According to the Washington Post, the FDA is apparently planning what could become the most effective single intervention in the history of ‘Merica: Guvmint takeover of salt in processed foods. I’d say more, but this graphic pretty much sums it up beyond all capacity for words:
Eli Saslow writes a nice window into how a citizen’s letters, calls, and emails ultimately reach the President, what the response is, and how it all happens.
This graph clearly requires some lightly paraphrased Diamond Joe Quimby:
You people don’t know what you want! I am flip-flopping!
For the CSPAN caller last night claiming we were embarking on a $10T (as in trillion) spending spree. Not so, and never was. They have lied to you. Repeatedly. Systematically. You might want to make them pay a price for that come November.
In an op-ed in Tuesday’s Post, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) offered an excellent example of this hypocrisy. Right off, the piece was wrong on a core fact. Hatch accused the Democrats of trying to, yes, “ram through the Senate a multitrillion-dollar health-care bill.”
No. The health-care bill passed the Senate in December with 60 votes under the normal process. The only thing that would pass under a simple majority vote would be a series of amendments that fit comfortably under the “reconciliation” rules established to deal with money issues. Near the end of his column, Hatch conceded that reconciliation would be used for “only parts” of the bill. But why didn’t he say that in the first place?
Hatch grandly cited “America’s Founders” as wanting the Senate to be about “deliberation.” But the Founders said nothing in the Constitution about the filibuster, let alone “reconciliation.” Judging from what they put in the actual document, the Founders would be appalled at the idea that every major bill should need the votes of three-fifths of the Senate to pass.
[…]
Hatch said that reconciliation should not be used for “substantive legislation” unless the legislation has “significant bipartisan support.” But surely the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, which were passed under reconciliation and increased the deficit by $1.7 trillion during his presidency, were “substantive legislation.” The 2003 dividends tax cut could muster only 50 votes. Vice President Dick Cheney had to break the tie. Talk about “ramming through.”
Imagine a chamber in which senators were elected by different income brackets – with two senators representing the poorest 2 percent of the electorate, two senators representing the richest 2 percent and so on.
Based on Census Bureau data, five senators would represent Americans earning between $100,000 and $1 million individually per year, with a single senator working on behalf of the millionaires (technically, it would be two-tenths of a senator). Eight senators would represent Americans with no income. Sixteen would represent Americans who make less than $10,000 a year, an amount well below the federal poverty line for families. The bulk of the senators would work on behalf of the middle class, with 34 representing Americans making $30,000 to $80,000 per year.
The Washington Post notes what others have: there’s an absolute shit-ton of money sloshing around in these final days of the MA US Senate special election:
Independent and party groups were set to spend nearly $5 million on television ads in the final weeks leading up to Tuesday’s special election between state Attorney General Martha Coakley (D) and state Sen. Scott Brown ®.
[…]
there are 13 – yes, 13 – groups paying for ads in the race’s final days, with Democratic groups outspending Republican-aligned by more than $1 million.
Remarkable that the very same organizations that have a vested interest in selling these ad slots are the ones that also are the editorial gatekeepers on which polls get play. Thus, it’s far more interesting to run a poll showing it as being close than it is to show one that came out on the same day showing it not-so-close.
So which one is right? As a resident of MA, I can tell you that anyone with caller ID is simply not picking up the phone for any reason; anyone, that is, but rabid tea baggers, Scott Brown partisans, and older-skewing demographics who don’t know or don’t care who is calling. We currently get at least two or three automated polling calls A DAY. That’s before the supporter calls, the robo-calls, and the occasional shout out from the President of these United States. My totally unscientific man-on-the-ground assessment is to say this take is right in saying Brown’s numbers are getting inflated by this. Turnout is what will decide this thing, and even the polls favoring Brown tend to show that many of those very folks (presumably the independents) talking to pollsters aren’t actually sure they’ll a) vote and b) actually vote for Brown.
The media establishment would, of course, disavow that editorial and ad revenue divisions even know what floor the other one is on. But, of course, this phenomenon cuts two ways. It’s much more interesting to write stories if the race appears closer than it is. So, if two of ten polls say it’s close: then, BY GOD, it’s the closest race in the history of close races. Sell more papers, attract more viewers, sell more ads. A lot more ads. Direct collusion is, of course and as usual, utterly unnecessary.
Lemkin 