Pray, Or Not

There are some blog postings about extremely important issues; some about very important issues; some about important issues; some about fairly important issues. And then there is this post, prompted by the following development:

The 59th annual National Day of Prayer was held Thursday against a backdrop of controversy and growing doubts about the future of the event, which a federal judge recently declared unconstitutional.

President Truman signed a bill establishing an official National Day of Prayer in 1952, but U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb in Wisconsin ruled April 15 that the law violates the ban on government-backed religion.

The Justice Department is appealing the case on behalf of the White House. An injunction against the National Day of Prayer will not take effect until all government appeals have been exhausted.

At the risk of offending both the left and the religious right: it does not matter.

Art Moore of World Net Daily, as appearing in openheaven.com ("apostolic kingdom revival"), reports that Judge Crabb wrote the National Day of Prayer

goes beyond mere 'acknowledgment' of religion because its sole purpose is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function in this context. In this instance, the government has taken sides on a matter that must be left to individual conscience.

No, not really. On April 30, President Obama issued the proclamation of
The National Day of Prayer to

call upon the citizens of our Nation to pray, or otherwise give thanks, in accordance with their own faiths and consciences, for our many freedoms and blessings, and I invite all people of faith to join me in asking for God’s continued guidance, grace, and protection as we meet the challenges before us.

He asks that citizens "pray or otherwise give thanks in accordance with their own faiths and consciences." We're not being encouraged even to pray; we may "otherwise give thanks." This does not sound like a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits an establishment of religion.

Neither does "asking for God's continued guidance, grace, and protection as we meet the challenges before us" violate the First Amendment or, for that matter, mean much of anything. Judge Crabbe interprets this as "a call for religious action on the part of citizens," presumably because we are asking for God's help. Helpfully, wikipedia notes

The Abrahamic conceptions of God include the monotheistic definition of God in Judaism, the trinitarian view of Christians, and the Islamic concept of God. The dharmic religions differ in their view of the divine: views of God in Hinduism vary by region, sect, and caste, ranging from monotheistic to polytheistic to atheistic; the view of God in Buddhism is almost non-theist. In modern times, some more abstract concepts have been developed, such as process theology and open theism. Conceptions of God held by individual believers vary so widely that there is no clear consensus on the nature of God.

So no matter what your, or my, concept of God is, the concept does vary widely. That may be good, that may be bad, but it is. (If everyone's concept of God were the same as mine, that would be good. But then you're thinking that if everyone's concept of God were the same as yours, that would be good.) The proclamation for the National Day of Prayer, then, calls upon each of us to request of whomever, or whatever, we wish to assist us as we wish. If that sounds vague or meaningless, well, I didn't write it.

The National Day of Prayer, no doubt very popular (unavoidably so, given that an individual can interpret it in any way he or she wants), does serve a psychic interest of the American people. For those disinterested, or too busy to attend a house of worship, it allows them to believe- nay, to feel- they are doing what they ought to do. Meanwhile, those who are devout may say (to themselves; communally might be considered rude) "so there!" in a socio-political equivalent of wearing an American flag pin in a nation in which almost everyone considers himself/herself an American.

Meanwhile, President Obama's Justice Department was only being sensible in appealing the decision of Judge Crabb. To do otherwise when a significant minority (mostly Republicans, a few Independents) of the population thinks you are a Muslim, or more ludicrously, a Socialist, would be politically nonsensical.

Share|

Specter's Support In High Places

It's ancient history, you protest, but it's never too late to review one part of the record of a United States Senator running for re-election.

Especially if that Senator is Arlen Specter, the Democrat-turned-Republican-turned Democrat who is defending his seat in the Democratic primary against United States Representative Joe Sestak.

Much of the controversy in the heated race, whose winner will go up against former Club for Growth director Pat Toomey, has centered on the circumstances of Sestak's retirement from the Navy as a three-star Admiral. However, Sestak now has released a potent thirty second ad (video below) questioning Specter's motives for switching in 2009 from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party.

There is little doubt that Pennsylvania's senior Senator jumped to the Democratic Party because he had little chance of surviving a GOP primary against Toomey, who nearly defeated him in the 2004 primary. Still, the state Democratic Party, Vice-President Biden (who, as a Senator from the adjacent state of Delaware, was friendly with Specter), and President Obama (who is especially fond of Senators antagonistic to him: see Lieberman, Joe; and Lincoln, Blanche) are actively supporting the incumbent.

