;)
The Commentariat -- Dec. 20, 2013
Carrie Dann of NBC News: "President Barack Obama will hold his final press conference of 2013 on Friday, capping a year dominated by sagging approval ratings and controversies over his signature health care law and his administration's domestic surveillance programs."
Robert Pear of the New York Times: "Millions of people facing the cancellation of health insurance policies will be allowed to buy catastrophic coverage and will be exempt from penalties if they go without insurance next year, the White House said Thursday night. Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, disclosed the sudden policy shift in a letter to Senator Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia, and five other senators." ...
... Ezra Klein looks at the implications of this move. His assessment is fairly dire.
Charlie Savage of the New York Times: "President Obama, expanding his push to curtail severe penalties for drug offenses, on Thursday commuted the sentences of eight federal inmates who were convicted of crack cocaine offenses. Each inmate has been imprisoned for at least 15 years, and six were sentenced to life in prison. It was the first time retroactive relief was provided to a group of inmates who most likely would have received significantly shorter terms if they had been sentenced under current drug laws, sentencing rules and charging policies." ...
... President Obama's statement is here.
Richard Clarke, Michael Morell, Geoffrey Stone, Cass Sunstein & Peter Swire in a New York Times op-ed: "The five of us came from diverse backgrounds, experiences and perspectives.... Our recommendations, as members of the President's Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies, appointed in August, are designed to strengthen the protection of privacy and civil liberties without compromising the central mission of the intelligence community." ...
... David Sanger of the New York Times: "If President Obama adopts the most far-reaching recommendations of the advisory group he set up to rein in the , much would change underneath the giant antennas that sprout over Fort Meade, Md., where America's electronic spies and cyberwarriors have operated with an unprecedented amount of freedom since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.... While few in the White House want to admit as much in public, none of this would have happened without the revelations by Edward J. Snowden.... While Mr. Obama has said he welcomes the debate about the proper limits on the N.S.A., it is not one he engaged in publicly until the Snowden revelations began." ...
... Greg Miller & Ellen Nakashima of the Washington Post: "From the moment the government's massive database of citizens' call records was exposed this year, U.S. officials have clung to two main lines of defense: The secret surveillance program was constitutional and critical to keeping the nation safe. But six months into the controversy triggered by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, the viability of those claims is no longer clear. In a three-day span, those rationales were upended by a federal judge who declared that the program was probably unconstitutional and the release of a report by a White House panel utterly unconvinced that stockpiling such data had played any meaningful role in preventing terrorist attacks." ...
... CW: In keeping with what I think will be a continuing discussion on journo-crit, I should point out that this article, presented as a straight news piece, is geared more toward analysis & opinion than a straight report. Keep in mind, too, that the WashPo has a lot of skin in the Ed Snowden game -- the Post has published, arguably, the most pertinent relevations about NSA snooping. I think Miller & Nakashima's analysis is more-or-less valid; at worst, it's worthy of consideration, even if they may give more weight than is due to factors they claim have "upended" spying rationales. ...
... Gene Robinson: "... the eminences appointed by President Obama to review the out-of-control National Security Agency (NSA) have produced a surprisingly tough report filled with good recommendations -- steps that a president who speaks so eloquently of civil liberties should have taken long ago. But before even releasing the 308-page report by his Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies, Obama rejected one of the proposed reforms: ending the practice of having one person head both the NSA and the Pentagon's Cyber Command." ...
... Cecilia Kang of the Washington Post: "Verizon said Thursday it will publish reports beginning early next year on the number of government requests it receives for customer data, setting a significant precedent for the telecommunications industry, which has kept that information private. Verizon, the nation's biggest wireless provider, has been under immense pressure from shareholders and privacy groups after revelations that the National Security Agency obtained mountains of private information from the company and other telecom firms, including AT&T. Those disclosures, in documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, have damaged the reputation of U.S. communications companies around the world." ...
... Terri Rupar in the Washington Post: "In his annual marathon news conference on Thursday, Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed support for President Obama's surveillance programs, a day after a review group recommended curbing the National Security Agency's powers. Putin previously defended the programs, calling them 'generally practicable' and 'the way a civilized society should go about fighting terrorism' during a June interview. Below are some of Thursday's choice quotes from Putin, himself a former KGB agent." He says he has never met Edward Snowden.
Donna Cassata of TPM: "The Senate will vote on the nomination of Janet Yellen to be the next chairman of the Federal Reserve in January. Majority Leader Harry Reid announced Thursday night that Republicans and Democrats had worked out an agreement on votes for several of President Barack Obama's nominees, including Yellen. The Senate plans a test vote to move ahead on Yellen's nomination on Friday and will then vote Jan. 6 on her confirmation."
E. J. Dionne: The Republican civil war is not between conservatives & moderates because their are no moderates in the GOP. It is between the Washington establishment & "conservative fundraising behemoths (they include FreedomWorks, Heritage Action and Americans for Prosperity).... The new establishment is bolstered by conservative talk show hosts who communicate regularly with Republican loyalists and have challenged the party's elected leaders for control over its message."
