Unless We're Lucky And The Premise Is Faulty


It's not his preference, but Ezra Klein speculates

Talk to smart folks in Washington, and here’s what they think will happen: The final tax deal will raise rates a bit, giving Democrats a win, but not all the way back to 39.6 percent, giving Republicans a win. That won’t raise enough revenue on its own, so it will be combined with some policy to cap tax deductions, perhaps at $25,000 or $50,000, with a substantial phase-in and an exemption for charitable contributions.

The harder question is what Republicans will get on the spending side of the deal. But even that’s not such a mystery. There will be a variety of nips and tucks to Medicare, including more cost-sharing and decreases in provider payments, and the headline Democratic concession is likely to be that the Medicare eligibility age rises from 65 to 67.

The media is on board with a reduction in Medicare benefits (and the Democratic Party with a cut in the program), as demonstrated by Andrea Mitchell's exchange (video, below) with Democratic National Committee chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz:

Digby notes

Mitchell, like so many other wealthy, celebrity pundits sees these "popular" programs as something frivolous that Democratic voters are hanging on to out of immature petulance and they just need a stern Daddy to come along and take away their toys for their own good. The fact that these "toys" are equivalent to Andrea Mitchell's yearly dry cleaning bill doesn't change the fact that they represent the entire hand to mouth existence of millions and millions of elderly people who are too sick and too old to go out and become wealthy TV stars.

Sarah Kliff, when this idea of raising the eligibility age (her chart, from Center and Budget Policy Priorities, way below) in return for a slight raise in upper income tax rates had only begun to materialize, explained

The idea has, however, gained a bit more traction since the Affordable Care Act passed. If the Medicare age were raised, the thinking has gone, the 3.3 million 65- and 66-year-olds  would still be guaranteed access to health coverage through the tax subsidies. The lowest-income seniors — those earning less than 133 percent of the federal poverty line – would qualify for Medicaid.

That’s the upside. Health care economists see a number of downsides, too. For one thing, Medicare tends to be a pretty efficient program. Its costs have grown slower than private health insurance plans. The Center for Budget Priorities and Policy estimates that, while the federal government would save $5.7 billion, the rest of the health care system would end up spending $11.4 billion more to provide those same benefits.

Seniors themselves would end up spending $3.7 billion more as the benefits on the exchange would be less robust than those currently covered through Medicare. Employers would end up footing part of the bill, too, continuing to sponsor an additional two years of coverage.

That $2.5 billion in orange on the chart above comes from increasing the premiums that a lot of other people pay for their health insurance coverage. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that moving these seniors into the health insurance exchanges would increase premiums there by 3 percent, as the larger insurance pool absorbs a patient population that tends to be older and sicker than its younger counterparts.

Medicare premiums likely would go up too. These seniors would be the more expensive enrollees on the exchange. But when it comes to Medicare, they’re the least expensive patients, the younger population with fewer health care needs than, say, the 90-year-old cohort.

There’s also concern that these seniors might not even have an option should the eligibility age get raised as some states do not plan to expand their Medicaid programs. That could leave any senior who earns less than 133 percent of the federal poverty line — about $15,000 for an individual — without any coverage option at all.

Krugman recognizes the harm in what would (inaccurately) be termed a "compromise," maintaining

First, raising the Medicare age is terrible policy. It would be terrible policy even if the Affordable Care Act were going to be there in full force for 65 and 66 year olds, because it would cost the public $2 for every dollar in federal funds saved. And in case you haven’t noticed, Republican governors are still fighting the ACA tooth and nail; if they block the Medicaid expansion, as some will, lower-income seniors will just be pitched into the abyss.

He asks, rhetorically or otherwise

Second, why on earth would Obama be selling Medicare away to raise top tax rates when he gets a big rate rise on January 1 just by doing nothing? And no, vague promises about closing loopholes won’t do it: a rate rise is the real deal, no questions, and should not be traded away for who knows what.

There are plenty of reasons Obama would be selling Medicare away.  He might be doing so in order to curry favor with, as Jonathan Chait terms them (in an otherwise odd column), the "establishment fiscal scolds," because possessing the approval of the mainstream media is generally important to neo-liberals.  Additionally, the President may believe such a deal would buy him credibility with the Establishment for other initiatives it otherwise might not look kindly upon.

