DOWNLOADS: (122)

PLAYS: (1134)

Embed

Last Monday, something remarkable happened. PBS aired their newest Frontline segment on the first four years of Obama's presidency. In the opening segment, Frank Luntz crowed proudly about how the strategy session he organized and which took place four years ago today had proven to be a rousing success.

That strategy was, of course, the decision for Republicans to stand united against anything the President proposed. Anything, even if it was originally a Republican idea. In their mind, that was the only way they could recover from the devastating election results of 2008.

In some ways, this wasn't news. Robert Draper's book about the House of Representatives was the first "official report", but this is the very first time anyone who was actually in that meeting went on the record to talk crow about it.

With that in mind, I am struggling to understand the Villager whine and groan over how, in his second term, President Obama must "bring Republicans to the table."

Politifact, in all of its wisdom, has pronounced that "Obama failed to keep 119 or nearly one-fourth of his promises, including many high-profile ones such as his pledges to close the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to create a cap-and-trade system to combat global warming and his vow to 'bring Democrats and Republicans together to pass an agenda.'"

Politifact's editors know about what I call "The Covenant." Yet they framed a report which actually said that the president kept 73 percent of his campaign promises in terms of a failure to foster bipartisanship.

Continue reading »

That's the 4 trillion-dollar question. Because if there are, then this whole debt ceiling debate will play out much differently than it has so far. But if there aren't -- if they've all gone over to the dark side -- then we're in for some bumpy roads.

Kevin Drum is now saying what I said back in mid-July. The only way to get anything done will be for Republicans to divide, peel off the Tea Party, and join with Democrats.

If Boehner can’t get the tea partiers in the House to support his proposal, and if Harry Reid can’t find 60 votes in the Senate for his, then pretty shortly they’ll figure out that there’s only one way to pass something: forge a compromise that can get substantial support from both Democrats and non-tea-party Republicans. Such a compromise is almost certainly available, and all it takes to get there is for Boehner to be willing to admit the obvious: the tea partiers just aren’t willing to deal, period. They want to burn the house down so they can build something better from the ashes. They’re insane.

So walk away from the tea partiers. Instead, strike a deal that a hundred non-insane House Republicans and 20 or 30 non-insane Senate Republicans can support. Add that to a majority of the Democratic caucus and you’re done. You’ve saved the country.

Steve Benen:

I strongly agree with all of this. By most estimates, there’s a group of House Republicans — I call it the “Suicide Squad” — that just don’t want to raise the debt ceiling and would gladly pursue default. They’ll vote for right-wing measures such as CC&B, or something close to it, but anything else is simply out of the question.

Exactly how big is this contingent? That’s unclear. There are 240 House Republicans, though, and it’ll take 217 votes to prevent a total disaster. Does the Suicide Squad include more than 23 members? Almost certainly, yes. This, again, makes it necessary for Boehner to embrace a plan that can garner some Democratic support.

For me, the most pressing question, which I don’t know the answer to, is, how big is the Republicans’ sane contingent? Kevin envisions 100 or so non-insane House Republicans joining a similar number of House Democrats to save the country. Sounds good. But are there 100 sane House Republicans? I honestly have no idea. Is there a reliable count of such things?

I would even ask it a little differently. The real question is: how many patriotic Republicans are there? How many are there in that Congress, who if asked to look in the mirror, could manage to do that after they screwed the entire country and forced us into slow economic death?

And along those lines, this question: When do we start holding these Republicans to their oath to uphold the Constitution? That 14th amendment solution works two ways, as I see it. As sworn elected officials, their duty is first and foremost to uphold and protect the Constitution, which clearly states that the validity of public debt shall not be questioned.

Shall not be questioned. Shall not. Since this is debt already authorized by Congressional appropriations, there would seem to be a Constitutional duty for these Republicans to honor their obligations as delineated in the 14th amendment.

I am not a lawyer, nor do I claim to be any kind of Constitutional expert. But as an observer, it seems to me the 14th amendment cuts both ways and carries consequences to those who fail to honor it and who are primarily responsible for the debt; that is, the United States Congress.

So that leaves us with not one, but two questions. First, are there any sane Republicans? And second, what consequences are there for those who are members of the "Suicide Squad?" In my opinion, those under the deepest obligation to honor the 14th amendment are members of Congress first, not the President, and I would like to see a loud, public discussion of what happens to un-American, Constitution-violating members of Congress if they continue down the path they're on.

