Ahead, For Now


Unemployment is up, now to 9.1%, and the widespread belief that Barack Obama will be re-elected President has been called into question.

Not quite so for The Daily Beast's Peter Beinart who, though conceding that the economy may actually worsen and imperil the incumbent's re-election, argues that Obama still should be a heavy favorite to occupy the oval Office in 2013.

Beinart notes that each prominent GOP contender or would-be contender has one or more serious handicaps. Of the two most likely nominees, Beinart asserts that Tim Pawlenty appears to much of the public not to be "up to the job" while Mitt Romney is not perceived widely as "a person of conviction" or "able to relate to ordinary Americans." Credit Beinart with this- unlike the Washington Post's Dan Balz and Jon Cohen or other pundits, he does not cite "overall dissatisfaction with the GOP field." Barack Obama will not have the luxury of running against Romney-Pawlenty-Bachmann-Perry-Huntsman-Palin-Gingrich-Cain-Santorum-Palin et al. He will be faced off against one, whose image when will be vastly enhanced by his (yes, his) successful navigation of the maze of primaries and caucuses. At that point, he no longer will be some ex-governor or ex-congressman but the victorious nominee of a major political party.

But Beinart focuses his argument on an analogy with President Bush's re-election, when Americas were in "a sour mood" but voters re-elected the incumbent because

people’s feelings about him outpaced their feelings about the state of the country. Despite saying the country was on the wrong track, a slight majority of Americans approved of his job performance, and he was reelected by essentially that margin.

For what it's worth- and, admittedly, it's not worth much, given that its only a snapshot- President Obama's approval ratings are now 50% while at the same point in his first term, President Bush's number was 62%. And this was reported by Gallup from a survey taken May 30-June 5, post-bin Laden (truly, post bin Laden) and, aside from one day, before release of the latest, gruesome unemployment figures.

Typically, right track-wrong track numbers track fairly closely with the perceived state of the economy and Beinart contends

Throughout the summer and fall of 2004, a clear majority of Americans said the country was on the wrong track. The numbers, in fact, were only marginally better then than they are now.

On October 25,2004, however, ABC News reported "fifty-five percent of likely voters say the country is on the wrong track." By contrast, Balz and Cohen report that a Washington Post-ABC News poll taken June2-June 5 indicates "by 2 to 1, Americans say the country is pretty seriously on the wrong track." (Seriously on the wrong track? And what percentage opted for "laughingly" on the wrong track? Seriously, folks, this is The Washington Post!)

Results of the poll, Balz-Cohen observe (observes?) "continue to rate the economy in negative terms. Nearly six in 10 say the economy has not started to recover, regardless of what official statistics may say, and most of those who say it has improved rate the recovery as weak." Those are nasty numbers- but they may get worse. While commenting not on the prospects for Obama's re-election but for the economy generally, Dean Baker notes

there are more factors pointing to slower growth than faster growth going forward. In addition to the state and local cuts kicking in next month, the new fiscal year for the federal government begins October 1. This is also likely to involve further cuts in spending. And the payroll tax cut is scheduled to end 3 months later, as is the extension of unemployment benefits. At some point, the pain of high unemployment across the country may lead to some new thinking in Washington, but until that time, welcome to the second Great Depression.

There is another chink in comparing 2012 to 2004. Unlike in 2004, the incumbent President on the ballot in 2012 will not have the advantage of a raft of state referenda boosting his bid. In November, 2004, individuals in eleven states voted on measures to ban gay marriage- and all eleven passed. GWB would have captured the electoral votes of Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Utah even without the highly popular measure. But he could not have been re-elected without Ohio, in which the Republican prevailed by only 2.1% while the marriage ban passed 62%-38%. Some analysts (not all) believe only this enabled the incumbent to carry Ohio. Your opinion, like mileage, may vary.

Barack Obama still is a favorite to be re-elected. In match-ups with possible opponents over the past year, he has come out anywhere from slightly behind to well ahead and will amass a campaign war chest far exceeding that which he had in 2008, itself a record. With the elimination of Osama binLaden, it will be difficult (though not impossible) to cast the Democrat as soft on foreign enemies, as Republicans are wont to do. His Administration has been virtually, if not completely, scandal-free. While the White House employs a "to scare your core voters about the other side" (as Beinart puts it) tactic, the President will continue to occupy the ideological center of American politics.

