Washington, DC - Last week we witnessed the capo di tutti capi of political and policy evolution. President Barack Obama, after Vice-President Joe Biden and Education Secretary Arne Duncan played the role of his social-issue Shofar, came out in favour of the equality of marriage for all in the US, regardless of sexual orientation. To put it in simple terms: for the first time in the history of this country, the president of the United States supports gay marriage.

This is obviously a big moment. For those seeking to enter loving relationships recognised by law, nothing has changed in that realm. But culturally, when the president or other major political figures make strong statements on issues, it changes everything. To quote Republican House Leader Shelley Runyon in the film The Contender: "What I say, the American people will believe. And do you know why? Because I will have a very big microphone in front of me."

This rhetorical power is why a concomitant devolution by many in the Democratic Party, in protecting one of the two or three most important programs of the past century, the creation of social security, is so disturbing.

During the 2011 debate over the cliched "Grand Bargain", when right-wing Congressman were doing their darndest to moonwalk this country into financial default, perhaps just as frightening is what Democrats were willing to put on the table to appease the economic Morlocks. Namely, Medicare and the aforementioned social security (an issue that I work on), the latter so successful and politically powerful that it was responsible for taking millions of seniors (and children) out of poverty and helping cement an economically populist coalition within the Democratic Party that lasted a half century.

Why would Democrats be willing to touch this program, the crown jewel of progressive accomplishment, to deal with people who don't believe in compromise and have been trying to destroy the programme for decades? Likely, because too many Democrats have done their own evolving into a form of species known as Midcenturia Republicanus. Or Washington GOPers from the 1930s-1970s, who went along to get along, tried to always seem more "reasonable" than Democrats and, most importantly, remained a loveable minority in the halls of Congress.

Today, the consensus is rigged in the other direction. As Trudy Lieberman pointed out in her great piece in The Columbia Journalism Review:

"For nearly three years CJR has observed that much of the press has reported only one side of this story using 'facts' that are misleading, or flat-out wrong, while ignoring others ... news outlets have given the public a skewed picture of the financial health of this hugely important programme, which is the sole source of retirement funds for millions of Americans and will continue to be for decades to come."

When President Obama seems willing to talk about cutting social security, House Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi refuses to rule it out and Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer seems like a lion on the Serengeti eyeing a gazelle, this just sends a signal that it is OK for others to go even further - which bodes very badly for the future.

As Lieberman goes on to say, "the program can pay full benefits until 2036, and three-quarters of the benefits after that without new revenues. Many experts believe small fixes like lifting the cap on income subject to payroll taxes - $110,100 for 2012 - will make Social Security solvent for decades. But that option is not on Washington’s table, nor has it been discussed much in the press".

Why not?

Then there are ideas such as trimming the bloated, out-of-control defence budget, or allowing the US government to bulk negotiate for lower-priced prescription drugs for Medicare (like virtually every other post-industrial nation does) - or not imprisoning a larger share of our population, per capita, than Ming The Merciless.

Save billions on these wastes of funds and human potential, sprinkle some taxes on Kimye and poof. No deficit.

Yup, I hate to ruin it for any adrenaline junkies reading this, but not only is there no deficit crisis, but there are myriad ways to cure any minor ills without defenestrating social security, a programme that protects the 99 per cent of us - or one that you could say is more streetcar than car elevator. Additionally, recent elections in France and Greece reminded their elites that austerity is not only completely unnecessary and economically ahistorical, but ridiculously unpopular. Even 76 per cent of self described Tea Partiers - or people who think Christian rock is cool and lipids are a food group - don't want anyone touching their social security. Clear enough?

The United States has only two major parties, but nobody can make voters who are unenthusiastic trudge on over to their local polling place this November. Democrats need to stand up and protect social security, because it is the right thing to do, because there is simply no reason to cut it and because it shows strength politically (especially to those older voters who might not like the gay marriage decision). In other words, when it comes to social security: re-evolve already!

First, let's be clear. Republicans don't give a rat's behind about deficits or the national debt. Their hero Ronald Reagan tripled it, George W. Bush doubled it -- and Dick Cheney famously said that deficits don't matter. That Paul Ryan proposal Republicans love so much? Yep, it makes the debt worse.

All of that background makes this rather amusing indeed.

National Republicans, paired with Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, will focus their attention this week on President Barack Obama's handing of the national debt, the groups announced Monday.

