Limbaugh and Elton John

Bernard McGuirk, infamously the producer of Don Imus' former program on WFAN New York, frequently performed a skit asking "Which Doesn't Belong and Why?" And now for today's edition:

October, 2006: In their hearts and minds and their crotches, they don't have any problem with what (then-GOP Representative Tom) Foley did. They've defended it over the -- over the years.

June, 2008: Democrats will bend over, grab the ankles, and say, 'Have your way with me,' for 10 percent and 2 percent of the population?"

Summer, 1994: When a gay person turns his back on you, it is anything but an insult ; it's an invitation."

June, 2010: Elton John performs (for $1 million) at the Palm Beach, Florida wedding of Rush Limbaugh and Kathryn Rogers.

That would be Elton John, the famously gay giant of pop/rock music and of the Elton John Aids Foundation. Why would the right wing Rush Limbaugh, who has made a point of his hostility toward homosexuality, hire Mr. John to play and sing at his wedding?

Supportive Limbaugh biographer Zev Chafets suggests four possible reasons, though he assiduously implies that they are mutually compatible. Chafets claims "I’m pretty sure that Elton John’s sexual orientation never even crossed Limbaugh’s mind," which suggests Rush is stunningly aware. Or Chafets is stunningly stupid or lying, either of which is more likely than Limbaugh being asleep the past 40 years.

Chafets argues also

Limbaugh has been deaf for many years. He can make out speech thanks to a cochlear implant, but not music. What he can do is remember songs from the past. As a young top forty DJ, Rush played Elton John songs a thousand times. He knows them by heart.

That may have been a factor, along with Chafets' observation "if your bride is twenty-six years younger than you, you want entertainment that with a multi-generational appeal." Translated in the manner I prefer: my wife likes John's music and I have to concede something in order to marry an attractive woman much younger than I. I might be a hateful, venom-spewing extremist, but I never said my wife wouldn't call the shots (at least on some things).

Personal attacks aside, however, there is this: Ever the apologist, Chafets claims "hiring Sir Elton was not a social statement" (because, apparently, Rush would never, ever make a "social statement"). But he does contend, significantly, that Limbaugh

is not, and has never pretended to be, a member of the Christian Right. As a young disc jockey he invented a fictitious faith healer, “Friar Shuck” who saved people over the radio for a hundred bucks a pop. Shuck is gone now, but Rush’s show still has a rakish, sometimes impious edge. His fans know he was an Oxycontin addict who spent time in rehab, that he unapologetically appreciates “adult beverages” and beautiful women and that his Sunday devotionals take place in the Church of the NFL. As his good friend Roger Ailes once told me, Rush lives the way Jackie Gleason would have lived if Gleason had been rich enough.

The era of the "family values" Party is over, killed by the growing realization of Republicans that the true base of their party, the country club set, found appeals to ethics and religion inconvenient and uncomfortable. Oh, many Republicans throughout the nation still attend church, believe in (and occasionally practice) traditional values and really, truly believe the same of GOP pols and media figures.

He is still the same old Rush, the guy who would ridicule Christians on the radio for ratings, use and abuse a prescription drug, and flaunt his alcohol use. The same Rush who doesn't care about reproductive choice, gay rights, or gun control, except to flog its supporters because it's the Democratic Party that is associated in the public's mind with these views. That's why Chafetz may be sincere and accurate when he maintains that Rush supports civil unions. Limbaugh merely appears to oppose all gay initiatives so as to sharpen the ideological divide between the parties, and among Americans. Cultural issues are a mere weapon to achieve his aim of polarization of the electorate.

