Dreaming On A Summer's Afternoon

Appearing on the Sunday talk shows, Representative Michele Bachmann was asked about her intransigent position against raising the debt ceiling. She took it as an opportunity to makeclear her undying support for members of the armed services.

That's why I say we need to pay the interest on the debt, that's how you don't default. We tell our military men and women, under no circumstances will you not get a paycheck. It was irresponsible of the president to suggest they wouldn't. (Fox News Sunday)

Remember, I introduced a bill that would not have had the United States default. The president did not. Let me tell you what the president did. President Obama went out and, and effectively said through his administration, "We don't know if we're going to pay our military men and women in uniform." This was--this comment was made overseas to our men and women while they're serving our country. (Meet The Press)

This was more than just another example of the Minnesota congresswoman staring ahead and repeating her talking points ad nauseum. No politician ever lost a vote by declaring his or her allegiance to "our brave fighting men" or, nowaday, men and women, and serving the needs of a uniquely courageous segment of the population usually is good policy, also.

So it was surprising at first glance to read Brian Beutler report

In a rare joint appearance with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the National Defense University Tuesday, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta confirmed a CBS News report that the Pentagon is considering a dramatic plan to overhaul the military's once sacrosanct retirement plan.

According to CBS, the plan "would eliminate the familiar system under which anyone who serves 20 years is eligible for retirement at half their salary. Instead, they'd get a 401K- style plan with government contributions."

Panetta largely confirmed the report with a key caveat....

"That report came as a result of an advisory group that was asked (sic) by my predecessor Bob Gates to look at the retirement issue," he said....

Under the plan, drafted by the Defense Business Board, retired service members would have to wait until standard retirement age before touching their pensions. It would reportedly save $250 billion over two decades.

Surprise! On August 4 Panetta had argued "We're already taking our share of the discretionary cuts as part of this debt-ceiling agreement, and those are going to be tough enough. I think anything beyond that would damage our national defense." Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid need to be cut, the Defense Secretary maintains, while big weapons systems must go on.

But the pensions of veterans are on the chopping block, according to the Secretary of Defense, appearing with that other 2008 Democratic presidential hopeful (Obama or Clinton? Clinton or Obama? Now, that's a Hobson's choice.) This, in turn, gives an opening to one of the three leading Repub presidential candidates, last heard practically demanding the President promise military personnel "under no circumstances will you not get a paycheck." Bachmann could defend the interests of our fighting men and women and argue that as a Christian, she believes that a promise made is a promise to be kept. Sure, she will.

Michele Bachmann to the rescue!

Share|

Ron Paul Snubbed

Politico's Roger "Don't Call Me Paul" Simon has noticed what few others have. U.S. House of Representatives member Michelle Bachman barely edged out Ron Paul in what Simon has recognized as the "organized bribery" of the Iowa straw poll. As his reward, he has received: silence.

To Jill Lawrence of The Daily Beast/Newsweek, Simon points out, it is "the new top tier of Bachmann, Perry and Romney." The Washington Post reported "A Republican presidential campaign that has been slow to take shape suddenly snapped into focus Sunday, with an unlikely three-person top tier of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.) and the newest entry, Texas Gov. Rick Perry." The Associated Press calls it "a three- way race" among the three. CNN sums up "Conventional wisdom is that Perry joins former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who's making his second bid for the GOP nomination, and Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, as the top tier in the Republican fight. “ Repub pols and pundits have joined in the conventional wisdom.

There is one clue to the disregard shown the Ames second-place finisher in the breezy dismissal of the Texas congressman noted by Simon. "Libertarian Ron Paul," the editors commented (within parentheses, even), " who has no chance to win the nomination, finished a close second."

The Wall Street Journal editorial page, unlike the news departments of AP, the Washington Post, and others, has a motive for relegating Paul to the ranks of also-rans. Responding to Mitt Romney's recent remark "corporations are people," Paul the following day had told Center for American Progress writer Scott Keyes

People are individuals, they’re not groups and they’re not companies. Individuals have rights, they’re not collective. You can’t duck that. So individuals should be responsible for corporations, but they shouldn’t be a new creature, so to speak. Rights and obligations should be always back to the individual.

Yikes. A year and a half after the landmark Citizens United decision decreeing corporate personhood, Ron Paul does not stray from the reservation, but rides off into the sunset Asked what he would "make of Mitt Romney’s statement that 'corporations are people' yesterday," Paul replies "obviously they're not."

The Texas congressman holds extremely conservative views and couches his opposition to Romney's statement in the rights and responsibilities of the individual, a traditional conservative stance (though not extending to the responsibilities of the individual to the community). But this is not Eisenhower's GOP or even Reagan's GOP. Heck, it's not even the GOP of Newt Gingrich, the darling of the 1994 Republican revolution, who in March slammed Paul Ryan's effort to rescind Medicare as "social engineering." Gingrich, as his words made clear, preferred to eliminate it gradually, through the back door. Not good enough for Nikki Haley, governor of the most important state in a GOP presidential race, nor for The Wall Street Journal.

