Holding the GOP accountable, part 4: economic sabotage

Steve Benen via Matt Yglesias

(Benen)

Consider a thought experiment. Imagine you actively disliked the United States, and wanted to deliberately undermine its economy. What kind of positions would you take to do the most damage?

You might start with rejecting the advice of economists and oppose any kind of stimulus investments. You'd also want to cut spending and take money out of the economy, while blocking funds to states and municipalities, forcing them to lay off more workers. You'd no doubt want to cut off stimulative unemployment benefits, and identify the single most effective jobs program of the last two years (the TANF Emergency Fund) so you could kill it.

You might then take steps to stop the Federal Reserve from trying to lower the unemployment rate. You'd also no doubt want to create massive economic uncertainty by vowing to gut the national health care system, promising to re-write the rules overseeing the financial industry, vowing re-write business regulations in general, considering a government shutdown, and even weighing the possibly of sending the United States into default.

You might want to cover your tracks a bit, and say you have an economic plan that would help -- a tax policy that's already been tried -- but you'd do so knowing that such a plan has already proven not to work.

Does any of this sound familiar?

(Yglesias)

..I know that tangible improvements in the economy are key to Obama's re-election chances. And senior administration officials know that its key. So is it so unreasonable to think that Mitch McConnell and John Boehner may also know that it's key? That rank and file Republicans know that it's key? McConnell has clarified that his key goal in the Senate is to cause Barack Obama to lose in 2012 which if McConnell understands the situation correctly means doing everything in his power to reduce economic growth. Boehner has distanced himself from this theory, but many members of his caucus may agree with McConnell.

Which is just to say that specifically the White House needs to be prepared not just for rough political tactics from the opposition (what else is new?) but for a true worst case scenario of deliberate economic sabotage.

(Benen)

Maybe now would be a good time to pause and ask a straightforward question: are Americans O.K. with this?

For months in 2009, conservatives debated amongst themselves about whether it's acceptable to actively root against President Obama as he dealt with a variety of pressing emergencies. Led by Rush Limbaugh and others, the right generally seemed to agree that there was nothing wrong with rooting against our leaders' success, even in a time of crisis.

But we're talking about a significantly different dynamic now. This general approach has shifted from hoping conditions don't improve to taking steps to ensure conditions don't improve. We've gone from Republicans rooting for failure to Republicans trying to guarantee failure.

If that's the case, though, then it's time for a very public, albeit uncomfortable, conversation. If a major, powerful political party is making a conscious decision about sabotage, the political world should probably take the time to consider whether this is acceptable, whether it meets the bare minimum standards for patriotism, and whether it's a healthy development in our system of government.

This is truly scary. It's something that many of us have been suggesting for over a year, and yet the nation is more focused on the possibility Dancing With The Stars is being tainted by Palin voters.

This is a major charge of not just negligence but outright sabotage, and the most amazing part is that neither the GOP itself or it's high-powered noise machine has seen fit to address it.

Is America still so racist that they're tacitly OK with this? Why does the media ignore this?

Holding the GOP accountable, part 3: health care edition

Ezra Klein

Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Scott Brown (R-Mass.) introduced the “Empowering States to Innovate Act.” The legislation would allow states to develop their own health-care reform proposals that would preempt the federal government’s effort. If a state can think of a plan that covers as many people, with as comprehensive insurance, at as low a cost, without adding to the deficit, the state can get the money the federal government would’ve given it for health-care reform but be freed from the individual mandate, the exchanges, the insurance requirements, the subsidy scheme and pretty much everything else in the bill.

In general, giving the states a freer hand is an approach associated with conservatives. On Wednesday, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) sent a letter to the Republican Governors Association advocating exactly that. “The most effective path to sustainable health care reform runs through the states, not Washington,” he wrote. If it’s really the case that the states can do health reform better, Wyden and Brown are giving them a chance to prove it.

One state that wants to prove it is Sanders’s Vermont. “As a single-payer advocate,” he says, “I believe that at the end of the day, if a state goes forward and passes an effective single-payer program, it will demonstrate that you can provide quality health care to every man, woman and child in a more cost effective way. So I wanted to make sure that states have that option.” Vermont’s governor-elect, Peter Shumlin, is on the same page. “Vermont needs a single-payer system,” he said during the campaign.

