."

And so Megyn Kelly of GOP TV (transcript from Crooks and Liars) would say to Allen Colmes on Friday

Well, that's the question. The theory is -- the theory is that this call for civility in fact an effort to silence critics who -- let me just finish the theory -- this is from this article -- the theory is -- other conservatives have said this -- that they're trying to silence Republicans or conservatives or Tea Party people who have been -- who have been successful in winning back control of the House, winning back more seats in the Senate, and they're worried about how successful they might be in 2012.

Colmes then took the bait, understandable inasmuch as the President has already set the terms of the debate, on Republican ground.

The issue is not one of "civility." Once one obsesses about civility, GOP politicians and pundits, wallowing in their "fair and balanced" mode, can plausibly claim: they all do it.

And a lot of Democrats, especially non-politicians on the far left, have been un civil. Many of us are uncomfortable sitting around a circle, holding hands (at other times wringing them), and asking if we can be friends. Rhetoric may not be civil; it ought, however, not be violent.

Criticizing Sarah Palin, on January 18 Chris Matthews noted

And by the way, nobody`s told them to, quote, unquote, "shut up." People have said, Stop talking about guns and raising the heat level about guns and your hatred of elected officials because somebody`s going connect those two issues, guns and how much they hate a politician. We know one guy did. No evidence he was politically inspired, but we know he shot a politician. We know he shot a lot of other people at a political event. And we know what else? He used a gun. I`m sorry, it`s related.

In January, 2010, before Sharron Angle became the Repub nominee for U.S. Senator from Nevada, she was interviewed by a right-wing talk show host and warned

You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years.

I hope that's not where we're going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.

In March, 2009 Michele Bachmann of Minnesota similarly warned:

I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us, having a revolution every now and then is a good thing, and the people — we the people — are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States.

Not to be outdone- he is never outdone- Glenn Beck on June 10, 2010 himself warned (FOX News transcript here)

Does she see the connection between guns, political hatred and targeting politicians, like she did in her TV thing with the crosshairs on it and talking about reloading and bullseyes? Does she see the connection between that and reality?

I will stand against you and so will millions of others. We believe in something. You in the media and most in Washington don't. The radicals that you and Washington have co-opted and brought in wearing sheep's clothing — change the pose. You will get the ends.

You've been using them? They believe in communism. They believe and have called for a revolution. You're going to have to shoot them in the head. But warning, they may shoot you.

Second Amendment remedies, armed and dangerous, shoot them in the head. These are not "a simple lack of civility" cited by the President but something beyond, and more threatening.

None of this may have influenced an apparently unstable individual who spent weeks checking out websites "covering lethal injection, solitary confinement and political assassinations" and proceeded to try to assassinate a Democratic congresswoman at a political rally. But it's not mainly uncivil, rude, hurtful, or hateful. It is mainly violent, a distinction seemingly lost on the President and Republicans alike.

Share|

Pointing Us In The Right Direction


Bill Maher was on to something.

Following the President's State of the Union address on Tuesday, Bill Maher was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer. His nuggets of wisdom, included in the following portions of the discussion (video and text from Crooks and Liars):

BLITZER: I'm told, Bill, that the president of the United States has decided, despite what happened in Tucson, he will not specifically talk about guns in his speech tonight. He's going to do that down the road in a future speech in a few weeks. But, tonight, the word gun is not going to be there. You think that's a mistake, don't you?

MAHER: Oh, I do. That's a real shame.

And it's always down the road. And it's always finding common ground with this president. And that common ground always seems to be the ground where the Republicans are already standing on. So, no, that's a real shame, because this was again an opportunity, similar to the opportunity Ronald Reagan had in 1981, when he was shot.

At a moment like that, maybe people would be willing to go along with a -- sort of a different point of view. Even Dick Cheney said that. Dick Cheney seems to be to the left of Barack Obama on the gun issue. So, I guess it's true. He has moved to the center.

*****************************************************************************

BLITZER: Well, and it's helping him in the polls. There's no doubt about that. You can see, in our most recent job approval number, 55 percent. It was in the 40s, low 40s, not that long ago. So this move to the center, it certainly seems to be helping him with the American public.

MAHER: Well, we don't know what's helping him. Maybe it's the fact that there was a tragedy. People tend to rally around the president when there's any sort of a tragedy.

