Democrats

Keeping Hillary off the Half Dollar

milhayser — Mon, 04 Apr 2016 18:31:20 +0000

Keeping Hillary off the Half Dollar

In January, Hillary Clinton still possessed the benefit of the doubt. Memories of her and Bill snarling at Barack Obama in 2008 had faded, and despite her long and dreadful record, it's always possible to turn over a new leaf. But Clinton's ongoing response to Bernie Sanders shows why she is unfit for the presidency. Even as the frontrunner, Hillary shows no leadership ability; she, too, follows Sanders, trailing him to the left as he takes meaningful positions on issues like income inequality and campaign finance reform. Her saccharine smile says "I can do that too!" but truly she should be inspired by competition, not forced to shift uncomfortably because of it. Her recent anger at being asked about money from the fossil fuel industry illustrates her shortcomings perfectly. Confronted with a fair election, faced with her own record, she becomes defensive instead of inspired. She says something that isn't true to blunt the inappropriateness of her rage. She enjoys the benefits of Citizens United just as they were meant to be enjoyed: as a carte blanche that allows her and other mainstream candidates to deny the corrupting influence of big money even as millions of industry dollars are spent on her behalf.

But Clinton has never shown interest in a fair contest; she moved to New York in 2000 because it was the only state in the union that might elect her to the Senate. In her 2008 bid for the White House she carried herself as though presidential candidates are anointed by the Democratic National Committee, a private organization having no constitutional roots. She dismissed the possibility of nominating Obama just as she has dismissed Sanders. She and her jolly encampment harp on her inevitability; one of their favorite terms for her is "our next president." Having every superdelegate in your pantsuit pocket is one thing, but insulting Americans by saying they have no choice is just asking to get burned.

Clinton seems to think her sex, along with her inimitable résumé, is a golden halo; although she is a lackluster feminist, she yearns to set a historical precedent as the first female president, and casts aspersions on anyone who would deny her the opportunity. Look at her inane campaign slogan: "I'm With Her." But do you remember Gloria Steinem, advocating for Hillary, saying girls who support Bernie are only doing it to impress the boys? Do you remember the Clintons throwing Monica Lewinsky under the bus after Bill had thoroughly exploited her in the Oval Office? According to CNN, Hillary called Lewinsky a "narcissistic loony toon," which is at least somewhat ironic. And do you remember Hillary deliberately praising Nancy Reagan for her crusade against AIDS last month, either out of sheer ignorance or else to saint the memory of an arch-conservative? Do you remember how until 2013 she advocated against gay marriage and now she thinks it's great? Hillary Clinton is not a feminist, she's simply a woman, and if that's her strongest claim to the White House, it's not enough. Her posturing is sexist in and of itself.

Meanwhile Clinton and her handlers and her campaign staff and the last godforsaken newspapers in this country have worked tirelessly to influence public perception with rhetoric and omission rather than take a stand on important issues. Outlets like The Washington Post and The New York Times have seriously undermined their credibility by covering this race not as a democratic contest, but as a victory march beset by ungrateful and even dangerous support for Bernie Sanders. First they say "Sanders can't win" and then they say "Unite! Or Trump will take over in November" and now they say "Bernie is fighting dirty!"

But let's think about Donald Trump for a minute. Like Hillary, Trump has a long public record, and along with the fact that he used to be very liberal, we all know he's a world-class hustler and con artist. One thing Trump repeats throughout his fascist babblings is true: he's a really smart guy. He knows exactly what he's doing. But do we? Even if he becomes more centrist and "presidential" in the coming months he'll never win back women and minority voters. But everything he says riles up the GOP's most steadfast supporters, which is why he can't be denied their nomination without the whole party going down in flames. Trump's campaign has been carefully calculated to disrupt and even destroy the GOP. Should he win their nomination, he should be an easy target for the democratic coalition and sensible independents and Republicans.

