cynicism in politics is a deadly thing

         Don’t know what it’s like wherever you’re reading this, but in this neck of the woods we’ve been bombarded by Republican political ads that all seem to start with a very grave male voice saying “Pelosi and (fill in the Democratic candidate)’s FAILED Stimulus program . . .”  In fact, I’ve about decided that in Republican lexicon, the word stimulus cannot be written or spoken without appending the word failed to the front of it.

            There’s nothing wrong with beginning an argument with a value judgement  if that judgment is incontrovertibly true: “Raw sewage is noxious,” for example, is a value judgment that probably doesn’t require proving.

            To refer to the stimulus package as failed, as though that were a given, isn’t quite in the same category.  If you see it as a program that did not keep unemployment at the 8% level Obama said it would, then it’s a failure.  If you see it as a program that prevented unemployment from exceeding 12% (or as much as 15% by some estimates), then it’s a success.

            If you look at it as a program that has not boosted GDP to the 3.5% to 4% per annum that most economists regard as the minimum needed for a truly healthy economy, it’s a failure.  If you see it as a program that prevented GDP from slipping into negative numbers, then it’s a success.

           

            The Republicans of course trumpet the “failure” view as loudly as possible, because it fuels their argument that the Democrats have had their chance to solve the problem and failed; ergo, we should return to power the Republican party—even though it’s the party that spent and deregulated us into this mess in the first place.  Certainly can’t fault that logic!

            Here is where the cynicism comes in: the stimulus package that Obama got is the stimulus package the Republicans allowed. Let’s assume for a moment that the Republican men and women in Congress aren’t stupid. (Some of them clearly are, but that’s true of Democrats as well)  When the stimulus bill was being debated, almost every reputable economist was saying—very loudly in some cases—that to truly stimulate the economy was going to require a massive infusion of capital on the front end, but that the result on the back end would be economic growth that would negate the size of the stimulus.  The figure economists advanced was roughly twice the size of what was actually passed.  Had that original package, or something similar to it, been enacted, economists say unemployment today would at 8% or lower and GDP would be increasing at 3% to 3.5% per year.

            This is a bit of an oversimplification, but if you look at the debates that went on over the stimulus program, they consisted of the Republicans repeating the word NO until the package finally got small enough that two Republican senators agreed to vote for it. When the Republicans continually insisted on a program roughly half the size economists said was needed—again, assuming they weren’t stupid—they had to know that they were insisting on a bill that would at best half do the job.  They knew that, but they insisted on it anyway.

            Fast forward a few months to the start of election season and the Republicans begin nearly every ad with a reference to the “failed stimulus bill,” a bill they themselves had engineered to do just enough to keep the economy from imploding, but not enough to actually stimulate it.  That pretty clearly suggests that the Republican mantra is, “damn the country, give me an attack ad issue I can use to get elected.”  And that, to me, is political cynicism in its ugliest form.

Points to Ponder

           Little squeezed for time today, so make do with some random points to ponder.

            Starting with Jimmy Carter in 1976, there have been six completed presidencies—his, Ronald Reagan’s, Bush the Elder’s, Clinton’s and Bush the Idiot’s.  The two Democrats remained very active on the world stage, in mostly non-political and non-partisan ways.  Carter has literally traveled the world advocating for human rights and of course devoted countless hours to Habitat for Humanity.  Clinton established his foundation that has made possible remarkable improvements in health care for third world countries.  The Republicans? Well, they all retired to their ranch/estate and have scarcely been heard from for anything other than appearances at Republican fund raisers.  Oh, and Bush the Elder occasionally straps himself to the back of a sky diver and jumps out of an airplane.  If the skydiver he straps himself to is a member of the middle class, the symbolism is deliciously apropos. 

            What does this dichotomy mean?  I have no idea, but it’s a point to ponder.

            Is it perhaps time for the FCC or the FTC to order Fox News to remove the second word from its name or be indicted for deceptive advertising?  Could maybe persuade me that Shepard Smith at least honors the letter of “fair and balanced” if not always the spirit, but the rest of the Fox lineup?  Let’s see, there’s Sarah and Newt, one of whom may end up the Republican nominee for president; then we have the Sunday morning lineup—Chris Wallace, Brit Hume and William Kristol, none of whom ever saw a liberal idea they couldn’t distort into something insidious; and finally we have the gold-plated wingnut contingent—O’Reilly, Hannity, Malkin and of course Glen Beck, who surely holds the Guiness record for most bald-faced lies told on national television.  And the liberal balance to keep things fair is . . . Juan Williams? 

            Perhaps Fox Propaganda would be a more appropriate name for the network.  Point to ponder.