Single-payer, of course, is even more objectionable to conservatives than the existing health-care law. But that’s the beauty of this option: It allows the liberal states to go their way, the conservative states to go their way, and then lets the country judge the results.

This is excellent. It's a put-up or shut-up plan. No more rhetoric, no more theory, put your ideas into action and let the nation judge what works. If Vermont's single-payer system proves to be the least-costly with the best benefits, it will be adopted by the other states. If a consumer-based system like Tennessee wants proves to be more workable, it will win adoption by other states.

This is democracy in action and should be acceptable to conservatives as it puts health care in the hands of the states, the market and the people.

I've grown tired of the dishonest arguments coming out of the right and I'm very much in favor of proving to them that progressive ideas work. Let them do the same. In the same way that I'm in favor of letting Rick Perry try to secede and see how that works out, I'm also in favor of letting the states be the laboratories of democracy.

Holding the GOP accountable, part 2: automotive industry edition

Think Progress notes: This morning, a rejuvenated General Motors made its initial public offering of stock, hoping to raise $23.1 billion. As a result of the offering, which is the largest in the nation’s history, the federal government’s ownership in the auto company was halved “and billions of dollars in bailout money was returned to the federal government.”

With that in mind, let's go back to Think Progress who has collected quotes from leading members of the GOP from the spring and summer of 2009 about the actions to save GM:

Rep. John Boehner (R-OH): “Does anyone really believe that politicians and bureaucrats in Washington can successfully steer a multi-national corporation to economic viability?”

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL): “It’s basically going to be a government-owned, government-run company. …It’s the road toward socialism.”

RNC Chairman Michael Steele: “No matter how much the President spins GM’s bankruptcy as good for the economy, it is nothing more than another government grab of a private company and another handout to the union cronies who helped bankroll his presidential campaign.”

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC): “Now the government has forced taxpayers to buy these failing companies without any plausible plan for profitability. Does anyone think the same government that plans to double the national debt in five years will turn GM around in the same time?”

Rep. Tom Price (R-GA): “Unfortunately, this is just another sad chapter in President Obama’s eager campaign to interject his administration in the private sector’s business dealings.”

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX): The auto company rescues “have been the leading edge of the Obama administration’s war on capitalism.”

Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ): When government gets involved in a company, “the disaster that follows is predictable.”

Even today, despite evidence to the contrary, wingnut secessionist Texas governor Rick Perry doubled down on the stupid and claimed the bailout of GM was a failure. Even today, despite evidence to the contrary, wingnut secessionist Texas governor Rick Perry doubled down on the stupid and claimed the bailout of GM was a failure. There's your incredibly prescient Republican leadership. Congratulations America.

Holding the GOP accountable, part 1: Nuclear treaty edition

Steve Benen

EUROPEAN ALLIES BACK OBAMA ON NEW START.... Officials hoping to see the Senate ratify the pending arms control treaty with Russia, New START, considered retiring Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio the kind of Republican who might be amenable to good-faith outreach. Getting to 67 is proving to be far more difficult than it should, but if eight Senate Republicans are to be found, Voinovich seemed like the kind of member who might be reasonable.

It was terribly disappointing, then, to see Voinovich speak on the Senate floor on Wednesday, insisting that the treaty might imperil "captive nations" in Eastern Europe. The Ohio Republican added that he would need assurances that our "allies throughout Europe" would benefit from the policy.

I have no idea if Voinovich was being sincere, or if he's looking for an excuse to oppose a worthwhile policy, but if Voinovich meant what he said, I have good news.

Nations on the front lines of the old Cold War divide made clear here Saturday that they want the Senate to ratify the new U.S.-Russia nuclear treaty, and said that Republican concerns about their well-being were misplaced.

In an unannounced group appearance at the end of an administration background briefing on Afghanistan, six European foreign ministers took the stage with a message for Congress.

"Don't stop START before it's started," Bulgarian Foreign Minister Nickolay Mladenov said.

Danish Foreign Minister Lene Espersen emphasized not only his support, but his conservative bona fides. "I'm also the chairman of the Conservative Party of Denmark," Espersen said. "Nobody can ever accuse me of being soft on security." He then enthusiastically endorsed the treaty, to "at least make the Republican Party [aware] of how important this is."

Hungarian Foreign Minister Janos Martonyi added, "We advocate ratification of START. It is in the interest of my nation, of Europe and most importantly for the trans-Atlantic alliance." He then added his ideological stamp of approval: "We're all conservatives."