As the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter had played a key role in the hearings held to consider the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the United States Supreme Court. To summarize:

In 1991, years after working for Thomas at the U.S. Department of Education, Hill, his former assistant, accused Thomas of sexual harassment.

Though eight years had passed since she had worked with him, Hill testified that her memories of their alleged interactions were vivid and vulgar, but the delayed accusations raised much speculation. They surfaced just after Thomas had been nominated to the Supreme Court.

When asked by Roberts why she didn't come forth sooner, Hill said, "It is amazing how much we tolerate in the workplace," explaining that people stay in problem jobs for a number of reasons, ranging from personal to financial....

In her testimony, Hill said of Thomas, "He spoke about acts he had seen and pornographic films, involving such matters as women having sex with animals and women having group sex and rape scenes."

The hearings polarized the nation with most people at the time naively believing Thomas, who effected a mood of righteous indignation, rather than the calm, thoughtful Hill. To this day, both the Supreme Court Justice and the law professor maintain they were being truthful. Note to those too young to remember this saga: if the same circumstances and hearings had occurred in the last decade, the nation would have believed the accuser and overwhelmingly opposed the nominee. Attitudes and understanding change over time.

Last August, Taylor Marsh argued

it’s important to remember that the one person most responsible for Thomas being on the court is Joe Biden, and I say this as one of his advocates, though based solely on his foreign policy acumen. Because if you view Biden’s part in the hearings again the political reality stacked up against Hill is impossible to ignore.

You can read about then-Judiciary Committee chairman Biden's unfortunate role here. More significantly, however, Marsh quoted a Court-watcher, Andrew Cohen, who had written

What kind of world does Justice Clarence Thomas live in? Alone among his colleagues on the Supreme Court, he declared Thursday in dissent in Safford v. Redding that an "abusive" and "humiliating" strip search of a middle school student for prescription Ibuprofen was actually a constitutional exercise by school officials who not only deserved immunity from liability but praise for their zealous dedication to student safety.

Less concerned about a forced and unnecessary intrusion into a young girl's pants and bra than he was about judicial intrusion into school safety policies, Thomas declared that the odious search was legal because administrators could have found what they were looking for. The majority ruling, he wrote, gives "judges sweeping authority to second-guess" school administrators trying to ensure the health and safety of students. His long dissent did not include a single sympathetic remark about the ordeal suffered by the victim in the case.

Marsh concluded

It is not shocking to me that Clarence Thomas didn’t find the groping of a young girl exceptional or that he didn’t think she had rights over the school. If you believed Anita Hill, the rest simply follows.

Of course it does. Clarence Thomas always knew he did what he was accused of; he simply believed the accusations were unfair, that he was being held to a higher standard than that of others, and that the accusations never would have come to light had he not been sufficiently respected that he was nominated for the highest court in the land.

In 1993, Kim A. Taylor, then a law professor at Stanford University and friend of Ms. Hill, explained to the Stanford University News Service

the committee adopted a process which effectively ceded control of the hearing to the Republicans and made possible the one-sided inquisition of Professor Hill that would eventually unfold.

Without basic rules of procedure, she said, the Democrats essentially permitted Thomas' Republican supporters to make unsupported speculations and ad hominem attacks on Hill, without anyone in the hearing room taking responsibility to point out the flaws in these types of attacks.

The lead Republican inquisitor was Senator Specter, and the Democrat most responsible for condoning the "unsupported speculations and ad hominem attacks," Senator Biden.

If times change and more Americans now recognize the travesty of having approved Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court, perhaps Arlen Specter, favored to win the primary later this month, has changed, too. So perhaps it's not surprising that the same individual who patronizingly told supporters of Hillary Clinton's presidential bid "if women take a moment to realize that on every issue important to women, John McCain is not in their corner, that would help them get over it," would support the ever-pompous Arlen Specter for the party's nomination. Not surprising, only appalling.

Share|

BP's Advantages

Joe Romm writes

BP knows it can't blame the feds since it fought efforts to change the voluntary self-regulation laws,the industry opposed mandates for the remote-control shutoff switanding damage on the Gulf Coast, generated by a tax on oil for use in cases like the Deepwater Horizon spill.

Up to $1 billion of the $1.6 billion reserve could be used to compensate for losses from the accident, as much as half of it for what is sometimes a major category of costs: damage to natural resources like fisheriesch, BP sold the Minerals Management Service on a laughable planning scenario- it was "unlikely that an accidental surface or subsurface oil spill would occur from the proposed activities"- and the industry,not the feds, have the relevant equipment to stop the gusher.