Oh, sure, Rush does regularly ridicule Representative Barney Frank (D-MA), known by many of his listeners primarily for being gay and a Democrat, which some believe are synonymous, anyway. But while they giggle and guffaw at the Dancing Queen parody, many are unaware of Limbaugh's real beef with Frank, and it's not sexuality:

But when, of course, there are "obscene profits" to be discussed, ladies and gentlemen -- such as big oil company obscene profits -- why all of a sudden there are companies in Barney Frank's world. When there are obscene profits, companies around about people. They are about companies, and they are evil, and we have got to punish them! We have got to steal from them and we have got to make sure that they realize they don't run things, that we do. But here when you have General Motors and Ford and Chrysler, they're not companies. They're just people! This, ladies and gentlemen, honesty and the straightforwardness of America's Banking Queen, Barney Frank, Massachusetts.

Barney Frank's sin, according to Rush Limbaugh: he questions the largely unregulated corporations which in their single-minded pursuit of profit put the safety and well-being of people at risk- and to make matters worse, he is sympathetic to American businesses which employ Americans and actually make goods used by Americans.

Who not employed by a drug company could be threatened by cheaper prescription drugs?On December 11, 2009, after acknowledging that the (North Dakota Senator Byron) Dorgan drug-reimportation bill would lower prices, Limbaugh maintained

To me it's all. It is a piece of garbage that needs to be thrown out, and certainly do not put it in the recycle bin. Put it where it is going to be destroyed and never come back.

Are Rush's listeners aware that he would prefer they pay higher prices for life-saving drugs rather than endangering the profits of pharmaceutical comanies? Have they noticed that he never, ever opposes anything that would threaten the corporate bottom line, no matter how it may serve the interests of the public? Perhaps now that Rush has decided to shower Elton John with $1 million- which the latter may use to aid gay-related cause(s)- they will begin to recognize Rush Limbaugh's Great Scam. Anyone can dream.

Share|

Don't Back Down

A skirmish is ensuing between the AFL-CIO and the administration of Barack Obama. Following the primary victory on Tuesday of incumbent Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas over her progressive challenger, Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter, Ben Smith of Politico reported

A senior White House official just called me with a very pointed message for the administration's sometime allies in organized labor, who invested heavily in beating Blanche Lincoln, Obama's candidate, in Arkansas.

"Organized labor just flushed $10 million of their members' money down the toilet on a pointless exercise," the official said. "If even half that total had been well-targeted and applied in key House races across this country, that could have made a real difference in November."

Lincoln relied heavily both on Obama's endorsement, which she advertised relentlessly on radio and in the mail, and on the backing of former President Bill Clinton, who backed her to the hilt.

Lincoln foe Bill Halter had the unstinting support of the AFL-CIO, SEIU, AFSCME and other major unions. And labor officials Tuesday evening were already working to spin the narrow loss of their candidate, Bill Halter, as a moral victory, but the cost in money and in the goodwill of the White House may be a steep price to pay for a near miss.

Fortunately, the AFL-CIO responded promptly, with its spokesman Eddie Vale (no, not this Vale) explaining

If that's their take on this, then they severely misread how the electorate feels and how we're running our political program. When we say we're only going to support elected officials who support our issues. When they say we should have targeted our money among some key house races among Blue Dog Democrats — that ain't happening.

Labor isn't an arm of the Democratic Party. It exists to support working families. And that's what we said tonight, and that's what we're gong to keep saying.

Organized labor isn't the puppy dog of the Democratic Party, though sometimes it is so perceived, to the detriment of both the labor movement and the party whose candidates it usually supports. It's not too wise to tell the American people that Barack Obama expects labor to march in lockstep with his Party.

Labor need to eschew personality crusades and instead support the issues which benefit its members, for to do otherwise would be a severe disservice to those members. That should be obvious to the White House but evidently is not, and may be reflected in the apparent threat from the administration delivered via Smith: the loss of "money and goodwill," as the journalist put it, from the White House.

Perhaps the AFL-CIO isn't really frightened of retaliation from its reluctance to play Stepford Wife to President Obama. Blanche Lincoln, for instance, pledged to filibuster against a health care public option, which we were led to believe and are still being told, President Obama supported. Yet, there was President Obama doing a robocall on behalf of Lincoln, a conservative Democrat, in her (successful) bid to derail the candidacy of Bill Halter.