Leaders from Poland, Bulgaria, and Norway also threw their support behind ratification.

And if all of those countries is a little too far west in Europe to impress Republicans, also note that leaders in Latvia and Lithunia are also anxious to see Republicans do the right thing on New START.

So, Sen. Voinovich, what do you say? If you were worried about European reactions, and Europe's on board, can we count on your "yes" vote?

If you support Rush Limbaugh, you're a racist. No doubts, no excuses.

This appeared on Rush Limbaugh's blog this week...


...after the following quote from his radio show.

This guy is an utter wrecking ball all by himself on the world stage to the point now of getting embarrassing. This presidency of Obama's, it doesn't take much to irritate the left. Try this: "Barack Obama's presidency is graffiti on the walls of American history." That's what his administration is. No more than graffiti on the walls of American history. We have a juvenile delinquent for a president who has ruined so much public and private property, not even his gang is making much of an effort here to protect him. It's an utter disaster.

If you support this horrible racist windbag, you're a racist yourself. No two ways about it. This isn't a policy discussion, this is race-baiting.

via Andrew Sullivan

GOP ready to kill nuclear arms treaty over politics

MSNBC

President Obama’s hopes of ratifying a new arms control treaty with Russia by the end of the year appeared to come undone on Tuesday as the chief Senate Republican negotiator moved to block a vote on the pact, one of the White House’s top foreign policy goals, in the lame-duck session of Congress.

The announcement by the senator, Jon Kyl of Arizona, the Republican point man on the issue, blindsided and angered the White House, which vowed to keep pressing for approval of the so-called New Start treaty. But the White House strategy had hinged entirely on winning over Mr. Kyl, and Democrats, who began scrambling for a backup plan, said they considered the chances of success slim.

The treaty, which would force both countries to pare back nuclear arsenals and resume mutual inspections that lapsed last year for the first time since the cold war, is the centerpiece of two of Mr. Obama’s signature goals: restoring friendly relations with Russia and putting the world on a path toward eventually eliminating nuclear arms. A failure to ratify the treaty could freeze both efforts and, some analysts said, undermine Mr. Obama’s credibility on the world stage.

“Failure to pass the New Start treaty this year would endanger our national security,” Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who has led negotiations with Mr. Kyl, said in a statement. It would mean “no verification regime to track Russia’s strategic nuclear arsenal,” Mr. Biden said, and would sour a relationship that has helped open a new supply route to troops in Afghanistan and increase pressure on Iran to halt its nuclear program.

Aren't the Republicans supposed to be the party of national security? If so, why try to kill a treaty that makes us, and the whole world, safer? Is this the "damage Obama" strategy? Don't let him have any accomplishments to point to in 2012, especially one that will appeal to women. Is the GOP so morally bankrupt that they'll sabotage anything to hurt the President?

On Mike Vick

As usual, my much-younger brother Mike (known on Tumblr as Hammerito) puts it much better than I could have.

Here's his original post:

Ray Lewis, arrested on suspicion of murder in 2000. Charges dropped.

Adam ‘Pacman’ Jones, arrested on charges of assault and felony vandalism in 2005. Arrested on charges of marijuana possession and obstruction of justice in 2006. Arrested on charges of disorderly conduct and public intoxication. 2 months later (also 2006), arrested on charges of misdemeanor assault. Arrested on charges of felony coercion, misdemeanor battery and misdemeanor threat-to-life. Charged with 2 felonies in 2007, he accepted a plea deal of misdemeanor conspiracy to commit disorderly conduct. Accused of hitting a stripper in 2008. Charges dropped. Got into a fight with the bodyguard whose job it was to keep him out of trouble in 2008. Jones currently plays for the Cincinnati Bengals.

Ben Roethilisberger, arrested on suspicion of rape in 2010. Charges dropped.

Michael Vick, arrested on suspicion of dogfighting in 2007. Pled guilty, spent 18 months in prison, lost $130 million dollars, $1 million of which was set up in a fund to care for Vick’s dogs for the rest of their lives. Filed for bankruptcy in 2008. Signed with the Eagles in 2009. The contract included $0 of guaranteed money. Vick struggles through 2009 season. Vick is mentored by Donovan McNabb. He turns his life around, develops a work ethic he never had, gives his time and money to local charities, speaks out against the lifestyle that he used to lead, and has now, 40 months after accepting responsibility and being sent to federal prison, turned everything around through hard work for the first time in his life.

