Civil War in The Republican Big Tent

While Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was offering up his convoluted plan to save the GOP from itself, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) dug in his "no-deal with taxes" heels. The debt limit talks at the White House yesterday were characterized as a "blow-up" by republican talking heads. Cantor essentially suggested that President Obama is an intemperate, Angry Black Male. This from the Washington Post:

Those talks ended on an angry note when Obama and Cantor disagreed over the length of the proposed debt-ceiling increase. Cantor had been urging a short-term extension that would require Congress to vote a second time on the unpopular measure before the 2012 election. The president lectured about the need to drop political posturing, saying several times, “Enough is enough,” according to Democratic officials with knowledge of the closed-door meeting.

“The president told me, ‘Eric, don’t call my bluff. You know I’m going to take this to the American people,’ ” Cantor said. “He then walked out.”

But as he left, Obama added: “I’ll see you tomorrow.” 

David Rogers at Politico continues:

A blow-up between Obama and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor at the end of Wednesday’s White House negotiating session captured the building tension. “He’s frustrated, we’re all frustrated,” Cantor said, describing the president as “abruptly walking out.” Democrats took a different slant: “He (Obama) lit up Eric Cantor like he’s never been lit up,” said one in the room.

 So Angry...So Black...So Liberal. 

It's been reported that Senator Harry Reid and some rank-and-file dems have embraced McConnell's plan as a compromise they're willing to accept in order to avoid default. This scheme has obvious benefits for congressional republicans. Obama is tasked with raising the debt-limit in increments, essentially through a procedural maneuver that is almost certain to require a veto of the nay votes sure to be cast by House republicans. McConnell argued on the Laura Ingraham radio show that if the Administration pivoted to this strategy, republicans will be able to remove the stain of current economic malaise; thus protecting the republican brand ahead of the 2012 election cycle.

Conversely, Cantor has continued to kowtow to the ultra-conservative, Tea Party faction in the House, and has in fact seemed to harden his official position in recent days. Rather than moving towards the center in reaching a compromise on the budget, Cantor has continuously attempted to frame the debate in terms of dramatic spending cuts, absent any new revenue (aka tax increases), that takes a hacksaw to so-called big government, no matter what the economic and social cost. The full faith and credit of the United States seems to take a backseat to Cantor's political posturing:

Critics said he has been petulant in his dealings with the White House, and in positioning himself to the political right of Boehner whenever possible. They point to him walking out on the Biden talks, dominating nearly a week’s worth of discussions with the president and congressional leaders and complaining about being kept in the dark on the Obama-Boehner talks.

“He lost a lot of credibility when he walked away from the table … It was childish,” said one House Republican with close ties to Cantor who spoke on condition of anonymity to preserve their friendship. “This is his time to perform.”

This sort of sick intransigence serves no one. But it begs the question. What is it about our unique political culture that gives rise to such white-knuckle brinkmanship?

Thinking of A Masterplan!

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)

Thinkin' of a master plan
'Cuz ain't nuthin' but sweat inside my hand
So I dig into my pocket, all my money is spent
So I dig deeper but still comin' up with lint

So I start my mission, leave my residence
Thinkin' how could I get some dead presidents
I need money, I used to be a stick-up kid
So I think of all the devious things I did

I used to roll up, this is a hold up, ain't nuthin' funny
Stop smiling, be still, don't nuthin' move but the money

--Eric B. and Rakim "Paid in Full"

Apt lyrics to describe our current debt debate, right?

In yet another predictable attempt to pass the economic buck to the White House, Senator Mitch McConnell produced a labyrinthine plan to raise the debt ceiling while simultaneously avoiding collateral damage to the republican brand. David Dayen at The New Prospect explains it this way:

McConnell’s proposal would create a byzantine system for raising the debt ceiling: The House and Senate would first pass a bill that authorizes the president to submit a request to increase the debt limit, first by $700 billion, then in additional installments of $900 billion a piece. In each case, the president would have to concurrently submit a separate plan to reduce spending by an equal or greater amount. That’s the last we see of those spending plans; they are purely hypothetical, and they play no role in the rest of the legislative machinations. Congress wouldn’t have to vote on them. So, in this proposal, Republicans give up their ability to use the debt limit to force fiscal policy changes.