Remember, after 9/11, Bush's approval rating was 90 percent or something. I don't think that was because he got a lot smarter after we were attacked.

Maybe it's because -- Obama's popularity hiked because people have now seen the opposition. They got a good look at Boehner. Maybe they don't like that. Maybe people don't like someone who cries at the drop of a hat. People don't like a crier, Wolf.

*****************************************************************************

BLITZER: He's an emotional guy, John Boehner. You know, he's got -- he's got an incredible story. When you think about it, he was one of, what, ten kids growing up. His father had a little bar. They had a small House, one bathroom. And look, he's now the speaker of the House, second in line after the vice president to the presidency. So it's -- he's got an amazing story. And I can understand why he gets emotional.

MAHER: Wolf, first of all, get over it. That was a long time ago. It's America. Yes, we understand. People can rise up from places of humble beginnings and make something great of themselves. Most of that is anecdotal. Statistically, people don't do that any more.

America is not, I don't think, even in the top ten or maybe we're tenth in social mobility. Social mobility means the ability of one generation to do a little better than the generation that proceeded them, that spawned them. That used to be known as the American dream. That is the American dream. But we're like tenth in the American dream.

****************************************************************************

BLITZER: The fact that they got -- they're going to be sitting Democrat and Republican together tonight, date night on Capitol Hill. Is that good or bad?

MAHER: Oh, I think it's going to solve all our problems, Wolf. Yes. When a madman kills people at the Safeway, the problem isn't guns or nuts. It's that we haven't been polite enough to each other.

Yes, if Barney Frank and Rand Paul are sharing an armrest, I expect all our problems to go away.

You know, of course, as always -- as always, Wolf, it's symbolism. That's all we know how to do. We don't know how to actually solve problems anymore. We just know how to attack it symbolically.

And also, I don't even think it's helpful on that level, because it's actually good to see the parties sitting apart from each other. Because then you see which one cheers or which one sits on their hands according to what the president says, and you get a real feeling for how they feel about him.

The irony- or disgrace- of Barack Obama publicly less sympathetic than Dick Cheney to gun control; people liking a President at the time of tragedy, and this President because of the abysmal quality of the opposition; Boehner's story increasingly atypical in an America with declining social mobility; "date night" as mere symbolism, and counter-productive at that. That's four-for-four, a good night even for Bill Maher.

Maher was wrong- briefly- when asked about the response to Obama Tuesday night by Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN.), Maher responded "I don't understand the decision by CNN to air it."

Pretty gutsy of Maher, criticizing CNN on CNN. But it was news, even if its sponsor, the Tea Party Express, is an astroturf operation. Better to have aired Bachmann's statement and explained that the Tea Party Express is headed by a GOP consulting firm of questionable ethics. But then, of course, CNN would have had to explain why it has agreed to co-sponsor with this Republican front group a GOP presidential primary debate.

And if the network had done so, the audience would have recognized that Maher was merely stating the obvious when he added

I mean, the Tea Party is the Republican Party. It's just a rebranding.

The Republican Party realized a couple of years ago they were very unpopular with the American public, possibly because all of their ideas had been miserable failures over the last 10, 20, 30 years. So they rebranded as the Tea Party.

Why don't you give equal time to the Democratic response, and then have Representative Anthony Weiner, who's from the more progressive wing of the Democratic Party, why doesn't he get some -- some air time?

As far as is known, CNN did not give air time to someone "from the more progressive wing of the Democratic Party" because no one from the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party stepped out and requested the opportunity. And a great opportunity that would have been, presumably to suggest to the American people that there is an alternative to the corporate world view embraced by the Repub Party and encouraged by President Obama.

That response might question the impact of trade deals on employment of Americans during an economic downturn, lowering of the corporate tax rate, or the President's boast that he has "ordered a review of government regulations. When we find rules that put an unnecessary burden on businesses, we will fix them." It might include the ideas of longtime consumer advocate Joan Claybrook, who on Tuesday on "Democracy Now!" explained that President Obama

has issued an edict that says that every government agency ought cut some regulations. Now, we’re not talking about some obscure thing. We’re talking about the environment, global warming, health, safety, pharmaceutical issues, auto safety, truck safety—all these issues that matter every day to Americans. And what that sends is a message. It sends a message to the civil servants who sweat to try and get these issues dealt with and to protect the American public that their president isn’t going to support them if they get into a controversial issue. And every regulation, almost, is controversial, because somebody doesn’t want it, particularly Big Business. And it sends a message to the business interests that they can go with impunity and oppose these regulatory programs, and they know that the President is probably going to clamp down on the people who are issuing the rules.

