Warfare, Ryan-Style


President Obama's budget speech (transcript, here) at George Washington University on Tuesday elicited the usual thoughtful, well-reasoned criticism from conservatives. No, actually it has provoked the expected hysterical accusations from many on the right, as outlined by Alex Pareene in Salon. In an editorial in The Washington Examiner, President Obama was accused of having

resorted to Huey Long tactics by making a punching bag of "the rich," that mythical top 2 percent of all Americans whose wealth the president famously told Joe the Plumber in 2008 that he just wanted to "spread around."

The editors did not tell us why the top 2% of American society is "mythical;" have they been kidnapped and frisked away to a foreign capital in an unusual application of extraordinary rendition? Were they, more tragically, lost in a natural disaster, be it tornado, earthquake, or tsunami? Or have they simply vanished, leaving the 98% of Americans behind to wonder how the top 2% disappeared?

As far as can be understood, the Washington Examiner was outraged when the President explained

For much of the last century, our nation found a way to afford these investments and priorities with the taxes paid by its citizens. As a country that values fairness, wealthier individuals have traditionally born a greater share of this burden than the middle class or those less fortunate. This is not because we begrudge those who’ve done well – we rightly celebrate their success. Rather, it is a basic reflection of our belief that those who have benefitted most from our way of life can afford to give a bit more back. Moreover, this belief has not hindered the success of those at the top of the income scale, who continue to do better and better with each passing year.

There was little careful analysis, the Examiner preferring to argue 1) if Obama wants the wealthy to pay more in taxes, then surely he'd want them to fork over all their earnings; and 2) increasing taxes on the wealthy won't alone eliminate the debt, so why bother?

Of course, the President has not advocated increasing the taxes on the upper crust- merely allowing them to rise which, according to current law, they are to do in roughly two years. That would return them to the level President Bush and the Republican Congress initially established as the rates to be paid in 2011. That would be 38.60% as the highest marginal rate, still lower than imposed during the Clinton administration (chart, demonstrating the precipitous drop in effective tax rates of the wealthy, from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities; blog, from Krugman).




Similarly, James Pethoukoukis of National Review Online derides the devastation wrought by President Obama upon Paul Ryan's Path to Prosperity as a "class-warfare attack."

Class warfare has been invoked- but by Ryan, not by Obama. The Path to Prosperity (2012 GOP budget proposal passed today by the House) proposes lowering the top marginal tax rate from 35%. As Jamison Foser notes

That current 35 percent top rate applies only to taxpayers who make more than $373,650 a year. And remember: That's a marginal tax rate, which means it only applies to income above $373,650, so if someone makes $400,000 a year, she is only paying the 35 percent rate on the last $26,350. The average tax rate for the top 1 percent of taxpayers is only about 23 percent. Finally, keep in mind that the 35 percent top marginal rate is already quite low by historical standards: Since the Great Depression, there have only been five years in which the top rate was lower than 35 percent: 1988-1992. (The low top marginal rate in place during that time didn't prevent a recession from occurring in 1990-91.)

Ryan wants also to lower the top corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%, even though the effective corporate tax rate in the U.S.A. is lower than in many countries (chart from Doing Business database via Media Matters):





There is no word on how Ryan's plan would directly affect the industry, insurance, most generous to his election campaigns. The Wisconsin Republican does advocate, however, replacing Medicare with vouchers. According to the CBO, these cash payments would cover approximately 32% of the average elderly person's costs, with the individual left to pick up the remaining 68%. Further, the value of the voucher would decline over time relative to the cost of health care. It is a cruel trick to play on old Americans who, usually suffering from dementia or perhaps a host of physical ailments, would themselves have to negotiate with health care providers or insurance companies. Age alone would strike an insurance company, eager to please its investors, as a pre-existing condition.