This Repub Party embraces social engineering (though, disingenuously, not the term) and recognizes the Citizens United ruling as a boon for it, as well as a boondoggle for Democrats. It will not abide by the likes of a presidential candidate who believes corporations are not people, anathema to a party which, with all its cries and complaints, ultimately voted to raise the debt ceiling as demanded by its corporate base.

Share|

Cimate Curse?

Two Midwestern Republicans, Michele Bachman of Minnesota and John Shimkus of Illinois, may be right- up to a point.

In March of 2009 Representative Shimkus remarked

I believe that's the infallible word of God, and that's the way it's going to be for his creation. The Earth will end only when God declares it's time to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth. This Earth will not be destroyed by a Flood. I do believe that God's word is infallible, unchanging, perfect.

Shimkus was referring to Genesis 9:11 (ESV), in which God vowed "I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth."

Unfortunately, Shimkus was denying the reality of climate change while criticizing pending cap-and-trade legislation. Asserting God destroyed the world by flood, the congressman clearly asserted that He wouldn't intervene to harm His own creation.

On Meet The Press Sunday, Representative Bachmann, asked by David Gregory whether God would "guide your decisions as President," stated

I'm extremely grateful to, to have a faith in God. I, I see that God has so blessed this country. His--you know, we heard that song that he's "shed his grace" on the United States. I believe it. He's been very good to our country. And I think that it's important for us to seek his guidance and to pray and to listen to his voice.

Bachmann, a cap-and-trade opponent and global warming denier, has not been listening, lest she hear "There were 42 all-time record high temperature records set in the first week of August. That is over 5 times the number of all-time low temperature records set in all 3 months of last winter." Or that in the 67,152 months (roughly 17,000 months of summer) since temperature records have been kept in the contiguous United States, the hottest month of all was July in Oklahoma. Or that July, 2011- since the advent of records in 1910- was the most extreme July "due to extreme warm minimum temperatures across the country, wet northern Plains and Great Lakes, extreme warm maximum temperatures, and the severe drought across the South and Gulf Coast."

Bachmann seems to believe God has blessed this country with unparalleled freedom, affluence, and the military power to defend it. And he did, if Scriptures are to be believed, promise no flood will ever destroy the entire earth. But if He has the power to bless the United States, he also possesses the power to judge nations, the ancient Egyptians coming to mind. And he need not do so by flood, with Bloomberg reporting Friday

Corn, soybean and spring-wheat harvests in the U.S., the world's largest exporter, will be smaller than the government forecast last month after a damaging heat wave that may signal higher costs for food and biofuel.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture cut its corn-crop estimate by 4.1 percent, reduced the soybean forecast by 5.2 percent, and said spring-wheat production will be 5.2 percent below what it predicted in July. The harvests for all three crops would be less than expected by analysts surveyed by Bloomberg.

Parts of the Midwest, the main growing region, were the hottest since 1955 last month. Smaller supplies of corn may increase costs for ethanol refiners such as Poet LLC, Archer Daniels Midland Co. and Valero Energy Corp. and meat producers Tyson Foods Inc. and Smithfield Foods Inc., which buy the grain for feed. The price of corn, the biggest U.S. crop, jumped 68 percent in the past year before today.

Unlike with the Great Flood that had Shimkus' attention, climate change will not destroy the world all at once and may only make life virtually unbearable for the people who escape disease and starvation. Nor is it certain that the precipitating factor will be the rise in the oceans or anything reminiscent of a flood. But the impact of global warming is coming to a town near you- and really, has affected everyone already. The likes of Shimkus and Bachmann may attribute America's greatness to the God of the Old and New Testaments. But there is a reason the Lord is referred to as the Almighty- He can choose to bless, or to go the other way.

He can have it both ways. The right cannot.

Share|

Reality Optional

This is getting to be a pattern.

First, it was the personal: a trip the Obama people were planning to India which, Representative Michele Bachmann warned on the basis of less-than-flimsy evidence, "is expected to cost the taxpayers $200 million a day."

Next it was class warfare, with Rep. Bachmann warning of "massive tax increases" for "people who, who are carpet layers who maybe employ two or three other guys, or a plumber, maybe himself and his brother, and it's $250,000 in gross sales for their business." President Obama had suggested an increase in taxes for businesses with over $200,000 in net income, income remaining after deductions for business expenses. Politifact responded "We're not sure why Bachmann distorted the point about gross sales. As we said, it's something that's been explained several times. Good Morning America posted a note on its website after Bachmann's appearance, noting that her statement was wrong." I think we all know why she "distorted" the point; it fed on the idea that it was the elitist president again oppressing the common man. (And man it was- "guys.... maybe himself and his brother.")