David Dayen really throws down the moral gauntlet with this piece titled "The Last Lecture," in which he identifies Obama's core principle as compromise. It's really good, I hope everyone reads the whole thing:

In March, Obama spoke to college students of a range of political beliefs – Democrats, Republicans and independents – after a speech in the Boston area. In this video, released by the White House this weekend and given prominent treatment, including a blast of the video to supporters by David Plouffe, Obama explains what I have to assume is his core belief about politics in America. It is that compromise is necessary in our democracy, even virtuous. You cannot get 100% of what you want at any time, no matter if you’re in the majority or the minority, Obama says, and all that we can expect is to move forward incrementally, believing that others will pick up the ball down the road and carry on.This is Obama’s last lecture. It’s what he wants to impart to the next generation. He outright says that:

One of the challenges of this generation is I think to understand that the nature of our democracy and the nature of our politics is to marry principle to a political process that means you don’t get 100% of what you want. You don’t get it if you’re in the majority, you don’t get it if you’re in the minority.

You can be honorable in politics understanding you don’t always get what you want.

While there’s talk of marrying principle to compromise, in this clip Obama does not define that principle. In the whole of his public life, actually, he has not fully defined that principle. He has, however, defined compromise as the necessary element of the most important thing a politician can do, which is to get something done. To “do big things,” as he has been saying throughout the debt limit fight. And you cannot separate the appearance of this last lecture, produced four months ago, on the heels of his efforts to engineer a grand bargain, a compromise that would include major cuts to the social safety net.

[...] I don’t think anyone would disagree that Obama deeply believes this in his core. The man who came to power on a message of hope is saying that there’s no real hope in implementing the full governing agenda in the American system. That’s true, apparently, even if you have a large majority in the House and 60 votes in the Senate, which Obama had for several months of his first term. That’s true, apparently, even if we’re talking about issues and policies where the President has full authority on his own, with HAMP being the best example.

Continue reading »

Yesterday's FCC decision on Net Neutrality has everyone up in arms on both sides of the battle. Did they split the baby in half or sell out?

Republicans are furious over the decision. Kay Bailey Hutchison took to the Senate floor for 30 minutes or so yesterday railing about how the FCC had overstepped their authority and robbed Congress of theirs. On the other side, NN activists are equally angry over what they view as extremely weak regulatory solutions to the much larger problem of keeping the Internet open and accessible to all. Dan Gillmor predicts the end of the Internet as innovation incubator, and sees it becoming much more like cable TV. I fear he's right.

Ars Technica has a great analysis of why everyone hates it. On the Republican side of things, it's simply that there was any effort at all to regulate the Internet, because we all know backbone providers want nothing more than to provide access to everyone at a low price with no discrimination among users or sites, right? Not so much. This graphic tells the tale.

On the other hand, the regulations they passed have different, less restrictive rules for wireless than wired, and are still hardly enforceable. They allow for paid prioritization, so that each ISP can throttle or charge extra for access to sites like YouTube and Netflix.

Even the Future of Music Coalition, which represents artists, lamented the fact that net neutrality "seemingly falls short of offering full protections."

They don't share Baker's default view of huge ISPs, which dominate the US landscape for wireline broadband, as cuddly companies who would like nothing better than to innovate and invest. And they're deeply disappointed that wireless companies are largely excluded from discrimination rules.

Yeah, that wireless loophole is a pretty big one. And it's a real thorn in the side of pro-Net Neutrality advocates. Interesting that it was Android's ubiquity and so-called openness which drove it. Carriers have made a point of taking that "open system" and locking it down tight with their own bloatware and services, so I'm at a loss to understand the logic of loosening wireless regulations as a result. So, by the way, is TechCrunch's MJ Siegler, who wonders why on earth an operating system would have any impact on a Net Neutrality decision.

Except wait. What the hell does an open operating system have anything to do with network access? Nilay Patel wonders this. John Gruber wonders this. Everyone should wonder this. It really does almost read as if they just copied what Google and Verizon laid out and forgot to remove the self-promotion.

Meanwhile, we still have Comcast's acquisition of NBCU to worry about, as Level 3 Communications takes that to the next level by pressuring the FCC to look at the merger in light of their Net Neutrality rules.

After the NBC Universal acquisition, Comcast’s incentive to discriminate is increased, as those providers now also compete against Comcast’s affiliated Hulu and NBC content,” the Level 3 submission stated. Furthermore, even if online video is viewed as a separate market from cable TV, the deal would give Comcast more reason to play a gatekeeper role.

So I guess we could say that the FCC split the baby and named one half Google and the other half Verizon?

