Tag: eschaton

What Atrios Said

Press conferences don’t really matter that much anyway. Just one of those ritualistic things we’re all used to. Just get rid of it, spend your time doing something else. Stop whining about it.

Full Text

Yep. I’d only add that “something else” has to be real, aggressive, confrontational journalism. It is a colossal waste of time and resources to wait around all day for the privelege to sit there and go through the motions of jotting down what the press secretary said and, on a good day, elicit some minor gaffe around imprecise wording that we can all titter about for a few hours before repeating the same pointless nonsense the next day. Seriously, when was the last time news of any kind was broken at a press conference? If you’re thinking of citing Muskie’s suspect tear, then keep looking and leave the Man from Maine alone, my friend.

If Trump eliminates this particular brand of nonsense forever, I say good on him. At least he accomplished something beyond enriching himself and forcing all the august journals to acknowledge that water sports are officially ‘Merica’s Prime Patriotic Pastime.

Results [matter]. If I were the one in charge of this pop stand, I’d direct my economics team to come up with the “If I were a prime minister instead of a president, this is what we would do” plan. And if all they came up with was minor tax breaks for hiring, “patent reform,” and “trade deals,” I’d, you know, fire them.

Duncan Black, being exactly right. The key thing that needs to happen in the immediate future (e.g. the imminent “jobs speech”) is for Obama to set the stage such that the eventual legislative outcome makes very clear exactly who is obstructing economic growth and recovery efforts.
The only way to do this is to swing for the fences and wait for the GOP to obstruct it. Not only does this paint the GOP as the party of economic obstruction, it also allows the eventual compromise to be closer to your “dream plan” than it is to whatever constitutes a GOP “go die in the streets” policy outcome. By taking the traditional “sensible Obama” defensive crouch approach and starting with the bar set at the lowest possible level (e.g. what they think might pass the House) all in the vain hopes that this time the GOP will suddenly start playing along for America, you’re actually only working to guarantee an outcome that favors the GOP in every way, politically, economically, and (most importantly for Obama) in 2012.
Once again: This is why they fail.

At least the tile is cool

And so it’s (finally) come to this. Democratic Senators and various other denizens of Washington DC have recalled that, hey, that Constitution of ours specifically has something to say about the national debt:

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law […] shall not be questioned

Though a post-Civil War shim, it seems pretty applicable to this non-Constitutional-scholar. As the linked article states:

This is an issue that’s been raised in some private debate between senators as to whether in fact we can default, or whether that provision of the Constitution can be held up as preventing default,“ Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), an attorney, told The Huffington Post Tuesday. "I don’t think, as of a couple weeks ago, when this was first raised, it was seen as a pressing option. But I’ll tell you that it’s going to get a pretty strong second look as a way of saying, ‘Is there some way to save us from ourselves?’”

By declaring the debt ceiling unconstitutional, the White House could continue to meet its financial obligations, leaving Tea Party-backed Republicans in the difficult position of arguing against the plain wording of the Constitution. Bipartisan negotiators are debating the size of the cuts, now in the trillions, that will come along with raising the debt ceiling.

Is it really left to me to fill in how this path ends? I think the debt ceiling is as stupid as the next guy, and the hostage-taking debate over “whether or not” we raise it: even dumber and, frankly, dangerous to the economy. Obviously we are going to raise it. Every plan, from Ryan on down includes raising it. There is literally no other way forward regardless of your non-zero target for future federal budgets. The GOP and their media enablers act like this isn’t so, but it is. Sorry if I was the first one to let you in on that.
But: if you just blow through the entirely arbitrary ceiling and continue on as if nothing happened, mayhem will ensue. You’ll have to fight it out in court, where party-line rulings will be the norm, much as is happening with the far less divisive ACA or the Wisconsin brouhaha (and that’s saying something; WI included a Supreme Court Chambers strangling). The media, never one for issues with much complexity greater than, say, “Sam and Dianne: will they or won’t they?”, will simply report the horse race (that’s six rulings for a debt ceiling, seven against! Reactions at the top of the hour! But first, somebody’s cooch was briefly visible!!!). Ultimately, after a few years of this living hell for anyone that ever comes into contact with so much as a single federal dollar, the issue reaches the Supreme Court…and, well, then it basically comes down to who’s out sick that day and the particular details of Scalia’s ever-tortured logic. And he’s never out sick.
The Congress, meanwhile, will be irrevocably embroiled in endless impeachment proceedings or attendant “investigations” and simply gridlocked when not. You think anyone in the GOP is going to vote to release one cent after the debt ceiling hobby horse is simply taken away forever? Unless 2012 suddenly delivers Democratic super-majorities in both chambers, you’re shit out of luck. Then, substantive control of the government and its many critical functions basically boils down to Obama, individual departments, or the military essentially seizing control from and simply ignoring a Congress and broader government that has demonstrably ceased to operate and is endangering both itself and the lives of its citizens. I’m sure the markets will take this development with all the sober assessment that any Master of the Universe could muster. This outcome would please the Tumblr anarchy division, but few others. Frankly I’m just not quite ready to live out my remaining years trading pelts down by the nearest navigable river.