Alternatively, President Obama may be attempting to enhance his reputation as the 'transformative President' characterizing one of his heroes, Ronald(6) Wilson(6) Reagan(6).    Meanwhile, Democratic seekers of congressional seats, themselves unable to gather to themselves the political advantages of transformative, will have to explain to voters why they (and their party) weakened one of America's enormously popular social insurance programs.

Whatever his motive(s), however, Barack Obama must be, in his quiet moments of reflection, contemplating his life after the presidency.   While no one knows for sure where he will land doing whatever he will be doing, one thing is sure:  he won't be hanging out with those too old to write history or too sick to put up much of a fight over the legacy he will have left the old, the sick, and the poor.

Share |

Clarity Emerging


Few things are as clear in the drama surrounding the fiscal slope negotiations than the position of  the Democratic leader in the House of Representatives toward cuts in Medicare benefits.   Asked by Greg Sargent Tuesday about the possibility of raising the eligibility age to 67, Nancy Pelosi responded “I am very much against that, and I think most of my members are.   I don’t see any reason why that should be in any agreement.”

So, too, is a plurality of Americans opposed to raising the Medicare eligibility age which, at least in this case, demonstrates that a congresswoman representing San Francisco, California is more in step with the American public than is the President of the United States.

Pelosi also is clear and unequivocal about GOP efforts to use the debt ceiling as a bargaining tool and destructive political weapon.   Sargent reported

Pelosi insisted Congressional Dems would remain firmly behind Obama’s unyielding stance. The Obama administration is pushing for the “McConnell provision ,” which would effectively remove Congress’ authority over the debt ceiling, though Congress could still vote to disapprove of raising it.

”We are on the exact same page as the president on the subject,” Pelosi said.
There is one way she parts ways with Obama on raising the debt ceiling, however: She would invoke the 14th Amendment option  to circumvent opposition, which Obama does not support. Said Pelosi: “I would use the constitution. Of course I would.”

The President who has encouraged the killing of U.S. citizens without authorization, authorized preventive detention of anyone accused of even a remote connection to terrorism, stymied Freedom of Information requests, expanded domestic espionage, pursued unprecedented prosecution of whistleblowers, all the while creating a "parallel track of preventative law enforcement that bypasses traditional protections in the Bill of Rights" (in the words of law professor Jack Balkin)- that President-  draws a line at the debt ceiling. Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment will not be invoked by a Chief Executive who in the service of strengthening the national security state will stretch the Constitution nearly to beyond recognition.  Rather, we have  learned

White House spokesman Jay Carney put an end to intense speculation Thursday about whether President Obama would do an end run around Congress with one simple line: "This administration does not believe the 14th Amendment gives the president the power to ignore the debt ceiling — period."

After Republicans yield on upper-income tax rates and Democrats give them a cut in the Medicare program (if not in benefits themselves), the President will declare victory and most Democrats will follow suit.  It will be worth remembering, therefore, that at this relatively early date the House minority leader wanted President Barack Obama, the leader of her Party and of the nation, to accrue to himself as much bargaining power as possible.   And to remember also that the President rejected this opportunity out-of-hand, preferring not to negotiate from the position of strength needed to protect the middle class.

Share |

Only A Matter Of Time


On November 26, Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky) told GOP TV's Greta Van Susteren "I made a pledge to the people of Kentucky that I'm not raising taxes. I took a pledge. I signed a statement, an oath that I wouldn't raise taxes, and I'm going to adhere to it."

In a spurt of wishful thinking, David Atkins commented

One mark of a moron is not to know a good deal when they see one. So thank goodness for morons like Rand Paul, the kind of people who still think tax cuts for the rich pay for themselves and don't realize that this is their one big chance to cut Medicaid and Medicare in exchange for easily replaceable tip money for the rich, and blame it on the Democrats to boot.

The Grand Bargain would be much more likely without such useful idiots, and that would be awful. So bravo to you, Rand Paul. Keep that venal stupidity coming all the way through the end of the lame duck session, and best of luck with the 2016 GOP nomination.

In all likelihood, Atkins realized that was merely wishful thinking.   Today, The Washington Post's Lori Montgomery and Rosalie Helderman report

A growing chorus of Republicans is urging House leaders to abandon their staunch opposition to higher tax rates for the wealthy with the aim of clearing the way for a broad deal that would also rein in the cost of federal health and retirement programs.

