Month: September 2010

S is for Senate

Steve Benen hears Boehner say this:

If the only option I have is to vote for some of those tax reductions, I’ll vote for them.

and, like seemingly everyone with a mountaintop large or small, inexplicably takes this away:

Boehner, in other words, appears to be on board with the Obama proposal

Can we just not think in this country anymore?

  1. Is Boehner in the Senate?

There is no second thing. If the answer to Question 1 is “No,” then his opinion matters fuck-all. He said this to put a patina of reasonableness on the GOP’s entirely unreasonable and indefensible position that billionaires desperately need an extra $100k come tax-time. They know this meaningless statement will get wide play, much wider (read: vastly wider) than their ultimate actions to bottle this thing up in the Senate (and even that’s assuming the feckless Democrat bothers to bring it to the floor, itself a gigantic and likely foolhardy assumption).
If and when that all happens, the GOP will simply point to (meaningless) statements like this one as examples of their genteel nature and broad willingness to “work across the aisle.” The MSM will report the whole thing as “a Democrat failure to achieve 60 votes needed in the Senate” and Broder will pronounce himself suitably delighted that the GOP tried so very hard. Truly, they are the serious adults up to DC.

Is this so very hard to understand? Apparently it is.

Brian Williams, Fucktard

“Jon [Stewart] has chronicled the death of shame in politics and journalism,” says Brian Williams, the NBC Nightly News anchor who is a frequent Daily Show guest. “Many of us on this side of the journalism tracks often wish we were on Jon’s side. I envy his platform to shout from the mountaintop. He’s a necessary branch of government.

I see, so being the Nightly News anchor for a major network, which recently drew 8,040,000 viewers and regularly leads the "National Nightly News” pack, doesn’t actually constitute a “platform” to “shout from the mountaintop.” Then what the fuck is it for? I’d seriously like to know.

Stewart, on the other hand, gets “about 1.8 million viewers each night.” What a mountaintop he has. Truly the envy of someone with more than 8 times as many viewers; more than Stewart, CNN, FOXnews, msnbc, and probably a few other notables combined in that time slot. Every night. But that doesn’t constitute a “mountaintop” from which to do silly things like inform people with rigor and insight. Oh my no. That sort of thing only happens over on Comedy Central where the corporate overlords apparently aren’t quite so twitchy about letting a little actual information seep into the nightly colorcast. Which is fine by Williams, if these quotes are to be believed.

This attitude, this ceaseless and unstoppable form of pseudo-intellectual nihilism is killing the country. Measurably. It’s what Krugman calls “Invincible Ignorance.” Oh, and that kooky rube Stewart knows about it and has long recognized it:

The pettiness of it, the strange lack of passion for any kind of moral or editorial authority [from the MSM], always struck me as weird. We felt like, we’re serious people doing an unserious thing, and they’re unserious people doing a very serious thing.

Brian Williams, case in point. Pettiness and lack of passion of any kind incarnate. Tonight on NBC Nightly News!

[All quotes from this excellent profile]

Economic Policy Institute gives us a simple chart:

38.7% of all of the income growth accrued to the upper 1% over the 1979-2007 period: a greater share than the 36.3% share received by the entire bottom 90% of the population.

Those in the top 10% of the income scale received 63.7% of all the income growth generated over the 1979-2007 period. In contrast, the bottom 20% of all earners saw such a small share of income growth – just 0.4% – that it barely shows up on the included pie chart.

Let’s repeat: over the last ~30 years, the top 10% got about 60% of all income growth. Everybody else: not so much.
There should be no speech, no appearance, no utterance, no anything involving any Democrat anywhere a camera, microphone, or goodly crowd may gather that does not include this chart. Every time, every day, every hour between now and November.

Don’t hold your breath.

Are you up for a thought experiment? What if we chose to regard the 2,973 innocents killed in the atrocities of 9/11 not as victims but as democratic martyrs, “sacrifices on the altar of freedom”? In other words, what if we decided that a certain baseline vulnerability to terrorism is part of the price of the American idea? And, thus, that ours is a generation of Americans called to make great sacrifices in order to preserve our democratic way of life—sacrifices not just of our soldiers and money but of our personal safety and comfort?