He did his time. He lost everything. He took responsibility. He apologized, over and over again. He made amends. He earned his way back. What else would you like him to do?

A commenter than added in: You forgot Donte Stallworth and Leonard Little, who both killed people and got off scott fucking free.

Mike adds: And Leonard Little, who not only killed someone while driving drunk, but then was arrested for driving drunk AGAIN a year later.

Another commenter chimes in with: I just don’t get how that’s an insult. The fact that people continue to root for murderers and rapists says a lot about what they value over people, too.

To which Mike replies: Then what is the purpose of having a justice system? Why not just throw everyone who has ever been convicted of anything into an active volcano?

One of the very, very, very rare times someone manages to turn their life around, the rest of the world is standing there to remind them that they’re a terrible, awful, no good, very bad person.

NEW RULE: everyone should always be remembered for the worst thing they did. No exceptions.

----

Bravo, sir. I abhor what Mike Vick did, but nothing can change it. The Earth only spins in one direction, forward. I hope that this change is sincere, real and lifetime. As a human being, I'm rooting for him. I work with kids, many of whom find themselves on the wrong side of the law. I believe in punishment, but for the good of society I have to believe in rehabilitation and redemption as well. If Vick can be a force for good, well, it will never erase the evil he did. But it might keep some future evil from happening. Isn't that a good thing?

Jon Stewart on John and Cindy McCain's flip-flops on Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Rachel then takes the media to task for still lavishing attention on John McCain while not highlighting his constant shifting opinions.

Red-state welfare: the hypocrisy of the tea party

The New York Daily News has done an incredible piece about how the states governed by Republicans, the anti-handout, bootstraps crowd, actually gets more federal money back then they pay in taxes. Should anyone be surprised at this point? It's more hypocrisy from the Paliners, and the Paulers and the Teabaggers.

At this point, my suggestion to them is this: leave. Go. Try and make it on your own and see how quickly you become an impoverished third-world hellhole.

But to stand up and scream about how repressive the federal government is when you're reaping the benefits of the work of the blue states is startlingly stupid. Or as they call it, Monday.

Alaska gets $1.84 in federal spending for every dollar it pays in federal taxes. We in New York get just 79 cents on the dollar.
Which means we subsidize Alaska even as it enjoys a $2 billion-plus budget surplus.

Even as New York faces a huge deficit that will require ever more painful cuts.

[...]

Maybe there will be more reality shows featuring other big names in the Tea Party who call for cuts in government spending even as their home states are subsidized by the rest of us.

There could be Sen. Jim DeMint's South Carolina, which gets $1.35 on the dollar.

There could also be Sen.-elect Rand Paul's Kentucky, which rakes in $1.51.

Compare those states to two that are in financial crisis and suffer an even worse balance of payments than we do in New York.

California receives only 78 cents on the dollar.

And New Jersey gets just 61 cents, though it does have a hit reality show.

h/t Cesca

Anti-healthcare freshman demands his free government health care

This is brilliantly, gobsmackingly hypocritical. Welcome to GOPLand, America.

Politico

A conservative Maryland physician elected to Congress on an anti-Obamacare platform surprised fellow freshmen at a Monday orientation session by demanding to know why his government-subsidized health care plan takes a month to kick in.

Republican Andy Harris, an anesthesiologist who defeated freshman Democrat Frank Kratovil on Maryland’s Eastern Shore, reacted incredulously when informed that federal law mandated that his government-subsidized health care policy would take effect on Feb. 1 – 28 days after his Jan. 3rd swearing-in.

“He stood up and asked the two ladies who were answering questions why it had to take so long, what he would do without 28 days of health care,” said a congressional staffer who saw the exchange. The benefits session, held behind closed doors, drew about 250 freshman members, staffers and family members to the Capitol Visitors Center auditorium late Monday morning,”.

“Harris then asked if he could purchase insurance from the government to cover the gap,” added the aide, who was struck by the similarity to Harris’s request and the public option he denounced as a gateway to socialized medicine.