Paul Krugman on austerity policy and politics: "... the correlation is very clear: the harsher the austerity, the worse the growth performance.... I'm well aware that the austerians may win political points all the same."
** It's Your Fault that You're Poor. Tim Egan: Here are "two of the most meanspirited actions left on the table by the least-productive Congress in modern history. The House, refuge of the shrunken-heart caucus, has passed a measure to eliminate food aid for four million Americans, starting next year. Many who would remain on the old food stamp program may have to pass a drug test to get their groceries. At the same time, Congress has let unemployment benefits expire for 1.3 million people, beginning just a few days after Christmas. These actions have nothing to do with bringing federal spending into line, and everything to do with a view that poor people are morally inferior." ...
... CW: Hmmm. Wonder how Paul Ryan fees about that? McKay Coppins of BuzzFeed writes another, "No, really, Paul Ryan cares about the poor. He's the Pope Francis of the GOP. He's just as religious as Francis is, too." I'll believe it the day Ryan becomes a Democrat, burns a pile of Atlas Shrugged holy books & a makes a Jimmy Swaggart-style "I have sinned" speech.
Bradley Klapper of the AP: "More than a quarter of the Senate introduced legislation Thursday that could raise sanctions on Iran and compel the United States to support Israel if it launches a pre-emptive attack on the Iranian nuclear program, defying President Barack Obama and drawing a veto threat. The bill, sponsored by 13 Democrats and 13 Republicans, sets sanctions that would go into effect if Tehran violates the nuclear deal it reached with world powers last month or lets the agreement expire without a long-term accord." ...
... Ryan Grim of the Huffington Post: "In a remarkable rebuke to Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), 10 other Senate committee chairs are circulating a joint letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, urging him to reject an effort by Menendez to tighten sanctions on Iran and warning that his bill could disrupt ongoing nuclear negotiations."
Annie Gowen & William Branigin of the Washington Post: "A major diplomatic row between the United States and India took a new turn Thursday as signs of a split emerged within the U.S. government over how to handle the case of an Indian diplomat and women's rights advocate who was arrested in New York on charges stemming from the alleged exploitation of her nanny. The Indian government, meanwhile, demanded that U.S. federal prosecutors drop their case against Devyani Khobragade, 39, India's up-and-coming deputy consul general in New York and the mother of two young daughters.... Secretary of State John F. Kerry made a conciliatory call to India's national security adviser Wednesday and 'expressed his regret' over the incident, according to the State Department. But the Justice Department appeared to be taking a harder line."
Craig Whitlock of the Washington Post: Air Force Maj. Gen. Michael Carey, who is "in charge of nuclear weapons, repeatedly drank too much and behaved like a boor last summer during an official trip to Moscow, where he insulted his Russian hosts and hung out with two suspicious women he met at a hotel bar, according to an investigative report released Thursday.... Carey was reassigned in October from his job as commander of the 20th Air Force, which is responsible for maintaining and operating the country's intercontinental ballistic missiles."
Local News
AP: "New Mexico's highest court has legalized same-sex marriage, declaring it is unconstitutional to deny a marriage license to gay and lesbian couples. The state Supreme Court issued its ruling Thursday. New Mexico joins 16 states and the District of Columbia in allowing gay marriage."
Matt Friedman of the New Jersey Star-Ledger: "Students who grew up in New Jersey but are in the country illegally will soon be able to pay in-state tuition at its public colleges and universities. After weeks of feuding between Republican Gov. Chris Christie and Democrats who control the Legislature over the so-called 'DREAM Act,' the two sides ... today ... agreed to a compromise."
Senate Race
Tuck Chodd & Co. explain why appointing retiring Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) to be ambassador to China could help Democrats hold the Senate in 2014.
Congressional Fiasco
Marisa Kendall of the Fort Myers, Florida, News-Press: "U.S. Rep. Trey Radel, R-Fort Myers, made clear tonight he has no intention of resigning, and plans to get back to work after spending some time with his family this holiday season. Tonight's news conference was the second Radel held at his Cape Coral[, Florida,] office since pleading guilty to possession of cocaine. Radel was more animated tonight than at the first press conference - he has finished just under a month of rehab, and had his wife beside him at the podium. Radel began by thanking his supporters." With video that unfortunately loads automatically.
First Amendment News
By People Who Don't Know What It Means
Nature Watch: Ducks & Loons. Matea Gold of the Washington Post has a pretty good overview of how conservative politicians -- especially those who hope to be president -- are using the "Duck Dynasty" controversy to mobilize Christian conservatives.
Dean Obeidallah of the Daily Beast: "Conservatives think people should be held responsible for their actions -- until one of their own, like Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson, has to pay a price for their bigoted views.... The First Amendment does not provide you immunity. [CW: This would be news to arah Palin. See Infotainment.] It simply means that the government can't prevent you from expressing yourself. But once you say something, you will be called to answer for it." CW: I remain mystified as to why anyone outside the Robertson family would spend as much as five minutes watching a show like "Duck Dynasty."