In Rachel's opening segment last night, she compared and contrasted the Democrats' message of compromise with the Republicans "hell no" stance and took the Dems to task for not noticing that there was no one to compromise with. In her analysis, she missed the true message of the "we'll compromise" message.

In the NYTimes/CBS News Poll released this week, respondents were asked the following question:

Which do you think the Republicans in Congress SHOULD do -- compromise some of their positions in order to get things done, or stick to their positions even if it means not getting as much done?

Their answer was pretty emphatic: 78% of respondents said they thought Republicans should compromise, while 15% thought they should stick to their positions. That 78% is up from 74% two weeks earlier. When the same question is asked about Democrats, 76% say they should compromise with 17% saying they should stick to their guns.

This is where Rachel misses the boat. When 78% of poll respondents answer that Republicans should compromise and Republicans respond with "Hell, no!", there's a clear advantage for Democrats to say they're open to compromise.

This seems like Politics 101 to me, and I'm a little surprised Rachel took aim at Democrats for smart messaging. Usually they're dumb about it, but they got this one right.

Andrew Sullivan notes that Rush has given 'no compromise' marching orders, laying out a strategy where President Obama vetoes all of their his initiatives, should Republicans actually win the House and Senate, including balanced budget amendments, repealing 'Obamacare', and all the other teabag goodies we've been hearing over and over.

Of course, even if all these things were desirable, they're wildly implausible. But he knows that: "Obama's gonna veto all this," Limbaugh says. "So be it! Let him veto it! That helps us. We come back for it all again -- and he vetoes it again, and he calls us mean-spirited, extreme."

I wonder if Limbaugh is aware of that the latest NYT poll revealed that massive majorities want the main parties to compromise in the new Congress rather than stick to their positions. But when asked who would be more likely to compromise, 72 percent said that Obama, while only 46 percent said the Republicans. Limbaugh's nihilism and talk-radio conservatism is one sure way to bring independents back to the president. Advantage: Obama.

(I'm not sure where his numbers come from, but the poll numbers I have are the latest).

Former budget director Peter Orszag thinks the Bush tax cuts should be extended for two more years. I think he should pound sand.

Here's an excerpt (PDF) from President Obama's campaign literature in 2007-2008:

Restore Fiscal Discipline to Washington

[...]
Reverse Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy: Obama will protect tax cuts for poor and middle class families, but he will reverse most of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers.

Nowhere in that literature does it say anything about extending tax cuts because Republicans aren't playing nice and are sticking their back ends in the President's face. Nowhere. Up till now, Obama has kept the majority of his campaign promises, even if they do not look exactly like we thought they should.

So along comes Peter Orszag, former White House budget director, with this little bomb:

In the face of the dueling deficits, the best approach is a compromise: extend the tax cuts for two years and then end them altogether. Ideally only the middle-class tax cuts would be continued for now. Getting a deal in Congress, though, may require keeping the high-income tax cuts, too. And that would still be worth it.

Not so much. This is the difference between how an accountant looks at things and how people look at them. I would gladly give up whatever piece of tax cuts would be coming to me to see the wealthy folks taxed at a reasonable rate.

Orszag can come up with all the reasonable arguments that accountants and economists make routinely, but nothing will change the fact that there was a promise made in 2007-2008. We all know Republicans won't make a whit of difference in the end anyway, since they have made it clear they won't play on any field at any time no matter how much is extended their way.

Higher taxes now would crimp consumer spending, further depressing the already inadequate demand for what firms are capable of producing at full tilt. And since financial markets don’t seem at the moment to view the budget deficit as a problem — take a look at the remarkably low 10-year Treasury bond yield — there is little reason not to extend the tax cuts temporarily.

Yes, there's a real big reason not to; namely, it would be a broken promise that would appear to me to be nothing more than giving into the schoolyard bullies. Perhaps we could hand over our lunch money, too, and while we're at it, would we also like to let them raise the Social Security retirement age to 75 and let oil companies sit at the right hand of the President?

This is not a cut-and-dried issue. This is emotional. From my perspective, what the Bush tax cuts got me was no economic growth for the last decade and multiple threats to my future security. I see absolutely no reason to budge on this. None.

Fortunately, Mr. Orszag is no longer the White House budget director. I hope that means he and the President don't see eye to eye on this particular question and he's looking for a pickup by one of those rich dudes who don't pay much in taxes.

Steny Hoyer's passion is moving in this speech. The compromise is imperfect in some ways, but it IS action, and it DOES repeal a policy that should have never been put into effect at all, and moves our country toward being more human, more compassionate, and more equal.