Once the president requests the first debt-limit increase, the House and Senate can use what is known as a resolution of disapproval to try to block it. If the resolution passes both houses of Congress, it moves to the president. But Obama can choose to veto the resolution of disapproval, and overriding that veto would require a two-thirds vote in each chamber. This means that a minority of 34 senators or 146 House members can sustain Obama’s veto, which would result in the $700 billion increase in the debt limit going through. The same process carries for the additional installments.

The fact is that this plan has a singular purpose. The foremost concern is the protection of the "republican brand". Not Americans, not jobs, not even our credit rating. Now naturally Senator McConnell cloaks this scheme in rhetoric about saving our country from economic devastation, but this proposal is clearly a maneuver aimed at symbolically distancing republicans from our collective economic destiny (should it turn out to be dismal). By essentially forcing the Prez to take the reins of this budget bronco and ride, congressional republicans can take credit for eliminating further gridlock. The New York Times described McConnell's position this way (emphasis added):

Recounting how the 1995 government shutdown helped President Bill Clinton win re-election the next year, Mr. McConnell said any impasse that hurt the nation’s credit and led to government checks being delayed could have the same result for President Obama.

“He will say Republicans are making the economy worse,” Mr. McConnell, who is recognized as one of his party’s top political strategists, said in an interview with the radio host Laura Ingraham.

“It is an argument that he could have a good chance of winning and all of the sudden we have co-ownership of the economy. That is a very bad position going into the election.”

Such a nakedly cynical move.           

What I'm Watching...

Is Walmart "Too Big To Sue"? via TYT

Walmart Ruling via Thom Hartmann

Equality 1, Homophobic Fear-Mongering 0

CHEERS!!!

source:nytimes

The New York State Senate passed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage last night. This is such a huge win for the gay rights community and Governor Andrew Cuomo. But it's also a victory for everyone that simply believes that we all have basic rights as human beings. The ability to marry who you love (or even that hooker you took shots with in Vegas!) is central to the ideas of individual freedom and determination of which politicians love to pay lip service.

After extended wrangling in the Republican-controlled senate, the final vote tally was 33-29 in favor of the legislation. Couples will be able to wed in about 30 days. According to the Washington Post:

The decision was welcomed by gay rights groups, who had been hungry for a win after similar measures failed this year in Maryland and Rhode Island.

The bill’s passage also was viewed as a milestone nationally because it was the first time a GOP-controlled chamber has approved gay marriage.

Several wealthy Republicans backed the effort, and it was ultimately Republican senators who cast the tiebreaking votes. Four Republicans joined with the vast majority of the Senate’s Democrats to pass the bill. The Republicans hold a one-member majority in the chamber.

The fact that this bill gained momentum based on republican action in the senate is important to note. As  national republican politicos move farther and farther to the right, at the behest of corporations, the Tea Party, and various Koch-brother affiliated organizations, the lawmakers in New York seemed to step out on the side of equality. I use the term seemed because this bill comes packaged with two "religious exemptions".  The first is that religious corporations and non-profits cannot be stripped of state or local funding for refusing to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies, furthermore, said organizations are also protected from discrimination litigation.  However, the second provision is by far the most critical. The New York Times described it this way:

Finally, the legislation contained what is known as an inseverability clause. If a court found any part of the act to be invalid, the entire legislation would also be invalid. The clause is an important provision to Republicans because it means that the marriage legislation would be at risk if the religious exemptions were successfully challenged in court.

See that trick the Republicans just performed? Not only can religious organizations bar same-sex couples from utilizing their facilities and accessing their services, if an advocate challenged the legality of any portion of the bill, then theoretically the entire law can be scrapped.  This is referred to as an "Inseverability Clause". The actual language of the bill reads as follows (emphasis is my own): 

THIS ACT IS TO BE CONSTRUED AS A WHOLE, AND ALL PARTS OF IT ARE

TO BE READ AND CONSTRUED TOGETHER. IF ANY PART OF THIS ACT SHALL BE ADJUDGED BY ANY COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION TO BE INVALID, THE REMAINDER OF THIS ACT SHALL BE INVALIDATED. NOTHING HEREIN SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO AFFECT THE PARTIES' RIGHT TO APPEAL THE MATTER.