And then there is the case of Joe Lieberman. In April, 2008, asked if Obama is a Marxist, Lieberman replied "I must say, that’s a good question … I will tell you that during this campaign, I’ve learned some things about him, about the kind of environment from which he came ideologically. And I wouldn’t … I’d hesitate to say he’s a Marxist, but he’s got some positions that are far to the left of me and I think mainstream America."

The next month he told CNN's Wolf Blitzer "the fact that the spokesperson for Hamas would say they would welcome the election of Senator Obama really does raise the question, "Why?" And it suggests the difference between these two candidates."

In August, 2008 he framed the upcoming presidential election as "between one candidate, John McCain, who has always put the country first, worked across party lines to get things done, and one candidate who has not.’’

The next month, Lieberman delivered a nominating speech for Obama's opponent, Republican John McCain, then a few days later shamelessly admonished nominee Obama for voting to "cut off funding for our troops on the ground."

After he was elected, President-elect Obama, saying he "doesn't hold any grudges" against Lieberman, gave his de facto support to keep a position as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee to the man who implied Obama may be a Marxist, is supported by Islamic terrorists, does not put the country first, and wants American soldiers to be shot dead in combat. It's one thing to forgive- it's quite another to boost an avid opponent against another Democrat (who would have become chairman) who supported Obama's election.

Has Barack Obama changed? Probably not. In May at the White House, President Obama presented the Duke Blue Devils with a plaque honoring their NCAA basketball championship. He joked “(Coach K) went out with all these guys and won, so he could come to the White House and crow bout it. Payback is sweet, isn’t it, coach?"

Obama's reference to "payback" derived from his failure to pick Duke to win the national championship but could have been to something far different. Shortly before the tournament began in March, coach Krzyzewski, informed that Obama had selected Duke rival North Carolina to win the national championship, took a shot at the President: "Somebody said that we're not in President Obama's Final Four, and as much as I respect what he's doing, really, the economy is something that he should focus on, probably more than the brackets."

It may be helpful, though really odd, for a basketball coach to remind us that in the full scope of a nation's priorities, sports doesn't matter. And admittedly, this doesn't rise nearly to the level of Lincoln or even Lieberman. But for criticizing President Obama for doing what a U.S. President does, "Coach K" (cute, isn't it?) gets this: Barack Obama joyfully reminding the guy that he stuck it to him and came out on top.

And now, a White House official warns if you oppose us, we'll cut you off? Incumbent Lincoln (who only recently was not favored to win her race), Lieberman, who defeated the Democrat (the Republican was less than a token opponent) in his re-election bid, and Krzyzewski had one thing in common: they were winners. Organized labor, meanwhile, has failed to obtain card check or even a modified Employeees Fair Check Act, to derail an excise tax on comprehensive health care plans, or to prevent an increase in premium costs for COBRA health coverage. Nor did its efforts to elect Barack Obama resulted in a President whose highest economic priority is restoration and creation of jobs. The message to the union movement is clear: stick to your program and criticize President Obama whenever necessary; win at least once, and you won't have to come begging to President Obama. He will come to you.

Share|

Gratitude from BOA

Bank of America, one of the six financial institutions which together possess 63% of assets in the nation's economy, has been one lucky bank. On October 28, 2008 it received $15 billion of the roughly $200 billion from the American taxpayers to save the lowly entrepreneurs. Bank of America then decided to acquire Merrill Lynch, and received $20 billion for its troubles while the federal government agreed to

guarantee part of a pool of $118 billion in illiquid assets, including residential and commercial real estate and corporate loans. Bank of America will be responsible for the first $10 billion in losses; the Treasury and the FDIC will take on the next $1.