This should count with independents- and will need to. Because when an incumbent is as dismissive of his core supporters as this President is, enthusiasm of the base will suffer and he will be dependent upon independents recognizing that he is one of them, and his opponents well beyond the mainstream.

Share|

Get up and shout "Hallelujah!"

Susan Crabtree, posting on Talking Poinhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifts Memo, and Joan McCarter, posting on DailyKos, are delighted that five Democratic Senators have sent to Vice-President Joe Biden, heading the bipartisan group in deficit reduction talks, a letter reading in part

As you know, the House-passed budget would end Medicare as we know it by destroying the guaranteed-benefit system and instead requiring seniors to enter the private insurance market. Despite the public’s overwhelming rejection of this proposal, and even after the Senate vote against it last week, many top congressional leaders are now saying they want the plan included as part of a package to reduce the deficit. Just last week, House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan declared that the plan to dismantle Medicare is “part of the debt ceiling talks.” Then on Sunday, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell echoed that it is “on the table.”

This proposal would never pass Congress on its own, and it does not belong in a larger deal either. It would be devastating for America’s seniors, who would see their out-of-pocket costs for health care double and the benefits they currently enjoy jeopardized. Under this risky proposal, insurance company bureaucrats would decide what care seniors get.

We are aware the administration has rejected this proposal since its passage by the House, and we applaud your efforts to educate the American people about its serious implications. We encourage you to remain unwavering in opposition to this scheme. For the good of the nation’s seniors, it must remain off the table.

Let's hold the hallelujahs, the amens, and uncorking that vintage bottle of champagne. What was the first clue? Perhaps the inclusion of Montana's Jon Tester- or more revealingly, that of Missouri's centrist Claire McCaskill, an Obama devotee.

Poll after poll reveals overwhelming opposition to the effort of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan to his plan to eliminate Medicare- and to any effort to cut benefits. And the response of Senators Tester, McCaskill, Cardin (Maryland), Brown (Ohio), and Nelson (Florida): opposition to "dismantle" Medicare, to "this scheme" embodied in the GOP budget plan.

Even the language is tepid. The "House-passed budget would end Medicare as we know it?" No, it would end Medicare. E-N-D. Or, as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on June 1 put it on the floor,

The Republicans saying: ‘We’re going to double down. Not only did we vote to abolish Medicare, increasing costs for seniors, lowering benefits and while giving tax breaks to oil companies and corporations for shipping jobs overseas....it says to seniors: ‘No more Medicare for you. You’re going to pay more, get less and weaken the middle class at the same time—weakening the middle class because of abolishing Medicare and weakening the middle class.... They do not believe in Medicare and they are voting today to honor their beliefs to abolish Medicare.

Pelosi, and Representative Jared Polis (D-CO), were specifically debating H. Con. Res. 34 as an amendment to the Homeland Security Appropriations bill, which "deemed" the Republican budget passed. But the five Democratic Senators who penned the letter to Biden were responding to the ongoing talks on the deficit. They have jumped up and collectively exclaimed "No!" to including an agreement to terminate Medicare. It's hard to imagine Sherrod Brown or a Democratic senator from Florida (Nelson) giving a nod and a wink to the Vice-President- don't end it, cut it- but for Tester, McCaskill and perhaps Cardin, it's highly believable. And when Democratic- Democratic!- Senators flex their muscles and assert merely that Medicare not be rubbed out, it doesn't end well.

Share|

The Weighty Governor Of New Jersey


Grudgingly- without admitting he had done wrong or wouldn't do the same in the future- Chris Christie has agreed to join the state Republican Party in reimbursing New Jersey $3,383.79 for two personal trips he recently took.

Nevertheless, reports The Wall Street Journal

The Christie administration will not release complete flight records for State Police helicopter trips taken by the governor, logs that were routinely released upon request by past administrations – including earlier in Gov. Chris Christie’s term, his spokeswoman said.

The New Jersey governor and his wife, Mary Pat Christie, had been flown the 102 miles to their son's baseball game in northern New Jersey by a state police helicopter, which landed in a nearby football field. Then, reports the Star Ledger, "Christie disembarked from the helicopter and got into a black car with tinted windows that drove him about a 100 yards to the baseball field."

Notwithstanding the Governor's excuse that he just had to make the trip to fulfill his "responsibility as a father," the Christies left the game in the fifth inning. The luxury automobile ferried them the 100 yards to the helicopter so they could be returned to the governor's mansion in Princeton, NJ to meet with campaign donors from Iowa trying to get the governor to jump into the presidential race.