Here's how Red State winger Erick Erickson (late of CNN & now with Fox) sees the "Duck Dynasty" doodah: "Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant and then it seeks to silence good." CW: Where "evil" equals liberals & homophobic slurs equal "good." From this premise, Erickson seques to the notion that Robertson was just expressing his honest-to-God Christian views. Ergo, "The world is at war with Christ and those who put their faith in Christ.... The Church, however, must show it will stand with those who stand with Christ...." That, I guess means, that Pope Francis should encourage Robertson & his "Christian" opinions. It's a shocking thing, really, that this type of distorted, perverted thinking attracts a national television audience.
AND just as stupid as Palin (or completely phony panderers -- take your pick) Gov. Bobby Jindal and Sen. Ted Cruz.
The truth is it is a messed up situation when a governor rumored to have his sights on the presidency doesn't understand the breadth of the First Amendment. -- L. Z. Granderson, CNN contributor, on Bobby Jindal's comments
Zack Ford of Think Progress: "Free speech allows citizens to say things that are offensive and unpopular and it allows other citizens to disagree, as well as to choose whether to provide an ongoing platform for those remarks. If anything, the claim that Robertson's free speech has somehow been inhibited is just a straw man to avoid addressing the merits of what he actually said: that all gay people are going to Hell and that African Americans don't deserve a seat at the lunch counter."
See today's Comments:
... The film footage is from "The Laramie Project" HBO movie. The full film is here.
News Ledes
Al Jazeera: "Uganda's parliament has passed an anti-gay law that punishes 'aggravated homosexuality' with life imprisonment."
Washington Post: "Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D- Nev.) was hospitalized early Friday after not feeling well, according to his office.... Reid's hospitalization comes on the final scheduled day of the Senate for 2013 and after two weeks of late nights and early mornings amid a dispute over a recent change in Senate procedural rules...."
New York Times: "President Vladimir V. Putin issued a decree on Friday freeing Russia's most famous prisoner, Mikhail B. Khodorkovsky, the former chief executive of Yukos Oil whose arrest and imprisonment 10 years ago punctuated an authoritarian turn in Russia's modern history."
Share Article
Reader Comments (32)
..."More than a quarter of the Senate introduced legislation Thursday that could raise sanctions on Iran and compel the United States to support Israel if it launches a pre-emptive attack on the Iranian nuclear program, defying President Barack Obama and drawing a veto threat...."
Notice the word "pre-emptive!" That means before talks with Iran have failed or been discontinued. Oh me, oh my....AIPAC is at it again. 13 Republicans and 13 Democrats on its payroll are trying to "squeeze" in a bill which will nullify Kerry's diplomatic efforts with Iran and, most importantly, give Israel the reason it needs to start a war. Which, of course, the US of A will back completely--and send our blood and treasure to fight. After all, oil-rich Iran lies between oil-rich Iraq and oil-rich Afghanistan--and we are not doing so well getting most of their oil, are we?
Of course, the Senator from AIPAC, Chuck Schumer, is leading the pack, along with Bob Menendes, Chair of Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Surprised to see that Blumenthal and Gillebrand are co-sponsors, but they clearly have AIPAC ties. And the rest are pretty much Blue Dogs. The 13 Republicans are absolutely no surprise. Shame, shame on all of these bought-off, war-mongering scum bags!
But there IS a big surprise, which I heard on Rachel Maddow tonight. The Democratic heads of all remaining 16 Senate committees have written and signed a letter to Obama asking him not to sign this bill should it weasel past the "Christmas break Congress" and sneak up to his desk. He has said in the past he would veto it. Let us hope he means this. He certainly does not need more AIPAC money, since he is not running again. This could be for real! Hope reigns. At least for the moment!
Yesterday's question, perhaps answered today.
Who are the 72% surveyed who think the government a greater threat than either big business or unions?
I suspect many of that 72%, whether the CW understands why they do or not, are avid followers of "Duck Dynasty" and proud of it.
@Robertson: The female staff where I live are hooked on "Duck Dynasty." What the attraction is remains a mystery to me. Of course, most of them are good "Christians" and vote Republican.
For people who constantly talk about the Constitution, it's remarkable how poorly Divine Sarah, Jindal, Cruz, Erickson, et. al. understand it.
Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, who just a few months ago trashed first amendment rights by ordering his goons on the Capitol police squad to arrest and handcuff peaceful singers every noon hour, is now endorsing the rightwing's newfound respect for free speech. He has signed a bill which makes it easy for schools to continue to use racist mascots, nicknames and logos ( previous legislation, now largely repealed, provided a means to review complaints about such). His specious, ghostwritten argument, is that while he "understands" the concerns, he doesn't want to trample on free speech. See how moderate he can be?