There are two things that matter to the future of the United States in 2016: income inequality and climate change. Not surprisingly, they are directly related. They both result from an economic system that gives corporations free rein. Like King George III in the colonial era, corporations exploit us with no intent of letting us gain independence. They are designed to pay laborers as little as possible, tell sell the fruits of labor for as much as possible, and to keep all the profit for themselves. As a result the middle class becomes steadily less rich and more people slip into poverty, where some resort to crime. The U.S. compensates for the criminality it engenders by imprisoning more people than any other nation on Earth, and the truly sickening part of it is, many U.S. prisons are now privately owned and for-profit. They want more human beings within their walls, for longer periods of time. Corporations control the media through advertising dollars, and control the government through campaign contributions and even "speaking fees." They control you and me. This is not how America is supposed to work.

The image at the top of this post shows two cents: the so-called Indian Head and the Lincoln. The Native American figure is not just anyone; she's a woman, she's a symbol, and she has a name: Columbia. She appeared on the cent for 116 years; Lincoln has been on it for 107. While the tradition of a noble women conferring respectability on a country's coinage predates the United States, Columbia once provided to us a beautiful symbol of ourselves, long before she briefly appropriated the ceremonial headdress. In 1909, Abraham Lincoln was the first historical figure to appear on a United States coin, and now our pockets and purses are full of mens' heads. Even the heraldic eagle has been removed from the quarter in favor of honorary dioramas. This is the best ideal we aspire to now: fame, or at least enough influence to leave a mark and thus be remembered. We used to aspire to something greater: justice for all. Despite the fact that he's a democratic socialist, Bernie Sanders offers a return to our foundational roots, the chance to re-assert our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, rather than the right to liberalism, and the pursuit of security. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, probably wants her profile on the half dollar.

The global ecosystems that nurtured us as a species are withering all around us; climate change is not only raising sea levels, it's precipitating mass extinction that will likely lead to our own. Even if some of us survive, we won't be human anymore, we will evolve into something else—hopefully something that can metabolize ash and plastic. Our pollinators are dying, the last big animals on Earth will no longer be wild, and ocean acidification may wipe out the food chain. There will be so many of us and our new smartphones that we will starve, or else live on bread and jellyfish and soylent whatever. Capitalism has played a valuable role in the development of our economies; but the hard truth is that our economies must not be developed any more, they must be stabilized, streamlined, and even diminished. Democratic socialism is the future, and it is also the present, as some European countries exemplify. Personally I like being human, and I think every human being has the right to be grateful for their existence, and that is why I will vote for Bernie Sanders. I encourage everyone who still has a say in this primary to do the same. It is time to demand that our policies are determined by science and not by for-profit interests.

I understand that you make think of Hillary as your ally, I understand that many in Congress and the executive branch have worked with her and respect her, I understand that she herself is friends with many on Wall Street and around New York; she and her family have made connections everywhere. I don't think Clinton is a bad person. But I know she has never been a leader.

This election is the opportunity of a lifetime. It's about more than personal loyalty. Bernie Sanders has offered America the possibility of a political revolution. Without it, we will run the risk of a real one. That's my two cents.

milhayser Mon, 04/04/2016 - 14:31

Harry Potter and the 2014 Election

gregladen — Wed, 05 Nov 2014 08:03:50 +0000

Harry Potter and the 2014 Election

The Potter Metaphor

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone is the first in a series of books that are metaphorical of the central theme of politics and society in the Western world. Voldemort represents purity of race and racism, the good Witches and Wizards of Hogwarts represent the struggle of self aware consensus around the idea of fairness. The key protagonists -- Harry Potter, Hermione Granger, and Ron Weasley, together with a few others -- succeed because of the diversity in ability they collectively represent.

One of the key moments in J. K. Rowling’s book is the solution of the potions challenge on the way to the hidden room containing the Sorcerer’s stone. There are several challenges and problems, and each one is met by a different protagonist. Harry has the ability to make Hagrid reveal his poorly kept secrets, so among other things the three students find out how to control Fuffy, the giant three-headed hound. He is also a skilled Seeker, and can thus grab the flying key. Hermione is the one that notices the trap door. Ron for all his failings is a master at Wizard Chess. The theme here is obvious. The three students often fail to understand each other and often do not see eye to eye, but by combining their different strengths and working together, they accomplish what no individual Witch or Wizard could do. The part about the potions challenge is a notably extreme case of this.