That's Romm's summary of his excellent post. Unfortunately, it may be irrelevant that British Petroleum "can't blame the feds." For that, we have corporate spokesman Rush Limbaugh, who on Tuesday remarked of President Obama

He does not know what he's talking about. He's pure propaganda here trying to sell the greatness of the government. It's not just enough to sell the greatness of government. He's gotta go out and trash the private sector. Private individuals aren't going to do good works; corporations aren't going to do good works; only government will do good works, only government is good, we are the good people. Private individuals and private sector business are evil and we're gonna keep demonizing until everybody understands that they are the biggest problem the country faces.

In another segment, Rush laughed and sarcastically said

And we could trace it back to Bush in 2003, to the lax attitude by minerals management agency.

As Romm noted, however, the United States Mineral Management Agency did have a lax attitude. On April 30 The New York Times reported

Last year, when the federal Minerals Management Service proposed a rule that would have required companies to have their safety and environmental management programs audited once every three years, BP and other companies objected.

And the Times noted

regardless of the out-of-pocket costs, the long-term damage to BP’s reputation — and possibly, its future prospects for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico — is likely to be far higher, according to industry analysts.

Staff writer Clifford Krause doesn't know how accurate his prediction is likely to prove. According to a New York Times article (of April 30, hard copy; of May 1, on-line)

The federal government has a large rainy day fund on hand to help mitigate the exp and other wildlife habitats.

Under the law that established the reserve, called the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, the operators of the offshore rig face no more than $75 million in liability for the damages that might be claimed by individuals, companies or the government.

It's not as if the federal government hasn't had warning. Times writer Matthew Wald added:

A count made by the Department of Homeland Security last August found that since 1991, there had been 51 instances in which liability exceeded caps.

And he concluded:

Payments are limited by the amount actually on hand in the fund; if this spill depletes the trust fund, it might take time to replenish it for future use.

The balance was projected to rise to about $1.9 billion from the current $1.6 billion — but that was before the spill.

That would be 75 million dollars for which BP is responsible. The Exxon Valdez oil spill, whose costs have been estimated to have been as high as $7 billion, contaminated approximately 1300 miles of shoreline, whereas the BP spill area includes approximately 9,000 miles of shoreline.

So pity not British Petroleum. It benefited from lax regulation for which it lobbied, it has extraordinarily limited liability, and it has a powerful defender in the nation's #1 talk show host. And oh, yes. $5.6 billion in profits in the first quarter of 2010.

Share|

On Illegal Immigration, Not Much Difference

WARNING: Rush Limbaugh and the left agree about illegal immigration.

Not everything about illegal immigration, of course. And not for the same reason- the left sympathizes with the newcomers while for Rush the motivation is otherwise. Still, the similarity is striking.

This is the first portion of a conversation about immigration Limbaugh had on Monday with a caller:

CALLER: Yes, sorry for my not perfect English. I'm a Polish native. Mr. Limbaugh, I might have missed one of your programs, (unintelligible) since like maybe seven years ago. I may miss your program. I never hear from you about what (unintelligible) about government should do, if anything, in order to solve the illegal immigration issue, you know, long-term (unintelligible) speaking, do you have any position on it? And if you allow later I can also (unintelligible) couple comments.

RUSH: Uhhh, well, yeah, I think I have offered not a solution per se. We already have laws on the books about immigration. All we'd have to do, Paul, is enforce them. We have a bunch of different categorizations of visas. The legal immigration in this country is a long process. It requires answering questions, taking tests, ascertaining whether or not the new arrivals want to assimilate and actually become part of our culture. We are ignoring the law when it comes to immigration on our southern border, and all we'd have to do is just enforce that law like we enforce it everywhere else against the Europeans, against the Asians, I mean everybody else in the world. It doesn't require anything new here. It just requires our own federal government obeying its own laws. It's not complicated.

Following two more comments from his caller, Rush explained

Now, I know the point of your question, because I'm host, and I am well aware of many people trying to trick the host. It's a game that callers make. And what you're trying to get me to do is say something deathly unkind about the so-called 30 million illegals here. What you're hoping I will say is, "Round 'em up and kick 'em out, and if they won't go, throw 'em out," that's what you want me to say. And I'm not going to say that. I have never said, whatever number are here illegally, "Round 'em up and deport 'em." It isn't realistic.