We in Wisconsin are adopting the strategy: friends don't let Republican friends in other states vote for Walker in presidential primaries.
@Barbarossa
The only Constitution that Sarah et al. know is the Cliffs Notes version ...
I seriously doubt Ezra Klein's warning about the new exception. These catastrophic policies were geared toward people who could not afford standard policies. But people who could not afford standard policies would generally BENEFIT from Obamacare because they would receive significant tax credits depending on income.
To a lesser extent, these catastrophic policies are bought by young affluent people who happen to be cheapskates. But at some point this demographic will figure out how awful those catastrophic policies are.
True story. During the last two months of 2013, I switched from a standard plan to a catastrophic plan. I saved 75$ (and I was unemployed at the time), but even though I haven't had any medical problem for a decade, it just so happens that I had a minor medical emergency which ended up costing me $1600. If the same thing happened to me with my Obamacare plan, my bill would be about $700. Eventually even cheapskates will start doing the math.
@cowichan: You wrote, “Marie; re size of government. I'm not sure dollars are the best measure of the size of government. For example in 1965 the Phantom F-4b fighter cost $14.1 million 2012 dollars compared to todays F-35 which costs $196.5 million. I think a fairer measure of the size of government is the number of employees. In 1965 there was 1 federal employee for every 36 citizens, a total of 5,354,000. In 2012 there was 1 federal employee for every 70 citizens a total of 4,403,000. Or The number of federal employees has been reduced by 18%. or: today's civil servant services twice as many citizens as the 1965 employee. Rather than say the government has grown since 1965 you might say the dollar doesn't go as far as it did in 1965 but the government is more efficient.”
First, we should acknowledge that the question itself addresses perception rather than reality. The respondents were not asked to do an analysis of the size of government as you have attempted to do. As @Whyte Owen pointed out yesterday, “It depends upon the meaning of 'big government.'” (paraphrase) I would wager that many respondents were not thinking specifically of the federal government when they answered that question. Among those who thought big government was a big problem, there was probably the man who had just had to haggle with the building inspector, the woman who couldn't charm her way out of a speeding ticket, the person who had trouble voting because his middle name wasn't on his voter registration card. You get the idea.
When I said government was bigger today, I wasn't talking about the price of fighter jets; I was using as a rule-of-thumb the percentage of GDP then & now (as I implied by my link). I certainly was not making a dollar-for-dollar comparison, as you seem to do.
Your suggestion about the relative number of federal employees per capita might be relevant, but likely not in the way you reckon. It may be more “efficient” to have fewer government employees per capita, but it doesn't look efficient to anyone who has had to try to get a Medicare payment straightened out or has wanted to speak to someone at Social Security. Or, for that matter, to that guy who had to wait in a long line to apply for a building permit.
When you're asking people their perceptions about big government, those perceptions probably have a lot to do with how “invasive” or “pervasive” they feel government is in their own lives. People scarcely notice the benefits they receive – safe food, clean air, well-engineered highways – but they are bothered by the hassles & by the difference between their gross & net pay. How many people standing in a long line waiting to empty their pockets & take off their shoes at an airport checkpoint are thrilled their taxpayer dollars are covering that exercise?
(There's a reason George Bush said the best thing people could do for the war effort was to go shopping: Republicans want their costly military adventures to have as little public impact as possible. Victory gardens? Rationing? A draft? Fageddaboudit. As for the soldiers themselves – the people who will be most affected – the services recruit them in poor neighborhoods or, better yet, hire them as well-paid “contractors”/soldiers-of-fortune. You think Michelle Obama's effort to highlight the struggles of the troops & their families is a sappy PR stunt? Yeah, maybe. But I see it as a calculated anti-war effort. Michelle's soldiers & their families are heroes not because they stormed the beaches at Normandy but because they were separated from their families, got PTSD, are physically wounded warriors, have to rely on food stamps to make ends meet, etc. The Obamas & Bidens want Americans to keep in mind the impact of war – an impact that most Americans are free to ignore.)
The whole point of the Gallup poll question was to find out how people “felt” about the relative bad effects of “big government,” “big business” & “big labor.” That the population polled today may be different from that polled in 1965 – older & more conservative today – could be caused by sampling error (oops! forgot to call people who don't have landlines) or it could be that, um, Americans are older & more conservative today. So we can get caught up in the wording of the question, the meaning of the terms, the demographics of the samples, etc., but in the end, it seems fairly safe to say that Americans today are more worried about “big government” than were Americans in 1965: the year the Congress passed Medicare – which was probably what inspired Gallup to pose the question in the first place.
Marie
Re; Duck, Duck, Duck, Goose or Redneck Quackers;
Millions or Thousands or who's ever home with no job and nowhere to go watch the Duck Show for the following;
Think of it as the swampy version of Peter Pan;
They (the lost boys) don't want to grow up;
Money damn near grows on trees;
Nothin' but funnin' all day long;
Huntin' and fishin' with big trucks and boats;
Work is for leavin' to do the above.