In still other words, what if we chose to accept the fact that every few years, despite all reasonable precautions, some hundreds or thousands of us may die in the sort of ghastly terrorist attack that a democratic republic cannot 100-percent protect itself from without subverting the very principles that make it worth protecting?

David Foster Wallace (via southpol)
Source: The Atlantic

Mind: Blown

among those who have an unfavorable view of Islam, an overwhelming 87 percent say the [not at Ground Zero, not a mosque] project shouldn’t be built, with 74 percent strongly opposed. [Fifty-five percent of those who have favorable views of Islam say it should be built.]

This ranks right up there with the most shocking things ever. No one could have expected that the non-mosque project opposition was, in fact, deeply rooted in anti-Islamic muckraking on the part of FOXnews, Drudge, Rush, Beck, and the GOP at large and is not some Grand Effort to preserve the Sanctity of Ground Zero and the victims of 9/11/01.
But, by all means media, keep reporting as if that list is entirely made up of sober and serious information sources. After all, the sooner Tashtego drowns the sooner that flag will get fixed. Tap tap tap.

Mind: Blown

We can count on Glenn [Beck] to make the night interesting and inspiring, and I can think of no better way to commemorate 9/11 than to gather with patriots who will ‘never forget.’ [Visa and MasterCard accepted.]

Sarah Palin, summarizes both her own racket and that of Glenn Beck in just 38 words. We should pay more attention to her.

So on the one hand, a measure that will make a small dent in the deficit. On the other hand, a measure that will lead to a huge increase in the deficit. There’s no theory of the economy in which this really makes sense: If the market is worried about the government’s finances, this makes them worse, not better. If we need lower tax rates, then simply holding the tax rates at the level that produced 2010’s disappointing economic performance isn’t enough.
It’s also worth noting that these policies are both stale: The Bush tax cuts are, well, the Bush tax cuts. They’re tax policy from 10 years ago, designed to deal with a very different set of circumstances. And the 2008 budget is, similarly, just an arbitrary number from some point in the past. Our economic situation has changed dramatically in the past few years. Don’t Republicans have any fresh thinking on what to do about it?

Ezra Klein, doing a better job than Lemkin did. As usual.

Boehner’s Deficit

Rep. Boehner called for bipartisan cooperation on two new proposals: First, to pass a spending bill now at the 2008 level and second, to extend the current tax rates for two years.

Lest you think this was just another case of unsubstantiated example-making, rest assured that Boehner not only wants to continue Bush policy, he wants to continue it exactly, right down to the spending levels in place when W finally scuttled out of office. He provides no context as to why, how this helps the budget deficit long-term, or anything else for that matter. I’m seriously not sure he’s aware that those are even issues worth considering.
Left out entirely, of course, is the fact that while spending on a 2008 budget would be a smaller line item in comparison to 2010 or projected 2011 levels, keeping the full tax cuts puts us on the hook for vastly more deficit spending and, of course, spiraling debt. This is, apparently, completely okay. After all, one need not pay for tax cuts, or even budget against them in terms of available revenue. They are free. Always were, always will be.

Even as he says all this stuff, he goes so far as to call it all a “compromise.” Which, Webster’s apparently will tell us is when the GOP gets whatever it wants and the Democrat agrees to give it to them. This, by the way, is also a principle the GOP is on record as being the only acceptable way for Obama to govern: as a seat-warmer until a GOP President can be elected. No other changes allowed, voters be damned. All this with an apparently straight face. And is not challenged by the media or laughed at and mocked by the public at large. Or even by a back-bench Democrat.

This is why we fail.

brooklynmutt:

American politics “seem to be getting worse because, sorry to say it, people get stupider and stupider every election cycle.” – Bill Maher

See, I would simply say “This is why we fail.”
Obama should have, at every speech (or, at the very least: every other speech) beaten home the essential failure and utter depravity of the previous administration and its numerous supporters and enablers in the Congress. People shouldn’t be able to hear the word “Boehner” (as just one example) without thinking of failed policy and economic destruction.
Instead, we got “small-ball, make-nice, compromise on everything and the GOP will come on board.” Boy, that worked out well. Boehner can come right out and say he wants to continue (or resume) Bush policies exactly as before without the least fear; quite the contrary: he’s treated as a big thinker. This is why we fail.