            Is it possible that more long established judicial precedents have been ignored or outright overthrown by this Supreme Court than by any other?  On the possibility that Christine O’Donnell reads this blog, I’m not going to list all the individual cases (she should do her own homework), but particularly in the 20 months since Obama took office, the Roberts Court has swung hard—and very consistently—to the right, and engaged in some very strained legal reasoning to justify its decisions. (See the majority opinion for Citizens vs. United--OK Christine, there's one for you) Any Republican will tell you, “We hate judicial activists!” (unless of course they’re OUR judicial activists).  Point to ponder.

why dems are discouraged

         When Barack Obama became president, I hadn’t set a firm date for retirement, but knew it would come before he finished a second term, perhaps even a first.  I thought then that one thing I could look forward to in retirement was having the time and the resources to actively promote Obama’s agenda.  I did in fact retire 6 months ago, but have engaged in no such promotion largely because, sadly, I can’t find an agenda to promote.

            To be fair, the President has claimed three pieces of legislation—the stimulus bill, health care reform and financial reform—that it’s tempting to call “major,” but while each of them accomplishes something, in their final forms each of them contains so many compromises and cave-ins that it’s hard not to focus more on what they don’t accomplish than what they do.

           

            The stimulus bill unquestionably staved off a major depression, but by opting for the smallest possible dollar figure instead of the much higher figure most reputable economists said was necessary, Obama gave us a bill that didn’t so much stimulate the economy as keep it from flatlining.

                       

            The health care bill unquestionably reins in the most rapacious practices of the insurance industry, but Obama opted not to demand the one thing that would have truly transformed our health care system—a public option.

            The financial reform bill unquestionably provides greater oversight of the financial sector and more protection for consumers.  But again Obama punted on the two things true financial reform had to include: fully restoring the Glass-Steagall act that required banks to be banks and not full-spectrum investment companies, and putting regulations in place to end the Wall Street compensation system that rewards traders for high-risk short term gains while insulating them from long-term losses.

            In each of these cases, the President’s defense is that something is better than nothing, and there is a clear logic to that defense.  What discourages me—and many other liberals—is that the President never demanded more than the something he got.  Congress was never asked to approve a larger stimulus package, the Senate was never required to vote on a public option, and neither chamber of congress was confronted with either of the clearly necessary financial reforms.

            The President, and most Democrats, have characterized the Republicans as the party of No, but on each of these big pieces of legislation, they didn’t actually have to be that.  All they had to be was the party of Might Say No.

            It’s entirely possible, likely even, that if a vote on, for example, the public option had come up in the Senate, Republicans would unanimously have voted no.  They would probably been joined in that no by a few Democrats.  But it’s not as though voting on a bill that included the public option would have precluded voting later on one that didn’t have it.  And it’s entirely likely that  the Democrat and Independent voters who combined to elect Obama would be significantly more energized and enthusiastic now if they saw leadership from the President and from Harry Reid that was genuinely seeking the kind of change the Obama campaign seemed to promise.

            It is absolutely true that politics is the art of the possible, and it may very well be that what ultimately comprised these three big bills is all that was possible at this point in time.  What’s discouraging is that we’ll never know if that’s true because the President never demanded anything more.

think before you scream

      Recent letters to the editor in my local newspaper make one thing clear about wingnuts: they are impassioned about their beliefs, even when there are neither facts nor logic to support them.

      Last week, a writer passionately bemoaned Clinton’s presence in Oxford to support Travis Childers.  Why?  The man had sex with an “impressionable” Monica Lewinsky and was impeached!  While how "impressionable" Lewinsky was probably depends on how loosely you define that term, it’s true Clinton had sex with her.  It’s also true that 20 million new jobs were created during his administration, that he not only balanced the federal budget but created a multi-billion dollar surplus, and that his administration paid down the national debt by something like 6 billion dollars.  Which of those truths is more relevant to his offering political support to a current candidate? 

            As for impeachment—the articles of impeachment were brought by a Republican controlled House led by Newt Gingrich (who would actually be forced to resign before the vote because of sexual improprieties of his own).  The House conducted no investigation of its own, but relied entirely on “The Starr Report,”  which was so riddled with half-truth and misrepresentation that it stands today as an example of how not to conduct an investigation.  So blatantly partisan and politicized were the articles of impeachment brought by the House  that neither of them received even a simple majority in the Senate, even though it was also firmly controlled by Republicans.

           More recently, we have a screeching screed from another right winger that urges the “decimation” of the Democratic party for four reasons:  1) “National Health Care that will ultimately be rationed.”   2) “Jobs that have not been created” due to fear of increased taxes and health care costs.  3) “Cap and Trade” program that will ultimately cause electricity bills to increase.  4) Unions.  These are all well-worn wingnut positions, so let’s look at them.

            “National Health Care that will ultimately be rationed.”  Capital letters normally indicate an extant program, but the only national health care program I’m aware of is Medicare.  That’s been around a while and hasn’t led to any rationing.  The new health reform program passed under Obama requires purchase of insurance from private insurance companies.  Should rationing occur, it would be because for-profit insurers required it.