Wives are in the kitchen or all-dolled up to go shoppin';
Not any rules to be seen;
Father knows best;
Big dinners with all the family and full tummies;
Beards; lots and lots of beards.
Dumb and dumber and dumbest.
If you can't live it at least you can watch it.
I have watched parts of the show and I have marveled at how good the players are with the camera on. They're natural born actors.
I also marvel at just how dumb dumbfuckin' rednecks can be.
I think it's mostly entertainment. A fantasy reality show if you will.
I also think when they step out of swampy never never land the charm fades fast.
Selling quackers made them rich; selling themselves makes them rich fools.
As to their politics and racism; I think that's one of the reasons for the shows success. And if that's not a scary thought, I don't know what is.
Soon the TeeVee watching morons will be moving on to another channel and the Quackers will slip back into the swamp. But not before one of the grandkids gets caught brewing meth.
@Robert Nagle. Thanks for your input. It's useful to bear in mind that those young "cheapskates" are the very one the ACA needs to equalize costs. They are also the very people who -- quite rationally -- think they'll be able to skate with catastrophic insurance. I don't think that's a bad choice for them (if the catastrophic insurance is any good). You actually proved rather than refuted one of Klein's points.
What you decided to do was to take on the risk of self-insurance for minor illnesses & injuries. It so happened that you came out -- slightly -- on the short end of that gamble, but it didn't break you. It just meant that you were out about $900. For the next five or ten years, you could come out ahead. In other words, it was a sound risk, not a foolish, devil-may-care one.
I think Klein's warnings are worth heeding. Obviously, Republicans will do everything they can to defeat the ACA. When ConservaDems like Mark Warner aid & abet their chipping away, the risk of full repeal becomes greater. At this point, I don't know that that is likely, but each new chink further compromises the armor.
Marie
@JJG: Thanks for the explanation. I suspect you're right on all counts.
Marie
Best, IMHO, distillation in art of the redneck quackers: Bernie Taupin's lyrics in the Elton John track "Wyoming." Bob Dylan could not have said it better.
Have always been skeptical of phone survey/poll results. Let's see, there were XXXX queried, XXX of the sampling responded 'yes' and XXX responded 'no' (with the usual disclaimer of an 2-4% margin of error). The way a query is constructed can easily pull a desired result. That's why it is always good to read what questions they actually asked.
What do they do about those people like myself, who (1.) doesn't bother to pick up the phone when certain caller IDs pop-up, or (2.) if inadvertently I picked up and discovered such an annoying caller— how do they 'count' my 'drop dead,' 'get lost,' or otherwise unprintable epithet. Bang!
Who takes time with these pollsters? Sometimes, I think it must be "...all the lonely people" (thanks Beatles!).
There will be the Dickens to pay. Obviously, since congressional Republicans won't do it.
So let's stomp on the poor. How Christian of them. I'm sure this is just what Jesus Would Do. But that's just another piece of the hypocrisy pie eaten by these mongrels every day. At least they have pie to eat. And plenty more. On our dime, by the way.
So the poors are moochers and don't do anything and therefore deserve nothing? What about this congress, what about these fainéant fools? Shouldn't they be paid for the work they do, like piece workers or migrant farm workers, rather than for the work they don't do? How about we dock their pay for all the days off they take or all the days they sit on their asses and do nothing but mouth off? How about we put a new black mark against their names every time they stick it to Americans who have sent them to Washington to do the nation's business? Is appearing on Fox or the Sunday gasbag shows to blather on and spread lies and disinformation that actually hurt people doing the nation's business? Is flying in to secret meetings with oligarchs and masters of the universe to collect loot and marching orders doing the nation's business?
Putting on the iron boots of wealth and privilege and stepping on the faces of the less fortunate is not only niggardly but cowardly and morally reprehensible. But it's a way to create a comfortable, if completely false, sense of moral righteousness. In order to feel like you deserve your splendid and luxurious existence among the rich and powerful, it's much more pleasant and enjoyable if you can convince yourself and others that wealth and position are a matter of just desserts. If you buy into that morally bankrupt and totally specious line of thinking, you don't have to worry about taking care of the poor, or be embarrassed by the fact that you are thousands of times richer while doing nothing at all to deserve it.
Dickens, who knew first hand about the vicissitudes of the life of the poor, especially through his father's stay in debtors prison, knew whereof he spoke. He never ascribes a moral inferiority to the poor. Certainly there are those of low morals and deficient ethics among the poor. But can anyone rightly say that the outcome of their actions are worse than the moral and ethical failings of Jamie Dimon, or George Bush or Ted Cruz? Do you know of any poor people who made fortunes off the backs of others' misfortunes? Who unleashed wholesale murder on an innocent population for no reason at all? Who stopped a nation cold and cost taxpayers billions of dollars for a self aggrandizing stunt?
Taking food out of the mouths of the hungry and blaming the starving masses for their own subsequent hunger has to number among the most scurrilous attacks on humanity.