It need not have been a Democratic officeholder, who might fear retribution from the Obamites. Perhaps a widely-read and extraordinary blogger, David Sirota or one of many others, could have given a response to the neo-liberal vision of the President and the more gruesome one set out by Ryan/Bachmann. It would have been especially valuable, given that challenging Obama for the nomination in 2012 will not happen and could not succeed. Ours is, though, a President who responds happily to pressure and notifying the nation's voters that there is a Democratic opinion which contrasts with the center-right and far right viewpoints would have had a salutary effect on their outlook.

Share|

Intended Or Not, Pretty Slick


There will be two far-right responses to President's State of the Union address tonight. One is the official, GOP-sanctioned reply offered by Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI). The other is from Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) and is pre-recorded, broadcast through the Tea Party Express website (though CNN now has announced it will telecast the address.)

Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), in her 7,986th appearance of the past year on MSNBC, stated

I’ve never seen, in the 20 years I’ve been involved in the political process, that there has been more than one response to either side’s presidential State of the Union address. We have differing opinions in the Democratic Party, but we don’t have a Blue Dog response. We don’t have a progressive response. We have the State of the Union, and then we have the Democratic response when there’s a Republican president. So I think it shows the deep divisions that exist and that the Republicans are really not able to be on the same page, and it’s shades of things to come as they move forward.

We have differing opinions in the Democratic Party, but we don’t have a Blue Dog response. We don’t have a progressive response. We have the State of the Union, and then we have the Democratic response when there’s a Republican president.

That's undeniably true- but beside the point. The State of the Union address tonight is being delivered by a President who has compromised with Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats the past two years and who thus is presiding over a country with an official employment rate over 9% and an unofficial, real unemployment rate far closer to 15%. And tonight will promise to be civil and compromise with those same Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats.

Bachmann, meanwhile, is on to something. And so is the GOP. The Minnesota congresswoman, contemplating a presidential run, presumably is motivated primarily by self-interest. But her ideological agenda, as well as that of her party, is well-served by issuance of a response even further right than the official tale to be spun by Ryan. It will move the political discussion even further to the right, no matter how difficult that is to imagine. It will allow President Obama to capitulate to negotiate with the GOP and receive plaudits from the mainstream media, which will gladly, and smugly, interpret it as a move to the center, bipartisanship, and a valiant effort to promote civility. Democrats in Congress, of course, will be further isolated, the "bad cop" in Obama's "good cop, bad cop" strategy.

This will improve the bargaining position of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky), who appears ready to benefit from an implicit, de facto "good cop, bad cop" thing with Bachmann. Think Progress reports:

But at a breakfast event hosted by Politico’s Mike Allen this morning in D.C., which ThinkProgress attended, McConnell expressed a vision of cooperation that looks more like capitulation. McConnell said he is willing to work with Obama, as long as the president “is willing to do what I and my members would do anyway”:

MCCONNELL: If the president is willing to do what I and my members would do anyway, we’re not going to say no and –

ALLEN: But that’s not much of a concession. That’s not bargaining, to just give you what you want.

MCCONNELL: Um, I like to think I’m a pretty good negotiator.

The GOP to the President: agree with us, and we'll get along just fine. The President's response? tonight, 9:00 EST.

Share|

Of Two GOP Politicians


It's easy to be a bully, picking on the weak and powerless. Just ask Governor Chris Christie, running down teachers and other public employees, pandering to the extreme wing of his extreme party, and running out on New Jersey, apparently because his wife wanted to spend some time in Disney World.

But Justices of the United States Supreme Court? The Supreme Court is not only the highest court in the land, but virtually invulnerable, determining its own rules. Nobody, but nobody is the boss of the Supreme Court.

And so Politico informs us that

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has amended 13 years’ worth of disclosure reports to include details of wife Virginia Thomas’s sources of income, documents released on Monday show.