Paul Ryan's dream, however, might not merely trample on the elderly and the poor to benefit wealthy taxpayers. In a study of his 2010 tax plan, Citizens for Tax Justice found (chart, below) that (compared to President Obama's proposal) under the Congressman's plan, Federal taxes would be lower for the richest ten percent and higher for all other income groups. and the bottom 80 percent of taxpayers would pay about $1,700 more on average.







President Obama doesn't want to batter and bruise the middle class. That's something Paul Ryan and his GOP colleagues are doing just fine on their own.

Share|

John 1:17 (NASB): For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.

GRACE. That which a person is not entitled to by law, but which is extended to him as a favor; a pardon, for example, is an act of grace.


Between The Lines


The sacred and the secular agree: "grace" comes not as if justice, but as if mercy; not through law or a right but as a gift, not as something owed.

Barack Obama, eager to invoke a biblical concept (grace) to prove yet again what he should not have to prove- that he is signed up as a Christian, not as a Muslim- declared at George Washington University on Tuesday:

"There but for the grace of God go I,” we say to ourselves, and so we contribute to programs like Medicare and Social Security, which guarantee us health care and a measure of basic income after a lifetime of hard work; unemployment insurance, which protects us against unexpected job loss; and Medicaid, which provides care for millions of seniors in nursing homes, poor children, and those with disabilities.

But what was the President of the United States up to when he suggested that Medicare and Social Security come from somewhere other than the law?

The Social Security Act (HR 7260), as enacted August 14, 1935, reads

An act to provide for the general welfare by establishing a system of Federal old-age benefits, and by enabling the several States to make more adequate provision for aged persons, blind persons, dependent and crippled children, maternal and child welfare, public health, and the administration of their unemployment compensation laws; to establish a Social Security Board; to raise revenue; and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

On July 30, 1965 President Johnson signed HR 6675, the Social Security Amendments of 1965, which established Medicare and Medicaid.

Neither Social Security nor Medicare is needs-based. Neither requires establishment of need and the individual is entitled to Social Security and Medicare because each

guarantees a certain level of benefits to persons or other entities who meet requirements set by law, such as Social Security, farm price supports or unemployment benefits. It thus leaves no discretion with Congress on how much money to appropriate, and some entitlements carry permanent appropriations.

Medicaid is a means-tested, social welfare program for which eligibility is determined primarily by income and financial resources. Support for the program relies, in the President's elegant framing, on "a country that values fairness" and "recognize(s) that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, hard times or bad luck, a crippling illness or a layoff, may strike any one of us."

By contrast, Medicare and Social Security are social insurance programs financed through the payroll tax paid by employers and employees; partly as a result, eligibility is unaffected by economic status. President Obama, a disciple of the Bowles/Simpson debt reduction proposal, is favorably inclined to increasing gradually the age of eligibility for Social Security. He has told us he wants to "slow the growth of Medicare" and "put everything on the table, and take on excess spending wherever it exists in the budget."

Barack Obama previously had not informed us that Medicare and Social Security are funded not by the employer/employee contribution, but only by the grace of a caring society. Now turned in his ever-scrupulous and meticulous rhetoric into welfare programs, they are ripe for means-testing. Though the President has obscured it by characteristic oratorical flair, he has warned us.

Share|

A Little Bad, A Little Good


The news about Social Security from President Obama's speech (text, as prepared for delivery, here) this afternoon at the world's greatest university is that there was no news.

That probably is good but only barely. The President remarked

As I said in the State of the Union, both parties should work together now to strengthen Social Security for future generations. But we must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans' guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market.

As Mr. Obama implied, we already knew the parameters of the "reform"- as most individuals lukewarm to Social Security term it- which the President eventually will support. He opposes privatization of the system, "subjecting Americans' guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market." Privatization is, as should be obvious, the favorite approach of politicians who want ultimately to end Social Security.