The effort will include a "major policy speech" from Romney, according to Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King, who was part of a conference call announcing the effort Monday morning.

"Governor Romney will be in Des Moines tomorrow afternoon at Drake University to give a major policy speech and it'll be based on the out-of-control spending and debt," King said on the call.

First, there is no "out of control spending" -- that's a lie. Total government spending under Obama has decreased. The debt is where it is because taxes are at historic lows and revenues are even more depressed by the fact that we're still emerging from the biggest economic collapse since the Great Depression.

Second, if Willard is so worried about the debt, why does he want add trillions to it?

Romney proposed to cut federal income tax rates by 20 percent more for all earners, which would slash U.S. revenue by more than $2 trillion over 10 years.

Romney economic adviser Glenn Hubbard said the lost cash would be recovered by closing tax loopholes and boosting economic activity. But until the campaign offers a more specific plan, Budget Watch analysts said Romney’s entire framework would add about $2.6 trillion to the debt by 2021.

Proving, yet again, that Republicans don't care about debt and deficits.

You wish, just once, that a reporter would ask, "Governor, if the debt is such a problem, why do your tax proposals add trillions of dollars to it?" But that's probably asking too much.

DOWNLOADS: (138)

PLAYS: (930)

Embed

Jonah Goldberg went on Piers Morgan Monday night to promote his latest "nanny-boo-boo liberals!" book, and belched up a favorite right-wing canard.

MORGAN: I'm curious what you're thinking what (inaudible).

GOLDBERG: I would put it [the Bin Laden raid] at -- I don't know, $50 million, $40 million.

MORGAN: Wow. That's cheap in the Republican world?

GOLDBERG: That's cheap in comparison to what the cost of the war on terror is.

MORGAN: No wonder the country got into the mess it did.

GOLDBERG: I suppose that that's supposed to be a really telling point. I'm not quite sure how it is.

MORGAN: I'm just saying the Republican administration obviously led to a huge financial collapse. You wouldn't dispute that.

GOLDBERG: I would and I would also say Barack Obama has spent much, much, much, much more money than the Republicans.

MORGAN: Would you dispute that after eight years of Republican administration the country went into a huge economic collapse?

GOLDBERG: No, but that's a timeline question.

Don't you just love that last bit where Jonah shrugs off Bush/Cheney's presiding over the worst financial collapse since the Great Depression as "a timeline question"? The party of personal responsibility blaming everyone else strikes again!

But Jonah is, of course, totally, hilariously, absolutely wrong about this supposed spending binge under Obama.

First, as of 2011, Bush's policies had cost the country over $5T, compared to Obama's $1T.

You want to look at growth in government spending? Obama's lower than George W. Bush and Reagan.

What about government purchases of goods and services? Yep, they've collapsed under Obama.

Government employees? A record decline under Obama.

"Obama's record spending spree is bankrupting the nation" is yet another Big Lie right-wingers like Goldberg -- who incidentally was a cheerleader for Bush/Cheney while they were turning record surpluses into record deficits -- are telling about Obama. It's a lie Mitt Romney will tell during the campaign.

And it's a lie that the media will probably them get away with.

Towards the beginning of the cult classic "Dazed & Confused," a high school senior named Slater, inquires of baby-faced freshman Mitch, "Are you cool?" What Slater was really asking—in this ode to 1970s youth and the counterculture—was, "Do you smoke pot?"

Ahh the '70s. Back before the Reagan Revolution kicked the kooky, corrupt and thoroughly counterproductive War On Drugs into high gear. Suddenly this country lost its collective mind, suffering a lapse in judgment that vaulted well past ill-advised and beyond "they have weapons of mass destruction" to what might best be labeled "the mind of Ted Nugent."

By any measure; economically, morally, democratically, we are the worse for allowing special interests—from private prisons to the security industry—to take us down this road. It has spiritually hollowed us out, while erecting a prominent prison culture that makes The People's Republic of China seem like Woodstock.

This was made all the more evident recently when a Harvard economist, Jeffrey Miron, released a study showing this exercise in dunderheadedness is costing us $13.7 billion a year. Ernest A. Canning points to some statistics reported on Democracy Now! showing that "over the last 40 years, more than 45 million drug-related arrests have cost an estimated $1 trillion."

Hmm, I can't think of any better way we could have spent this money, can you?