The documents indicate that Thomas’s wife, who goes by Ginni, had worked for Hillsdale College in Michigan, the Heritage Foundation and the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives, among other entities.

Like all federal judges, Thomas must file annual disclosure reports on his personal finances, but he had omitted details of his wife’s earnings in what he wrote was a “misunderstanding of the filing instructions.” He also had checked a box marking no spousal income.

Thomas did not include in his new submissions any information about Ginni’s work for Liberty Central, a tea-party-affiliated group. The group’s 2009 990 tax form did not include any payments to her and she stepped down from her official role with the group in November.

Last week, watchdog group Common Cause reported that none of the nearly $690,000 the Heritage Foundation said it had paid Ginni Thomas between 2003 and 2007 had been reported on Justice Thomas’s annual financial disclosure forms.

One wonders: does the federal employee, whose pay President Obama and most congressional Republicans want frozen, hide the income of his or her spouse? Is the rare federal employee whose spouse has earned well over $100,000 per year, as Mrs. Thomas normally did, blissfully unaware?

Let's not, however, be exorcised about an Associate Justice hiding his wife's income from the Internal Revenue Service. It is an oversight, or omission, typical of that made by many Americans intent on lowering their taxable income, law be damned. Maybe you, too, forgot to mention your spouse's income of 2009 and are reading this from the federal penitentiary.

Perhaps Justice Thomas found it all too convenient to forget to remember his wife's work for the Heritage Foundation because, as Think Progress has found

In 2009, while the Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the Citizens United case, Justice Thomas was featured at the annual fundraiser for the Heritage Foundation — and sat at a table for donors with investment banker Thomas Saunders and Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC).

Anyone can make a mistake, though when Justice Thomas forgot to recuse himself from the Citizens United case (in which he voted on behalf of Citizens United and direct corporate funding of political campaigns), the mistake might appear to be quite deliberate. That is nearly as likely as it is reprehensible given, as Think Progress notes, Justice Thomas has appeared as a speaker at meetings held by corporate billionaire and oil tycoon Charles Koch, who in 2006

revealed to the Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Moore that he coordinates the funding of the conservative infrastructure of front groups, political campaigns, think tanks, media outlets and other anti-government efforts through a twice annual meeting of wealthy right-wing donors. He also confided to Moore, who is funded through several of Koch’s ventures, that his true goal is to strengthen the “culture of prosperity” by eliminating “90%” of all laws and government regulations. Although it is difficult to quantify the exact amount Koch alone has funneled to right-wing fronts, some studies have pointed toward $50 million he has given alone to anti-environmental groups. Recently, fronts funded by Charles and his brother David have received scrutiny because they have played a pivotal role in the organizing of the anti-Obama Tea Parties and the promotion of virulent far right lawmakers like Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC). (David Koch praised DeMint and gave him a “Washington Award” shortly after the senator promised to “break” Obama by making health reform his “Waterloo.”)

But, then, Justice Thomas is not alone in actively fostering the corporate agenda, with Justice Antonin Scalia also having been a speaker at Koch events. Sure, asssisting a political fundraising event would be a clear violation of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, if the Supreme Court had not exempted it and its employees from the Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees.

That is especially convenient for Antonin Scalia, who now is addressing the Tea Party Caucus's first "Conservative Constitutional Seminar" event. It is open to the public, but closed to the media and there will be no official record of the event, demonstrating the commitment of the Republican ultra-right to transparency. And it is organized by Representative Michelle Bachmann (R-MN), who is threatening to run for the GOP presidential nomination and is one of 63 House members to have filed a brief in support of the lawsuit by more than two dozen states challenging the Affordable Care Act. That likely to reach the Supreme Court and Justice Scalia is demonstrating his allegiance to judicial ethics by palling around with Bachmann.

The actions of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas may feature a splendid commingling of conflict of interest, greed, corporate power, and the appearance of corruption. (Common Cause petition, pertaining to Citizens United, here.) But they tell us nothing further about the commitment of either judge to GOP politics. Cenk Uygur, MSNBC host in the hour previously occupied by Ed Schultz, last night reminded us of Bush v. Gore, in which both Justices voted to stop counting election ballots. Barely suppressing a nod and a wink, Scalia assured the nation and its legal community that the decision never would be used as precedent. ("Hey, I know the ruling stinks, but five of us want a Republican President.") If anyone were concerned about the objectivity of these guys, Uygur noted, "that ship sailed a long time ago."