The entire report, though, must be a figment of the imagination of the liberal press or at least a vicious distortion. For it was in October, 2009, during Christie's gubernatorial campaign against the incumbent Democrat, Jon Corzine, that The New York Times informed us:

It is about as subtle as a playground taunt: a television ad for Gov. Jon S. Corzine shows his challenger, Christopher J. Christie, stepping out of an S.U.V. in extreme slow motion, his extra girth moving, just as slowly, in several different directions at once.

In case viewers missed the point, a narrator snidely intones that Mr. Christie “threw his weight around” to avoid getting traffic tickets.

In the ugly New Jersey contest for governor, Mr. Corzine and Mr. Christie have traded all sorts of shots, over mothers and mammograms, loans and lying. But now, Mr. Corzine’s campaign is calling attention to his rival’s corpulence in increasingly overt ways.

Mr. Corzine’s television commercials and Web videos feature unattractive images of Mr. Christie, sometimes shot from the side or backside, highlighting his heft, jowls and double chin.

Meanwhile, Mr. Corzine, 62, is conspicuously running in 5- and 10-kilometer races almost every weekend, as he did last Saturday and Sunday, underscoring his athleticism and readiness for the physical demands of another term — and raising doubts about Mr. Christie’s.

Next, he and a fellow fitness buff, Mayor Cory A. Booker of Newark, will run through the streets of that city together next Tuesday.

The governor denies that he is deliberately ridiculing Mr. Christie’s weight, and tries to make light of such suggestions. “There isn’t a candidate in the world that likes how they’re depicted in their opponent’s ads,” Mr. Corzine said on Friday, smiling as he lamented that some have shown his bald pate. “Seems to be some sensitivity going on here.”

Well, now we have our answer. First, the question of figuratively throwing weight around was settled after Christie threw his weight around to get out of traffic tickets; twice turned down federal money for women's health services with a 9:1 federal:state match; took federal money for a transportation project and after nixing the project, refused to return the funding; and at least twice (here and here) publicly humiliated teachers-constituents.... and proudly puts some of this stuff up on his own YouTube channel.

But we have the answer also to the charge that Christie literally throws his weight around- or at least is hampered by it. Having a chance to walk a mere 10http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif0 yards, the New Jersey governor instead has his security detail drive him there in grandiose style, notwithstanding the inevitable embarrassment to his teen-age son, the pitcher.

Is it really too difficult to walk 100 yards? Apparently, it is if you're Chris Christie, a man who whines that those big, bad Democrats are making fun of his weight (although, ironically, they probably were not) but decides not to make the tiniest effort New Jerseyans, and all Americans, routinely do. Chris Christie: a man who views himself as a weighty individual, figuratively and literally.

Share|

Getting The GOP To Agree


Walter Shapiro of The New Republic is disturbed, legitimately, that President Obama has failed to explain in public the danger of failure to raise the debt ceiling. Along with a media which lacks debt ceiling visuals and therefore avoids explaining the consequences of such fiscal irresponsibility on a grand scale, the President bears responsibility for overwhelming opposition of the public to raising the ceiling. Obama's apparent disinterest contrasts with that of Reagan, who once warned “the full consequences of a default, or even the serious prospect of default by the United States, are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate.”

Alas, the GOP these days, while wrapped fully in the mantle of Reagan, is bidding a hasty retreat from the center-right policies of the 40th President, a vacuum filled instead by the 44th President.

Lamenting the lopsided nature of the House vote refusing to raise the debt ceiling to $16.7 trillion to avoid a default on August 2, Shapiro suggests that only by "eviscerating Medicare" would a sufficient number of Republicans opt for lifting the ceiling. ( Exactly every Republican- and this, in the party which promotes individualism!- voted "no.")

It is true that Republicans, left to their own devices, would not shrink from the challenge of bringing to a halt an economy which their benefactors on Wall Street were not quite able to accomplish. Perhaps they are thinking: "with just a little more effort, we can do what they tried to do, but were barely unable to accomplish."

But the GOP does not act alone but responds to the business community- in which the Chamber of Commerce actively supports the increase in borrowing authority, albeit hoping that spending cuts accompany it. That lends support to Digby's opinion that Republican leaders are bluffing.