But I do know some neo-conservative types who seemingly kneel down in prayer a few times a day to make supple offerings to the graven idol of The Balanced Budget. You'd think they might notice a statistic like this and do something to save money being wasted on imprisoning people who take their mind altering substances through the beer bong, as opposed to a funnel, filter, or medically-approved prescription pill bottle. Although, as Paul Ryan has found out when weighing raising taxes on ascots vs. slashing social programs, it's just so much easier and more fun to cut basic healthcare programs from kids than to honestly tackle real problems.

Sadly, things have gotten no better under President Obama than they were under his predecessors. Back when he was running for President in 2008, Obama claimed to support the “basic concept of using medical marijuana for the same purposes and with the same controls as other drugs,” He even went further, claiming he would "not be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws.”

Yet, that is exactly what he has done, using the very same Justice Department to raid over 100 marijuana dispensaries during his term. It is shameful really.

The wasted potential of those who will go to our jails instead of our colleges (although at least Rick Santorum won't shake his head in not-so-subtle disapproval of their obvious snobbery) will not only cost these individuals and their families dearly, but our society as a whole. Much like with our health care system, when we ignore or create problems in the short term, they always come back to haunt us as the Ghost of Christmas past—and not the cool one played by Buster Poindexter in Scrooged, either.

Listen, if you don't want to believe any of this, just see what Pat Robertson had to say about this issue recently (yes, I too am stunned I just wrote that). Yes, he took some time off from blaming hurricanes on abortion and "The Way We Were," to come out for marijuana legalization. Now I'm not going to say I think his every neuron is firing in what one might call a fecund direction, but on this one, politicians should listen. They should pay even more attention to the people of this country, who, by a 47 percent plurality, favor marijuana legalization.

Because if we continue with the half-baked idea of expanding this war, we will also continue to watch our financial future, our moral fiber and our civil liberties go up in smoke.

This piece was first published at Al Jazeera English

DOWNLOADS: (149)

PLAYS: (1114)

Embed

When last we heard from neo-McCarthyite and confirmed crazy person Allen West (R-FL), he was claiming that half of the Democratic caucus in the House were communists. Now, he's claiming the Muslim Brotherhood is pulling the strings at the Pentagon.

“We have to understand that when tolerance becomes a one-way street it leads to cultural suicide,” West told "Fox and Friends" on Monday. “We should not allow the Muslim Brotherhood or associated groups to be influencing our national strategy.”

When asked if he believed those groups were influencing U.S. strategy, West responded, “Oh, absolutely,” and cited the Fort Hood, Texas, shooting report that didn’t mention the suspect’s Muslim faith as a potential motive for the killings.

So far, the Muslim Brotherhood has gotten Obama to surge in Afghanistan, increase Predator strikes in the entire region, send the Special Forces into Pakistan to kill bin Laden -- and launch an air war Libya. They're very sneaky!

What a nutball.

Oh, and I love that Faux News talking head said of West, "You're a guy who's trained to follow the law," when West was kicked out of the Army for breaking it.

Rick Santorum has finally sauntered off the big stage, leaving him with plenty of time on his hands to harass high-school girls about their skirt length and bark at the moon about its nocturnal promiscuity.

You'd think it would be high times for Team Romney. But you'd be wrong.

What once seemed like it would be the GOP's race to lose, or at the very least a spirited general election contest, has seen Mitt Romney and what remained of his party's brand deconstructed and defenstrated. To put it in Yogi-Berra parlance, for the Romney Campaign,"it got late early out there."

Sure Santorum is technically gone, but he'll be with Romney for the rest of this race. Every time the former Massachusetts Governor has to answer to independent women in the Milwaukee or Philadelphia suburbs about why he'd "get rid" of Planned Parenthood," and explain to Latino families in Las Vegas and Phoenix why he'd "veto" the Dream Act, the ever-cherubic apparition of Santorum will be smiling gaily over his shoulder.

There is no doubt that some things are beyond Romney's control. The falling unemployment rate. The Dow's hitting and now hovering around 13,000. The delay in creating those 3 jobs building the car elevator thingy that takes you to the stadium-sized basement in Romney's 3rd house. These were all unexpected.

But not putting Santorum away early even while outspending him like 9:1, so that the social-issue firebrand could stick around and pull the primary so far right that Vladimir Zhirinovsky would have seemed moderate. Mitt has only himself and his severely marvelous personality to thank for that.

The end result—because of Santorum's squatting in the race as long as he did, while taking a rhetorical hatchet to Romney in much the same language as Democrats have—Romney is so unpopular right now if his dog Seamus were still around he might put Romney in the dog kennel on top of the car.