With less than a month before the “fiscal cliff” deadline, President Obama remains adamant about allowing tax rates to rise for the wealthiest 2 percent of taxpayers. Without such a deal, he is “absolutely” ready to go over the cliff, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said Wednesday on CNBC.

Many GOP centrists and some conservatives are calling on House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) to concede on rates now, while he still has some leverage to demand something in return. Republicans are eager to win changes to fast-growing safety-net programs, such as raising the eligibility age for Medicare and applying a less-generous measure of inflation to Social Security benefits.

A few days ago, ABC's Jonathan Karl found

Republicans are seriously considering a Doomsday Plan if fiscal cliff talks collapse entirely. It’s quite simple: House Republicans would allow a vote on extending the Bush middle class tax cuts (the bill passed in August by the Senate) and offer the President nothing more: no extension of the debt ceiling, nothing on unemployment, nothing on closing loopholes. Congress would recess for the holidays and the president would face a big battle early in the year over the debt ceiling.

Two senior Republican elected officials tell me this doomsday plan is becoming the most likely scenario. A top GOP House leadership aide confirms the plan is under consideration, but says Speaker Boehner has made no decision on whether to pursue it.

Under one variation of this Doomsday Plan, House Republicans would allow a vote on extending only the middle class tax cuts and Republicans, to express disapproval at the failure to extend all tax cuts, would vote “present” on the bill, allowing it to pass entirely on Democratic votes.

Of course, there is ample reason for the GOP to fold on the Democrats' bid to return tax rates on upper incomes to the 39.6% the wealthy had to endure (sarcasm alert) during the financially strapped Clinton years.  As Alex Seitz-Wald notes, the President is getting a much better reception from the public on his handling of the negotiations than are congressional Republicans; most Americans would rather the politicians compromise rather than "stick to their principles;" most individuals believe Congress, rather than the President, would be blamed if the country went over the cliff/slope; and most people support raising taxes on individuals earning over $200.000.

So the GOP eventually will capitulate on tax rates, but demand much in return.  Yesterday, the Post's Montgomery and Helderman wrote

“I and some others are advocating giving the president what he wants,” said Rep. Steven C. LaTourette (R-Ohio). But he stressed that this must be part of a package that slows federal borrowing and reduces the debt by $4 trillion to $5 trillion.

“Quite frankly, some people in this 2 percent who call me, they’re more worried about the fiscal cliff than about the rates going up a couple points. That has bigger risk for them,” said LaTourette, a close Boehner ally who is retiring in January.

Rep. Thomas J. Rooney (R-Fla.) added: “If there are truly real entitlement reforms that are going to preserve Social Security and Medicare for generations to come, it’s going to be very difficult for me to oppose” higher rates for the rich.

It's clear, therefore, what Republicans are after- and it's not reducing the deficit.  Many of them, having applauded budget-busting deficits engineered by Presidents Reagan and Bush 43, now target not only Medicare and Medicaid, but, like Representative Rooney, refer to Social Security or "entitlements" generally.

These conservatives could not be unaware that  the most popular leg- Social Security- of the entitlement trio contributes not a whit to budget deficits, the debt, or any imaginary "cliff."     On Sunday's Meet The Press, Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) first took a swipe at Medicare, stating "Look, I laid out in great detail very painful cuts to Medicare. I just did it in a 242 page bill that I’ve shared with the White House [...] "    A moment late, he would casually shift his concern to the more inclusive "entitlements," arguing "We really have to look at much deeper reforms to the entitlements… I think the Speaker is frustrated right now because as you’ve mentioned, the White House keeps spiking the ball on tax increases for the wealthy. But has not yet been forthcoming on real entitlement reform."  Corker's Fiscal Reform Act of 2012 includes, CBS News reports, "reforms to entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security."

For now, the GOP, with Democratic acquiescence, is coming after health care for the poor and the elderly by taking aim at Medicaid and Medicare.   Social Security, however, also is on the chopping block, though apparently not yet.

At a press conference last week, Senate Majority Leader Reid remarked "Social Security is not part of the problem. That's one of the myths the Republicans have tried to create.  Social Security is sound for the next many years. But we want to make sure that in the outer years, people are protected also. But it's not going to be part of the budget talks as far as I'm concerned."  He added that the President had told the Cliff negotiators recently "Social Security is not part of this."