Then there was the sexual: "I’ve given birth to five babies, and I’ve breast-fed every single one of these babies," Bachmann said on The Laura Ingraham Show. "To think that government has to go out and buy my breast pump for my babies? You want to talk about the nanny state? I think you just got a new definition of the nanny state." However, the IRS had decided to treat breast pumps and related supplies not as freebies, but as tax-deductible medical expenses.

In late March of this year, it was the "cultural conservative" functioning as a shill for corporate interests, announcing "Let's look at the number one. Number one," Bachmann said. "That's the number of new drilling permits under the Obama administration since they came into office." Apart from the permits approved for shallow water drilling, the Administration had approved six deepwater drilling permits since the Gulf moratorium was lifted in October, 2010- and many before it was ordered.

More recently, the Welfare Queen of Minnesota (although claiming these days to be an Iowan) argued "The farm is my father-in-law’s farm. It’s not my husband’s and my farm. It’s my father-in-law’s farm and my husband and I have never gotten a penny of money from the farm." The congresswoman, who with husband Marcus owns a share in the farm, may have technically been telling the truth- the couple has received not a penny, but nearly 26,000,000 pennies ($260,000).

There are other instances of Michele Bachmann saying whatever pops into her mind. Now that she has kicked up her campaign into high gear, there is no reason to let up. Regarding Standard and Poor's in the GOP debate on August 11: "When they dropped our credit rating, what they said is, we don't have an ability to repay our debt." And three days later on Fox News Sunday: "Heard from Standard & Poor's when they dropped our credit rating, what they said is we don't have an ability to repay our debt. That's what the final word was from them."

No- not even close. S&P said nothing about our ability to repay our debt and now that the debt ceiling has been raised, the federal government is paying its debts. But the ratings agency was distressed at the nation's willingness to pay its debt and explained

the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned.

This was a political, rather than economic, judgement. Not unlike Bachmann's lie about an inability to pay debts incurred.

In the Ames debate, Bachmann added "I was proved right in my position. We should not have raised the debt ceiling." On Fox News Sunday, she stated "I was proved right in my position. We should not have raised the debt ceiling."

This is what so impresses the mainstream media- the congresswoman, focused throughout, staying on message. It is also the mark of a programmed candidate, and one programmed to repeat the same lie ("they said we don't have the ability to pay our debt") and the same inversion of reality ("I was proved right in my position. We should not have raised the debt ceiling").

And the "final word" from the ratings agency? "sectors."

Share|

Praying For Rain

On April 21, with Texas experiencing record drought, Governor Rick Perry issued a proclamation designating April 22, 23, and 24 as Days of Prayer for Rain.The Almighty is experienced at answering prayers but probably not one asking the "EPA back down these regulations that are causing businesses to hesitate to spend money," as Perry prayed in Houston. CAP's Joe Romm reports that the Texas governor last year "challenged a court decision allowing the EPA to regulate greenhouse gasses, saying the authority puts "countlesss businesses, farms, even large churches in their cross hairs."

However, the drought only intensified and convened on August at Reliant Stadium in Houston 30,000 evangelicals for "The Response: A Call to Prayer for a Nation in Crisis."

It is easy to conclude that the power of prayer is limited or, conversely, that God will answer the Governor’s prayer in due time, on His own schedule.

In their 1970s-era composition "Make it by Yourself," James Griffin and David Gates wrote about the usual subject in the usual way for pop/rock songs of that era. But as one in which the protagonist helps someone he/she refers to as "friend"- as evangelicals often refer to Jesus Christ- it includes lyrics possibly applicable to Governor Perry's refusal to help his own state in its time of trouble.

Well, let me reassure you
Never were you really all alone
They say in quiet desperation many people cannot see
They cannot see the simple truth
That's not the way it has to be

You got to find it for yourself
God helps the man who helps himself, amen
I am your friend and I'll lend a helping hand
But you gotta try and help yourself before I can

It is often said that God always answers our prayers- but not always with the answer we’re looking for. So if Governor Perry prays while hellbent on destroying God’s creation for the benefit of corporate polluters and his own political ambition, the response may not be altogether satisfying.

Really Now, The Same?

The television spot assures us they’re “the best journalists in the world.... and there’s no debating that.” Not all of them, or at least not all the time, live up to the billing.

Matt Bai, falling into the abyss of ideological equivalence, maintains voters reject “dogmatic doctrine” and yearn for leaders “knowing a good deal when you see one and having the courage to say so.” He thought it unexceptional that when Fox News’ Brett Baier asked the GOP debate participants Thursday night to raise their hands if they would accept “a deal, a real spending cuts deal, 10 to one, as -- as Byron said, spending cuts to tax increases,” everyone raised his or her hand. Believing the two sides are equally at fault, Bai remarks

If this were merely a Republican phenomenon, the party would be alone in suffering the wrath of the average American voter. But it isn’t. You could have put a lot of Washington Democrats up on that stage, and asked them if they would have accepted $10 in new taxes or new stimulus in exchange for $1 in cuts to Social Security, and you probably would have gotten much the same response: hell, no.