According to CNN polling, the Governor will be the only presidential candidate since 1996 to exit the primaries with a net negative approval rating. If you want the thumbnail sketch, just take a look at North Carolina.

This is a state President Obama barely won in 2008, bringing it into swing state territory for the first time in a generation of electing right-winger Jesse Helms to the Senate consistently. Changing demographics have moved the state to the Left, no doubt, but going into this election most observers would call it a lean-Republican state if they were being honest.

Yet, at this point, Obama is up 5 points, 49 percent to 44 percent. But it is the internals of this poll, which must look to Romney like they've been infected by Ebola, that tell the story of how badly Romney is doing. He only is viewed positively by 29 percent of voters in the Tarheel State, with a whopping 58 percent viewing him unfavorably.

Basically, he'd have to make a pretty steep climb just to reach the favorability level of Kanye West, or Encephalitis.

It is not over yet for Romney, as there are many unpredictable things that can happen (think terrorist attack, economic crash, or mass hypnosis of American voters). But one thing is for sure—he'd better start Etch A Sketching, stat.

This piece was first published at Al Jazeera English

enlarge

Pictured: American children enjoying Gilded Age, ca. 1900.

Professional wingnut revisionist historian Jonah Goldberg was very upset that President Obama called the GOP budget -- which pays for tax cuts for rich people by cutting services for poor people -- "Social Darwinism". In a nearly fact-free piece, which he wrote for the Weekly Standard (undoubtedly in crayon), he argues that...

...it’s worth noting that the so-called red-in-tooth-and-claw Gilded Age was a time of massive, historic economic growth. It was when America overtook Britain as the economic powerhouse of the globe. That’s one reason the left has always hated it. When Europe was boldly embracing socialism, America was proving that capitalism was better at generating wealth and lifting people out of poverty.

What a mess.

First, the Gilded Age is generally regarded as the era after the Civil War (ca. 1870s) until the Progressive Era (ca. 1900s). Which European countries were "boldly embracing socialism" before 1900?

Second, anyone who thinks the Gilded Age was an era in which the masses were "lifted people out of poverty" is pathetically, horribly misinformed.

While the rich wore diamonds, many wore rags. In 1890, 11 million of the nation's 12 million families earned less than $1200 per year; of this group, the average annual income was $380, well below the poverty line.

And here's the best part. Jonah argues that it's unfair to characterize the extreme laissez-faire economics of the Gilded Age "Social Darwinism," because that term was simply an invention of a "liberal" historian in the '40s.

Continue reading »

I wrote a book that came out in early 2009 called, “The Progressive Revolution: How The Best In America Came To Be,” that talked about the history of the American political debate. One of my fundamental arguments was that conservatives are using the same arguments against modern day progress that their ideological ancestors used against the progress we made throughout history. What I underestimated, though, is how fiercely and broadly the modern conservative movement is trying not only to block advances in progress, but to actually roll back the gains of our history. Things that had seemed long settled only a few years back when I wrote that book are now being fought over anew, and not by trivial people on the fringes of our politics but by most of the leaders in the Republican Party.

Over the last couple of years, we have seen the Supreme Court overturn 100 years of precedent in dramatically expanding corporate political power, and have seen Supreme Court Justices imply in oral arguments that Medicaid might be unconstitutional; we have seen leading Republican presidential candidates openly calling for the repeal of child labor laws, argue for letting the states ban contraception, and say that Social Security is unconstitutional and a Ponzi scheme; there was a Republican governor and presidential candidate, Rick Perry, who opened the door to his state seceding from the union; there is a Republican senator who called for a repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (although he later pulled back from that under intense pressure); and the Paul Ryan budget, passed twice by the Republican House and unreservedly endorsed by their presumptive, ends Medicare and Medicaid as we know them, and calls for a 95-percent cut in domestic spending over the next four decades.

This was the stuff of the extremist fringe -- the John Birch Society, the militia types, the neo-Confederacy fan boys in the South, the Ayn Rand apostles, the Christian Dominionists -- until fairly recently. But this group of outside-the-mainstream ghouls has become the twisted heart and soul of the 2012 Republican Party.