The generosity of the American taxpayer (and the "socialist" government Rush Limbaugh and many other Republicans keep reminding us of) seems to have paid off. On April 16 The Huffington Post noted

Bank of America Corp. on Friday followed JPMorgan Chase & Co. in reporting a big first-quarter profit and that it sees a healing economy. Bank of America said its earnings rose 0.7 percent to $2.83 billion from $2.81 billion a year earlier.

Making money and racking up profits is a good thing, even if the biggest sector of the private economy needed a boost from big government to get it done. But how has it been done?

Loans to fledgling businesses and to the American people, without whose generosity Bank of America might no longer be in existence. Perhaps, though, through cutting expenses, as the India Times reports:

Workers for Bank of America Corp, one of the nation's largest employers, have sued the company for allegedly failing to pay overtime and other wages.

The lawsuit filed Friday in federal court in Kansas City, Kansas, consolidates 12 lawsuits filed on behalf of employees in California, Florida, Kansas, Texas and Washington.

It seeks nationwide class-action status on behalf of employees at retail branches and call centers over the last three years. The federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in April directed that the cases be combined.

According to the 44-page complaint, the largest U.S. bank by assets requires employees to work in excess of eight hours per day or 40 hours per week, yet fails to pay them both for overtime and for all straight time worked.

The complaint also accuses the bank of requiring employees to work during unpaid breaks, failing to provide meal and rest breaks, and failing to timely pay terminated employees for earned wages and accrued vacation time.

"Bank of America enjoys millions of dollars in ill-gained profits at the expense of its hourly employees," violating either the federal Fair Labor Standards Act or various state labor laws, the complaint said.

Bank of America will get its day in court (unless it settles out of it). Still, one can wonder if this arrangement is what Rush Limbaugh meant when he imagines the Obama Administration sayin "This what we're about. This is how we're going to make you dependent on us. This is how we're gonna destroy the private sector."

Yep, give them billions so they can stay in business and make billions- each year- with the help of free labor. That Socialist in the White House sure knows how to break the private sector.

Share|

Way Off-Base

On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram,saying,
To your descendants I have given the land, From the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates: the Kenite and the Kenizzite and the Kadmonite and the Hittite and the Perizzite and teh Rephaim and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Girgashite and the Juebusite. (Gen. 15: 18-21, NAS)

Legendary correspondent Helen Thomas experienced an embarrassing exchange (video below; transcript from Daily Kos) on May 27 with a Rabbi David F. Nessenoff pertaining to the Middle East:

Q: Any comments on Israel?

HT: Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine. Remember, these people are occupied and it's their land. It's not German, it's not Polish.

Q: So where should they go, what should they do?

HT: Go home.

Q: Where is the home?

HT: Poland. Germany.

Q: So you're saying Jews go back to Poland, Germany?

HT: And America and everywhere else.

Ms. Thomas has apologized on her website. Nevertheless, former Bush 43 Press Secretary Ari Fleischer charged in an e-mail:

She should lose her job over this. As someone who is Jewish, and as someone who worked with her and used to like her, I find this appalling.

She is advocating religious cleansing. How can Hearst stand by her? If a journalist, or a columnist, said the same thing about blacks or Hispanics, they would already have lost their jobs.

Fleischer is half-right. Probably if the an analogous statement had been made about blacks or hispanics, the speaker would have been fired. And that too would have been wrong, given the importance of free expression. Yet, with more significance these days attached to speech than to behavior- and insufficient consideration given to an individual's body of work- Thomas probably would have been fired if she had said something equally offensive to certain other demographic groups.

Fleischer would have been more accurate and honest if he instead had said simply: Thomas has gotten it wrong. One does not have to deny that Arab Palestinians have some claim on the historic land of Palestine to acknowledge that Jews have been there an awfully long time, also. That would be on and (involuntarily) off since before the time of Jesus Christ, not merely since 1948. Yes, the Jews of Israel should go home- an awfully short trip, inasmuch as they're already there. (And Jews would be no more at home in Poland and Germany as in many Arab countries, from which many were made refugees.)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stuck the right balance when on May 12 he explained at a special parliamentary session

It is not my intention to detract from the bond other peoples have with Jerusalem. However, I am challenging the attempts to detract from, distort or erase our unique bond with Jerusalem.