Government in this country, in any democracy, is ultimately about mutual consent. The minority has to consent to being governed by the majority. That is the only way that elections mean things, and because there are fewer of Major Party X as a result of said election(s), the minority party gets to contribute to but not control the legislative agenda and its terms. Since Obama’s election, an electoral landslide and the first non-plurality win in ~20 years, we’ve been operating without the consent of the GOP. It’s as though he stole the thing. Yes, the GOP has occasionally given consent, in fits and starts, when forced to (most often this came as a result of simply being overidden by then-large Democratic majorities). They’ve grudgingly agreed to a few votes that had to happen, but nothing else. By and large, though, the GOP has been allowed to operate in pure obstructionist fashion with no reprisal. Generally speaking, if you don’t take part in the act of governing in Congress, your ideas simply aren’t included. That simply hasn’t happened here. They’ve obstructed in numerous ostentatious ways and but also always gotten what they were demanding in the end even though they withdrew from the “governing majority” at some point in the process each time. It’s what Duncan Black refers to as the “Lucy and the football” system: extract compromises and painful alterations on the given bit of legislation, withdraw support, blame Democrat for problems caused by compromises and painful alterations. If possible: actually reverse position on issue such that you now oppose the very thing you demanded in the kabuki “serious adults talking” phase of the legislative sausage making.

Sooner or later, that’s the problem we have to fix. The majority, be it Democratic, Republican, Tea Klan, Quantum Presbyterian, or whatever has to be able to govern. Period. Uniform obstruction of all the business of government is unsustainable. It’s frankly incredible that we’ve stumbled along for this amount of time already. Only the public can force the change, though, whether through elections or sheer popular pressure (e.g. standing on the steps of the Capitol with pitchforks and torches). With a MSM showing no interest in educating the public as to the stakes, the debate, or even the vaguest terms of the issues at hand, it may just take the Social Security and military pay checks (and everything else) not showing up one morning to make the needed awakening happen. And the sooner we go through a convulsive spasm to clear the systemic poisons that currently have us writhing on the bathroom floor of democracy, the better off we’ll be.

At least the tile is cool

…these are the basic points liberals should be arguing:

• These vouchers would be grossly inadequate.
• For that reason, most seniors wouldn’t be able to afford adequate coverage.
• Medicare as it exists today is indeed sustainable.

If you find yourself arguing about something else, you may already have lost.

Bob Somerby, speaking the truth. Keep it simple and to the point. Pizza, the Marine Corps, and their relative similarities or interchange rates need not enter into it and our arguments tend to be weakened or just diffused by the presence of these things.
The Democrats have a uniquely potent message to offer here, one that polls almost uniformly in their favor; as a result, constantly going off to fight ultimately pointless side-battles is precisely what the GOP would love to have happen. It muddies an otherwise crystal clear dichotomy. The GOP wants to end Medicare as we know it. The Democrats do not. This is because Medicare, even as currently figured, is sustainable. Long term fixes and cost (and rate of cost-growth) containment through mechanisms installed in the ACA? Of course. Wholesale gutting that leaves only the name in place: not necessary. Period.

Never. Is never good enough for you?

Nancy Pelosi on when the Democratic plan to destroy Social Security would be introduced. This is the sort of Democrat we need a whole lot more of.
And, as Atrios notes, the Bush administration hadn’t yet even offered their plan and wouldn’t, really, until after the whole thing was effectively dead. They were, in fact, counting on that Defeatocratic impulse to get out there and co-own a truly terrible idea just because the Serious People wanted them to. For once, they didn’t do it. That’s true leadership.