Voldemort and his death eaters, and the Slytherin such as Draco Malfoy and his father, as well as Snape, resent the half breeds and muggle-born. They wish to see those who are not pure removed from their society, by any means. The historical fact that Voldemort himself is a halfbreed, a thinly veiled reference to Hitler’s Jewish connections, is beside the point. But it is the muggle-born Hermione who solves the potions puzzle using a Muggle capacity rarely found in Wizards. Wizards, we are told by Rowling, have magical minds, not logical minds. Among the Muggles we find those like Hermione, who probably spent hours with brain teaser books as an eight year old, who are capable of solving complex logical problems, problems that seem impossible but in fact have only one solution. When Hermione and Harry reach the potions challenge, where drinking all of the liquids but one will cause a horrible outcome, but that one potion will open the next door, her Muggle mind comes into play. Harry does not understand how Hermione has solved the problem, but he trusts her with his life.

It is very unfortunate that this scene was left out of the movie version of the story, even though it is alluded to after the fact. As far as I can tell, the scene was never shot (correct me if I am wrong). To me, this is a key message in Rowling’s book. The fact that it was not transferred into the movie version, and that commentary on the book vs. movie differences tend note it but do not lament it, is a bit disappointing.

Death Eaters, Good Witches and Wizards, Republicans, and Democrats

Ask yourself, what is the message of Voldemort and the Death Eaters, other than racial purity and a high degree of intolerance? There is only one, revealed by Voldemort himself, and others including the Sorting Hat, in a few places throughout the story. The only thing that really counts is power. There is no good and evil. Just power.

That is a simple message, easy to understand. You don’t have to be smart, or learned, or thoughtful, to get this point. It may be untrue, but if you say it enough times, and live by it, it becomes true to the faithful. Professor Quirinus Quirrell is a prescient example of how this can play out, that character written almost as though Rowlings had a crystal ball allowing her to see the future of politics in the four largest Anglophone countries. Quirrell is like a working class Tea Party faithful. It does not matter how much pain he will suffer to serve his master, he will remain faithful, and he will keep repeating the message, and in this way, he will continue to believe the message.

Now ask yourself, what is the central theme for the the rest of the Witches and Wizards? There really isn’t one. I’ve alluded to consensus, and there is that. Fairness too, a theme we see played out, naturally, in the sports related manifestation of the greater metaphor, on the Quidditch field. But really, they are all over the place. They vary greatly in approach, what they think is important, what they are good at, and what they like to do. They are like Democrats.

Rowling’s three main protagonists, Harry, Hermione, and Ron, have differences that could and occasionally did interfere with their camaraderie. They couldn’t be much more different in background, proclivities, and abilities. Harry is rich, Ron is poor. Harry and Ron are not particularly intellectual, Hermione is an egghead. Harry throws himself into danger, the others are more cautious. And so on. Often, they annoy each other. This is seen in the early days of their relationship and comes to a head later in the series more than once. But when a task that requires multiple approaches is set before them, they manage to succeed by using these differences. Their power does not come merely from fetishizing power, it comes from piecing together a battery that is stronger as a whole than the sum of its parts. Again, they are like Democrats.

The 2014 Election

During the 2014 election, and this has happened before, many Democrats ran against their leader, President Obama. A Republican strategy would have been different. Keep the message clear; our leader is the greatest ever and we are all on the same page.

A large scale, if imperfect, overhaul of the country’s health care insurance system was badly needed and totally undoable, yet President Obama did it. Democrats fell into the trap of over acknowledging the imperfection, and many with other important agendas (like addressing climate change) decried the health care reform effort as a distraction. Well, the Affordable Care Act certainly is imperfect, and climate change action may have suffered from the distraction, but Republicans would not have used these points a razor to cut their own wrists. Democrats did. Democrats acted like Harry, Hermione and Ron over-bickering and failing to get through the challenges set to keep them from the Sorcerer’s Stone. Had the three young wizards acted like Democrats usually act, Voldemort would have succeeded in his plan to seize power before the second book was written. Had Democrats, in the 2014 election cycle, acted like Rowling’s characters actually did (fictionally) act, this may not have been a midterm washout.

