;)
The Commentariat -- Jan. 25, 2013
My column in the New York Times eXaminer is on David Brooks' "The Great Migration." Thanks for your comments today on the same. I had a hard time writing this one; there was so much wrong with Brooks' arguments I just couldn't hit 'em all.
Nedra Picker of the AP: "President Barack Obama has chosen longtime trusted adviser and national security expert Denis McDonough as his fifth chief of staff. A White House official said Obama will announce McDonough's appointment Friday in the East Room. McDonough, 43, will take over the key West Wing role from Jack Lew, Obama's nominee for Treasury secretary." ...
... New York Times Update by Peter Baker: "President Obama shook up his White House staff on Friday, installing a new team largely made up of familiar faces moved to different positions as he gears up for an intense push on sweeping legislation early in his second term. Mr. Obama named Denis R. McDonough, a longtime aide and currently the principal deputy national security adviser, as his new White House chief of staff, and shuffled around a series of other officials in the West Wing." ...
"Deficit Hawks Down." Paul Krugman hails the end of the era of deficit hawks. CW: I hope he's right -- that the President at long last gets it -- but I'm not as confident as Krugman. Krugman bases his optimistic assessment on the fact that Obama "barely mentioned the budget deficit" in his inaugural address. But Obama did say this: "We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit." Deficit reduction is not exactly an inspirational theme for a speech destined to go down in the history books, so it is hardly surprising that the President "barely mentioned" it. But the State of the Union Address, which Obama will deliver on February 12, is just the right place to repeat his "belt-tightening" meme. ...
... Meanwhile, here's an excellent example of how "well" austerity works. David Milliken & Olesya Dmitracova of Reuters: "Britain's economy shrank more than expected at the end of 2012..., pushing it perilously close to a 'triple-dip' recession.... The news is a blow for Britain's Conservative-led government, which a day earlier defended its austerity program against criticism from the International Monetary Fund." The Guardian story is here.
Stupid Senate Tricks. Paul Kane of the Washington Post: "Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) have largely accepted the recommendations from a bipartisan team of senior senators that the chamber needs to streamline its operations but not throw out rules that give the minority more rights than in any legislative body in the world. Reid and McConnell are presenting the draft proposal to their caucuses Thursday afternoon, and if they get a positive response, the changes could come to a vote by the end of the day." (Emphasis added.) ...
... UPDATE: "The Senate approved a deal Thursday that will keep the chamber’s long-standing 60-vote threshold for halting a filibuster but streamline some of the chamber’s more cumbersome procedures."
... Ezra Klein: "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell have come to a deal on filibuster reform. The deal is this: The filibuster will not be reformed.... What will be reformed is how the Senate moves to consider new legislation, the process by which all nominees — except Cabinet-level appointments and Supreme Court nominations — are considered, and the number of times the filibuster can be used against a conference report.... But even those reforms don’t go as far as they might." ...
There should not be 60 votes in the Senate. -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, 2010
I'm not personally, at this stage, ready to get rid of the 60-vote threshold.... With the history of the Senate, we have to understand the Senate isn't and shouldn't be like the House. -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, 2013
... Steve Benen: "Reid says he's concerned about 'the history of the Senate,' but the Senate functioned quite well for 200 years while remaining a majority-rule institution....That's no longer true, and today's modest reforms won't even try to fix that problem.... The Founding Fathers considered making the Senate a supermajority chamber, but they decided against it." ...
... Greg Sargent: "Today’s reforms do nothing to discourage, or extract any price whatsoever for, precisely the type of unprecedented and destructive party-wide obstructionism that launched the push for reform in the first place." ...
... Dave Dayen: "... there's a very direct and determined hatred of democracy [in the Senate]. Tom Harkin is pretty much the only Senator who dares to say this, but if the nation decides to elect a particular majority, that majority should have the ability to enact an agenda, and if the public doesn't like it afterward they can vote them out. That's basically how it works, or rather how it should work.... (my top 5 Senate reforms are actually 1) abolition, 2) turning it into the House of Lords and making it irrelevant, 3) majority rule, 4) the "talking filibuster" or 5) shifting the burden on the minority)...." ...