The more common clause used in typical legislation is what's known as the "Severability Clause". Severability is essentially the idea that, if any portion of a law is unconstitutional, unenforceable, etc. then that portion of the law will be struck down, while the rest of the law remains in effect. However, what we see above is evidence of Republicans using insidious language and a questionable legal maneuver in order to maintain some symbolic level of social conservatism. I can imagine the senators thinking "Yes, we voted for this bill, but all we need is one wild-eyed hippie to file a lawsuit and it's all over with baby"! Unfortunately for them it's been noted that courts routinely ignore both severability and inseverability clauses, choosing instead to employ their own criteria in determining severability.

If all goes well, the entire nation will be hearing wedding bells from Manhattan in a month.

I for one, will be toasting my New York gays tonight!

Taking Back the Country....From Who, Exactly?

Last night CNN broadcast the Republican debate for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination. Seven candidates-- including Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, and Mitt Romney, grinned and postured onstage while essentially declaring how they planned to "take our country back". That phrase has become such a massive theme for an increasingly right-wing Republican party. Naturally conservatives claim that they want to reclaim the country from the stranglehold of the tyrannical government; however, if you stick around long enough for the potential candidates to go beyond their usual superficial tropes, an interesting thing occurs. 

The candidates begin to describe how they want to wrest the country away from its middle-class citizens, the "job-killing" EPA, and all the loose, morally questionable women that insist on having the right to make a choice about whether to get an abortion when the pregnancy is unplanned (Rape and Incest be damned! Keep the baby, life begins at conception!). The right-wing prescription for the black malaise that they claim is rapidly swallowing our society? Tax cuts, deregulation, and strict, Christian Evangelical based social conservatism. No matter what question John King asked, the contenders seemed to always loop back to the party line. 

Typical Republican logic argues that corporations aren't willing to hire because the tax burden is too great, and our "socialist government" discourages innovation by implementing excessive regulations. Michele Bachmann even invoked her experience as a federal tax lawyer to illustrate the dire straits in which businesses exist because of backbreaking tax liabilities. However, there is a fundamental difference between the high tax rate, and what corporations actually send to the IRS. One tactic is for large corporations to simply shift their profits to foreign tax havens, which costs the Treasury about $100 billion a year in lost revenue. Yes, the American corporate tax rate is on the higher end of the spectrum (second only to Japan) at 35%, but built-in loopholes ensure that corporations pay far less.  The New York Times explained it this way:

But by taking advantage of myriad breaks and loopholes that other countries generally do not offer, United States corporations pay only slightly more on average than their counterparts in other industrial countries. And some American corporations use aggressive strategies to pay less — often far less — than their competitors abroad and at home. A Government Accountability Office study released in 2008 found that 55 percent of United States companies paid no federal income taxes during at least one year in a seven-year period it studied.


The paradox of the United States tax code — high rates with a bounty of subsidies, shelters and special breaks — has made American multinationals “world leaders in tax avoidance,” according to Edward D. Kleinbard, a professor at the University of Southern California who was head of the Congressional joint committee on taxes. This has profound implications for businesses, the economy and the federal budget.

That information is just another slice of definitive proof that Republicans have no qualms about making bold declarations that fly in the face of all the available evidence. Furthermore, what some would argue is the tail-end of the Great Recession has given rise to record-shattering corporate profits, cash surpluses, and CEO pay. Yet unemployment is stuck at 9.1%. Those that are getting work are most-definitely getting paid less. Home prices are still plummeting, college grads scramble for nonexistent careers, and Republican governors are in open war against the last vestiges of union culture. The reality is that American corporations have made a strategic shift that explicitly abandons the middle class in favor of both the emerging markets of the BRIC countries and the domestic super-elite oligarchy. Lower tax rates for big business would be just an unwarranted bonus. Chrystia Freeland describes the new economic landscape in the New York Times:

But the reality may be even more chilling: Perhaps U.S. business is learning to get by just fine, thank you, without middle-class U.S. consumers. And while that may be good news for chief executives and shareholders, it could be the beginning of a new and socially wrenching political logic that leaves the great American middle behind.