But why leave anything to chance? Seventeen GOP Senators, led by Jim DeMint and Pat Toomey, have sent to Treasury Secretary Geithner a letter (text here) arguing

At issue is the stubborn fact that ultimate responsibility to use available Treasury funds to honor the debt obligations of the United States falls on you as Secretary of the Treasury. We believe it is irresponsible and harmful for you to sow the seeds of doubt in the market regarding the full faith and credit of the United States and ask that you set the record straight – that you will use all available Treasury funds necessary to prevent default while Congress addresses the looming debt crisis.

So Senate Republicans- and, in all likelihood, their House comrades- are concerned about a debt default, hence a failure to raise their ceiling. They are worried that creditors won't get paid. That would include U.S. banks and foreign investors.... with Communist China holding 20.4% of the debt held by foreigners. Fortunately, legislation to that effect, introduced by Toomey, has been defeated in the Senate, notwithstanding the unanimous support of Republicans. (And this, in the party which promotes individualism!)

Nevertheless, it would be nice to see the President of the United States, the very eloquent disciple of Ronald(6) Wilson(6) Reagan(6), use the bully pulpit to inform Americans that the other party wants banks and the Chinese to be paid while the middle class suffers. Then, Democrats in Congress ought to introduce legislation to provide that the sacrifice be made first and foremost by those investors, especially from abroad, but including domestic interests while the needs of the American people are accomodated.

The GOP has spoken loud and clear about its priorities. It's time for the Democrats to do the same. But it needn't be done for spite or political advantage, rather because it is the most likely way to get the GOP on board to save, rather than destroy, the economy.

Share|

Targeting Medicare, GOP Makes A Fool Of Politifact


Analyzing a Politifact piece condemning Democratic claims that the vote for the Ryan budget amounted to a bid to end Medicare, on April 22 I wrote

Politico maintains "budget resolutions are non-binding documents that cannot be viewed as the equivalent of legislation that establishes law. Deeply desiring something and accomplishing it are different." According to Wikipedia

a budget resolution is a legislation in the form of a concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget. The budget resolution establishes various budget totals, allocations, entitlements, and may include reconciliation instructions to designated House or Senate committees....

The budget resolution serves as a blueprint for the actual appropriation process, and provides Congress with some control over the appropriations process. A budget resolution binds Congress, but is not a law. It does allow for certain points of order to be made if the President does not follow the resolution.

It is not a law. But it is more than a wish list, something they'd like to see change if only, gosh, they had a chance someday. It would bind Congress and is the beginning of the GOP effort to end Medicare- not Medicare "as we know it," but Medicare. The GOP did "vote to end Medicare"; it was a vote for the purpose of ending Medicare.

Republicans now have made a liar, or rather a knave, of Politifact by deeming the Republican budget as passed (explained by Rep. Jared Polis of Colorado in video, below) by approving (over unanimous Democratic opposition) this portion of HR 2017, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012 (text, in PDF):

Pending the adoption of a concurrent resolution on the budget for
fiscal year 2012, the provisions of House Concurrent Resolution 34, as adopted by the House, shall have force and effect (and).... The allocations printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered for all purposes in the House to be the allocations under section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 197 4 for the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2012.

There now. The House, under leadership of Speaker Boehner with the support of his caucus and opposition of the Democrats, has now voted to end Medicare. Twice.

While they're at it, Politifact may wish to acknowledge its sleight of hand when it deceivingly wrote

But to say the Republicans voted to end Medicare, as the ad does, is a major exaggeration. All seniors would continue to be offered coverage under the proposal, and the program’s budget would increase every year.

Elderly people would be offered some coverage under the proposal. But it would be a declining proportion of their health expenditures because, although "the program's budget would increase every year," it is specifically designed to do so at a rate which is below the traditional, and expected, rate of growth in health care spending.

But look more carefully. The first sentence of the paragraph reads "but to say the Republicans voted to end Medicare, as the ad does, is a major exaggeration." Then as if to buttress that contention, the first portion of the second sentence- after maintaining Medicare would not end- refers to the proposal, obviously Ryan's. The second portion of the second sentence then speaks of program. Medicare generally is referred to as a "program," as it is earlier in the Politifact post. But prior to this section, Politifact refers to the GOP approach on five (5)) occasions as a "plan" and on five (5) occasions as a proposal- in no case as a "program." Significantly, though, after alleging that Medicare is not ended, Politifact adds "the program's budget would increase every year."

It is an effective, though subtle, effort to imply that the Medicare program's budget would increase, though of course it is Ryan's voucher proposal to which Politifact is actually referring. Hence, Politifact has implied that the Ryan program would increase Medicare when in fact it would replace Medicare, thus abolishing it.