Netanyahu remarked additionally that Jerusalem "was mentioned 142 times in the New Testament, and not once in the Koran, although a later interpretation of the Islamic text, centuries after Mohammed, included one mention." The chief negotiator for the Palestinian Authority- the moderate wing of the Palestinian movement, no less- called the comments "distasteful." Not inaccurate, of course, but "distasteful."

An inconvenient truth, that historical record. It cannot be used to justify any and all actions by the State of Israel. But if the left understandably took to deriding then-President Reagan for declaring "facts are stupid things," the least we can do is to acknowledge facts, whereupon policy may be adjusted in consideration of present circumstances.
















">

Deregulation Lives

Someone had to take the fall, and it was Elizabeth Birnbaum.

On May 27 the head of the Mineral Management Service, which regulates offshore drilling, became the first casualty of the Gulf oil spill. Although she officially resigned, Birnbaum was pushed and should be only the first individual to lose a job over the worst oil spill in U.S. history.

Obviously, the MMS was sloppy, ineffective, negligent. The Wall Street Journal found its

examination of the MMS's track record found several instances of the agency identifying potential safety problems and then either not requiring follow-up or relying on the industry to craft a solution. In some cases, the industry didn't do its part.

The Journal also found that the safety record of U.S. offshore drilling compares unfavorably, in terms of deaths and serious accidents, to other major oil-producing countries. Over the past five years, an offshore oil worker in the U.S. was more than four times as likely to be killed than a worker in European waters, and 23% more likely to sustain an injury, according to International Association of Drilling Contractors data, which is adjusted for man-hours* worked.

The agency conducts inspections of drilling rigs and platforms but, the paper added, the "number of rigs inspected has fallen significantly in recent years, according to agency data, from 1,292 in 2005 to 760 by 2009" and its inspections frequently are inadequate.
Further,

Over the past decade, the number of MMS enforcement cases that resulted in penalties ranged from a high of 66 in 2000 to a low of 20 last year. A report by the agency's inspector general in 2000 found that it seldom referred safety or environmental violations to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution, even when it should have done so.

But this was not due primarily to the agency's ineptitude or its unique favoritism toward the industry it regulates. Itself,

the MMS in a 2005 rule change pointed to a 1996 law that encouraged federal agencies to "benefit from the expertise of the private sector" by adopting industry standards. Mr. Herbst also pointed out that the MMS often has a seat on panels setting industry standards.

The industry regulated itself- or, rather, has not regulated itself. Over the past thirty years, Congress and the President have periodically cooperated, or competed against each other, in breaking the nation's regulatory scheme. Regulations have been weakened,
penalties reduced for violation of those weakened regulations, and budgets cut for inspectors.

This plan has been promoted by 1.5 major political parties. It has been the ideology, rhetoric, and governing philosophy of the GOP, set on its path of undermining government when its patron saint declared "government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem." And Democrats largely have avoided challenging that mantra, rarely defending the importance of government in the lives of poor and middle class Americans.

And it has taken its toll for the last three decades. Among the instances which stand out is the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 by the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, wherein the divide between commercial and investment banking was torn down, initiated by the great free market conservative, Republican Senator Phil Gramm of Texas and signed into law by the neo-liberal, centrist Democrat, President Bill Clinton. Glass-Steagall helped prevent a second great depression; Gramm-Leach-Bliley helped usher in the great recession from which we have only barely begun to emerge.