Wall Street, which is paid for smarts, not sentiment, has this figured out. In a newspaper interview this month, Robert C. Doll, chief equity strategist at BlackRock, the largest money manager in the world, pointed out that the fortunes of U.S. companies and the fortunes of the country as a whole were diverging: “The U.S. stock market and the U.S. economy are increasingly different animals.”

Mr. Doll’s explanation for the shift was the increasing importance of international markets rather than the domestic one — of the rising middle class in emerging markets, rather than the stagnating one back home. He said that over the next five years, 70 percent of the incremental earnings of S.&P. 500 companies would come from outside the United States.

This is a very alarming prospect for one simple reason: National Security. Corporatist politicians are building the weapons of our destruction by encouraging a rogue capitalist system that harbors no patriotic sentiment. Companies that have grown from the seeds of uniquely American innovation are raising stakes and chasing profits in whatever far-flung region that globalization deems its new hotspot. Yes, you can hire Indian techies for one-third of the price of an Engineer from Boston...but at what social cost? 

Income inequality is at an all-time high and yet not a single Republican mentioned that in the CNN debate. Big business has shifted their job-creating resources to unregulated emerging markets. Meanwhile on the homefront, Republicans (aka Citizens United) have sucessfully argued that dollars=free speech; the natural result of which will be that corporations--not government--can maintain a stranglehold on our ostensibly democratic system. For better or worse, less jobs means even less opportunities for the middle class to willfully blind themselves with material trinkets. Even less BMWs, Playstations, and Juicy Couture sweatsuits to assuage our collective psychic pain. Maybe this new, new economy will snatch us away from our backlash mentality and force us to realize that an America without a vibrant, fortified middle class, will just be a global afterthought. 

Osama bin Laden Has Been Killed.

It was an absolutely amazing moment in American history when President Obama gave his surprise statement and announced that Public Enemy #1 had been killed by American forces yesterday. Right now crowds are cheering in the streets the country over. My first thought was that Obama got the job done where Bush so obviously and painfully could not. My second thought was, let's see how the Republicans try to spin this in their favor, while refusing to acknowledge that this is a success that can be singularly attributed to Obama's direction and leadership. Minutes after that thought, a pundit on MSNBC noted how republican officials gave congratulations to former President Bush. They justified it by noting that he began the hunt for bin Laden. Well, so effing what! Obama got the job done. But it seems that most Republicans can be counted on to be divisive during a time where we need to come together as Americans more than ever. Of course, the terrorist threat to America isn't completely eradicated, but the international figurehead of anti-Americanism has been eradicated. I'm sure his death will have a deeply needed soothing effect on the national psyche. I am both proud to be American, and very proud of our Commander-in-Chief.

2012 is looking better than ever!

The Boogeyman is finally Dead.

P.C. Mourning, Rhetoric, and a Blood Libel

Six days after the tragedy in Tucson and I am still deeply disgusted and saddened by the tone from Sarah Palin and her various advocates. Sarah from Alaska finally responded to the nation yesterday, posting a self-referential video that essentially defended her use of disturbing political rhetoric and starkly illuminated her shallow knowledge of history. Naturally, she hasn't done any national press and has confined herself strictly to the web. It's also interesting to note that the posting of her response video via her Facebook page was done the morning of the Tucson Memorial. The facts so far do not indicate that the gunman Jared Lee Loughner has any affliation with either the Tea Party or Mrs. Palin. However the moment the news broke that Representative Gabrielle Giffords was shot point blank in the head, many in the blogosphere and in the Twitterverse immediately implicated those on the hard-right, especially Ms. Palin.