What Democrats Need To Do

Democrats need to be more thoughtful about when they go about the important business of eating their own young. American politics has a two-stage configuration, conveniently divided by Primary Day. Before Primary Day we fight within parties, and after Primary Day we fight between parties. Or at least, that is the theory. But that is not how Democrats often do it. With a simple message that is usually not muddled at any stage during this process, Republicans can be in lockstep as they advance their political agenda (gaining power). Democrats see this as a deficit. There is no real conversation in the Republican party. A small number of loudmouths yell out the marching orders and everyone marches. The few who do not are fallen upon and devoured quickly. Democrats recognize that this approach does not solve problems. Republicans recognize that this approach wins elections.

What Democrats need to do is to take a page -- one page -- from the Republican playbook. They need to recognize what it takes to win elections, and go win some. This does not mean failing to have the conversation, failing to try to solve problems. It can be accomplished, rather, by doing a better job at dividing up the process into its proper stages. Democrats have compensated for their failure to come together the day after Primary Day by getting very good at the technical aspects of getting out the vote, that sort of thing. But Democrats who don’t think the Republicans won’t figure this out and get just as good at it are deluded. Having a great database and a great call center to get out the vote is necessary but not sufficient over the long term. Democrats have refined the medium, now they must refine the message.

Today is the day after election day, and we see Democrats already fighting about what went wrong. That is probably helpful, that is an important conversation to have. Democrats need to shift quickly into fighting about the solutions to our nation’s and our world’s real problems (at the local level too) and pretty quickly start fighting about who to put up for election next term. Fight and bicker and whinge but try to keep the conversation productive. Then, on Primary Day, put on the marching boots and the big girl and boy pants and all head in the same direction and act like a team. No, don’t act like a team, be a team. If your favorite candidate and your favorite issue failed to emerge as everyone else’s favorite, acknowledge that you are not the only person on the planet, suck it up, and get on board. It only seems like our election cycles go on forever. In truth, it is only a few months between Primary Day and Election Day. Everything you do that is off course during those months is self harm. Stop doing that.

Then, win.

Then, start up again with the bickering and consternation, conversing and cajoling, until the next cycle. Rinse, repeat. The Democratic Party represents a larger share of the American Public than does the Republican Party, yet it is not in the majority. This is not because Republicans win more. It is because Democrats lose more. Stop doing that.

gregladen Wed, 11/05/2014 - 03:03

Tags

Alas, I have no idea what you're talking about. Is this in the Bible?

We found one!

(someone who has not read the books/seen the movies!)

Very thoughtful. Sent the link to my 16-year-old, who grew up reading the series.

I wonder whether "winning" should be the primary goal, though. Or, should we rethink what "winning" means? Maybe it means working across party lines to get meaningful things done. It doesn't help much to win an election if you can't govern.

I would welcome leadership from anyone willing to start by finding some common ground on any of of the important issues (immigration), then building a political consensus and popular support around that.

Thanks. I'm afraid working across party lines is no longer an option, and I truly believe this is because the GOP has made it so.

But within the Democratic Party there is plenty of "working across lines" to be done. Also, it might be nice to have more candidates from other non Democratic progressive parties actually running and winning. Then there would be some actual party lines to work across!

Correction: Voldemort was not separated at birth from Mitch McConnell, but from Rick Scott. (Seriously! Google the guy's picture. It's hard not to see.)

Ha.

I agree about the politics, don't know about that Potter stuff (because I don't know much about that Potter stuff).

Perhaps it is a fine line between smart politics and the literal embracing of the tribalistic policies that bode Conservatives so well, so often.