To that, Matt Yglesias responds:

Could you have? Which Democrats? How many of them are there? Do they hold leadership positions that make them worth comparing to the unanimous consensus of GOP primary candidates? Has Bai actually asked any of them about this? Given that Bai finds this mentality deplorable, doesn’t he have an obligation to tell us who specifically holds it so that well-meaning Democrats can prevent them from dominating the party? How does it help me to know that “many” Democrats “probably” would have offered “much the same” response if I don’t know which ones and what they actually think?

Moreover, the questions are not analogous. In Bai’s formulation, Democrats are asked whether they’d accept a $1 cut to their signature, and wildly popular, program in return for $10 in tax increases. Even so, many Democrats- including the #1 Democrat, President Obama (who floated the idea of Social Security cuts as part of the debt agreement), would accept the deal. The analogous question to Republicans would be: would you accept $1 in new taxes for every $10 in defense cuts? Even then, a unanimous show of rigidity would be telling, but at least a little rational. Instead, they were offered an agreement with 91% spending cuts- and, demonstrating their commitment to deficit reduction, turned it down.

But there are two reasons Democrats might turn down $10 in new taxes for each dollar in Social Security cuts. It could have occurred to Bai that most Democrats are not enthusiastic about new taxes. But also: Social Security, with its own source of funding, has nothing to do with the deficit. Conflating the two, as Bai so cheerfully does, feeds the myth that Social Security contributes to the national debt. It does not, and one would have expected he among “the best journalists in the world” to know that and not to play this increasingly popular game of deceit.

Share|

Race Consciousness

The French have a great way of putting it: plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

On November 5, 2008, Los Angeles Times staff writer Mark Z. Barabak blogged

Barack Obama, the son of a father from Kenya and a white mother from Kansas, was elected the nation's 44th president Tuesday, breaking the ultimate racial barrier to become the first African American to claim the country's highest office.

A nation founded by slave owners and seared by civil war and generations of racial strife delivered a smashing electoral college victory to the 47-year-old first-term senator from Illinois, who forged a broad, multiracial, multiethnic coalition. His victory was a leap in the march toward equality….

The victorious candidate himself caught the mood of an entire nation, left, right, and center, when he exclaimed

If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.

Recognizing that their country had surmounted an imposing hurdle, many in the audience of 240,000+ were crying, a new day having arrived.

Or so it seemed. Thirty months later, the Senator standing that night on the Chicago lakefront is now an unpopular President, charting a pragmatic, centrist course, nevertheless opposed at every turn by the opposition party, which has chosen to be consistently in opposition, national interest notwithstanding. Some of the reflexive, seemingly irrational , opposition is rooted in racial bigotry; the vast majority of it, not.

Although a primary challenge to such a president normally would be in the offing, it is not. It would end in failure, but probably not before weakening the incumbent and leaving him vulnerable to defeat at the hands of a candidate representing a party so extreme that its patron saint, the late Ronald Reagan, would not recognize it.

But there is another reason no challenge to Barack Obama’s re-nomination has emerged. Courageously, longtime columnist Eleanor Clift recently wrote

we’re talking about the first African-American occupant of the White House in a party identified with civil rights. “Who wants to feel responsible for costing the first African-American president his reelection?” says Cook. What’s more, blacks vote heavily in key primary states.

Anyone contemplating a run against Obama must consider the consequences of not only defeating the president, but the likely repercussions to his or her own career. “If he were white, he would have a progressive challenger,” says Bill Schneider of the Democratic group Third Way. Because Obama is this historic figure, challenging him would hamper the prospects of anyone who wants a future in elective Democratic politics. “Blacks would be deeply offended by a challenge, and that’s no way to score points in the Democratic Party,” says Schneider. African-Americans are the Democrats’ most loyal constituency, and while they too are disappointed in what Obama has been able to accomplish, they are not going to abandon him.

In his weekly address given, on Saturday, February 28, 2009, little more than five weeks since he took office, President Obama vowed "I came to provide.... change that will grow our economy, expand our middle-class, and keep the American Dream alive for all those men and women who have believed in this journey from the day it began." The economy has grown little, but will expand once anti-spending hysteria has worked its way through the system. The middle class has declined but will strengthen, at least superficially, once the economic slump has ended.

But that American Dream? If Barack Obama "were white, he would have a progressive challenger" but "blacks would be deeply offended by a challenge" to the first non-white president ever. To a lot of us, the American dream remains at least as elusive as ever.

Share|