Here's some more health care hypocrisy from John "Hey, nice wife... how much?" Ensign, via Bob Cesca. Ensign hates government health care so much he's demanding money from the pot:

Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), one of DeMint’s anti-earmark supporters, appears to have been playing “Santa Claus” by demanding money from the Affordable Care Act, Obama’s health care reform law enacted early this year. Over the summer, Ensign sent a letter to Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius requesting grant money authorized by the law for the University of Nevada School of Medicine for “Primary Care Residency Expansion.”

Koppel vs. Olbermann: "death of real news" vs. "where was real news during Iraq invasion?"

Koppel:

We live now in a cable news universe that celebrates the opinions of Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly - individuals who hold up the twin pillars of political partisanship and who are encouraged to do so by their parent organizations because their brand of analysis and commentary is highly profitable.

The commercial success of both Fox News and MSNBC is a source of nonpartisan sadness for me. While I can appreciate the financial logic of drowning television viewers in a flood of opinions designed to confirm their own biases, the trend is not good for the republic. It is, though, the natural outcome of a growing sense of national entitlement. Daniel Patrick Moynihan's oft-quoted observation that "everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts," seems almost quaint in an environment that flaunts opinions as though they were facts.

...Much of the American public used to gather before the electronic hearth every evening, separate but together, while Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, Frank Reynolds and Howard K. Smith offered relatively unbiased accounts of information that their respective news organizations believed the public needed to know. The ritual permitted, and perhaps encouraged, shared perceptions and even the possibility of compromise among those who disagreed.

It was an imperfect, untidy little Eden of journalism where reporters were motivated to gather facts about important issues. We didn't know that we could become profit centers. No one had bitten into that apple yet.

Olbermann:

(I)n 2002 and 2003 and 2004 and 2005 Mr. Koppel did not shine that same light on the decreasingly coherent excuses presented by the government of this nation for the war in Iraq.

(T)he utter falsehood and dishonesty of the process by which this country was committed to the wrong war, by which this country was committed to dishonesty, by which this country was committed to torture – about that Mr. Koppel, and everybody else in the dead “objective” television news business he so laments, about that Mr. Koppel could not be bothered to speak out.

Where were they?

Worshiping before the false god of utter objectivity.

The bitter irony that must some day occur to Mr. Koppel and the others of his time was that their choice to not look too deeply into Iraq, before or after it began, was itself just as evaluative, just as analytically-based, just as subjective as anything I say or do on MSNBC each night. I may ultimately be judged to have been wrong in what I am doing. Mr. Koppel does not have to wait. The kind of television journalism he eulogizes, failed this country because when truth was needed, all we got were facts - most of which were lies anyway.

House Republicans Name An Already Expired Program As First Spending Item They Would Cut

Wonk Room

One program upon which House Republicans have consistently seized upon to bolster their budget-cutting bona fides is the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Emergency Contingency Fund, a successful program that created 250,000 jobs in 37 states via subsidized employment programs for low-income and unemployed workers. And according to National Journal, Republicans are once again railing against the program:

House Republicans have targeted one of the first programs they would like to ax: the $25 billion emergency fund for people who lose their jobs, part of last year’s stimulus bill. Rep. Tom Price of Georgia, chairman of the Republican Study Committee, said the program encourages states to increase their welfare caseloads “without requiring able-bodied individuals to work, get job training, or make other efforts to move off of taxpayer assistance.”

As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities pointed out, Price’s characterization of the fund is completely inaccurate. The program also had the staunch support of many Republican governors, including Gov. Haley Barbour (R-MS), who said it provided “much-needed aid during this recession by enabling businesses to hire new workers, thus enhancing the economic engines of our local communities.”

But the crux of the issue is that eliminating the TANF emergency fund will save exactly zero dollars, because the program has already expired! It was funded at $5 billion for two years, and ended on September 30, 2010. It’s over, and there is no money for Price to save.

Note several things here. One, the GOP has spent months ignoring the question "What specifically would you cut?". The answer was a variant on 'we'll see when we get in there'. Now that they're there, the first answer is to cut an already expired program.

Point number two is that they were planning to cut a program that provided relief to unemployed workers.

Read that last sentence again.

I wonder how many unemployed workers voted Republican two weeks ago? I wonder how many just stayed home? Why? There's not much else to say, just "why?". By not turning out for the Democrats, you've cut your own economic throat. and it's not like you can say you didn't know. The GOP promised to cut unemployment benefits, they consistently voted against them.

If you're not in the richest 2%, prepare for the hard times to get worse because the GOP has made it clear that they don't care about you.