I would agree there has been a bad psychological vibe around democrats and Obama for a while, a failure to embrace Obama and progressivism more generally. Part of me wants to claim that if democrats had run as strong, unapologetic progressives, had Obama signed the immigration thing in August and been at the front of all campaigns, and then democrats got drummed like last night, it would have looked better, felt better. But that is probably wrong. Certainly the base would have been more enthused. In such a case we just may have found that people really do dislike Obama in overwhelming numbers and that people really are crazy on the immigration thing.

Though it feels like only Democrats would be that alienating of a party leader and their president, I was wondering if Republicans ran as far away from Bush in 2006 as Democrats did from Obama this time? I was not as astute back in those days.

Lastly, Democrats have looked good every four years and there is reason to believe they will be next time. On the house front they are getting screwed by city-intense support and gerrymandering. They should, in time, be getting screwed on the senate side by demographics and the fact that a shift is still settling in. I mean take WV. It would not surprise me if Manchin switches to Republican. How can he possibly win as a Democrat again? He is also the reason we should be wary of what is going to happen in the senate now.

As bad a form as it seems Democrats have as far as campaigning and messaging, there are other head winds.

I was wondering about Bush repellant in 2006, and there was definitely some of that, but that was nothing like four years of keeping back and then widespread stepping back farther at election time, IIRC.

Greg this is a massively good observation not to mention understanding of the Potter series. Well done

Good article and Potter analogy thanks! Even if you did get the title for the first book wrong - its supposed to be 'HP & the Philosophers Stone.' * ;-)

Three questions if I may ask & get answers please :

1) First, what's the deal with mid-term elections anyway? As a baffled Aussie, I seriously want to know why you have them, what good are supposed to do?

Aren't there enough elections in the US of A already? Don't Americans spend at least a full year if not longer on the main Presidential elections and have Congress elected then too? Isn't the term limit already making Obama - or any POTUS in their second term - a so-called "lame duck" bad enough already without making things worse?

2) Secondly, following on from that, would it perhaps be a good reform to scrap the mid-term elections and maybe think about scrapping presidential term limits too given that obvious issue? Its not like there aren't plenty of checks and balances and I was schooled by other Americans years ago** that the US president is actually less powerful a figure really than I used to think.

Is there anyone in the US who thinks that and any appetite for such political reforms to your political system because as an outsider, sorry but to be blunt it really seems messed up to me and I think a lot of others.***

3) Finally, have you seen Cenk Uygur's angry, mocking full on analysis here :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xdEG-znflk&list=UU1yBKRuGpC1tSM73A0ZjY…

of what went wrong and more? What do you think of what he says there? Too harsh? About right? Reasonable but issues?

* Yeah I know, there's the US title versus global one that I'm used to. Joking.

** In a discussion on the Bad Astronomy blog a few years ago where I was criticising Obama post cancellation of 'Constellation' for not just making manned space exploration happen as the buck stopped with him. A discussion, I, um, kinda lost.

*** FWIW. The US of A is far from alone in this &, yeah, I know our own system isn't perfect either! There are things I'd love to see changed about the Aussie electoral system too starting with scrapping the safe electorates system where I live in a seat that is always going to elect an Member of Parliament I hate. Finding a political system that's ideal is really tough and I don't think any nation really has one yet.

The midterms happen because the members of the House of Representatives are up for election every 2 years, and the President every 4, on specific years. So the house election that happens in between presidential is called the midterm. It happens that various governors and senators are also up for election in any given year so those running in the mid term year happen to get caught up in all this.

I don't think anyone will go for scrapping the term limit for POTUS. There didn't used to be one but it was considered rude to run for more than two terms. But then FDR came along and ran for more terms becasue the war was on and the Republicans were idiots and he didn't want to see the end of Civilization As We Know It. But then people got mad because his time in office was so long. So that term limit was only recently made law (relatively speaking) and I think people are still sore about it

I've got a just-went-to-sleep toddler in the next room, I'll try to watch the mocking YouTube video tomorrow!

BTW, I don't think they needed to change the name of the book for the US. Nor did they have to call a jumper a sweater or a dustbin a trash can. They were way overdoing the vocab adjustment.