The President opposes also "slashing benefits for future generations." There will be no proposal for "slashing" benefits (as Obama typically puts it), merely for cutting the benefits. Slashing would be too jarring and inconsistent with the President's stated intent "to use a scalpel and not a machete" (though to reduce the deficit, which is unaffected by Social Security).

There is no reason to believe that anything supported by the Administration or even the GOP will in any way be "putting at risk current retirees." Most current recipients- even, to a lesser extent, individuals old enough to be close to retirement age- understand that Social Security is critical for their well-being and is a core component of the nation's social compact. They also have more reason to be skeptical of the "CW" (conventional wisdom)- in this case a myth- that the system is running out of money.

Throughout the debate, there has been an intensive disinformation campaign trolling the myth that Social Security contributes to the budget deficit. The President should have emphasized that there is no connection but his mere statement "While Social Security is not the cause of our deficit" is commendable, and more than we typically get from (obviously) opponents of the social insurance program and (incomprehensibly) supporters of it.

The President was less candid, though, when talking about the deficit commission he established, stating

These aren't the kind of cuts that Republicans and Democrats on the Fiscal Commission proposed....

Today, I'm proposing a more balanced approach to achieve $4 trillion in deficit reduction over twelve years. It's an approach that borrows from the recommendations of the bipartisan Fiscal Commission I appointed last year....

I believe reform should protect the middle class, promote economic growth, and build on the Fiscal Commission's model of reducing tax expenditures....

Obama speaks of "the kind of cuts that Republicans and Democrats proposed"; "an approach that borrows from the recommendations of the bipartisan Fiscal Commission;' "the Fiscal Commission's model." Understandably- but disingenuously- he tries to leave the impression that the all members of the commission, Democrats and Republicans alike, joined in recommendations with serious consequences.

Except that it didn't happen that way. Section 5 of the Executive Order establishing the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform read:

(a) No later than December 1, 2010, the Commission shall vote on the approval of a final report containing a set of recommendations to achieve the mission set forth in section 4 of this order.
(b) The issuance of a final report of the Commission shall require the approval of not less than 14 of the 18 members of the Commission.

Commission co-chairmen Bowles and Simpson were unable to gain approval of 12 other members of the group, which thereby failed to reach consensus. A final report was issued, whether to pacify the co-chairmen (who earlier had co-opted their own commission by issuing their own report) or because, well, working for several months and failing to produce something in writing really doesn't look too good.

This should be of more than passing interest to the media. The report issued by Representative Ryan, as Obama explained, is way too extreme. However, Bowles-Simpson, from a centrist Democrat and a conservative Republican, is just right for a president leading a center-right revival.

Share|

The Republican Media: No. 28


Sometimes you have to read something two or three times before you're sure you read it right the first time. Then you realize that you did. Digby caught this exchange, adding her comment beneath it, between CNN's Jessica Yellin and Senators Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga) and Mark Warner (D-Va.).

Jessica Yellin: Here are two members of the so-called Gang of Six a bipartisan group of Senators who are trying to negotiate deficit reduction. Saxby Chambliss is a Georgia Republican and Senator Mark Warner is a Virginia Democrat. Gentlemen thanks for being here.

First to you Senator Chambliss. You have been working together on this proposal for months. When will you reveal it and do you really think you can get 4 trillion dollars in savings?

Chambliss: Well there's not question but that we're working on a plan will achieve 4 trillion dollars in savings over the next ten years.As to when we're going to complete the details, that's still up in the air, but out group of six has been working very diligently over the last several months and we're going to continue to work until we can get this done and get it done the right way.That's a lot more important than the time frame in which to get it done.

Yellin: Well let me press you on that Senator Warner. House Republican budget Chairman Paul Ryan has revealed the initial Republican deficit reduction proposal, president Obama will reveal one on Wednesday, don't you both need to unveil it now, within days to be relevant in this debate.