We (the imperial "we," or perhaps all of us who value accuracy) await Politifact's retraction. Failing that, it might acknowledge a pro-GOP bias in matters not directly pertaining to President Obama. But make sure not to hold your breath.

Share|

Pawlenty Caught Being Almost Honest, At First


Governor Tim Pawlenty built a reputation in Minnesota of being staunchly pro-life. Perhaps it's no surprise then, that on an issue of apparently deep personal conviction, he has found it a little tricky to pivot- into dishonesty. Douglas Burns of the Daily-Times Herald of Boone, Iowa reported

Republican presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty, an Evangelical Christian who liberally sprinkled his autobiography with biblical verses and describes himself as “pro-life” on abortion, said Monday that he doesn’t think women who have abortions or doctors who perform them should be penalized criminally.

This morning, his staff clarified that position, saying Pawlenty, the former governor of Minnesota, wants to see abortion providers penalized, possibly criminally, but not mothers — should his pro-life view prevail and abortion turn from the generally legal procedure it is today to a prohibited act.

In an interview that touched on the topics of rural economic development and abortion after an event at the Pizza Ranch in Boone Memorial Day afternoon Pawlenty said he didn’t have a specific penalty in mind for abortion. But Pawlenty, a former state legislative leader and attorney with experience as a prosecutor, offered an initial take on the question.

“I don’t think we want to make it a criminal sanction but I think there should be some kind of penalty or consequence, but we don’t have a specific proposal as to what that would be,” Pawlenty told the Daily Times Herald.

Pawlenty declined to answer a follow-up question about how much, if any, time he has devoted to considering the penalty element of the abortion debate.

Eric Woolson, the veteran Iowa GOP operative who is Pawlenty’s senior adviser and communications consultant, called the Daily Times Herald after the interview to elaborate on Pawlenty’s comments Monday. “As you know, this was the last question in the press scrum and discussion got chopped off.” Woolson said. “To be clear, if Roe v. Wade is overturned, the issue of abortion returns to the states for them to decide the issue and penalties, if any. As to the governor’s views on these matters, he believes that if abortion becomes illegal, abortion providers should be subject to a penalty possibly including a criminal penalty. However, he does not believe women should be penalized.”

Added Woolson, “I apologize for creating the confusion by ending the discussion because we were behind schedule.”

Were abortion prohibited, the woman would be not a mere accessory, but the prime catalyst of the criminal act. But realizing that pro-life sentiment in the nation evaporates if criminal sanctions upon the women are suggested, Pawlenty opted for intellectual consistency and on Monday nixed the suggestion of criminal penalties for anyone. Nevertheless, by Tuesday morning, political correctness and expediency prevailed and the ex-governor decided that the provider be punished while the individual paying for (what he would consider) murder be held blameless.

And it's a good thing he did. Reporter Burns continued

Maggie DeWitte, executive director of the anti-abortion group Iowans For Life, said in a phone interview today that she similarly believes that mothers should be held harmless in any potential abortion sentencing.

“Criminal sanctions should be in place for the providers,” DeWitte said. “(Mothers) are the ones that are being deceived by the providers.”

The fact that Pawlenty didn’t arrive at that answer on first blush concerns DeWitte.

“It does give me pause, especially when you look at the potential presidential candidates we have,” DeWitte said.

Deceived? The pro-conception movement generally has argued that women are aware of the life within; and now they are deceived into having a fetus destroyed? In the right-wing fantasy, doctors face the prospect of jail for performing abortions. Nonetheless, they throw caution to the wind and actively recruit innocent, http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifnaive girls for their Mengele-like schemes. (Women would know better; but girls, as they are considered by DeWitte and others, are foolish little things, incapable of thought and easy prey for deception.)

But the otherwise impressive Robin Marty is wrong when she argues "I guess we should at least be grateful the GOP hasn't quite moved to 'jail the woman terminating, too' quite yet." Neither guys from Minnesota running for President nor Iowan activists are foolish or stupid; there is a reason they insist that a woman not be prosecuted for a contract hit. We know it's not concern for women, whose reproductive rights they would like abridged. Nor is it concern for the fetus, given their belief that the person responsible for its destruction should be given a pass. Rather, it's a central part of a wise political strategy. Once a decision is made to threaten with prosecution a woman considering an abortion, it's over for the anti-abortion rights movement.