At issue was the SarahPac "Target List" that superimposed gunsights over certain democratic congressional districts, including that of Rep. Giffords. The congresswoman herself specifically cautioned against using such loaded imagery on MSNBC, by stating that those sorts of depictions have real consequences. Many other observers pointed to a tweet by Palin exclaiming "Don't retreat, Instead--RELOAD!" that was purportedly scrubbed from Twitter. The peddling of apocalyptic scenarios, allusions to presidential Nazism, and invocations of "Second Amendment remedies" on talk radio and Fox News by a fringe-right movement that has become deeply entwined with the GOP, has been employed as a fear tactic that seems to hold increasing sway over the disaffected American body politic. It is in this climate that  Sarah Palin retreated into a bizarre victimhood while her conservative boosters such as Alan Dershowitz closed ranks and defended her statements. Mrs. Palin states in her video that:


"If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible."


I placed the previous sentence in bold to highlight the careless misuse of a horrifying, historical anti-semitic tradition. It's one thing to allege that certain members of the so-called "liberal media" are unfairly placing blame, but it's a completely different beast to cry Blood Libel. Firstly, employing that term in this context is suspect. A blood libel is a centuries-old false claim asserting that Jews murder Christian children so that they may use their blood to practice obscure religious rituals or even bake Passover matzah; a filthy accusation used to justify widespread anti-semitism in Europe. Whoever wrote this statement for her clearly has no foothold in history, which makes it an even more baffling choice of terminology. Why would Mrs. Palin utter such an incendiary term with no knowledge of its implications? Because she's grossly unintelligent and woefully unfit to lead our great nation. 


At this critical juncture any hopes for Palin 2012 should be kaput. 


I digress.


Naturally, many in the American Jewish leadership came out against Palin's non-judicious use of blood libel. A selection of their statements can be read at The Huffington Post here.


Furthermore, the decision to reveal her narcissistic video on a day of collective national mourning is a true testament to her troubling detachment from both reality and the gravity of the massacre that occurred in Arizona. Her glib tone and plastic smile beams across the screen as she pontificates on "dueling pistols" and "imagined insults". A child died. A staffer died. A federal judge died. People that were simply trying to participate in the democratic process died. And all Mrs. Palin can do is wrap herself in a blanket of victimhood. In a hyper-polarized political culture, one has to shed a bright light on the increasingly jingoistic, vitriolic, and xenophobic discourse emanating from Sarah Palin, Sharron Angle, Glenn Beck, the Tea Party, and other stalwarts of the hard-right. 


The speech that the President gave at the Tucson Memorial yesterday was absolutely pitch-perfect. I attempted to live-tweet parts of it (which was a lesson in humility itself, lol), and while I was updating through TweetDeck I had a column open with trending tweets about the memorial. What struck me immediately was how hardcore conservatives were savagely criticizing the fact that the crowd was cheering and clapping during the speeches given by Giffords' intern Daniel Hernandez and President Obama. People were claiming that it was a campaign rally, a revival, false sadness, and basically an event staged by liberals to boost President Obama's image. What a crock of shit! Is there a "proper" way to mourn? Definitely not. You cannot box in the way people grieve. To impose partisan labels on an event meant to celebrate and acknowledge the lives of those who were lost or wounded is absolutely heartless. That moment was an opportunity for our President to draw us together as citizens and offer some measure of healing and solace.... which is precisely what he did. He smoothly remained above the fray of partisan politics and I believed earned back some confidence from the nation. Even Glenn Beck conceded that Obama did a fine job. (Hell hath frozen over!)


Nine-Year-Old Christina Taylor Green was laid to rest today. She was the youngest of six who paid with their lives to support democracy-in-action. 

Investigation Nation (or the saga of Darell Issa)

Republican Rep. Darell Issa of California plans to make quite the splash when the 112th Congress officially convenes on Wednesday. Issa has laid the foundation for the sort of distracting, noxious political theater that will have absolutely no material impact on our current economic status. Declaring President Obama "one of the most corrupt presidents in modern times" on the Rush Limbaugh show, and then back tracking in a fit of semantics on CNN this Sunday; Issa recalibrated his former declaration by insisting that the administration and not the POTUS himself reeks of corruption. Politico has reported on Mr. Issa's goals as the ranking Chairman of the House Government Oversight Committee, which can be read about here.


Obviously, this (along with the House vote on repealing so-called "ObamaCare") smacks of partisan opportunism and seems to me like a bizarre sideshow in the face of continued struggle of "the jobless American".