When the conversation turns to illegal immigration, those generally labeled as "liberal" say first "well, you can't round up the 12 million undocumented workers." Limbaugh, for his part, says "I have never said, whatever number are here illegally, 'Round 'em up and deport em.' It isn't realistic." (Rush instead referred to "30 million"- but that primarily emphasizes in his mind that deportation is unrealistic.)

Limbaugh does want "laws on the books" enforced- but I have never heard liberals/progressives claim they do not want the laws enforced or even that doing so is unrealistic. Instead, they decry the idea of "rounding them up"- just as Rush does.

And the Limbaugh solution? Don't look now, but it's "answering questions, taking tests, ascertaining whether or not the new arrivals want to assimilate and actually become part of our culture." When Maverick John McCain was working with the late Senator Ted Kennedy on comprehensive immigration reform The New York Times portrayed the vaunted 'path to legalization' as one which

would let illegal immigrants get right with the law and become Americans, too, if they have clean records, learn English and pay back taxes and fines.

Ron Brownstein recently described that bill as one which which

would have toughened enforcement of immigration laws, devoting additional resources to guarding the border and policing employers who hire undocumented workers. It established a guest-worker program to regulate the flow of immigrant labor. (Under an Obama amendment, that guest-worker program would be suspended whenever unemployment reached 9 percent.) And it provided a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants who pass a background check, pay a fine, and learn English.

A bill introduced by Representative Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill) in December, 2009

would create a program providing conditional non-immigrant status for undocumented immigrants (and their spouses and children) in the U.S., which is valid for six years. An undocumented immigrant must establish his/her presence on or before December 15, 2009, pass a criminal background check, learn English and U.S. civics and pay a $500 fine (plus necessary application fees) in order to obtain a six-year visa.

A proposal recently unveiled by Senator Chuck Schumer of New York and other Senate Democrats would include a biometric national identification card and require illegal immigrants "to register with the government, pay back taxes, learn English and go to the back of the line for citizenship." And Schumer asserts "Our framework is fix the border first...."

Judging by what Limbaugh said today, how does his vision differ from that of the (mostly Democratic and liberal/progressive) supporters of comprehensive immigration reform? Certainly not in affirming the importance of fixing the borders. And Rush acknowledges "the legal immigration in this country is a long process," just as the current effort envisions those here illegally to "go to the back of the line." Moreover, "pay back taxes" and "learn English" (and especially the Gutierrez notion of learning civics) sound a lot like "ascertaining whether or not the new arrivals want to assimilate and actually become part of our culture."

Oh, okay, the language is different. While liberals/progressives favor "undocumented workers," Limbaugh prefers "illegals." No doubt that is the preferred nomenclature of the latter's audience, most of which has little sympathy for these individuals and wants them out of its midst, for whatever reason(s). And Rush continually defends the law in Arizona (or at least unfailingly attacks its opponents) but that is no contradiction, given that the legislation (contrary to media myth) targets immigrants, rather than illegal immigrants.

Most of all, Rush, like the left he enjoys flogging, opposes "rounding up" these folks.

Of course he does. But virtually no one in the political mainstream or in public life advocates "rounding up" illegal immigrants. Instead, these individuals are (periodically) arrested in workplace raids- something Limbaugh, by his avoidance of the subject amidst highly conservative listeners, appears to abhor.

Note how Rush defensively decried "trying to trick the host." Here he is, always complaining about these foreigners and intruders and now he is being cornered into a position which appears sympathetic to them. His listeners might, if they are alert, recognize the apparent contradiction. But Rush remains true to himself, standing in opposition to 'rounding them up.' As well he should; after all, we wouldn't want to inconvenience major employers by standing between them and the practice of hiring vulnerable immigrants who become poorly paid, poorly treated, vulnerable employees.

Rush Limbaugh stands accused of being a pro-war bigot. And accurately so. But that is not what he is about. Nothing in his worldview ever would conflict with his advocacy of policies designed to lower the wages and benefits of American workers and undermine the middle class. It is the central core of his economic philosophy, and of his philosophy. Sadly, when it comes to immigration reform, the strengthening of the American middle class, anathema to Rush Limbaugh, also is not a high priority of the left.

Share|

Responding To A Disaster

No word yet on whether the oil spill of a British Petroleum rig in the Gulf of Mexico will spur greater regulation amidst Washington’s “deregulate, baby, deregulate” environment. Still, the differing response of President Barack Obama and 2008 GOP vice-presidential nominee and 2012 presidential hopeful Sarah Palin is telling.