Not yet, it's not.   It's "not going to be part of the budget talks" and "is not part of this."  But Republicans have set their sights on Social Security, as well as Medicare and Medicaid.   (After all, many of the recipients are among their despised 47%.)   And the President is anxious to get "the fiscal cliff" behind him so that he can continue to work on the slippery slope of undermining social insurance.

Share |

And I End With A Musical Allusion


Even Donna Brazile is getting into the act, the almost ritualistic plea to House Republicans to grow a spine and challenge their party's leader.  The CNN contributor and Democratic strategist writes "First, though, Republicans must break Norquist's insane hold on their party. More Republicans must put their country before someone else's agenda, and their Pledge of Allegiance before 'The Pledge' to Norquist."

Grover Norquist is extraordinarily influential in the G.O.P.   Bruce Bartlett, policy advisor to Presidents Reagan and Bush 41 and to Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul argues the founder and director of Americans for Tax Reform "basically controls the Republican Party’s fiscal policy."

Bartlett takes us through the modern history of Norquist's goal of shrinking government "down to the size where we can drown it in a bathtub."  The "starve the beast" doctrine began, he writes, with Alan Greenspan in October, 1978 appearing before the Senate Finance Committee and advocating "restraining the amount of revenues available and trust that there is a political limit to deficit spending."

In February, 1981 President Reagan claimed "But there were always those who told us that taxes couldn't be cut until spending was reduced. Well, you know, we can lecture our children about extravagance until we run out of voice and breath. Or we can cure their extravagance by simply reducing their allowance."   Twenty years later, Bartlett continues,

George W. Bush justified his tax cut on starve-the-beast grounds, saying it would constitute a “fiscal straitjacket for Congress.” According to the journalist Ron Suskind’s book, “The Price of Loyalty,” the Bush adviser Karl Rove often invoked the starve-the-beast approach as “conservative economic theology” in White House meetings. By 2003, using deficits strategically to slash the size of government was widely considered to beparty doctrine among Republicans.

Cutting taxes is merely the means to the end of eliminating government.  In his famous interview with Politico on November 28, Norquist, asked whether the debt ceiling should be increased month-by-month, responded

Monthly. Monthly. Monthly if he’s good, weekly if he’s not. I mean, look, it’s an accordion, it’s an accordion, because if you’re really – well, that’s what they did – remember the first few months of the Obama – when the Republicans took the House and the Senate – took the House, they said, “O.K., here’s two weeks of continuing resolutions because you have saved $4 billion. Oh, now you’ve agreed to $8 billion in savings, you may have four weeks.

But, Bartlett explains in another column

At the risk of stating the obvious, the debt limit is nuts. It serves no useful purpose to allow members of Congress to vote for vast cuts in taxation and increases in spending and then tell the Treasury it is not permitted to sell bonds to cover the deficits Congress created. To my knowledge, no other nation has such a screwy system.

Nevertheless, we have a debt limit that is denominated in dollar terms; it is breached when the debt subject to limit, which includes bonds the government itself holds in various trust funds, rises above that limit. Currently, it is $16.394 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that given current spending and revenue trends, that figure will be reached before the end of the year.

At that point, Treasury will have to take extraordinary and costly measures to avoid technically hitting the debt ceiling. But these measures provide only a month or so of breathing room. At some point, Treasury will lack the cash to pay the bills that are due and it will face nothing but unthinkable choices – don’t pay interest to bondholders and default on the debt, don’t pay Social Security benefits, don’t pay our soldiers in the field and so on.

Either way, social services provided by government would suffer dramatically, either immediately or more gradually.  Disenchantment would result and disillusionment of voters toward "the government" would increase as the needs of the individual and of the community are neglected.   With government unable to meet its objectives,  people would grow ever more angry and demand further cuts in an institution which would increasingly seem to be without purpose.   Perhaps it wouldn't be so small as to be drowned in a bathtub, but it would become a shell of its former self.

The GOP thus is pursuing a long-term, ambitious strategy.   President Obama, by contrast, is pursuing a strategy of gaining prompt assent from congressional Repubs for re-imposing Bush-era tax rates on upper incomes.  If that is done before the fiscal cliff/curb/slope is reached, the President will have played his cards for, relatively speaking, chump change and the GOP will be ready to play its debt ceiling card.