Thanks Doug. It just happens that I read the book and saw the movie just now so (reread/resaw) so it was fresh in my mind while I was thinking about what to write about the election. Then it all came to me in a flash. Abracadabra!

Astrostevo, Sorcerer's stone is the American title for the book. I have no idea how many young fantasy buffs would know what the Philosopher's Stone was, or why it would be necessary to change the reference. Maybe because Americans are dumb?

Your analysis here is what some scientists would describe, if it were about their own areas of expertise, as a falling afoul of being "not even wrong."

First, yes, I grant that anyone, scientist as much as anyone else, is entitled to pronounce on the affairs of nation and government and on electoral politics. But, just as there is in science, there is a range which runs the gamut in analysis and, here, you're making an elementary mistake at the very outset by taking for granted a system which is, by design, a fraud upon democratic government and urging readers to engage in it as though it were not a fraud upon their good-faith efforts.

Nothing serious or important actually changed from Monday to Wednesday last. The government remains just as it was--the bought and corrupt creature of organized money, playing an obscenely expensive and cynical game of pretend democratic elections. In actual fact, the U.S. electoral and political sysytems are not significantly better than those in China or in Putin's Russia.

When people are being played for suckers, one of first and best things you can do for them is to focus on that fact before moving on to others. You'd already written an extremely astute post on the topic of our living, whether we're aware of it or not, in what amounts to a police-state. I thought it was one of your best and most important and there was nothing I could think of to add to it in the way of an improvement.

Here, you've undermined that valauble effort by leaving a strong impression that there is something meaningful to be gained by playing the sincere, faithful and dutiful participant in U.S. (or, substitute any other Western nation here) electoral politics. Monied interests welcome such unsolicited support for their crooked casino's operation. But you're smarter than that and so you can and should look deeper and see better into what is going on.

Tuesday, at outrageous national expense, the electoral crank was turned one more meaningless notch and, other than the production of a charade played by power-interests and intended to dupe the innocent, nothing effective or useful was accomplished.

Slight Potter nitpick- while I appreciate that "Muggle versus magical minds" would be a difference between Hermione and Ron (a pure-blooded wizard raised in a magical household), I'm not sure if it applies to Harry, who has a Muggle-born parent and was raised (badly) by Muggles. I think it's just that Hermione is, as you say later, a lot smarter than Harry.

On the other hand, are there any particularly smart pure-blooded student characters in HP? I can't think of any off-hand. And if there was one, how would they do on the puzzle?

I just include this link to give you a little hope beyond the sordid local politics -a beautiful infra-red image of young planetary sytem just one million years old.
"Birth of planets revealed in astonishing detail in ALMA's 'best image ever' http://phys.org/news/2014-11-birth-planets-revealed-astonishing-alma.ht…
Let the republicans try screw this one up!

@11. Greg Laden : "The midterms happen because the members of the House of Representatives are up for election every 2 years, and the President every 4, on specific years. So the house election that happens in between presidential is called the midterm. It happens that various governors and senators are also up for election in any given year so those running in the mid term year happen to get caught up in all this."

Okay - but why? What's the reason they do it that way? How is it a good idea?

@Alphagamma : Professor McGonagall,maybe? Not sure - do we know anything of her background?

I have both a book and DVD that say Philosopher's Stone. I bought the Raintree editions of the books, and chanced upon the DVD in a bin (!) at a highway service station. Also, I have to plug the fanfic, HP and the Methods of Rationality. www.hpmor.com, because I like it even more than Rowling's books.
As far as your general thesis, I'm reading that a lot of would-be voters, particularly younger ones, declined to pull levers this time out. I remember the great excitement when BO was running for Prez the first time, and I've watched my friends swallow disappointment and make excuses on issue after issue since. I suspect that the Dems will have a hard time ever energizing these same young voters again. We hoped for TR charging up the hill, but got WH Taft standing pat. BO did push through an industry-friendly ACA, and occasionally makes some pleasant liberal noises, but never actually rocks the oligarchs boats.