Politico reports

The administration recently announced that it would open new coastal areas to oil exploration, including regions off Virginia’s coast and in the Gulf of Mexico, ending a long moratorium on new drilling.

But Obama senior adviser David Axelrod said Friday there will be no new domestic offshore oil drilling pending a review of the rig disaster and massive oil spill along the Gulf Coast.

Speaking on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” Axelrod said “no additional [offshore] drilling has been authorized, and none will until we find out what happened and whether there was something unique and preventable here. ... No domestic drilling in new areas is going to go forward until there is an adequate review of what's happened here and of what is being proposed elsewhere."

Obama said he asked Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to conduct a "thorough review" and report back in 30 days to determine "what if any additional precautions and technologies should be required to prevent accidents like this from happening again." He said he’s also dispatched teams to the Gulf to inspect all deepwater rigs.

Admittedly, that is not quite an admission by the President that he was wrong when he reversed Administration policy on March 30 and announced (limited) off-shore oil drilling. But at did reflect understanding that policy must be continually re-assessed in light of shifting reality.

Not so one of the GOP’s leading spokesmen/women, who quit the job she was elected to do in Alaska. Palin wrote on her Facebook page

All responsible energy development must be accompanied by strict oversight, but even with the strictest oversight in the world, accidents still happen. No human endeavor is ever without risk – whether it’s sending a man to the moon or extracting the necessary resources to fuel our civilization. I repeat the slogan “drill here, drill now” not out of naiveté or disregard for the tragic consequences of oil spills – my family and my state and I know firsthand those consequences. How could I still believe in drilling America’s domestic supply of energy after having seen the devastation of the Exxon-Valdez spill? I continue to believe in it because increased domestic oil production will make us a more secure, prosperous, and peaceful nation.

Translation: our campaign slogan “drill, baby, drill” is still operative. Never a question. Never a doubt. Wouldn’’t let reality get in the way of a catchy phrase now, would we?

Perhaps it’s an unfair comparison. At times seeming to lack adherence to principle, President Obama is a politician almost uniquely flexible and cognizant of the limits of his own knowledge and judgement. He may chart a shifting, middle-of-the-road course, but it’s one that marks him as pragmatic, even when the policy course may have been politically motivated (as in the case of the March drilling statement, intended to get Lindsay Graham back on board with climate change legislation.)

That would be in sharp contrast not only to Sarah Palin but to most major Republican politicians of today- sometimes wrong, but never in doubt. The GOP way has the advantage of what sometimes is interpreted as ideological consistency- and certainly is one uniform over time. Unfortunately, it resulted in the Iraq War, a stubborn resistance to regulation of industry, and a petulant defiance to reform what several of them (with toes firmly crossed) referred to as “best health care system in the world.”

The Obama way stands in stark contrast to that of Bush 43, but is consistent with that generally pursued by Presidents Reagan, Bush 41, and Clinton. Hopefully, the outcome will be far more satisfying than the one which came out of the last administration.

Share|

Full Disclosure, When Ideologically Convenient

Kathleen Parker, apparently conflicted about abortion rights, wrote in her syndicated column, dated May 2, 2010 but online earlier

Such considerations recently have taken the form of legislation in several states where lawmakers want women considering an abortion first to view an ultrasound. Oklahoma passed a law a few days ago that would require women to have an ultrasound, though, contrary to early reports, they are not required to view the images. They would have to hear the doctor's description of the images on the screen under the law.

Florida passed its own legislation Friday, and Louisiana is considering a similar bill....

I can't muster outrage over what can be viewed as both medically pragmatic and morally defensible.

A well-informed patient should always be our route to safe and legal. Is it unacceptable that a life-preserving decision might result from greater knowledge?

Sounds so reasonable, does it not? Provide greater information to the pregnant woman- which, you would guess (or would, if your were Kathleen Parker) was the motivation behind the recently-enacted law in Oklahoma.

Guess again. There is this from The New York Times:

The Oklahoma Legislature voted Tuesday to override the governor’s vetoes of two abortion measures, one of which requires women to undergo an ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the fetus before getting an abortion.

Though other states have passed similar measures requiring women to have ultrasounds, Oklahoma’s law goes further, mandating that a doctor or technician set up the monitor so the woman can see it and describe the heart, limbs and organs of the fetus. No exceptions are made for rape and incest victims.

A second measure passed into law on Tuesday prevents women who have had a disabled baby from suing a doctor for withholding information about birth defects while the child was in the womb.