In the context of modern American politics, the debt limit is not "nuts"- not, at least, for a Party determined to use it to bring support for government to a diminuendo and with it, its own fortunes to a crescendo.



Share |

Sorry Sarah



Sarah Palin is sorry- sort of.   Initially dismissive of mildly right-wing Republicans for their comments about debt and taxes, she now says "Well, I guess I shouldn't call politicians names, so I apologize for calling the wobbly ones wusses.  Because that distracts from the point that has to be made, and the point is that we are a bankrupt country."

Calling people "wusses" prompts an apology (or at least a statement that she is making an apology) while lying about the economic status of the nation is quite acceptable. Palin now condemns Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's opening proposal on the deficit talks as "Let the president have free rein on raising the debt ceiling to whatever level he wants it.  That's a very scary thought because Barack Obama is a socialist." 

Bankruptcy is described by Wikipedia as "a legal status of an insolvent person or an organization, that is, one who cannot repay the debts they owe to creditors. In most jurisdictions bankruptcy is imposed by a court order, often initiated by the debtor."   Long-term interest rates on Treasury bonds are at near-record lows- and investors the world over still are flocking to buy the instruments.  As a country with its own currency and the ability to print money or borrow, the U.S. has defaulted on no debts- now, in the past, or in the foreseeable future. The interest rate on Treasury bonds is dubbed the "riskless rate of return" because there is no chance of default.

Republicans, balking at raising the debt ceiling in 2011, did attempt to turn into a deadbeat nation the country they claim to love.     Standard and Poor's responded by slamming "the political brinkmanship of recent months" (which was supported by Palin) and lowering the government's credit rating to AA+.    If the debt ceiling were not raised, Ezra Klein wrote at the time

The drop in demand, when coupled with the turmoil in the markets and the general financial uncertainty, would undoubtedly throw the economy back into a recession. Also keep in mind that we have to roll over $500 billion in debt that month, and if there was uncertainty about how we were going to pay our bills, it is not clear we could find buyers for our debt at anything less than an exorbitant rate.

It is not clear that, had Congress chosen this course, the federal government would have been able to pay its debts, which would make it a lot closer to "a bankrupt country" than it is now or ever has been.

Geithner's debt ceiling proposal is more complicated than Palin lets on because details are for suckers- or Democrats- in Palin's world.  According to the New York Times, Gethner has

proposed permanently ending Congressional purview over the federal borrowing limit, Republican aides said. He said that Congress could be allowed to pass a resolution blocking an increase in the debt limit, but that the president would be able to veto that resolution. Congress could block a higher borrowing limit only if two-thirds of lawmakers overrode the veto. 

Barack Obama is no more a socialist than is Sarah Palin, who as governor once bragged "And Alaska—we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs."   Scratch that- Barack Obama is less of a socialist than is the ex-governor of Alaska.  Still, the latter does not understand, as Matt Yglesias explains

Every dollar the federal government spends is spent according to laws Congress has passed. Every dollar of tax revenue that comes in does so because of taxes Congress has enacted. The Treasury Department's borrowing of money to make up the gap between Congress' spending and Congress' taxing isn't any additional authority to spend or do anything.

Corporate and individual tax rates are at a post-war low while corporate profits are at an all-time high and wages at an all-time low.  It's a good thing Sarah Palin doesn't believe she should be calling politicians names.  Otherwise, she would be calling the President proudly presiding over this state of affairs a 'socialist.'





Share |

Legal, But Blocked



The trouble began when in August, 1996 when the man who later would be embroiled in a scandal involving a female White House intern (a cheap shot, but warranted) declared "Abortion should not only be safe and legal, it should be rare."

If progressives had at that time recognized the huge loophole in women's rights that created, they might at least have complained that President Clinton neglected to add that abortion is safe.  Or it is at least relatively safe, given that abortion has been less risky than childbirth for the pregnant woman for several decades.  In January, US News found that a study led by Dr. David Grimes, a clinical professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine at Chapel Hill, found in pregnancy 8.8 deaths per 100,000 and in legal abortion, 0.6 deaths per 100,000.   That would be safer by a factor of 14.