Warner: I think one of the things we saw in last week's debate, if we start in our partisan corner you wind up with an 11th hour brinksmanship. We've been working for months on a serious plan and we're very close. We want to make sure it's right. And I do think in the coming short period of time that we need to get this into the debate and I think there are members in both parties who are willing to step up and say we are starting from a bipartisan basis and there's a much better chance of getting something done.

Yellin: let's start with bipartisanship because we saw an awful lot of acrimony over the last month over just a tiny sliver of the budget, the continuing resolution. How in the world Senator Chambliss, are you going to get Democrats and Republicans to agree for a long term spending plan in this partisan environment?

Chambliss: Well, that's why it's important that we work together as a bipartisan group to develop a bipartisan product. If we do start from one side or the other side and hope that we can meet in the middle, my guess is that never gets done. But the fact that we have three Republicans and three Democrats in a room discussing in a very serious way the most significant national security interest that the United States is facing today I think says an awful lot number one about the fact that we think we can get it done. And secondly that this group is committed to make sure that in a bipartisan was we address the issue will in itself give us a better opportunity than if we started at opposite ends and hope that we could meet in the middle.

Yellin: Senator Chamblis do you believe that Senate Republicans will agree to a package that includes any sort of tax changes?

Chambliss: Well, the fact of the matter is that you can't solve this debt problem just with reductions in discretionary spending. You can't solve it just by attacking and reforming entitlements. You've got to look at the revenue side also.

What we are looking at proposing is actually a reduction in corporate rates and personal individual income tax rates, which will put more money in people's pockets and we're going to do that with the reduction in tax expenditures. Every time we've done that in years past whether it was under President Reagan or president Bush we have seen revenues increase. And we've got to have an increase in revenues if we are going to retire this debt... revenues have to be on the table if we're serious about attacking that debt.

Yellin:Senator Warner, that's a big concession by Republicans. For Democrats, you've acknowledged that they have to come along and tweak entitlements. Over the week-end one of the president's advisers said this should potentially include social security. So what changes to social security would be part of your budget proposal?

Warner replied that they don't plan to take money from social security to pay down the debt but just feel they should make SS "secure" for the next 75 years anyway. (Apparently this epic deficit battle is such a breeze that they can squeeze in this unnecessary issue right along with it.) He finished up with this:

Warner: I think we've got the makings of a Grand Bargain if we start with a bipartisan basis, I think we can get it done and surprise a lot of the pundits.

Let's rewind this. We have Jessica Yellin summarizing "Senator Warner, that's a big concession by Republicans."

And what is this "big concession?" Obviously, Democrats would rather not cut spending, much; Republicans are adamantly opposed to any tax increase. So while Mark Warner, boldly representing Democrats, assures Yellin that Democrats need to be bipartisan and cut spending and Social Security, Chambliss says

What we are looking at proposing is actually a reduction in corporate rates and personal individual income tax rates, which will put more money in people's pockets and we're going to do that with the reduction in tax expenditures. Every time we've done that in years past whether it was under President Reagan or president Bush we have seen revenues increase.

He adds the obligatory "we're serious about attacking that debt" because inside the Beltway, no one is serious about deficit/debt reduction unless he or she proclaims himself "serious." And nothing- nothing- is more important than being SERIOUS.

Warner, determined to prove he is serious about the debt, has agreed to spending cuts. Chambliss, determined to prove he is serious about the debt, advocates "a reduction in corporate rates and personal individual income tax rates." That's right- reduce revenue to increase revenue.

Albeit counter-intuitively, spending generally increases with a cut in taxes. There may be less money to spend, but Congress is playing with house money- really, it's no one's money, having flown off the money tree GOP presidents always detect. The Atlantic's Jonathan Rauch explains "the way to limit the growth of government is to force politicians, and therefore voters, to pay for all the government they use—not to give them a discount.... Voters will not shrink Big Government until they feel the pinch of its true cost." As Rauch notes, William Niskanen of the CATO Institute (the CATO Institute!) reluctantly came to a similar conclusion.