Another would be the present environmental-energy-economic crisis of the British Petroleum oil spill. Here we have another neo-liberal, centrist Democratic President who, accordingly, trusted the giant oil company. It has the interests of the American people at heart, President Obama believed, at least initially. And it has the unique ability to solve the problem because, after all, government is "the problem," not "the solution."

As the federal government relies on BP to clean up its mess, the trail of incompetence and deception on the part of the energy giant pile up. As distrust of BP has grown, so has belief in the effectiveness of President Obama, an ironic twist for the man Republicans would like us to believe is a socialist.


*(Really, now, can we dispense with "man-hours" and replace it with "person hours?" If not, can we dispense with "chair" when we mean "chairman," "chairwoman," or "chairperson"? The only function of a chair at a meeting is to allow someone to sit.)

Share|

Israel Acts, Reaction Rash

It is, arguably, an ironic headline.

Posting in Slate on Wednesday, Natasha Lennard criticized Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) because on Hardball he had "bemoaned the international community's condemnation of Israel's actions, suggesting it's blown out of proportion compared to other recent global events."

The international community has condemned Israel's actions, rendering Slate's headline "So much for Barney Frank's courage on Israel" less cleverly sarcastic than counter-intuitive. Notwithstanding the ideological or demographic makeup of his district, it does take at least a little bit of courage on the part of Frank- a national figure- to take such a vocal position at odds with that of the international community and most of his liberal/progressive brethren.

Lennard quotes Frank and makes her argument:

"We had an unprovoked attack by North Korea on a South Korean submarine," he said. "46 people killed -- and a great deal of silence and equivocation."

But that's not really true. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's response to the Korean submarine attack was, in fact, nothing short of an unequivocal condemnation.

"We cannot allow this attack on South Korea to go unanswered by the international community," she said. "This will not be and cannot be business as usual. There must be an international, not just a regional, but an international response."

Perhaps Frank, in mentioning "equivocation," was actually thinking of Clinton's statement in response to the flotilla raid on Monday.

The response of the Secretary of State regarding the Israeli incident was, as Lennard implied, measured, though more appropriately so than she apparently believes. She contrasts that reaction to Clinton's remark about the North Korean attack: "This will not be and cannot be business as usual. There must be an international, not just a regional, but an international response."

Clinton was forceful- but Lennard neglects to tell us the outcome, implying, however indirectly, that the international community unloaded on North Korea in much the same way that it has done on Israel.

The attack on the flotilla occurred on Monday May 31, 2010. No time to waste! Less than two days later, in an online article posted at 7:20 p.m. Washington time on June 1, the Times of India reported:

The Security Council also convened an emergency meeting on Sunday to discuss a draft resolution, to call for an international inquiry into the incident and compensation for those who had been killed.

"I condemn this violence," said Secretary-General Ban. "It is vital that there is a full investigation to determine exactly how this bloodshed took place. I believe Israel must urgently provide a full explanation," he said....

In individual statements, the 15 UNSC members issued remarks, almost all condemning the assault....

While the Security Council discussed a draft statement to condemn the attack, top UN officials came out strongly against the incident.

"I unequivocally condemn what appears to be disproportionate use of force, resulting in the killing and wounding of so many people attempting to bring much-needed aid to the people of Gaza, who have now been enduring a blockade for more than three years," said Navi Pillay, the UN human rights chief.

Meanwhile, South Korea- unlike the Gaza Strip, not ruled by an organization whose raison d'etre is terrorism- begs:

South Korea would like to see the U.N. Security Council issue a political response to the North for its alleged role in the March sinking of a South Korean patrol ship instead of pursuing further sanctions, a high-ranking Seoul official said yesterday (see GSN, June 1)....

"We expect the Security Council to send a political, symbolic and moral message that such acts as the Cheonan incident cannot be tolerated and that North Korea should be held accountable and should not repeat this kind of military provocation," he said.

Seoul accused Pyongyang late last month of carrying out a submarine torpedo attack that sank the warship Cheonan on March 26, killing 46 sailors. The United States and Japan have thrown strong support behind South Korea following the conclusion of an international probe into the ship sinking. North Korea has vehemently denied playing any role in the incident.