Share|

Harming Social Security

Get with the program, Michelle! Think Progress caught the very conservative, tea party favoritie Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) saying

[W]e’re pleased to see that we’re looking at a two percent reduction in the payroll tax, what we normally call the Social Security tax for employees. … What this will mean is a decrease in revenue for the Social Security Trust Fund. That will, again, add to the deficit going forward. So both of these measures that President Obama is proposing will actually have a cost towards increasing the deficit.

Bachmann does realize that reduction of the 6.2 percent Social Security payroll tax for one year will create "a decrease in revenue for the Social Security Trust Fund." But what she does not understand- or does not seem to understand- is that Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit. It has its own, dedicated source of funding- that "trust fund" of which she speaks. (Suggesting, obviously, that she is well aware that Social Security does not "add to the deficit.")

But it will lead to a decrease in revenue for the Social Security Trust Fund, as Bachmann maintains. As the Obama-GOP tax negotiations were unfolding, Nancy Altman of Social Security Works understood that

Sixty members of the Senate are unwilling to raise taxes by 3 percent on the $250,000 and first dollar (and all those dollars earned above $250.001) of those making over $250,000 and by 1.6 percent more (for a total of 4.6 percent) on the $384,860 and first dollar {and all those dollars earned above $384,861) of those making over $384,860. They are even unwilling to spare everyone making less that one million dollars any increased taxes and simply raise taxes by 4.6 percent on the $1 million and first dollar (and all those dollars earned above $1,000,001 of the nation’s multimillionaires and billionaires. (I say multimillionaires because anyone with a net worth of a few million dollars is not making an annual income of over one million dollars.)

Given that unwillingness to raise taxes by less than a nickel on every dollar earned over $1 million, I find it unfathomable that a more conservative Congress, in two years, in an election year, will increase the payroll tax by 2 percent on the very first dollar, and every other dollar up to the cap, earned by virtually every single worker in the country. Consequently, I think we have to assume that the payroll tax holiday will be extended beyond the two years the president is proposing and quite likely could become permanent.

That means that the federal government will have to continue to transfer $120 billion to the Social Security trust funds each and every year even as it has to transfer more and more interest payments as the trust funds continue to grow and as interest rates return to more normal levels. Unless Congress acts to restore Social Security to solvency, the Treasury bonds held in trust will have to be redeemed, again on top of that new $120 billion transfer from the general fund, starting fifteen years from now, assuming Congress even continues to make the $120 billion every year before that point. These dollars will be competing with dollars for defense, environmental protection, education, school lunches, Food Stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, SSI, Pell grants for low income college students, and every other good and service financed by the federal government.

A permanent two percent cut in Social Security contributions doubles the 75 year projected shortfall. Scrapping the cap (eliminating the $106,800 maximum on earnings), totally eliminates the shortfall today. If FICA is cut by 2 percent, scrapping the cap gets Social Security only halfway there.

Reduction in the payroll tax by 2% (really, roughly a 30% cut from 6.2% to 4.2%) will have a major impact on the solvency of the Trust Fund (and thus on the elderly, graph, from howstuffworks.com, below) and is unlikely to be temporary. Already, three Republican Senators- Nebraska's Mike Johanns, Ohio's George Voinovich, and Tennessee's Bob Corker- have acknowledged that it's highly unlikely that this hit to Social Security will be reversed, Corker noted "a year from now, when it expires, it'll be portrayed as a tax increase."





This is how we got here in the first place- and not only with the income tax.

The Bush-era tax cuts on middle and upper incomes were to have expired, by law, at midnight on January 1, 2011. With a Democratic House, a Democratic Senate, and a Democratic President (technically), all the cuts are poised to be reinstated. Democrats will be reluctant to return to a higher rate a tax which is regressive and Republicans will not vote to let a rate cut retire or, as they will characterize it, increase taxes.