But, additionally, revenues in the mid-term tends to decrease, rather than increase, revenue. Former Reagan advisor Bruce Bartlett quotes Alan D. Viard, a Bush 43 economist who moved on to the American Enterprise Institute, noted in 2006 "Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that." Robert Carroll, then deputy assistant secretary for tax analysis at the U.S. Treasury Department, conceded during that period "as a matter of principle, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves."

He quotes also Edward Lazear, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers in Bush’s second term, testifying to the Senate Budget Committee, September 28, 2006,

Will the tax cuts pay for themselves? As a general rule, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves. Certainly, the data presented above do not support this claim. Tax revenues in 2006 appear to have recovered to the level seen at this point in previous business cycles, but this does not make up for the lost revenue during 2003, 2004, and 2005. The tax cuts were a positive step and have contributed to the enhanced economic growth, additional jobs, higher real disposable income, and the low unemployment rates that we currently see today.

Revenues obviously increased substantially during the Clinton Administration. But as the chart from the Office of Management and Budget presented by Bartlett indicates, they generally decreased during the administration of the great tax-cutter, George W. Bush.

The assumption, when talk turns to "the revenue side," is that the Republican is admitting the necessity of at least considering a tax increase. Paul Ryan writes in the Wall Street Journal of "tax reform" in his 2010 Roadmap to America's Future; he means cutting taxes, especially for the wealthy. He advocates "pro-growth tax reforms" in his recently-released Path to Prosperity; it turns out he wants billionaires to be taxed at the rate of 25%.

Fortunately, Chambliss clarified that the GOP's "revenue enhancements" to cut the deficit are euphemism for tax cuts. But that wouldn't stop Jessica Yellin, working at the supposedly moderate and reasonable CNN, ideologically ensconced between cable's pro-Obama network and the network serving as the press agent for the Republican Party. After all, if Democrats are willing to entertain cuts in women's health, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security programs, shouldn't Republicans be willing to swallow tax cuts?

Share|

Kick Him, Get Rewarded


When the movie "The Pat Tillman Story" was released in August, 2010, it appeared in precious few cities nationwide and died a quick death. Perhaps it was the tendency of the viewing public to cringe at anything suggesting venality, incompetence, or inefficiency on the part of the military brass, whom conservatives cherish conflating with "our brave troops." Or perhaps it was the deadly serious and boring title, which would have been better marketed as "Murder By Military," "Killed By Cover-Up," or something else. As CBS News noted at the time

Pat Tillman gave up his professional football career with the Arizona Cardinals to join the U.S. Army Rangers after September 11.

In 2004, Pat was shot and killed in Afghanistan by friendly fire. But the story told by the government was quite different.

Mary Tillman, Pat's mother, documents her family's crusade to uncover the truth and expose the cover-up by senior military officials in her book, "Boots on the Ground by Dusk: Searching for Answers in the Death of Pat Tillman," which is being re-released to coincide with the August 20 release of the documentary "The Tillman Story."

On "The Early Show" Monday, Mary spoke with "Early Show" co-anchor Erica Hill from Mountain View, Calif., about some additional information that's coming out in the paperback version of her book, about former Gen. Stanley McChrystal's handling of her son's death.

Mary explained, "I wrote the book, came out in 2008, and I indicate that McChrystal was involved in orchestrating the cover-up. He falsified the Silver Star. He was very aware that Pat was killed by friendlies. And then, when he was going to be promoted to the head commander in Afghanistan, I had contacted President Obama, I e-mailed him and written a letter and contacted members of Congress, just trying to remind them that this man needed to be scrutinized very carefully. And in the end, it turned out that he was pretty much meant for that position. He was a shoo-in. Of course, he was promoted. And, that is part of the foreword."

