Robert Reich was on with Lawrence O’Donnell, and I think he has seriously lost his mind. Smiling like a jackass eating thistles, he said that he thinks Democrats are in a “very strong negotiating position” because they can merely threaten to let the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of 2012.
There are two problems with that. O’Donnell pointed out one of them, namely that it would cause the bottom tax rate to increase from 10% to 15%, a 50% tax increase on people with the lowest incomes, while the top rate went from 33% to 39% meaning a tax increase of only 18% for the rich. The idiotic smile on Reich’s face never wavered and the consequences of O’Donnell’s comment appear to have gone over his head.
The other problem is, of course, that if Democrats try to do that the 2012 budget will never pass at all, and if you think avoiding this shutdown was difficult just wait until you the battle that would erupt over that little move.
Reich than babbled on about how Democrats “are in a strong position to introduce,” and listed off several progressive tax policies, a couple of which Obama mentioned in his speech. Many of them are things that I would indeed like to see implemented, but anyone that thinks that they are going to happen is deranged. How Reich thinks that Democrats are “in a very strong position to introduce” them is beyond me, given that Republicans control the house of Congress which is charged with initiating all revenue bills. O’Donnell never challenged his premise or asked why he thought the position of the Democrats was so strong.
This is the same guy who suggested that Obama should start a (then) third foreign war, in this case with England, by placing BP into receivership by executive order until the Gulf of Mexico was cleaned up.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Thursday, April 14, 2011
The President's Speech
The loyal left is swooning over the President’s speech because he has, overnight, turned into a fighter for noble values and is giving “feisty” speeches and declaring that things “will not happen” while he is President. I’m rather wondering why, if the speech was so feisty, did Joe Biden sleep through so much of it.
I will remind people that he does this on a regular basis. He remains “above the fray” while Congress gets its hands dirty, emerges to provide one lofty speech filled with noble principles and no actual details, and then hands the ball back to Congress and lets them finish generating legislation filled with garbage. He did it on the “health care reform” debate, and look how that turned out. That mess doesn’t take effect until well after his reelection and we have no idea whether or not it will actually work.
I admit I was quite stirred by the defense of Medicare, and we do need to be reminded of these values. It should be noted, though, that while he says that we all share them as Americans, that is not actually true. Democrats share them to the extent that they don’t cost too much, Independents share them to the extent that they can get someone else to pay for them, and Republicans don’t share them at all.
I winced a little when he said that Medicare should be defended because, “There’s nothing courageous about asking for sacrifice from those who can least afford it and don’t have any clout on Capitol Hill.” He’s a little out of touch, I think, because I don’t believe there is a single voting block that has more clout than today’s seniors.
His denunciation of Republicans for creating the mess we’re in would have been more stirring if we had not been hearing it endlessly for two years and if he had not spent the past two years rabidly cutting taxes and boasting about how often he has cut taxes and how many he has cut taxes for.
What? Republican tax cuts deepen the deficit and his tax cuts don’t?
I was rather appalled yesterday by the leak that he was going to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion in 12 years, a whopping 17% off current levels, but it’s even worse than that. One trillion of it is even more phony than the “we’re going to reduce the increase and call that a cut” ploy. It consists of saving by means of reducing the projected interest on the projected debt because we will not have borrowed as much. Even the Republicans don’t have the brass to try that one on us.
He’s going to cut $400 billion from “national security” over the next ten years, or about $40 billion per year. Since we spend about $1 trillion per year in that category, that’s a fraction of 1% in cuts, 0.04% to be precise. Just call him “chainsaw” for short.
And Obama is going to illustrate how much we “all share these values as Americans” by raising taxes on the rich and, further, by eliminating tax deductions for the rich to pay for them. He is going to demonstrate how firmly united we are and assure that we all pull together to solve our common problem by igniting class warfare. He is going to illustrate how independent and self reliant we are by embracing our willingness to extract money from “the other guy.” We have tapped out the American Indians, so now we need to start pillaging the wealthy in their gated communities.
I will remind people that he does this on a regular basis. He remains “above the fray” while Congress gets its hands dirty, emerges to provide one lofty speech filled with noble principles and no actual details, and then hands the ball back to Congress and lets them finish generating legislation filled with garbage. He did it on the “health care reform” debate, and look how that turned out. That mess doesn’t take effect until well after his reelection and we have no idea whether or not it will actually work.
I admit I was quite stirred by the defense of Medicare, and we do need to be reminded of these values. It should be noted, though, that while he says that we all share them as Americans, that is not actually true. Democrats share them to the extent that they don’t cost too much, Independents share them to the extent that they can get someone else to pay for them, and Republicans don’t share them at all.
I winced a little when he said that Medicare should be defended because, “There’s nothing courageous about asking for sacrifice from those who can least afford it and don’t have any clout on Capitol Hill.” He’s a little out of touch, I think, because I don’t believe there is a single voting block that has more clout than today’s seniors.