President Obama’s speech this week went after the extremists who control the Republican Party hard, and he nailed it. As a history buff, and someone who wrote at length about the original Social Darwinists in my book, I was glad to see him explicitly tie Ryan and Romney to their Social Darwinist ancestors:

This congressional Republican budget is something different altogether. It is a Trojan Horse. Disguised as deficit reduction plans, it is really an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country. It is thinly veiled social Darwinism. It is antithetical to our entire history as a land of opportunity and upward mobility for everybody who’s willing to work for it; a place where prosperity doesn’t trickle down from the top, but grows outward from the heart of the middle class. And by gutting the very things we need to grow an economy that’s built to last -- education and training, research and development, our infrastructure -- it is a prescription for decline.

Just to give you a flavor of the original Social Darwinists, their intellectual founder was British writer Herbert Spencer, who happily applauded the divine right of Kings and “anyone who can get uppermost”. He attacked democratic forms of government, as well as trial by jury, where “12 people of average ignorance” would dare to sit in judgment of great corporations or wealthy people. In the US, the leading Social Darwinist was a Yale professor named William Graham Sumner, who said that every society had a choice between only two alternatives: “liberty, inequality, survival of the fittest” or “un-liberty, equality, survival of the unfittest.”

Continue reading »

When The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was first introduced and debated in Congress, polling on the individual parts saw an overwhelming majority of Americans approving. Well, with Democrats in charge of our framing, we all knew that wouldn't last.

Enter Frank Luntz and the Republican Dirty Framing Machine and we got Death Panels killing grandma and it was all over but the funeral.

Democrats screwed the pooch on this because in the 30+ years Luntz has been teaching Republicans how to talk, Democrats have refused to fight back with equally compelling language that illustrates our policies using our moral frames.

This may be a battle that is so long into the siege that it can no longer be won, but I'm not going to go down without fighting for what I believe is the best way to turn this conversation around and start winning back all those people who liked what was in the bill in the first place, but have been talked out of supporting the bill by the Fright Wing Party of America.

President Obama is a brilliant man. But like anyone else on this planet, he's also capable of being led astray. I don't know who advised him to try to "own" the pejorative "Obamacare," but they were dead wrong. Dead wrong. The president's little Twitter hashtag game completely backfired when Republicans started using it to continue their disparagement of it in the nastiest terms possible. "Obamacare" is no more embraced by those who would potentially support it if they understood it than it was last summer.

And there was nothing about that hashtag that would have made it look utterly stupid for someone to be objecting to!

That's why I'm proposing that we forget "Obamacare," and that we even abandon the here-to-fore "official" name, The Affordable Care Act. That's become a joke now, too. "Affordable care — yeah, right. My premiums went up 20 percent the minute the damn thing passed!"

But how ridiculous does it sound to oppose Patient Protection? Who (in their right mind) could be against that?

So I have a challenge for each and every one of you:

Fire up your Twitter accounts and start tweeting the hashtag #PatientProtectionAct, along with something it protects. Here's a list of my tweets using it — copy them and tweet them yourselves. And post your own here, too, so the rest of us can copy and tweet them, too.

(Tweets below the fold.)

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (223)

PLAYS: (2261)

Embed

President Obama had some fun in his energy speech this morning, poking gently at Republican candidates who seem to think oil is the be-all and end-all of energy without alternatives by characterizing them as "founding members of the Flat Earth Society."

He specifically took aim at Newt Gingrich, who has repeatedly ridiculed the President for his stance on algae as an alternative fuel.

I've always thought it odd that Gingrich would call algae biofuel investments "cloud cuckoo land," but no low is too low for Newtie, I guess. Only, he might want to rethink that line of attack, given that ExxonMobil and Chevron have substantial investments and relationships in algae fuel development startups.

Oops, and as it turns out, it seems Newtie himself had an investment in "cloud cuckoo land."

You know what's coming next: Gingrich used to hold interests in a company that developed algae-based biofuels.

The Cambridge, Mass.-based startup was called GreenFuel Technologies Corp., which raised more than $70 million in venture capital funding before closing its doors in 2009. Among its largest backers was Draper Fisher Jurvetson, through a fund in which Gingrich was a limited partner.

It certainly is true that Gingrich didn't personally make the GreenFuel investment decision, but he did choose to back the DFJ management team that believed in GreenFuel. Does that mean Gingrich now believes folks like Tim Draper and Steve Jurvetson are "intellectually incoherent?" And, if so, doesn't that throw Gingrich's own judgment into doubt?

Might be time for Newtie to sail off the edge of that flat earth into the sunset.