... David Waldman of Daily Kos sees a couple of upsides. CW: I see them, too; I think the fact that people organized & mobilized around something as arcane as Senate rules is a thing of beauty.
"A Crisis of Arithmetic." Paul Krugman: "The government really is an insurance company with an army; if you demand rapid deficit reduction without raising taxes or cutting military spending, you have to cut deeply into programs that the public values. Republicans have, for the most part, managed until recently to skate over this reality, simultaneously calling for lower spending in the abstract while posing as the defenders of seniors against Obama’s Medicare cuts. They’ve been aided in this by pundits and reporters unwilling to seem 'unbalanced' by pointing out the realities."
Ed O'Keefe of the Washington Post: "Democratic lawmakers formally reintroduced a bill Thursday that would ban military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, the most ambitious — and politically risky — element of proposals unveiled by President Obama to limit gun violence. The 'Assault Weapons Ban of 2013' is a much more far-reaching proposal than the federal ban that expired in 2004." ...
... Brad Plumer of the Washington Post on how the new bill is different from the old law: "The new ban would cover more firearm models than the 1994 ban did.... The new bill broadens the definition of 'assault weapon' slightly.... The new ban would tighten regulations on existing assault-weapons and high-capacity magazines.... The bill would also require current assault-weapons owners to 'safely store their firearms.' ... States and localities could conduct 'voluntary buy-back programs.' ... The new ban wouldn’t sunset after 10 years."
President Obama nominates Richard Cordray to continue as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Mary Jo White as Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission:
Rick Rothacker & Jonathan Spicer of Reuters: "As U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner prepares to step down on Friday, former colleagues are posing awkward questions about an allegation he leaked information on a planned interest rate cut when he led the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Several former officials said the allegation, if true, suggests a likely violation of agency rules since interest rate discussions are confidential, and one said the central bank should have investigated the matter. Whether it did is unclear." CW: don't worry about Timmy, folks. This will only help him get a better job on the Street.
Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar of the AP: "The Affordable Care Act ... allows health insurers to charge smokers buying individual policies up to 50 percent higher premiums starting next Jan. 1. For a 55-year-old smoker, the penalty could reach nearly $4,250 a year. A 60-year-old could wind up paying nearly $5,100 on top of premiums." ...
Evidently Steve Rattner is hoping to ride Geithner's coattails. Rattner, in the New York Times: "... it was [Geithner's] superb judgment, deep well of experience and extraordinary work ethic that ultimately extinguished the conflagration of 2007-9." Do not read on a full stomach.
Tim Egan: The country is not "necessarily ... more 'liberal.' But..., at the least..., the center has moved, and Republicans have not.... Representative Justin Amash, Republican of Michigan, spoke more political truth in one sentence than Boehner and McConnell have in four years of speeches. 'The public is not behind us,' he said, 'and that’s a real problem for our party.'"
Jonathan Bernstein makes a very good argument against E. J. Dionne's idea -- column linked yesterday -- that Obama is striving to be "the liberal Reagan," a transformative president. Bernstein reminds us Reagan was no transformative president. CW: That's one of the many right-wing myths Obama buys. Contra Bernstein, however, it's a good idea to bear in mind that mythologizing always takes a while; being assassinated in office speeds it up, of course. ...
... Matt Lewis of the Daily Caller, one of a handful of conservative pundits who occasionally engage their brains, asks, "Obama’s collectivist ideology might trump an 'every man for himself' philosophy — but can Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton beat a young conservative selling a mainstream, family-friendly message?" My answer to that is, "no." I love Joe, & Hillary has been a tireless secretary of state, but my generation is too old to be president. Obama won twice partly because he was Not the Rich Old Out-of-Touch Fart. Democrats need a vibrant young candidate in 2016, like the vibrant young candidate we had in 2008 & 2012. ...
... ** BUT it may not matter who the Democratic presidential candidate is. Nia-Malika Henderson & Errin Haines of the Washington Post: "Republicans in Virginia and a handful of other battleground states are pushing for far-reaching changes to the electoral college in an attempt to counter recent success by Democrats." Under the election-rigging scheme, "President Obama would have claimed four of [Virginia's] 13 electoral votes in the 2012 election, rather than all of them.... No state is moving quicker than Virginia, where state senators are likely to vote on the [election-rigging] plan as soon as next week." ...