His denunciation of Republicans for creating the mess we’re in would have been more stirring if we had not been hearing it endlessly for two years and if he had not spent the past two years rabidly cutting taxes and boasting about how often he has cut taxes and how many he has cut taxes for.
What? Republican tax cuts deepen the deficit and his tax cuts don’t?
I was rather appalled yesterday by the leak that he was going to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion in 12 years, a whopping 17% off current levels, but it’s even worse than that. One trillion of it is even more phony than the “we’re going to reduce the increase and call that a cut” ploy. It consists of saving by means of reducing the projected interest on the projected debt because we will not have borrowed as much. Even the Republicans don’t have the brass to try that one on us.
He’s going to cut $400 billion from “national security” over the next ten years, or about $40 billion per year. Since we spend about $1 trillion per year in that category, that’s a fraction of 1% in cuts, 0.04% to be precise. Just call him “chainsaw” for short.
And Obama is going to illustrate how much we “all share these values as Americans” by raising taxes on the rich and, further, by eliminating tax deductions for the rich to pay for them. He is going to demonstrate how firmly united we are and assure that we all pull together to solve our common problem by igniting class warfare. He is going to illustrate how independent and self reliant we are by embracing our willingness to extract money from “the other guy.” We have tapped out the American Indians, so now we need to start pillaging the wealthy in their gated communities.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
What The President Says
I was talking with a friend of mine today and asked him if he was going to listen to the President's speech this evening. He mumbled something that was neither yes or no, but was clearly unenthusiastic.
I said, "Well, the budget matters to you doesn't it?"
He replied, "Yeah, but what the President says about it doesn't."
It was an hour before I was able to stop laughing sufficiently to write this.
Update: His plan is revealed, cutting $4 trillion over 12 years.
Now we know why my friend feels that what he says doesn't matter. Our current deficit is $1.88 trillion and he's going to reduce that by $4 trillion over the next 12 years. So $1.88 x 12 = $22.56 trillion at the present rate, and $4 trillion amounts to, mumble, mumble, wow, 17.7% reduction of the current deficit. He really knocked himself out.
I said, "Well, the budget matters to you doesn't it?"
He replied, "Yeah, but what the President says about it doesn't."
It was an hour before I was able to stop laughing sufficiently to write this.
Update: His plan is revealed, cutting $4 trillion over 12 years.
Now we know why my friend feels that what he says doesn't matter. Our current deficit is $1.88 trillion and he's going to reduce that by $4 trillion over the next 12 years. So $1.88 x 12 = $22.56 trillion at the present rate, and $4 trillion amounts to, mumble, mumble, wow, 17.7% reduction of the current deficit. He really knocked himself out.
No Third Choice
Paul Krugman recently asked, “Who is this bland, timid guy who doesn’t seem to stand for anything in particular?” in a NY Times op-ed piece. Glenn Greenwald has a massive takedown on Obama, and Democrats generally, in Salon today. A sample,
I don’t think that I’m quite with Glenn in terms of Obama’s motives, but the lack of leadership is certainly baffling. He allowed a Democratic Congress to neither raise the debt limit or pass a budget last year when they had a majority. He remained essentially silent in the “health care reform” and stepped in to kill the public option. He remained silent in the tax discussion at the end of last year and stepped in to extend the Bush tax cuts in toto for a full two years. He stayed silent in the latest budget debate and stepped out afterward to actually boast about the “largest spending cut in history.”
And, amazingly, a full two thirds of his Democratic supporters are happy with his agreement to that “largest spending cut in history.” Again from Glenn Greenwald,
I think that in part that phenomenon is the result of Obama and the Democratic leadership having had so much success at creating such a high level of fear within the Democratic loyalists, fear of the Republican Party. They have painted the Republicans as so extreme and frightening, not without help from the Republicans of course, that Democrats will remain loyal to them no matter what they do, and in order to do that they must decide that they approve of steps taken by the Democrats they are supporting.
It points out the weakness of the two party system. One party has always been unacceptable, and the party you have been supporting is not implementing what you elected them to do. Where do you go from there?
When does he offer stirring, impassioned defenses of the Democrats' vision on anything, or attempt to transform (rather than dutifully follow) how Americans think about anything? It's not that he lacks the ability to do that. Americans responded to him as an inspirational figure and his skills of oratory are as effective as any politician in our lifetime. It's that he evinces no interest in it. He doesn't try because those aren't his goals. It's not that he or the office of the Presidency are powerless to engender other outcomes; it's that he doesn't use the power he has to achieve them because, quite obviously, achieving them is not his priority or even desire.
I don’t think that I’m quite with Glenn in terms of Obama’s motives, but the lack of leadership is certainly baffling. He allowed a Democratic Congress to neither raise the debt limit or pass a budget last year when they had a majority. He remained essentially silent in the “health care reform” and stepped in to kill the public option. He remained silent in the tax discussion at the end of last year and stepped in to extend the Bush tax cuts in toto for a full two years. He stayed silent in the latest budget debate and stepped out afterward to actually boast about the “largest spending cut in history.”