@Astrostevo: The US Constitution was originally set up with terms of those lengths. State governments are free to do what they want, but in most cases state legislators have two-year terms and governors have four-year terms (the exceptions to the latter are New Hampshire and Vermont, where the governor is elected every two years). Most states follow the Federal calendar on elections, but at least two (New Jersey and Virginia) elect their governors and state legislators in odd-numbered years. In some states there are additional elections at the local level: where I live, municipal and school board elections occur every year in March (again, there are historical reasons for that timing). And every four years we get the circus we call a Presidential campaign, with primary elections and caucuses ranging from January to June depending on state.

Why was it set up that way? I'm sure it seemed like a good idea at the time (the people who wrote the US Constitution didn't have a lot of examples to use for templates).

Astrostevo:

They chose two year terms for the House because they wanted one side of the legislative body to be responsive to short-term changes in public opinion. We elect a brand new House every two years,

They felt that balancing this with a Senate with six-year terms, staggered so only 1/3 is re-elected every election, would dampen the rather wild swings of opinion represented in the short-term House.

You also don't have to be as old to run for the House. So, brash young loud voices in a House that turns over rapidly balanced by sober, older voices in the Senate with Senators who don't have to constantly run for re-election but can sit above the fray for four or so years was more or less the notion.

Orginally, the Senate was not directly elected by the people, either, but typically by state legislators (states could choose how their Senators were appointed), making them likely to be members of "the establishment", further balancing the wild swings of public opinion seen in the House.

Does it work? More or less, I think. Look at the effect of the Tea Party. Brash radicals dominating the House - wanting to tear the entire edifice down, in many ways. Even Republicans in the Senate have been appalled. The Ted Cruz faction in the Senate's going to be much less dominate than the far-right Tea Party faction in the House, and the Senate will continue to have its dampening effect. People are predicting a lot of vetoes by Obama. I predict a lot of stalled Republican efforts, as are experienced Repubican Senators, I think (there are already efforts to pull the "party of no" label off of Republicans and to pin it on Dem Senators, and the new Congress won't even be seated for a couple of months).

Alphagamma 15: You may be right, but the point still stands. Rowling was explicit in her book. The author herself makes the point that Hermione was able to figure this out because of her muggle background. She does not exclude the possibility that Harry could do it, and I agree completely with you (and state in the essay) that it isn't just Hermione being a muggle, but also, being Hermione, that allowed for this.

It would be interesting to see if we find purebloods being highly logical, or variation among them somewhere along in the series.

"Okay – but why? What’s the reason they do it that way? How is it a good idea?"

Good question. The idea is to have different kinds of elements in the government. The Senate is ponderous and has continuity, and there are fewer of them. They are in office for six years, with about a third being replaced every two years, so elections never cause wholesale change, and in fact, very little change. In this manner they are like the House of Lords, something the writers of the constitution were both familiar with and suspicious of. The don't inherit office, but they get to be the experienced wise elders,etc.

The house is more like the house of commons, and a clue here is that it is called the "house"... They turn over more quickly (supposedly) and an entirely new house (but including the re-elected ones) is generated all at once instead of part by part in a staggered fashion. Just as there are separate but roughly equal powers between the executive, the legislature, and the judicial, there is built in diversity within the legislative branch (considered the most important branch in many ways) by having the two separate electoral patterns.

By the way, the President is actually elected by a set of representatives (electors) sent by each state, the number of electors being equal to the number of members of the house plus senators (so house reps plus 2). Those electors are of course appointed on the basis of the state's popular vote, but the details are not specified in the Constitution.

Astrostevo: McGonagall is the dauther of Robert McGonagall, a Muggle Presbyterian minister, and his wife, Isobel Ross, a witch, according to The Internet. So she's a half blood.

Donal: ". I suspect that the Dems will have a hard time ever energizing these same young voters again. " They are all old now, there are new young ones!

Just to provide more evidence of the complexity of it all: Judges.

Jeesh.

In Minnesota state judges are picked by the Governor from a short list provoked by a commission. Then, next election, they have to run to keep their seat.