Update 6:54pm PDT: They're voting now. Also, one Republican, Susan Collins joined the Democrats to support the repeal in the Senate Armed Forces Committee.

Update 6:58pm PDT: They just crossed the 219 vote threshold. Two Republicans have voted yes; 23 Democrats have voted no. 17 votes haven't been cast yet.

Update 7:10pm PDT: Final count: 234-194. Thank you, House.

Looks like President Obama is punting on a campaign promise until after the mid-term elections. If I was completely sure he'd back the repeal, I wouldn't care - but I'm never quite sure with him.

I'm really tired of gay issues being sent to the bottom of the agenda. How can we keep asking gay people to support the Democrats when they get so little in return?

President Obama has endorsed to a "don't ask, don't tell" compromise between lawmakers and the Defense Department, the White House announced Monday, an agreement that may sidestep a key obstacle to repealing the military's policy banning gays and lesbians from serving openly in the armed forces.

The compromise was finalized in meetings Monday at the White House and on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers will now, within days, take a series of votes on amendments that repeal the Clinton-era policy, with a provision ensuring that any change would not take effect until after the Pentagon completes a study about the impact on troops. That study is due to Congress on Dec. 1.

In a letter to lawmakers pushing for a legislative repeal, White House budget director Peter Orszag wrote Monday that Obama's administration "supports the proposed amendment."

"Such an approach recognizes the critical need to allow our military and their families the full opportunity to inform and shape the implementation process through a thorough understanding of their concerns, insights and suggestions," Orszag wrote.

While gay rights advocates hailed the move as a "dramatic breakthrough," it remained uncertain whether the deal would secure enough votes to pass both houses of Congress. Republicans have vowed to maintain "don't ask, don't tell," while conservative Democrats have said they would oppose a repeal unless military leaders made clear that they approved of such a change.

Even if the compromise language passes, a legislative repeal would go into effect only after Obama certifies that the change does not harm the nation's military readiness.

Courtesy of my friend Tracey, who enjoys the fine Canadian health system and wonders about all the lies told to Americans:

Democrats: "We need health care reform"

Republicans: "Liberal fascists! Give us a majority and we'll do it better"

Democrats: "Done, you have majority of both houses"

12 years later, health care is irrefutably worse in every respect for every single person in the United States

Democrats: "We need health care reform"

Republicans: "Liberal fascists! Americans are tired of partisan politics!"

Democrats: "OK, let's compromise"

Republicans: "OK, get rid of half your ideas"

Democrats: "Done"

Republicans: "Too liberal, get rid of half your ideas"

Democrats: "Done"

Republicans: "Too liberal, get rid of half your ideas"

Democrats: "Done"

Republicans: "Too liberal, get rid of half your ideas"

Democrats: "Done"

Republicans: "Too liberal, get rid of half your ideas"

Democrats: "Done. Time to end debate"

Republicans: "Too liberal, we need more debate, we will filibuster to prevent you from voting"

Democrats: "OK, we'll vote--sorry guys, debate is ended. It's time to vote on the bill"

Republicans: "Too liberal, we vote no"

Democrats: "OK, it passed anyway--sorry guys."

One month later

Continue reading »

Now the final phase begins, where we see what House liberals can achieve within the confines of a broken system that gives a handful of senators from sparsely populated states a disproportionate power to shape legislation:

Democrats are already outlining a strategy to achieve a final compromise that can satisfy the more liberal House without upsetting the painstakingly assembled coalition of 60 Senate Democrats and independents.

Central to those talks, House leaders said, will be the search for an acceptable substitute for a government-run insurance plan that those without medical coverage could purchase, a provision the House designed to compete with private insurers and force them to rein in costs. While the Senate has decisively rejected the "public option," House leaders say they will demand other concessions to ensure that Americans can afford the insurance they will be required to buy if the bill becomes law.

[...] House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has signaled approval for the Senate's solution: the creation of at least two nationwide insurance plans run by private companies but overseen by the Office of Personnel Management, the same federal agency that handles health insurance for members of Congress. In a conference call Wednesday, Pelosi also assured rank-and-file Democrats that they would not be asked to rubber-stamp the Senate bill and began soliciting ideas to improve it.

Among the options under discussion: pressing the Senate to increase the federal subsidies that would be offered to low- and middle-income people who do not have access to affordable coverage through an employer; having a single national marketplace for people buying insurance, rather than 50 state-based exchanges, as the Senate prefers; and moving up the launch date of those marketplaces and subsidies to 2013, one year earlier than under the Senate bill.