Share|

Just An Ol' Fashioned Social Conservative

As Sarah Palin continues her Look At Me Tour, attention should focus on the politico the ex-governor's orgy of narcissism is intended to deflect attention from. On yesterday's Hardball (transcript here), Chris Matthews remarked

OK, is she sneaking in here before Bachmann announces for president? Because the minute Bachmann announces, should she announce, and she said she`ll decide in June, this will be a road show. This will be an Annie Oakley Wild West show. But the minute Bachmann runs as a U.S. congressperson, a lawyer, a tax (ph) person with professional experience who runs as a member of Congress, runs for the presidency, doesn`t she bump her as the figure on the right, the cultural right?

Matthews at least understands that Michele Bachmann is "a Buffalo Bill Wild West Show figure" and, hence, the primary alternative to Sarah Palin stylistically. But he is stuck on the idea that she is animated by issues of culture, rather than of economic privilege.

A Minnesota journalist who knew Bachmann as a classmate at Winona State University- where she worked on Jimmy Carter's presidential campaign- characterized her at the time as being "a Jesus freak." A political scientist at Carleton College maintains "As a state senator," Michele Bachmann was primarily a cultural warrior." Having has given birth to five children and raised them, and 53 foster children with her husband, Bachmann no doubt will have the claim on support of many conservatives who found Palin, who gave birth to a child with Down's syndrome, irresistible.

But neither being an evangelical Christian, as Bachmann reportedly is, nor raising 58 children, makes someone "a cultural warrior." Neither does it qualify someone as the "social conservative" she is sometimes described as. It may make her someone of deep religious faith, an issue not yet explored, and perhaps as someone who loves children, also as yet unexplored. But, alone, it does not make of Bachmann a politician ideologically committed to culturally conservative causes.

We do know, however, that Bachmann is committed to right-wing economics: she has told us so. When she delivered one (transcript here) of the GOP's responses to President Obama's last State of the Union address, the Minnesota congresswoman neglected such issues as gay rights, abortion rights, gun rights, or the coarsening of the American culture about which the right once pretended it was offended. Rather, she decried" an unprecedented explosion of government spending and debt" which "was unlike anything we’ve ever seen before in the history of the country."

Bachmann proposed "we fully repeal Obamacare" and recommended the President "stop the EPA from imposing a job-destroying cap-and-trade system. The president could support a balanced budget amendment. The president could agree to an energy policy that increases American energy production and reduces our dependence on foreign oil." And appearing not to notice that the economy was nearly plunged into a depression largely by a lack of regulation of the financial sector, Bachmann urged Obama also to "turn back some of the 132 regulations put in place in the last two years, many of which will cost our economy $100 million or more."

But, you protest, economic policy (jobs, deficit, health care) was the order of the day, the focus of the State of the Union speech and the the greatest concern of the American people. But Bachmann hasn't stopped recommending far-right economic nostrums, as indicated by a segment of MSNBC's The Last Word, which Ezra Klein noted

was on the debt ceiling, and “Last Word” host Lawrence O’Donnell played a clip of Rep. Michele Bachmann giving her plan. In short, her plan is that we don’t raise the debt ceiling, but we use the revenue still coming in to pay off creditors first and whatever we think most important second. That way, we “don’t violate our credit rating” and “prioritize our spending.” Makes perfect sense.

At least, it makes perfect sense unless you, like me, had spent the previous few days talking to economists, investors and economic policymakers about what could happen if we start playing games with the debt ceiling. Their answers were across-the-board apocalyptic.

Klein is too generous. Bachmann's view runs parallel to that of Senator Pat Toomey (R- Club For Growth), champion of the Pay China First approach to credit default. He and sixteen other GOP Senators have argued that failure to raise the debt ceiling need not precipitate default because the Treasury could simply pay off creditors first, which prompted Digby to remark

Apparently, we are to believe that if the US Government decides to massively lay off federal personnel, stop paying disability benefits, close down its Hurricane tracking centers, furlough half the doctors at the CDC or any number of other things the Republicans would like to do to prove a stupid political point and further degrade the public's trust in government, the rest of the world would think nothing of it because the Treasury would have fulfilled its obligation to pay the interest on its debt.

There is no word yet whether these Senators who, like Bachmann, want to make sure the poor and the middle class are sacrificed so that the wealthy (and foreign governments and banks) are not inconvenienced, will be characterized as "cultural conservatives." But the lady from Minnesota probably will continue to be so described by a media blithely unaware that when it comes to either cultural or economic issues, no Republican may deviate from the far right gospel.

Share|