... ** Think Progress has a "Grand Theft Election" overview.
You Can't Make Up this Stuff. Laura Bassett of the Huffington Post: "A Republican lawmaker in New Mexico introduced a bill on Wednesday that would legally require victims of rape to carry their pregnancies to term in order to use the fetus as evidence for a sexual assault trial. House Bill 206, introduced by state Rep. Cathrynn Brown (R), would charge a rape victim who ended her pregnancy with a third-degree felony for 'tampering with evidence.'" CW: Cathrynn, dear, your crazy ploy is unconstitooshunal.
A commenter to today's thread thought Boehner looked drunk here. You be the judge:
Share Article
Reader Comments (11)
Here's my instant take (subject to change). The Republicans have gerrymandered the House to the point where it will be impossible in the foreseeable future for the Democrats to control it, no matter the popular vote. The Republicans are also hell-bent on changing the electoral college to allocating vote by CDs, which means, of course, by their gerrymandered House districts. The upshot being that the Democrats may win the popular vote but not the presidency. But the only thing left untouched in this power grab is, Ta Da, the Senate, which (as of today) is still elected by popular vote.
And then Harry Reid gave that away, too.
There is no joy in Mudville tonight.
In his column today, the Great Socialist David Brooks bemoans the fate of the uneducated left behind in Ojai, California and Minot, Maine by the "meritocracy" as personified by that uppity guy, Obama. So, in the next election cycle, "elite" will be replaced by "meritocracy" as the 666 of the Republican Party. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Re: I've gone this fur; I'm not going farther; Mr. Brooks proves one more time that he is, indeed and in thought; an asswipe.
Smart people like Mr. Brooks go to good universities; get good jobs and live in big cities; " "So did many people who read this newspaper and many of us who write for it. "; Mr. Brooks reminds us. That is why Mr. Brooks has a job; smart writing for smart people just like; Mr. Brooks. Being stupid, I do not read Mr. Brooks but Jack Mahoney's comment caught my eye because He mentions a town; Ojai, as an example of an "non-Brooken" hollow. Ojai is a beautiful little town tucked into a valley of the coastal mountain range in SoCal. The area produces oranges, avocados, cutting horses and artists. I don't know the stats on university degrees but there is a high school there and the kids to seem to go...when they're not mountain biking, surfing, rock climbing or riding horses.
Mr. Brooks believes goodness comes from income, or that's what I read from todays column. In fact, I believe that is the total thrust of Mr. Brooks writing career; smart people like Mr. Brooks deserve a good, fat life, because they...do.
I know a blacksmith from Ojai; I'd rather spend a lazy, sunny afternoon talking to him than ten minutes in NYC with Mr. Brooks.
Mr. Brooks doesn't seem to get the idea that not everyone wants what he wants.
And what do all those smart people like Mr. Brooks do when they strike it rich working the ego mines of the big cities? Move to a little gentleman's ranch in Ojai.
As usual, forced myself to read David Brooks. As usual, it made me mad that I did.
Then I read Tim Egan's in-touch commentary on those out-of-touch conservatives; i.e., "...the era of liberalism is back." lamented by the "perpetually puckered" Mitch McConnell. The descriptive is apt. In fact, I fancy that if McConnell were a dog, he'd be a Shar-pei. Though, definitely the runt of the litter. Good to see the sharp rebuttals from many of those commenting.
Then, there's the ever-disappointing Harry Reid who talks the talk (Yeah!, yeah, this time he's really gonna stand up to the Republicans) but ends up doing nothing much as he trips down the walkway. Perhaps it is time to transfer the crown formerly bestowed on Mitt—Lord Small Balls to old Harry. Or since Reid, is a former amateur boxer, maybe Count'em (out) Small Balls ?
Matt Taibbi has more background on the SEC nominee.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/choice-of-mary-jo-white-to-head-sec-puts-fox-in-charge-of-hen-house-20130125
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Yep, it's biz-ness as usual. ...and hey now, don't she look like your quiet little gray mouse librarian from down the street?