In September, an otherwise reliably liberal attorney and syndicated columnist Margaret Carlson asked in frustration "Why has the party removed the sentence 'Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare' from its platform? It was in the 2004 document but not in 2008’s or this year’s. Can’t Democrats just throw a crumb to the many millions who are pro-choice but not pro-abortion?"  Carlson went on to maintain "Walk into any neonatal unit and you’ll see newborns weighing 2 pounds; they’ll be playing basketball one day."  (She might have said "conducting a symphony orchestra, performing open heart surgery, or arguing a case before the United States Supreme Court."  She might instead have opted for "playing baseball or football one day," but instead chose "basketball."   Conclude whatever you wish.)

Events in the state of Kansas or, as Rachel Maddow doubtless would put it, provide a clue as to why Democrats have found that "safe, legal, and rare" provides little relief from the roadblocks placed in the path of women wanting to exercise reproductive rights. In May, Gov. Sam Brownback signed into law a measure extending the state's conscience clause to create a right of a pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription he or she "reasonably believes may result in the termination of a pregnancy.  Two months later, the Associated Press found

Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback’s administration plans to enact new regulations for abortion providers, possibly identical to ones blocked by a federal judge, and providers appear likely to challenge them in court.

The Kansas Department of Health and Environment already had plans for a new set of rules even as it finished regulations that would have taken effect Friday. The agency described the first set as temporary, which allowed it to avoid taking public comments and get the rules in place within weeks, though they could remain in effect afterward for only four months. The next set of rules would be considered permanent and require public comment.

A new state law requires abortion providers to obtain a special annual license from the health department. The agency’s accompanying regulations would tell providers what drugs and equipment they must stock, require them to make patients’ medical records available for inspection, establish qualifications for staff, set minimum sizes for some rooms and limit the temperatures in procedure and recovery rooms.

Efforts to circumvent Roe v. Wade continue throughout the nation.   In July, Reuters reported

American women face increasing legal obstacles to obtaining abortions as more states pass laws restricting access, some so stringent they approach a ban on the procedure, according to a report issued on Wednesday by the Center for Reproductive Rights.

The New York-based advocacy group cited nearly 40 laws enacted across 15 states this year having the potential to restrict women's access to reproductive health care, nearly 40 years after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade made the controversial procedure legal.

Among the measures are some the group claims seek to ban abortion by imposing rules so burdensome upon women and providers it is nearly impossible to comply.

Mississippi and Tennessee passed such measures this year. The Center for Reproductive Rights has challenged the constitutionality of Mississippi's new law, which requires abortion providers to be certified in obstetrics and gynecology and have hospital admitting privileges.

Now from some of the folks who preach fiscal responsibility:

Michigan lawmakers are considering legislation that would let parents claim a tax deduction for fetuses, extending them the same benefits as children.

House bills 5684 and 5685 would amend the state's tax code to include fetuses that have completed at least 12 weeks gestation as of the last day of the tax year as "dependents."  Doing so would allow the fetus' tax-paying parents-to-be to save an estimated $160 on their taxes.  Critics of the bill, which had its first hearing in the House Tax Policy Committee on November 20, say that such a law is just another way to make it harder for women in Michigan to get abortions.

"It is a backdoor attempt to get personhood for a fetus," said Shelli Weisberg, legislative director for the ACLU of Michigan.  "These are just ways to begin to build the record, so one day they can say there's enough in our legislative history to say that the intent is to say that a fetus is a person."

And in Arizona, life begins before conception.  Legislation signed by Governor Jan Brewer in April and which took effect in August

calculate(s) a woman's pregnancy as starting the very first day of the last menstrual period, reports the Daily Beast, which could be two weeks before the actual conception.

Women usually ovulate (and conceive) two weeks after the start of their last period.  By saying that pregnancy starts two weeks before conception, Arizona;s new law narrow the window in which a woman can get an abortion.

The pattern of reducing a woman's access to abortion, block the ability of the medical profession to meet the demand for the procedure, or persuade a vulnerable woman to carry a fetus to term is continuing, partly because Republicans in 2013 will control more state legislatures than will Democrats and will occupy 31 governor's seats.    "Safe, legal, and rare," however sincere or calculating on the part of Bill Clinton, sounded lofty and inoffensive in 1996.   But with activists and politicians who refuse to admit that abortion is safe for the pregnant woman and largely constitutionally protected for the first two trimesters, it now is clearly balderdash.