If the deficit was actually something anybody cared about, they’d be interested in raising revenue. You don’t have to raise tax rates to raise revenue, you just have to increase the number of goddamn jobs.

Duncan Black aka Eschaton, on jobs, revenue, and the deficit.
As Gwen Ifill was being all serious person last night talking to and asking the tough questions of Jack Lew on why he won’t just admit that Social Security must be eliminated, preferably today if we as a nation are to survive, I found myself jumping up and down screaming “revenue, revenue, revenue.” It was a special Valentine’s Day moment for the wife. But: revenue. It’s a word that never, ever comes up in the MSM. Instead, they have laserlike focus on the elimination of Social Security, the one entitlement that is perfectly fine for 40+ years, and then only moderately not fine after that. But they aren’t likely to depend on it, so it has to go. Medicare? Well, not so much. They see a real benefit for themselves in that one.
This is why Our Republic is coming apart at the seams.

“Fiscally responsible” is code for cutting taxes on rich people and gutting Social Security. Those are their goals, and that’s always been the case.

Duncan Black, simplifying it for you.
I’d only add that these same forces, and (of course) their media enablers, repeatedly include Social Security despite the fact that SS has its own funding source, is not in any imminent danger, and does not contribute to the deficit at all, nor will it for at least 45 years, even if we do nothing. But, by all means, it MUST BE DESTROYED by the end of the week or we all die. It’s the only possible conclusion for any serious person.

What Anti-Foreclosure Deadbeats?

Today’s edition of What Atrios Said:

If Citi doesn’t own the mortgage then the woman doesn’t owe them any money. If Citi doesn’t own the mortgage then it isn’t the case that “perhaps” they shouldn’t foreclose on her, it’s the case that they have no legal right to foreclosure. Citi can’t just take possesion of a house, or decide someone owes them money, just because they say so.

And, yes, maybe one day Fannie will get around to a foreclosure process, but Citi cannot just assert control of the mortgage and the property on their say so.

[…] the [conventional wisdom] just seems to be “well, she deserves to lose her house so it doesn’t really matter who takes it from her.”

That this whole thing is so utterly small-c conservative just makes it all the more deadly to the GOP and their Tea Klan enablers. I mean it’s fundamental property rights, and a partial reason for the founding of the nation in the first place. It’s a political hydrogen bomb to use against the anti-modification crowd, which, not coincidentally is made up of the GOP establishment (but would be an issue that quite conveniently rends them from the arms of their anti-bank Tea Klanners) and the Blue Dogs that Rahm, back in his DCCC years, so lovingly forced down our throats without ever bothering to ensure they’d, you know, vote with leadership on key initiatives.
This is why you will never hear a Democratic candidate utter so much as a peep about it. It’s just too goddamned explosive. Wouldn’t want to get all shrill in a way that would make a few Blue Dogs uncomfortable, now would we? Once the GOP wins every available seat in the House and Senate, I’m sure they’ll be ready to work with the President on serious policy initiatives. And we certainly don’t want to irritate them prior to that coming to pass. Right?

What Anti-Foreclosure Deadbeats?

I think it’s ok if gays can get married, I just wish they’d call it something else.

Random NPR man on the street which Atrios refers to as “Great Moments In Random Dumbassery”.
Dumbassery it may well be, but it’s critical for progressive hopes going forward that this phenomenon is understood and planned for. To the vast, vast majority of Americans, marriage as a concept is inextricable from Lord Jesus and their church. Thus, these same people hear “gay marriage” and immediately think Big Government is going to force their church to change its liturgy to include Teh Gay or else seize assets put the whole lot of them into jail.
This is precisely why Democrats should today and forever more be talking about getting the government out of ALL marriage. Eliminate all marriage-based tax benefits and redefine survivor’s and spousal rights to extend to anyone whom you choose to confer them upon. The words “basic human rights” should always be in the sentence, and, quite frankly, such broad and fundamental reforms would be a real boon to both gay and straight couples. This, of course, is why it will never happen. Optimism!

[Journalists] could have made the point that they were important because they were skilled at compiling and communicating what might interest people, or they could cling to their AUTHORITAH and claim they were important gatekeepers, deciding what the rabble should know. They chose the latter, and now they wonder why we don’t applaud.

Duncan Black