Ten weeks later, South Korea is requesting, almost pleading, for a token response. There has been no Security Council "draft statement to condemn the attack" or roughly a dozen member nations of that body condemning the action or angry demonstrations throughout the world. This follows an attack which killed 46, not nine; and apolitical sailors, rather than armed and/or unarmed activists and/or mercenaries.

Details of the raid are in dispute. Fairness of the sea blockade (humanitarian supplies by land are routinely admitted to Gaza) is in dispute. The existence of a double standard? Not so much.

Share|

Undermining Social Security, Presidential Edition

This is is one more conspiracy theory. But it's my conspiracy theory, so it must be valid. (I’m starting to sound like Rush Limbaugh. This can’t be good.)

Seeingtheforest.com blogger Dave Johnson of Campaign for America's Future in February lamented "the right's noise machine" that has been determined to convince the electorate that "Obama tripled the deficit." He found a search of "obama tripled the deficit" on Google received 27,000 hits. Fortunately, the number now appears down to 988, but 52,000 without the quote markes.

Still, the propaganda machine has been very effective, arguably spearheaded by Limbaugh's beloved Heritage Foundation, though some attention now has been diverted to other issues with the passge of time. In February, pounding on a common theme of his, Rush would allege

But this is one of the biggest problems that people are having with Obama and therefore it is important. People are fed up with this spending. They're scared to death of it. They know full well what it portends. It portends massive tax increases for years on us, our kids and grandkids. It weakens the country. This is just an abomination. Nine years ago we were attacked. Barack Obama cannot tell the truth. Constitutionally, he's not capable of telling the truth. He has increased the deficit, not by twice, not by three times, but by four times -- and it was not necessary.

As Johnson notes, Fox News initially printed the headline "Obama triples budget deficit to $1.4 trillion." It now has been changed to the slightly less misleading "U.S. Budget Deficit Hit Record $1.4 Trillion in 2009"- still leaving the impression it is Obama's doing, inasmuch as everyone realizes Barack Obama was president for virtually all of 2009. $1.4 trillion was the deficit in Bush's last budget- not coincidentally, the same $1.4 trillion that conservatives claim Obama tripled the deficit to.

As the conservative libertarian Cato Institute explains, President Bush was significantly more responsible for the deficit (and the high level of spending) than was President Obama. The fiscal 2009 budget began on October 1, 2008 and "was largely set in place" by the time Barack Obama took office. Or as Johnson puts it, "A budget year that ends 8 months into a President's first year wasn't that President's budget."

But here is where it gets interesting. (If not, you have a money back guarantee!) Johnson argues

This dishonest propaganda campaign is the source of the political pressure to cut spending. Fine. What else would you expect from the right? It's what they do. But why has this campaign gone unanswered? Why haven't the forces allied with the President reached out with the facts? Why have they let themselves be put into this box?

A bigger question, why does the Obama administration still not seem to get it that this is what they do? The right has a coordinated, funded propaganda machine that just lies, and smears, belittles and humiliates people, makes the public afraid, stirs up division - even encourages sedition, all to get their way.

The right is well-funded because there is a monetary payoff to the big corporations and wealthy individuals who fund campaigns like this one. Their anti-government campaign is buying tax cuts, subsidies, deregulation or just non-enforcement of regulations, waivers or just lack of enforcement of anti-trust rules, military contracts, and a long list of other financial benefits.

Meanwhile people interested in democracy and good government are largely unfunded. They are largely shut out of TV and radio. For example, you rarely see a representative of labor on TV, radio or in the news. Bloggers reach a lot of people, but nothing like the talk radio/TV empire of the right. So how can we do this better?

A bigger question, why does the Obama administration still not seem to get it that this is what they do?