But a protective blanket of hypocritical lies and sanctimonious bullshit keeps the warped consciences of these corrupt and churlish clowns from exploding.
Just another bit of luck that they obviously deserve.
@MAG: You wrote, "Who takes time with these pollsters? Sometimes, I think it must be '...all the lonely people'...."
Despite living alone -- and when I was not in fact living alone -- I haven't thought of myself as a lonely person. Yet I always answer public opinion polls if the subject is politics (i.e., not deodorants or cars). I don't do so because I'm lonely & want to talk to somebody. I don't do it because I need an outlet to "express myself." (I have one.) I don't do it because I think the pollster gives a damn about what I think. (She doesn't.)
I do it because my answer could affect other people's perceptions. For instance, during the 2012 election season, I got polled every single day for months on how I would vote for president. Every day. But I figured if I didn't answer those poll questions, the Florida numbers would look a teensy-weensy bit better for Romney, & that could give people the impression that Romney was a winner.
Another time I got pushed-polled by a candidate who used the poll to emphasize that his opponent -- whom I happened to support -- was gay. So I wrote down the questions & called the local political reporter, who wrote a story about the push poll (she didn't mention the gay questions), & got the candidate to admit he'd commissioned it. (He won anyway, but I don't suppose he kept that article among his clippings.)
So I never slam down the phone when a political pollster calls. There might be something in it for my candidate or my issue.
Marie
When I associated those who feel threatened by big government with "Duck Dynasty" viewers I intended a little amusement, but thought--tho' I've watched no more than four minutes of the program--I might also be saying something a little bit true.
More seriously, I believe that no matter how you slice the numbers or interpret the questions the poll asked, the reported results offer a critical insight into the state of the American psyche. For many reasons, Americans have always had a constitutional distrust of government. Many from other parts of the world came here to escape autocratic and inefficient governments, and as long as the land was available we had our own waves of internal migration that allowed thousands to stay one step ahead of the sheriff and all he represented.
At the time the poll began in 1965, the idea of government was still buoyed by citizens' memories of a Great Depression, which government had a large, public hand in lifting and two wars, one successful (we won), the other a tie. Overall, the government scorecard showed it did pretty well. Since then, outside of Grenada and Panama, tho' we keep trying, we haven't won a war since. In the simplest terms, no builder of confidence.
Since that time, too, the Right has spent uncounted dollars, I'd guess in the billions, painting government evil. They have the I-don't-want-to-think-too-much tanks, the NRA, much of the media, hell, their own national "news" channel busy inciting and fueling every possible human resentment. As Marie says, government is often intrusive; we notice when it gets in our way and we don't like it.
Business, on the other hand, exerts it control over our lives in far more subtle fashion. In many ways it reaches wider and thrusts far deeper into our daily lives than does government, but its practices are so woven into our daily round of getting and spending that most don't notice it. When gas prices jump, we might notice for a while but gasoline is something we need, so we grit our teeth and pay; besides, in the background, feeding our resentment, there's always Palin and her well-paid idiot chorus singing in the background, blaming the government. In the U.S., it's an easy sell.
The current TPP negotiations, which are all about business and corporate power, not free trade, present an illustrative contrast to the ACA. While the ACA will affect all of us, its parts are visible, warts and all. The Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, being negotiated in secret, will also affect everyone, and may also receive fast track treatment in Congress, which will allow no amendments or filibusters to modify its provisions, whatever they turn out to be, a stark contrast to the legislative treatment that produced the ACA Frankenstein. In proportion to its likely effects on jobs, drug and food prices, access to the internet, banking practices, the TPP should be on every front page of every newspaper every day, and it is not. These big trade deals have a far greater effect on most of us than the ACA, or even the sheriff, will ever have.
Granted, to the large degree that government is complicit in these "free" trade deals that are anything but free and never fair, we should all feel annoyed, if not threatened, but time and again the Right's promotion of government distrust benefits the plutocracy far more than the average citizen. That's the way they like it, and that's what they're paying for.
And so far the Duck Dynasty crowd hasn't figured it out.
@Ken Winkes. Well said. All of it. I appreciate your putting mistrust of government in an historical/psychological perspective.
Marie
The Conistitution has become the new bible. The crackpots cherry pick it for nuggets to prove the earth is flat, and when they don’t find any, they just make shit up and say it’s there in the first or second amendment. They've created a rhetorical device; it's called Palinization.
re: Government is Evil (parts 35 and 36)
Ken,
Yes government can be troublesome and intrusive and sometimes inept. But interestingly a large proportion of government ineptitude and intrusion has been created and nurtured by the right. Some of those things are the result of preventing government agencies from doing the things they actually are good at. Some have resulted from attempts by right-wing politicians and groups to monkey with the government with the express purpose of making it more intractable and dysfunctional. Some have come from the layering on of intrusive and expensive regulations in the service of Republican goals (voter ID laws, eg).