Admittedly I'm not a scientist or was I even especially good in those subjects at any point in my education. DNA does not stand for Dumbest Neanderthal Asswipe in the room. Wait, maybe it does in Texas.
Maybe it's just me, but John Boehner looked drunk when he was bemoaning that Democrats are trying to put the Republican Party in "the dustbin of history." In my opinion, Democrats don't need to do that; the Republicans are doing a fine job of that all by themselves.
The media has been entirely distracted by Jindal's "we are the stupid party" statement that his ignorant, craven and outrageous policies ( taxes, abortion, etc) in Louisiana are being ignored. It just reinforces the desperation to find a "reasonable" Republican. There are none. Have we so quickly forgotten the open spigot of money to snake oil salesmen who set up in their garage with free Bibles and a 2nd grade education. Talk about smoke and mirrors!!!!
Don't usually reply to another commenter in the NYTimes but annoyance prompted an exception...so an exchange with a Times reader who seemed pleased that Obama's recess appointments to the National Labor Relation Board were ruled illegal by the Washington, D.C. federal appeals court today.
Ken: "As if we needed another reason to decry the Senate Democrats' (embodied in purported pugilist Harry Reid) spinelessness. If because of the still-robust filibuster, a President cannot have the appointments he makes in line with his electoral victory confirmed by the Senate, what is the purpose of his or her popular vote victory? Or for that matter of any "one man, one vote" principle?
Oh, that's right. The minority party believes there is no purpose. Now they want to compensate for their unpopularity by electing Presidents according to gerrymandered Congressional districts, assuring that the popular vote has little effect on elections.
Mr. Boehner complained last week, the President is trying to crush his party and toss it into the dustbin of history.
Though only a (borrowed and tired) rhetorical flourish, I wonder why if he could, the President should not do exactly that, for if democracy is defined as a government that enacts and supports the will of the people, what's happening in this country sure ain't it.
Other guy: (summarized, not quoted) But that's why we have separation of powers. The President cannot control the Senate. SCOTUS will uphold the decision made today.
Ken: I have no argument with separation of powers and I also suspect the decision will be upheld by SCOTUS.
I do, though, have a serious argument with dozens, if not hundreds, of filibustered appointments designed to grind the business of governance to a halt. Please note the language of the Constitution says, "advise and consent," not "deliberately obstruct." The filibuster itself is not in the Constitution and until President Obama was elected was used only sparingly. My point was this court decision, correct on its face or not, combined with the minority party's take-no-prisioners obstruction, will further harm the country, practically by making the federal government's operation even more inefficient and theoretically because it will suggest to many of our citizens that their wishes do not matter.
Perhaps you don't think those wishes should matter, but since you do not address the issue of governance at all or have anything to say about the Right's current attempt to elect future Presidents by some means other than the majority will of the people, it's hard for me to tell.
But I'd gather you would like it that way."
So far Other Guy has not responded. Just as well. I'm done.
I don't believe it overly dramatic to believe, as I do,that the Right's so-far-successful attacks on the principle of "one man, one vote," in the Senate or in our national or state elections to be the critical issue of Obama's second term.
Would love to hear what others have to say. Don't think this issue will fade away soon.
Although I doubt that an internet petition demanding Reid's resignation from his Majority Leader post would bring about any such result, if signed by a noticeable number of angry Democrats it might affect the thinking of some of "our" other senators. Does anybody know of such a petition? Most likely, though, nothing will change. I suspect that all US senators regard themselves as far more important than either the President or the national interest. After all, the President can only be re-elected once. Like Ken (above,) I suspect that Harry Reid has just ensured that no Supreme Court justice will ever be successfully appointed by President Obama
I sure appreciate Marie and some of you who pay to inform us all about the NYT. I do my darnedest to not patronize those who pay Brooks' salary. That said, I like Egan and some of the information their host of writers put out here onto the intertoobes. Fox helped me decide to disconnect the teevee some years ago so my young people wouldn't think the Murdoch/Ailes network was normal.
Nobody has commented about the Wicked Witch of Wasilla being disconnected from the aforementioned network. Talk about how fast one becomes yesterday's news. Maybe Todd wants his decky back. Deckhand for those not in the know. I bet he cherishes the last several years of fishcamp.