A couple of months earlier, Matt Taibbi had reported in Rolling Stone that in the the fall of 2009, General McChrystal at a speech in London described the counter-terrorism strategy of the Vice President as "shortsighted" believing it would lead to a state of "Chaos-istan." He quoted the General as more recently calling National Security Advisor Jim Jones "a clown" and President Obama "unprepared" for a strategy meeting. Promptly, in one of the few bold moves of his presidency, Barack Obama removed McChrystal from the command of American forces in Afghanistan. But this is the "on the one hand, and on the other hand" presidency and McChrystal is back:

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who was relieved of command in Afghanistan after a magazine profile quoted his subordinates as disparaging senior civilian leaders, has been invited back to public service by the Obama administration to help oversee a high-profile initiative in support of military families, White House officials said Sunday.

General McChrystal will lead the three-member advisory board for the initiative, called Joining Forces, whose aim is to encourage companies, schools, philanthropic and religious groups and local communities to recognize the unusual stress that is endured by families of active-duty personnel, reservists and veterans, and to strive to meet their needs.

The appointment is to be announced Tuesday by Jill Biden, as well as by Michelle Obama,who described McChrystal in an e-mail as "a unique and powerful advocate for the millions of Americans who serve our country selflessly.”

As journalist Jon Krakauer describes him, this is the guy the Obamas believe will be "a unique and powerful advocate" for members of the armed forces:

After Tillman died, the most important thing to know is that within--instantly, within 24 hours certainly, everybody on the ground, everyone intimately involved knew it was friendly fire. There's never any doubt it was friendly fire. McChrystal was told within 24 hours it was friendly fire. Also, immediately they started this paperwork to give Tillman a Silver Star. And the Silver Star ended up being at the center of the cover-up. So McChrystal--Tillman faced this devastating fire from his own guys, and he tried to protect a young private by exposing himself to this, this fire. That's why he was killed and the private wasn't. Without friendly fire there's no valor, there's no Silver Star. There was no enemy fire, yet McChrystal authored, he closely supervised over a number of days this fraudulent medal recommendation that talked about devastating enemy fire.

It is also the guy who disregarded the relationship traditionally assumed by military officials with the President of the United States, the commander-in-chief of the armed services when called into the actual Service of the United States. And now Obama, who evinces mere contempt for his supporters, once again has demonstrated that getting your way with this President is as easy as standing up to him.

Share|

Obama And Boehner Happy


They say sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And "they" would be right.

On April 3 Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told Bob Schieffer "The tea party is dictating a lot that goes on in the Republican leadership in the House… it shouldn't be that way." Three days later, Chuck Schumer would maintain on Good Morning America "The Tea Party just continues to pull Speaker Boehner further back and back and back." The following day, the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, told reporters "Speaker Boehner is not in control. The tea party caucus has their hands on the steering wheel and they are prepared to drive right into a government shut down if they don't get 100% of their demands met."

In the midst of top Democrats characterizing the Speaker as reasonable, boldly holding back the extremist hordes at the gate, Boehner put on what appeared to be a brave public face. He assured ABC's George Stephanopoulos

Listen, there’s no daylight between the Tea Party and me,” Boehner told me today during our exclusive interview.... What they want is they want us to cut spending. They want us to deal with this crushing debt that’s going to crush the future for our kids and grandkids. There’s no daylight there.

Two days later Democrats, led by President Obama, had completed their total capitulation on fiscal matters to the weepy Republican leader as they agreed to $38.5 billion in cuts from the 2010 baseline, $5.5 billion more than Boehner's original proposal. (The Democrats fared better on the policy riders but are not out of the woods yet- and then, this was a budget measure, after all.) Barack Obama announced himself pleased, stating

Last night, after weeks of long and difficult negotiations over our national budget, leaders of both parties came together to avert a government shutdown, cut spending, and invest in our future. This is good news for the American people.... Reducing spending while still investing in the future is just common sense.