But when comparing big business with government there is no question that government has, on balance, a more routinely positive influence on the lives of Americans than big business, and has for many years, largely because of the things government can do well that business either can't or won't do:
Public roads, public schools, public health, consumer protection, federal housing, Medicare, Medicaid, and now the ACA, OSHA, the GI Bill, the FDA, the CDC, anti-discrimination legislation and enforcement, FDIC and the Federal Reserve, unemployment insurance, clean air and water regulations, not to mention the military, among other accomplishments.
None of these would ever been tackled or offered willingly by big business. But Republicans, at every step, have sought to diminish, dismantle, or belittle each and every one of these achievements. As you rightly point out, their war on government has been successful due in part to the natural inclination of many Americans not to trust government and also to the inability or laziness on the part of the press to separate the accomplishments from the problems. Of course the GOP's very own media outlets have, as part of their mandate, an acknowledged and very public goal of never supporting anything the government does outside of cutting taxes, services, bombing other countries, or attempting to make Christianity (their own version of it) the national religion.
Democrats are not equally to blame, but they have all too often cowered under the fusillades from the right and gone along to get along rather than champion the cause of good government and the benefits it can and has provided.
It ain't perfect, but it matters. Much more than Duck Dynasty addicts would like to think. But the right has been enormously successful at making hatred of the government the shibboleth of a "real American" as much as they have at making killing animals and brandishing weapons a sign of manliness.
Luv for Big Guv will get weaker if current trends continue:
-- budget cuts are taking away some of the investments that are among the best things government does: research of all kinds, but especially medical; education improvement; regulation of hazards. At the same time, the coercive forces of government are being maintained and enhanced - defense, homeland security, prisons. Observe the increase of SWAT-type capabilities where you live.
-- congress and states have been regularly undercutting their government employees, with the probable result that at some point working for the government will be severely unattractive to our best and brightest. A cadre of lazy, incompetent, time-serving and corrupt petty bureaucrats could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. (Unfairly picking a country at random, imagine Uzbekistan's bureaucracy. DMV jokes aside, you ain't seen nothing yet, America.) Bureaucracy will be even more maddening.
-- continued hammering away that "government is the problem" rather than "government is us" alienates the population from the sense of participatory government, and a sense of personal responsibility to be involved in making it work
-- there is much more, but I'll stop there
Bottom line is that those numbers concerned about "big government" are not going to get better absent a turn-around in some of those factors. What are the odds?
James,
The Right's lust for certain Constitutional Amendments, whose appeals stem from ideologically blinkered interpretations (take that, Nino), is conditioned and informed by a chronic attachment to the immutable rights they believe have been delivered unto them, and an equally perpetual detachment from covalently bonded responsibilities.
It's all of a piece with their perfect divorce from reality.
Get everything. Pay nothing.
Which, strangely enough, aggravates rather than attenuates their indestructible sense of victimhood.
I'd say "Go figure" but who has that kinda time?
adding to AK, who mentioned the water regs, I can remember when many NE rivers in my area were literally on fire. Sounds unbelievable, now.
I cite the book,"A Civil Action".
I agree, with Akhilleus, government has helped more than hurt.
mae finch
I want to applaud two eloquent and stirring comments submitted today by Akhilleus and Ken Winkes. These are the kinds of opinion pieces I would like to email to everyone I know and print off to nail on the doors of citizens, institutions, churches, businesses and government buildings.
And now that we're on a roll of mutual appreciation...
First, thanks.
But to my more immediate needs, I have been thinking and speaking about the proper role of government for some time and suspect/hope it will/should be a hot topic on our national agenda in the foreseeable future. Since I do some of this thinking aloud on a local community radio program, as I'm putting future reasoned rants together, I'm asking permission to use material (with attribution of course) from Akilleus, Patrick and Marie in particular, and from anyone else who chimes in here on RC on this critical topic. Some of the language you folks use is just too good to wreck by re-writing or summarizing.
I don't know how many listen to our show but I do know your fine comments would be appreciated by more than myself.
And Tommy, feel free. E-mail and nail away.
Tommy,
Thanks. Too often I have the feeling we're all the vox clamantis in deserto, but what can you do? Keep on swingin' I guess.
Ken,
Knock yourself out, brother. Whatever you need.
Mae,
Your comment immediately brought to mind this Randy Newman song from his superb 1972 album, Sail Away:
Burn on Big River
"Burn On" recalls the day the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland caught fire and burned.
In an article from the Cleveland Plain Dealer, residents and people who worked on the river recall the incredible daily scenes of sludge, odor, poison, waste, and industrial pollution that flowed through the city. The burning river was a catalyst in the passage of the Clean Water Act of 1972 and very likely the EPA as well. Both of which the Modern GOP seeks to gut. They would take us back to an America where the rivers burn.
The Cuyahoga 40 years later. Includes pictures of where the GOP would like to return us.
Please take a second to scan this article. Wow. I remember rivers being so polluted they'd never freeze even in the coldest winters. This is a problem the government stepped up to fix.