In that regard, it’s probably worth noting that, prior to passage of Obama’s health care plan, insurance companies were engaging in their own form of rationing by rejecting coverage due to pre-existing conditions, cancelling coverage the minute an actual claim was filed, and removing children from their parents’ policy the minute they finished school.  Given the Republican penchant for deregulation, it’s logical to think those provisions would be among the first to go if  a Republican congress is put in place.

            “Jobs that have not been created” due to fear of taxes and health care costs. Every non-partisan economic study indicates that businesses aren’t hiring because they are making enormous profits (due to productivity) at current levels.  These studies point to the trillions of dollars in cash reserves businesses are sitting on as evidence.

            “Cap and Trade” will cause electricity bills to increase.  A cap and trade program has been in place since 1990—the Acid Rain Project.  It has reduced sulfur dioxide emissions from utilities by over 50% and had no impact on prices.  The cap and trade bill recently passed by the House is modeled exactly after the Acid Rain Project.

            Wingnuts routinely reject the whole notion of global warming and become nearly apoplectic when human culpability for that is pointed out, but the science from everywhere except conservative think tanks is clear that global warming is happening and that burning fossil fuels is contributing to the rapidity with which it is happening.  Cap and trade programs are not the best answer to the problem; a straight up tax on carbon dioxide emissions is the best answer.  Unfortunately, there’s no political will in either party for the best solution.  More unfortunately, the party of No has so far managed to block even the compromise Cap and Trade represents from passing the Senate.

            “Unions.”  Union membership is currently at an historic low and union influence on politics is even lower.  The two examples of miscreant unions this writer offers are the United Auto Workers, which he worries will soon control both the auto companies and Washington, and the two teacher’s unions, the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers.  Let’s consider the threat posed by these leviathans.

In the government’s bailout of the auto companies, two things were required relative to the UAW.  First, the companies were required to drastically shrink their work force, which of course meant shrinking union membership.  Second, they were required to substantially re-work the ridiculously expensive health care plans the union had insisted on.  Both of those things were done and they significantly decreased the clout of the UAW. (I’m not saying I think that’s a good thing, but it speaks to the concern raised in the letter)

“Race to the Top” is the administration’s centerpiece education program.  It makes money available to states based on several criteria, but significant among them are that states must make creation of charter schools easier—and license more of them—and states must incorporate strong teacher evaluation standards into their programs and facilitate the process by which poor teachers can be removed.

There is no question that the teacher’s unions have been a major obstacle to improving our education system.  No administration has done more to remove that obstacle than the present one.

The greater cause for fear is the Roberts court’s recent Citizens vs. United decision that allows an unregulated and unreported flow of corporate and Chamber of Commerce money into elections.

            A little less emotion and a little more thought from the wingnuts would be nice.

conservative think tanks

A "think tank" is supposed to be a place where qualified people explore problems and issues by identifying what the facts are and allowing those facts to lead to whatever conclusion is most logical.  Conservative think tanks--I'm thinking specifically of the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the Cato Institute--for the most part turn that process on its head.

In those tanks, the usual process is to take a conclusion the right wishes to promulgate and find facts that seem to support it.  Want to deny global warming or celebrate the efficacy of "trickle-down" economics or prove the seditious nature of the labor movement?  Just ask AEI for a position paper and it will assign one of its hired gun Ph.D.'s to produce one that proves whatever you wanted it to prove--or, just as frequently--proves that the position you want to take isn't necessarily wrong.

The climate change issue provides a good example.  If you examine the papers and studies that have come out of the conservative think tanks, what you discover is that they do one of two things.  In some instances,  they cherry pick a random fact or two (e.g., the earth went through several cycles of hotter and colder weather before man even came along) and use them to produce a conclusion.  These studies focus entirely on their cherry picked facts and simply ignore the mountain of contradictory evidence that exists.

In other instances, they nibble around the edges of mainstream science not so much to discredit it as to suggest that legitimate questions can be raised about it.  For instance, even though we know that the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels has a demonstrable shelf life of many years and that carbon dioxide has the effect of trapping heat from the earth's surface and that the global mean temperature has risen over the past 20 years, it's possible (say these think tanks) that the earth is simply entering into one of its periodic warm cycles and the exponential increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not actually affecting anything.  The conclusion these studies reach is that since we can't ABSOLUTELY prove a connection between human activity and global warming, we shouldn't change anything about that activity.  That, of course, is a little like saying when I see a fist heading forcefully toward my face, since I can't know for certain it won't miss me, I shouldn't bother to duck.

All these organizations receive substantial funding from conservative scions like the Koch brothers and Coors family and were founded for the express purpose of providing intellectual (or more frequently, pseudo-intellectual) cover for conservative positions, most of which have insuring that the hegemony of the haves over the have nots continues forever.  They have a right to exist, obviously, but it would be nice if media outlets would stop referring to them as "think tanks" and identify them as what they are--propaganda mills for conservative ideology.