Share |

Distraction

Maggie Haberman of Politico writes

Outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton remains the biggest-name potential Democratic 2016 presidential hopeful who has yet to take a position in support of gay marriage, a source of discussion in Washington this week after the State Department hosted a major LGBT event at which she discussed her commitment to expanding gay rights internationally.

Clinton, who, along with much of the Democratic field, was against gay marriage in her 2008 presidential run, spoke favorably about New York's gay marriage law when it passed in 2011, but has remained quiet on her position since, as other Cabinet members such as Arne Duncan, along with Vice President Joe Biden, have voiced support, and as marriage referenda passed in four states earlier this month.

But according to two sources, Clinton's aides have privately indicated to people that she will end up where her husband and daughter, Chelsea, have emerged on the issue - in favor of same-sex nuptials.

No doubt she will, as she probably is in the midst of evolving on the issue.   'Evolving' is all the rage in politics these days, as President Obama demonstrated with same-sex marriage and Sean Hannity with illegal immigration.   And there is little doubt that Mrs. Clinton has no choice but to follow in the ideological footsteps of Joe Biden and Barack Obama, as Fred Sainz of the Human Rights Campaign explains:

Without any relationship to Secretary Clinton, what I'll say is that no serious [Democratic] contender for the presidency in 2016 will not support marriage equality.   It is a forgone conclusion that every candidate as a result of the president's leadership on the this issue [will be for gay marriage]...[he] literally ran on the issue and was re-elected.

The President literally ran on the issue and was re-elected.   (Sarcasm Alert) Viewers may have missed the frequent mention, the back-and-forth parrying, on the issue of same-sex marriage during the first and second presidential debates.   (The third debate was to be exclusively about foreign policy and national defense.) It was an accidental omission, we are to believe, that neither candidate would refer to the burning campaign issue on which Obama "literally ran."

No question was asked about "marriage equality."   And other than Barack Obama announcing in Denver that the occasion marked his twentieth wedding anniversary, neither did either candidate take the opportunity to swing the discussion anywhere in the direction of marriage.    (Probably both candidates were wise in their assessment.)

There may have been, though, a reason aside from strategic positioning that same-sex marriage never came up.   It's an issue that has no importance beyond itself, that is completely unrelated to the distribution of power in society.   In March, a Washington Post blogger commented

For renowned Washington attorney Ted Olson, mounting the legal battle against Proposition 8, the California initiative banning same-sex marriage, doesn’t just mark a high point in his 45-year career — during which he has argued nearly 60 times before the Supreme Court, and cemented George W. Bush’s victory in the 2000 presidential election.

“This has been the highlight of my life,” Olson said last week at the annual networking dinner hosted by Gibson Dunn & Crutcher for Georgetown Law’s LGBT student group, Outlaw. “This is the most important thing we’ve done in our lives. It’s not just become a legal challenge, but it’s about the hearts and minds of a country changing.”

The extraordinarily gifted and accomplished Ted Olson has not undergone a change of heart since he wreaked so much damage in 2000-2001.   Oh, no.  He then served as solicitor general under the president he helped foist upon the nation and most recently played the role of Joe Biden in preparing Paul Ryan for the vice-presidential debate.

Odd it may seem that Ronald Reagan's assistant attorney general, George W. Bush's solicitor general, private attorney to two of the last three Repub presidents, and Paul Ryan's help-mate would emerge as arguably the most important figure in the drive for "marriage equality."   One blogger in mid-September remarked "A lot of folks are scratching their heads this weekend after word came that Ted Olson will be prepping  Paul Ryan for his vice presidential debate with Joe Biden. Olson, as you probably know, is the attorney who won the overturn of Proposition 8 with his colleague David Boies."

Stop scratching.   We can assume Ted Olson sincerely believes that gay people should have the right to enter into marriage with whomever they wish.  We can assume also that Mr. Olson, who did what he could for the G.O.P. ticket, agreed with Mitt Romney when the latter clearly enunciated the fundamental Republican creed:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. And he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that's what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people—I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

That statement demonstrated the sense of entitlement and resentment of the super-wealthy and highly-connected.   It, rather than controversy over same-sex relationships (as Mitt Romney surely understands), reflects what the distribution of power in America is all about in 2012.




Share |