The restoration of the Cuyahoga mirrors the restoration of Cleveland as a great American city. Big business didn't do this. Government did. But now Republicans who despise environmental protection as being a drag on the money making abilities of their friends and benefactors in those same businesses that set the river on fire want to kill those protections. Just more of the same. Every fucking day.
As Randy Newman says in the song:
Burn on big river, burn on.
The lord can make you tumble.
The lord can make you turn.
The lord can make you overflow.
Lord can't make you burn.
Only the GOP can make sure of that.
Thanks for the reminder. Plus, I got to hear a great song once more and to remember where we've been, how far we've come, and how much work we have to do to keep from being dragged back by paid underlings of Big Business: the Modern G.O.P.
Ken: Feel free.
http://prospect.org/article/fed-transformed
M
On another topic far away from "Duck Dynasty,"Robert Kuttner in "The American Prospect" has some thoughts on the Federal Reserve. He gives credit to Bernanke for preventing a full-blown depression and discusses the challenges Janet Yellen will face. I admit I don't fully understand economics, but this article seems fairly clear. Bear in mind that Kuttner is a left wing writer (not there's anything wrong with that).
Disturbtingly, many who beat the drum for Summers to the Fed are still in power. Time will tell if the President will ignore them.
Enjoy. T
While we're on the topic of Randy Newman, here's one I've always liked: "Rednecks"
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2nGw_vAnqPI&autoplay=1&desktop_uri=%252Fwatch%253Fv%253D2nGw_vAnqPI%2526autoplay%253D1
Hh
Check out the 1970's clothes. byjh
Please excuse my typos. Sometimes my typing finger goes wild.
Ken - OK
Barbarossa,
I've always admired Bob Kuttner's approach to economics and politics. His thinking is typically clear-headed and his writing free from cant and the sort of misleading gobbledygook that attempts to camouflage too many poorly informed opinions on the economy.
His liberalism is measured and sure, meaning that he has a definite and eminently supportable point of view informed by a sense that economics affects everyone, and economic and budgetary decisions should not be made solely based on what's best for Wall Street.
You could do a lot worse.
Obama and The Hill both are looking forward to tax reform in 2014. The only good thing to come of this (from Obama's point of view) will be easing Baucus' exit from government. I can't think of a more pointless, partisan subject to discuss in an election year when both parties will be out to score points not negotiate. Of course today that's true 24/7/365 but still. Ryan has demonstrated how accommodating Republicans are in negotiations. Now he can show how vigilant they are in protecting the little guy and encouraging job creation. I think the main target will be the outrageous 35% corporate rate. Imagine the iniquity of General Electric paying as much tax as the average individual taxpayer. They could of course leave the corporate tax code as it is and just change the name to "The Average Corporate 16.6% Tax Rate" which is what it is.
On individual tax rates I'm sure the Republicans will be advancing a 20% tax cut for the top 10% to be balanced by removing an equivalent amount of initiative destroying benefits from the bottom 90%. What I'm sure will not be addressed is removing incentives designed for the rich like mortgage tax deduction, limiting it for example to the first $200k of a mortgage only on the primary residence.
Does anyone expect meaningful legislation to be passed by the 2014 congress in an election year? Might Obama just as well spend 2014 on the golf links?
Marie; I agree with most of what you commented today. I think of the Gallup poll as measuring the relative success of the Republican propaganda mill. The result is depressing. I don't think most Americans are disturbed in the least by Snowden's revelations or the NSA. As long as people are not threatened by terrorists in America they seem to approve any measure to keep the bad guys at bay regardless of how intrusive, expensive or inefficient it is. That leaves the ACA, its death panels, robbing the workers to pay for the welfare leeches and general intrusiveness and the DEBT. When people believe the state operates just the same as the corner store maybe it's time to introduce economics as a subject in high school before all the dropouts leave. Earlier in the week the leading Republican economist, Paul Ryan, equated the US debt situation to that of Greece's. Ineducable! What I found most depressing is the 56% of Democrats who find 'big government' the greatest danger. Here the NSA might be a factor.
How so few worry about big business is a mystery to me. The source of government corruption and influence and environmental degradation gets a pass. Unreal. A future where big government is peopled by capitalist owned politicians and communication companies are divisions of the NSA is my nightmare. I don't draw much comfort from the liberal MSM trope that the USA will be flooded by immigrants (usually from countries with poor governments) faster than their political beliefs can be corrupted by the Republican propaganda mills.
While rooting around the net I found that in 2012 the government was so grossly incompetent that spending was 235% of income. I had to go a long way to find an equally poor administration. All the way back to 1983 according to the Office of Management and Budget. The name of the '83 depression eludes me. As another aside, while the capitalist US federal government has 1 employee/70 citizens, in the socialist cesspool to the north there is 1 federal employee/133 citizens. Once you have socialized medecine there is no stopping the growth of the federal beast don't ya know.