Despite Democratic relief that a semi-shutdown had been averted, it appears that the daylight top Democrats saw between Boehner and the tea party now bears some resemblance to an Alaskan winter. The Wall Street Journal's Jonathan Weisman and Jennifer Levitz write

Leaders of the small-government, tea-party movement are generally giving House Speaker John Boehner high marks for his leadership in the spending showdown, even though the agreement eventually reached Friday night fell short of the cuts the tea party once demanded.

House Speaker John Boehner, shown Friday as negotiations continued to reach a budget deal, appears to have gained from risking a shutdown.

The relationship between the Republican leadership and these activists is one of the most important determinants of how this Congress will manage the fiscal fights to come.

Tea-party backers have been leery of Mr. Boehner for months, questioning his zeal and driving him toward a tougher line on spending.

As negotiations inched close to a deal late Friday, much of the movement's institutional leadership resisted raising the temperature and were willing to cut Mr. Boehner some slack, in hope that he will extract more dramatic concessions in the budget showdowns to come.

Within weeks, the House will press forward on a blueprint to dramatically change Medicare and Medicaid, lower tax rates, simplify the tax code, and cut nonsecurity spending by $1.6 trillion over the next decade.

By mid-May, another showdown will come as the federal government reaches its statutory limit on borrowing. And this summer, Congress must go to work on spending bills for fiscal 2012.

Conservative activists will rely on the leadership of Mr. Boehner, a man who re-emerged into Republican leadership on a platform of fiscal rectitude. His management of his restive caucus and the unpredictable tea-party movement has proved more successful than even some of his colleagues thought possible when the new Congress convened earlier this year.

"They're doing pretty well so far," said Matt Kibbe, president and chief executive of FreedomWorks, a conservative organization that has helped fund the tea-party movement.

"If the Republicans back down from the fight just because the Democrats are itching for a government shutdown, that'll be disappointing to us, but we understand they only control a third of the policy-making here"....

Some tea-party members voiced support for Republicans pushing for policy issues.

"The government is wasting tax dollars on things that should not be paid for by the general public," says Diane Canney, a 48-year-old stay-at-home mother who is also a co-founder of the Valley Forge Patriots. "For me as a Catholic who does not believe in abortions, to take my taxes and fund Planned Parenthood, that is not fair," she says.

Predictions of a full-scale tea party revolt now appear overblown. Mr. Boehner's initial offer of $35 billion in cuts infuriated many activists and conservative lawmakers, forcing him to raise the ante to $61 billion.

He ended up with $39 billion. By holding out and risking a government shutdown, the speaker appears to have redirected tea-party anger toward the Democrats.

Gene Clem, a director for the Michigan Tea Party Alliance, a coalition of some 30 tea-party groups in the southwestern part of the state, says members are "pretty happy" because "we got quite a few cuts and we made the point that we have to change our way of thinking and that the deficit just can't go on."

Some may be keeping their powder dry for future rounds. "I'm really disappointed, but I know [Mr. Boehner] is in a difficult situation," said retiree Betty Dunkel, the 75-year-old co-founder of the Valley Forge Patriots, a tea-party group outside Philadelphia. "I don't like it, but at this point, let's just get something done, let's get on with it and then work very, very hard on 2012 budget—and we also have the debt ceiling to deal with."

President Obama, however, is figuring that it's only his party's pockets- not his won- which have been picked. Howard Fineman explains

But politically, this is where Barack Obama wants to be. He wants to be the budget cutter. He has an unerring instinct for the middle of the political spectrum, the middle of the political conversation generally among independent voters right now, which is about budget cutting, so politically he's making the gamble that he's moved to the right political place and that economically, the economy is recovering fast enough now, we've had good growth, job growth numbers in the last couple months.

He's making a bet that those job growth numbers will continue and whatever stimulus is removed by this will not adversely affect the economy enough to counter balance what he thinks is a smart move to the center.

And he looks like he's been pushed there, but politically that's where he wants to be.