And, amazingly, a full two thirds of his Democratic supporters are happy with his agreement to that “largest spending cut in history.” Again from Glenn Greenwald,
In other words, once Obama lends his support to a policy -- no matter how much of a departure it is from ostensible Democratic beliefs -- then most self-identified Democrats will support it because Obama supports it, because it then becomes the "Democratic policy," by definition.
I think that in part that phenomenon is the result of Obama and the Democratic leadership having had so much success at creating such a high level of fear within the Democratic loyalists, fear of the Republican Party. They have painted the Republicans as so extreme and frightening, not without help from the Republicans of course, that Democrats will remain loyal to them no matter what they do, and in order to do that they must decide that they approve of steps taken by the Democrats they are supporting.
It points out the weakness of the two party system. One party has always been unacceptable, and the party you have been supporting is not implementing what you elected them to do. Where do you go from there?
Last Word Lost
I know Lawrence O'Donnell needs some time off once in a while, but...
Chris Hayes? Really? They couldn't get Howdy Doody?
Chris Hayes? Really? They couldn't get Howdy Doody?
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Speaking From Ignorance
Juan Cole, at Informed Comment, seems to be losing his rationality along with his impartiality. His cheerleading for the Libyan rebels now includes a seeming agreement with their rejection of a cease fire based on the fact that Qaddafi is still firing on them, saying that “If Qaddafi wanted to implement a cease-fire he could do it at any time; he hasn’t ceased fire.”
That isn’t how cease fire agreements work, and Professor Cole should surely know that. Neither side stops fighting until an agreement is reached, at which both sides stop fighting at the same time. It would be folly for one side to stop fighting before the terms of the truce have been agreed upon. The rejection of the cease fire is not a reflection of the intelligence of the rebels, since accepting it would give them time that they need to regroup, and it rather provides us with a reason to stop supporting them if our mission actually is limited to preventing loss of civilian lives.
He also says, “It’s official. The Fukushima nuclear core failure is now more like what happened in Chernobyl than what happened at Three Mile Island.” He should stick to reporting Middle East affairs, as he clearly has no understanding of the meaning of the nuclear accident rating scale. His statement is nonsense.
The Chernobyl failure was a major explosion within the reactor vessel which blew the reactor contents miles into the air and caused the immediate and widespread dispersal of tons of radioactive material. The Fukushima reactors are all still physically intact, or at least essentially so, and are still releasing radioactivity at a tiny fraction of the magnitude of that released by Chernobyl. The incident is being increased in scale only due to the length of time that it has been and is continuing to be releasing radiation.
The Fukushima nuclear reactor failure is certainly very serious, and increasingly so as it continues to remain uncontrolled, but it is nothing even remotely like Chernobyl in that there has been no reactor explosion, and is very much like what Three Mile Island would have been had it not been promptly controlled.
That isn’t how cease fire agreements work, and Professor Cole should surely know that. Neither side stops fighting until an agreement is reached, at which both sides stop fighting at the same time. It would be folly for one side to stop fighting before the terms of the truce have been agreed upon. The rejection of the cease fire is not a reflection of the intelligence of the rebels, since accepting it would give them time that they need to regroup, and it rather provides us with a reason to stop supporting them if our mission actually is limited to preventing loss of civilian lives.
He also says, “It’s official. The Fukushima nuclear core failure is now more like what happened in Chernobyl than what happened at Three Mile Island.” He should stick to reporting Middle East affairs, as he clearly has no understanding of the meaning of the nuclear accident rating scale. His statement is nonsense.
The Chernobyl failure was a major explosion within the reactor vessel which blew the reactor contents miles into the air and caused the immediate and widespread dispersal of tons of radioactive material. The Fukushima reactors are all still physically intact, or at least essentially so, and are still releasing radioactivity at a tiny fraction of the magnitude of that released by Chernobyl. The incident is being increased in scale only due to the length of time that it has been and is continuing to be releasing radiation.
The Fukushima nuclear reactor failure is certainly very serious, and increasingly so as it continues to remain uncontrolled, but it is nothing even remotely like Chernobyl in that there has been no reactor explosion, and is very much like what Three Mile Island would have been had it not been promptly controlled.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Oh, That's News?
Headline from Reuters, "Doctors don't always take their own advice."
My father was a physician and, let me tell you, that headline comes as no surprise to me. It will generally evoke raised eyebrows and "Oh, really?" from pretty much every family member of every doctor who ever lived.
It goes on the say that, "The doctors don't even know they are behaving this way." And to that we would say, "Duh."
My father was a physician and, let me tell you, that headline comes as no surprise to me. It will generally evoke raised eyebrows and "Oh, really?" from pretty much every family member of every doctor who ever lived.
It goes on the say that, "The doctors don't even know they are behaving this way." And to that we would say, "Duh."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)