Failing to make an exception for rape and incest victims is a little harsh and insensitive, obviously. Or a lot harsh and insensitive. Still, compassion for the patient never has been a hallmark of the abortion prohibition crowd, so it's only being consistent.

But an additional measure "prevents women who have had a disabled baby from suing a doctor for withholding information about birth defects"? Would that be "providing greater information to the pregnant woman," as Parker would term it?

No, that would be incentive to withhold information from pregnant women.

If you're completely against extending to a woman the choice of abortion, it may make sense to mislead and intimidate her on the way to the heavy hand of government controlling her body. But can we avoid being disingenuous? Let's not pretend that we're doing anything other than steering the woman toward an unwanted birth, especially claiming something so noble as, in Sullivan's words, letting "pregnant women also know what their healthy fetuses look like before they hit delete."

Share|

Danger Lurking In Debt Commission

There is hope yet: maybe, just maybe, the Republicans are right. (Uh, correct; they're right all the time now, just usually wrong.)

Perhaps the 18-member National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform created by an executive order issued by President Obama is, as GOP legislators, have suggested, merely an election-year ploy by Obama to make it appear that he's interested in arresting the national debt. Or, as Rush Limbaugh and some other rightists have argued, it is a cover for raising taxes. After all, the President has pointedly asserted that nothing is "ruled out" as a solution.

The signs, however, are not hopeful. There are two co-chairmen:

While Chief of Staff to President Clinton, Erskine Bowles was described by Business Week as "Corporate America's Friend in the White House." Earlier this year told a group of bankers in Greensboro "We’re going to mess with Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security because if you take those off the table, you can’t get there.” By message and audience: Barack Obama's kind of Democrat.

His buddy is Alan Simpson, who as a Republican Senator from Wyoming tried to cut Social Security benefits indirectly and launched an investigation into AARP, trying to discredit it as Congress opened debate on Medicare. (This is, of course, how “The Village,” as Digby terms it, attempts to harm entitlement programs: by indirection, and always by calling them “entitlement programs.”) Pro-choice as a Senator, Simpson otherwise was a reliable conservative ; Barack Obama’s kind of GOP Senator.

President Obama's other appointees are David Cote, the chairman of Honeywell International; Andrew Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union (who recently announced he will not seek re-election); Alice Rivlin, Brookings Institution economist and founding director of the Congressional Budget Office; and Ann Fudge, most economically described as a corporate chieftain.

Rivlin once recommended cuts in Medicare and Social Security benefits as well as raising the age for Social Security eligibility and altering the basis for calculating those benefits. And she’s one of the Democratic appointees. Cote is chairman of a major defense contractor, garnering total compensation of $12,839,038, which included a base salary of $1,800,000, $4,252,500 in stock, options granted of $6,374,500, and other compensation of $412,038. He is no doubt pleased that the President's willingness to consider all possible options specifically excludes defense spending. Shared sacrifice, indeed.

The Congressional leadership of each party appointed six members each: for the Republicans, Representatives Dave Camp of Michigan, Jeb Hensarling of Texas, Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and Senators Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Mike Crapo of Idaho, and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire; for the Democrats, Representatives Xavier Becerra of California, Jan Schakowski of Illinois, John Spratt of South Carolina and Senators Max Baucus of Montana, Kent Contrad of North Dakota, and Dick Durbin of Illinois.

Durbin admonished both conservatives and liberals, arguing

the bleeding-heart liberals on this commission have to open their mind to what it takes to inspire competition and economic growth in our economy and make real sacrifices to strengthen our nation.

And that comes from a Democrat, who as Majority Whip is the second leading Democrat in the Senate. While no proposal can be made without support of fourteen of the eighteen members, Matthew Skomarovsky on Alternet noted that Andy Stern is the only one of Obama’s six choices virtually certain to oppose reduction in Social Security. Moreover,

For the commission to reach an agreement, its Democrats will have to win the support of at least two Republicans, which will be nearly impossible unless spending cuts are among its proposals. That Obama’s picks are so amenable to, if not gunning for, some form of benefits cuts suggests the White House is indeed seeking such a "grand bargain" from the commission, not a stalemate. The odds are slim, especially given the commission’s history, that five of the 10 Democrats would defy the White House to kill such a bargain.

Perhaps Senator Barack Obama was being truthful, direct, and transparent when he pledged that his presidency would “make history”- the first Democratic President to lead a successful assault on arguably the two most popular government programs of our time.

Share|