President Obama didn't need to be pushed too hard in order to focus the attention of Congress and the American people from the economy to the budget, to cut a deal allowing him to boast about "the biggest annual spending cut in history" during an economic slump, or to bring the tea party and House GOP leadership closer to each another. If the economy continues to recover (even at its slow pace) and the President is re-elected, Barack Obama will be justly gleeful but, as Taylor Marsh notes

The Democrats aren’t making the case for progressive economic justice anymore, because in the era of Obama the boss doesn’t have the principles or belief in foundational Democratic ideals to do it, because he’s too busy making tactical moves to look non-ideological. That may be good for him, but it’s awful for Democrats.

Share|

Distortion And Venom Wrapped Into One


It's useful periodically to step back and probe the conservative mind. Often ignorant, sometimes dishonest, occasionally valid, the modern conservative is nothing if not consistently crafty.

Blogger Lori Ziganto has posted "WaPo’s Ezra Klein Supports Killing Black Babies" at the venerable right-wing blog RedState and at her own site. She remarks sarcastically "Don’t you realize that a dead child is a cheap child?" and claims

Ezra Klein, writing at the Washington Post, actually proffers that argument in favor of taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood; that abortions are cheaper for the government than having an “unintended pregnancy”. (That’s their euphemism for unborn baby killed by abortion.) His article is filled with predictable talking points, all easily disproved....

Uh, no. "Unintended pregnancy" is a euphemism for.... unintended pregnancy. One might assume, initially, that Klein had written "a dead child is a cheap child" or at least utilized the phrase "cheap child." One would be wrong, however, and she proceeds to quote Klein maintaining (emphasis Ziganto's)

The fight also isn’t about cutting spending. The services Planned Parenthood provides save the federal government a lot of money. It’s somewhat cold to put it in these terms, but taxpayers end up bearing a lot of the expense for unintended pregnancies among people without the means to care for their children.

Ziganto comments

Did you mean among “those people”, Ezra? After all, the majority of babies aborted are minority babies. In New York City alone, nearly 60% of unborn African-American children were aborted.

Read Klein's post once or twice; it's worth it. It's also necessary to confirm that the Washington Post writer and blogger never referred to those people. At the risk of provoking the classic response of victimhood of the right, one needs to consider the possibility of psychological projection, that Giganto herself holds the attitude she is attributing to Klein. (Or perhaps she has fallen prey to the underrated conservative political correctness.) The latter never mentions "blacks" or "African-American children" or "minorities." Nor does he even invoke the concept of minorities or race, though at one time noting that a loss of federal funding for Planned Parenthood would make cancer screening, contraception, and STD testing "less available to poor people." (And "poor people" is not a euphemism, or anything else, for African-American.)

Ziganto is not motivated primarily, or perhaps not at all, by racism or racial animus. (Why, she probably isn't even from Mississippi!) Ironically, though, her piece does bolster Klein's argument that "the fight also isn’t about cutting spending. The services Planned Parenthood provides save the federal government a lot of money." Nowhere does Ziganto even allege that the services provided by Planned Parenthood, including preventing unintended pregnancies, saves the government and taxpayers money. She links to a site citing twelve reasons to support defunding Planned Parenthood- and even that avoids the issue of the burden placed upon taxpayers of supporting a child from an unintended pregnancy.

One solitary blogger on an important right-wing blog site does not the conservative movement make. Still, GOP ideologues appear intent on eliminating federal funding for an effective source of women's health care, even while leaving the military budget untouched. Cost savings from the likes of cancer screening and STD testing, as well as from audits performed by the IRS (an agency the GOP is committed to slash), are well-documented. If the traditional media were paying attention, it, too, would notice, as Susie Madrak notes

And can we drop the political game pieces and get back to reality? Republicans don’t care about the deficit. Repeat after me: Republicans don’t care about the deficit. Did you hear a peep out of them during the Bush years? Of course not. Because Republicans don’t care about the deficit.

Share|