The estate tax cut also was "sunsetted," as explained on cnn.com in 2006:

Prior to President Bush's 2001 tax cuts, the estate tax levied a 55% maximum tax rate on all inherited assets above a $1 million exemption - including business assets passed on by a founder. Bush's cuts set into motion a gradual phase-out of the estate tax; the exemption level has risen and the tax rate has been dropping since 2001, down to a planned 45% rate in 2009 with a $3.5 million exemption. Current law calls for the tax to be repealed for one year in 2010, but without congressional action to either reform the estate tax or make the tax cuts permanent, it will revert back to 2001 levels in 2011.

Barack Obama to the rescue! Under terms of the agreement, the first $3.5 million of a deceased person's estate will be exempt from taxation with a 35% tax on the value above that figure. Such favorable treatment of ginormous estates will not be revoked by a future Congress, likely to be even more favorable to the wealthy. Paradoxically, the cry will go out: Social Security is full of I.O.U.s! Social Security is in crisis! Social Security is broke! The Trust Fund is a fraud!

In one post describing the Obama/GOP sellout of the middle class, Digby concludes, disturbingly

The 2012 election is looking like its going to be about taxes and deficits (as a proxy for fixing the economy, since everything else is off the table.) And from what I can see, the president is going to be competing with the Republicans on who will lower both of them the most. Social Security is in maximum danger in that environment.



Share|

Money Here, Jobs There


Some say payback is a b_ _ _ _. But for Republicans, it is proving very, very sweet.

In late July, Democrats fell three votes shy, 57-41, of cloture, thereby failing to bring to a vote in the U.S. Senate the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act. Aside from Majority Leader Reid (who voted against cloture to preserve an opportunity to bring the bill to a vote later) and the absent Joe Lieberman, all Democrats voted in favor of the DISCLOSE Act and all 40 Republicans voted against it. Really, those Republicans did not vote against the bill, but rather against even the effort to allow debate on the measure. In its summary of the DISCLOSE Act, open congress.org explained

This is the Democrats' response to the Supreme Courts' recent Citizens United v. FEC ruling. It seeks to increase transparency of corporate and special-interest money in national political campaigns. It would require organizations involved in political campaigning to disclose the identity of the large donors, and to reveal their identities in any political ads they fund. It would also bar foreign corporations, government contractors and TARP recipients from making political expenditures. Notably, the bill would exempt all long-standing, non-profit organizations with more than 500,000 members from having to disclose their donor lists.

Unilateral and unanimous opposition to this legislation attempting to bring transparency to campaign contributions was, as has been the case with much of the GOP's Bring Down The Nation effort, strategically brilliant.

In mid-July, the Dodd-Frank bill passed the Senate 60-39 with the support of only three Republicans. (One Democrat, Wisconsin's Russ Feingold, said that he voted "no" because the bill did not go far enough. Which it didn't.) This financial reform legislation, as The Washington Post described it,

establishes an independent consumer bureau within the Federal Reserve to protect borrowers against abuses in mortgage, credit card and some other types of lending. The legislation also gives the government new power to seize and shut down large, troubled financial companies -- like the failed investment bank Lehman Brothers -- and sets up a council of federal regulators to watch for threats to the financial system.

Under the new rules, the vast market for derivatives, complex financial instruments that helped fuel the crisis, will be subject to government oversight. Shareholders, meanwhile, will gain more say on how corporate executives are paid.

Apparently, Senators Snowe and Collins of Maine and Brown of Massachusetts never got the memo. Opensecrets.org reports (as indicated by its graph, below)

In both the first and second quarters of this year, the broad finance, insurance and real estate sector has favored Republican candidates and committees in its political giving, a Center for Responsive Politics analysis finds. The same holds true for both the more narrow commercial banking and securities and investment industries.




Thinkprogress.org, the blog of the pro-Democratic Center for American Progress, found earlier this month

The largest attack campaign against Democrats this fall is being waged by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a trade association organized as a 501(c)(6) that can raise and spend unlimited funds without ever disclosing any of its donors. The Chamber has promised to spend an unprecedented $75 million to defeat candidates like Jack Conway, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Jerry Brown, Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA), and Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA). As of Sept. 15th, the Chamber had aired more than 8,000 ads on behalf of GOP Senate candidates alone, according to a study from the Wesleyan Media Project. The Chamber’s spending has dwarfed every other issue group and most political party candidate committee spending. A ThinkProgress investigation has found that the Chamber funds its political attack campaign out of its general account, which solicits foreign funding. And while the Chamber will likely assert it has internal controls, foreign money is fungible, permitting the Chamber to run its unprecedented attack campaign. According to legal experts consulted by ThinkProgress, the Chamber is likely skirting longstanding campaign finance law that bans the involvement of foreign corporations in American elections.