Perhaops this question should be asked rhetorically. Maybe the Obama administration does "get it"- and is just fine with it.

In a report about the February 2009 Fiscal Responsibility Summit's breakout session on Social Security, the Washington Post reported

Both Summers and Sperling said there would not be consensus in today's session about how to fix the program. They also said the public was more receptive to the government making hard decisions necessary to keep SS from running out of money in the long run, because Americans are anxious about their private retirement savings and the value of their houses.

Sperling said: "I think there may be a lot more openness than we thought in the past for people to have an honest discussion about the shared sacrifice necessary to have Social Security solvency. That this would be a sure thing they could count on, and they could count on for the next 50 to 75 years."

At the end, Sperling also tried to cut through disagreement over whether the program was in a state of crisis. "I really hate the whole argument about, is this a crisis or is this not a crisis? Why do we not want to preempt a crisis. Why do we not want to do something early? It is a shame on our political system that there has never been entitlement reform without a gun to our head. . .Wouldn't it be a tremendous confidence-building thing to act early and smart?"

That would be Gene Sperling, Counselor to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner of the administration which has convened a National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility. The commission is composed of two co-chairmen, a Democrat and a Republican; 4 appointees of President Obama; and 3 appointees by each of the following: Senate Majority Leader Reid, Senate Minority Leader McConnell, House Speaker Pelosi, and House Minority Leader Boehner. Fortunately, 14 of 18 members have to agree on a recommended change. However, there is little doubt that Republicans (of a party whose dominant theme is "government is hopeless"), wary of a successful and popular government program, will support efforts to undermine Social Security. The commission co-chairmen and three of the four individuals selected by Obama have been, or are believed to be, critical of the growth of entitlement programs. (The other Obama appointee, outgoing SEIU President Andy Stern, may be looking for a position in the Administration.) Two of the individuals- Representative Jan Schackowsky and Majority Whip Dick Durbin- selected by Democratic congressional leaders are avid Obama supporters, hail from Illinois and.... you get the picture.

Before convening the Fiscal Responsibility Summit, forerunner to the Deficit Commission, President Obama commented

What we have done is kicked this can down the road. We are now at the end of the road and are not in a position to kick it any further. We have to signal seriousness in this by making sure some of the hard decisions are made under my watch, not someone else's.

These are hard decisions- it's always uncomfortable (but "serious")- cutting benefits of the elderly while financial manipulations of the big banks, hedge fund managers, and corporate scofflaws are virtually unimpeded. Sacrifices will be demanded- but not by those who control the economy and can blackmail officeholders, only of the middle class. And it's always "hard" to summon the creativity to manufacture a crisis.

A report prior to the deficit commission's first meeting in April noted

Barbara Kennelly, CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, said Monday the commission should not seek to balance the budget in the short-term by cutting Social Security.

"Simply put, Social Security has not contributed one thin dime to the current deficit," said Kennelly, a former Democratic House member from Connecticut.

Kennelly noted that Social Security is paid for with payroll taxes and is expected to remain solvent through 2037.

Facts, though, don't dominate the discussion when the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee (a Democrat, no less), hands wet from wringing over the projected status of Social Security 75 years from now, can state "so the idea of not doing anything to me is not the answer." That would put him on the same wavelength as Obama advisor Sperling, who wants to find an answer to a problem that doesn't exist. (Hurry, if it ain't broken, fix it!)

As Digby implies, the emphasis on deficit reduction and satisfying the bond markets finds its expression in the continuing failure to enact comprehensive and effective financial reform and in a desire to undermine the Social Security system. It's all a part of "the pain caucus," as Krugman termed it. Digby's remarks about Summer and Sperling apply also to those on the deficit reduction commission:

These people want credit for fixing social security, which they acknowledge means that people are going to have to "sacrifice." Why these silly Democrats think the Republicans are going to hold hands with them on this is beyond me and the idea that the people will appreciate them doing it is delusional.

Share|