In response, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce sent an e-mail to Politico claiming

AmChams are independent organizations and they do not fund political programs in the United States. We have a system in place for ensuring that they are not government-controlled entities.

The Chamber is proud to have global companies among our membership. We’re careful to ensure that we comply with all applicable laws. No foreign money is used to fund political activities.

Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs commented "If I was an enterprising reporter…I might ask the Chamber of Commerce to let me see their donors.” The Chamber has not revealed its donors- remember defeat of the DISCLOSE Act?- and still maintains that the money from foreign sources is kept separate from political activities because it goes to its general fund, then to its international division. (Interestingly, the Chamber refers to "foreign" money- but what if the money is first converted to dollars?)

But, ThinkProgress has listed 83 foreign companies and the annual dues they pay to the Chamber's 501(c)(6)- which it is using to run partisan, anti-Democratic ads in its pursuit of a GOP-controlled Congress.

But, to borrow a cliche from the late Robert F. Kennedy, in the last analysis it is all about jobs. When it announced its (successful) opposition to the Creating American Jobs and End Offshoring Act (crafted to bring jobs back to the U.S.A.), the Chamber of Commerce claimed, increduously, "replacing a job that is based in another country with a domestic job does not stimulate economic growth or enhance the competitiveness of American worldwide companies." Keeping jobs abroad and away from American shores is the real aim of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce- and of Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Michelle Bachmann, and the other Republicans who have so vigorously defended it without regard to the facts.

Share|

Duo Of Destruction

Fresh off creating the Congressional Tea Party Caucus, and contemplating a Repb takeover of the House, Representative Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota on July 22 told a gathering of the GOP Youth Convention in Washington, D.C.

Oh, I think that’s all we should do. I think that all we should do is issue subpoenas and have one hearing after another. And expose all the nonsense that is going on. And it’s very important when we come back that we have constitutional conservative leadership because the American people’s patience is about this big.

This is no idle wish from the hard-right Republican. Representative Darrel Issa of California is now ranking Republican on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee and probably would become chairman if his party wins a majority of seats in the House in November. Politico reports he

has told Republican leadership that if he becomes chairman, he wants to roughly double his staff from 40 to between 70 and 80. And he is not subtle about what that means for President Barack Obama.

At a recent speech to Pennsylvania Republicans here, he boasted about what would happen if the GOP wins 39 seats, and he gets the power to subpoena.

“That will make all the difference in the world,” he told 400 applauding party members during a dinner at the chocolate-themed Hershey Lodge. “I will use it to get the very information that today the White House is either shredding or not producing.”

While Issa is more likely than Bachmann to wield the gavel (and subpoena power) that would threaten to paralyze the Obama administration in the second half of its term, it appears their motives are similar. The Californian assured his audience "I won't use it to have corporate america live in fear that we're going to subpoena everything." Bachmann is no less subtle, telling the conventioneers

So we have to make sure that we do what the people want us to do because one thing that you should is that the most dramatic story that’s happened in the last 18 months is that the federal government – before 18 months ago, the private economy was 100 percent held in private hands,” she said. “But today 65 percent of the economy is now held in government’s hands – either in direct ownership or in control we’re talking about. So we got to unravel that and we got to get the private sector back to being private and the government back to being government.”

The near-destruction of the American economy by Wall Street wasn't quite enough for these Republicans, for whom the corporate domination of the nation is still insufficient. It's anyone's guess as to where she gets her figure of 65 percent of the economy now being in "government's hands." Perhaps she and Issa are unaware that

In 1995, the assets of the six largest banks were equivalent to 17 percent of G.D.P.; now they amount to 63 percent of G.D.P. Meanwhile, the share of all banking industry assets held by the top 10 banks rose to 58 percent last year, from 44 percent in 2000 and 24 percent in 1990.

But then, they probably do know of this growing concentration of power in the hands of a relatively few, unelected, individuals. And their verdict is: not enough.

Share|