That's actually kinda cool. Or really strange. Maybe both.

Regarding the electoral college described in message 23, for the Aussie questioner: note that it is therefore possible here for a candidate to win a plurality or even an absolute majority of the popular vote and yet lose the election. In both instances when that has happened, the victims have belonged to the Democratic Party; hence the Republicans do not see it as being in their interest to change it. (The Republican Party is increasingly hostile to the idea that certain segments of the population should be voting at all, much less that everyone's vote should have an equal weight, but that's another story.)

I think few people recognize the extent of the injustice baked into the modern electoral college. A state with a very small population, which gets the minimum one seat in the House, gets three electoral votes, while a huge state with enough people for, say, 40 seats in the House - which may have more than 40 times as many people - gets 42 electoral votes. Thus, the vote of a person from the former state - either a very rural state or a dinky New England statelet - counts almost three times as much as the vote of a person from the latter. As a libertarian (small-L - no longer a member of the Polluting Plutocrats' Party), I find this relative disenfranchisement of individuals residing in larger states appalling.

I agree that I don't like the system, but was designed the way it was for a reason. We would need to have a discussion of the reason.

The way the system actually works is a corruption, though. The electors are generally bound to follow the popular vote, and typically (maybe all, not sure if that transition is complete) all the electors go with the candidate that won the state. And, the electors are basically political operatives from the party that won. None of this is specified in the Constitution.

It would be interesting to clearly state all of the ways in which the government, including elections but also the activities of Congress, etc., operate that are deeply built into the system but not specified in the Constitution, and run that by a bunch of people to see what they think. There are a lot of features like this. For instance, I'm pretty sure there is no binding reason to have House Congressional districts in a state. The state simply sends the right number of house members duly elected. One of those Rogue states like Alabama should try electing their House members some other way to see what happens!

That's another good point. There have been electors in my lifetime who jumped ship and voted for protest candidates.

The Constitution still says that we should be using gold and silver money. That could have caused serious problems during the past century of constant growth, so it's as well that it was ignored. Still, the excuse-making claims that the wording regarding coinage has no possible meaning whatsoever don't give our founding fathers much credit for the ability to write.

Harry is rich...

??? IIRC, he went to Hogwarts on scholarship as a penniless orphan.

Greg Laden @ # 22: It would be interesting to see if we find purebloods being highly logical, or variation among them somewhere along in the series.

Surely Dumbledore was pure wizard, or the whole battle over "halfbreeds" would have been worked out a generation earlier...

Pierce, no, not at all. The very first thing Harry does, with Hagrid, is to go to Gringots Bank and grab a handful of gold Wizard Coins from his parent's vault, which is stuffed with money. One of the tension elements in the story is the contrast between Harry having money and the Wesley's not.

Both of Dumbledore's parents were magical, but one of his paternal grandparents was probably a muggle, and both of his maternal grandparents were muggles. So he was way muggle.

"That’s another good point. There have been electors in my lifetime who jumped ship and voted for protest candidates.
"
That has happened, and in some cases, state law was changed to make that illegal, or at least, an attempt was made to do so. Don't recall the details.

@GregLaden #23 & 24. Okay thanks.

@ 20. Eric Lund & #21. dhogaza : Thanks for that info too - much appreciated and I kinda see what they were thinking no although I'm still not so sure its really worked. O'course as earlier noted almost every system of governance has its flaws and we're still to find I think a truly ideal one.

Also my impression from HP is that very few if any wizarding families were really "pure blood" and that the best of them were certainly hybrids so yeah - and thanks again for all the extra stuff I've learned just now. :-)

".. what they were thinking no" no = now. Typio, natch. I cannot type for merde, sorry.

Especially when I'm really tired and tipsy after work, a few beers and stuff all sleep which is, well most days really and today no exception, sigh.

Hmmm - Obviously, I'm due for some re-reading of The Scriptures.

Maybe it'll be included in the curricula for the FEMA reeducation camps...

@ 28:

The House of Representatives' proportional representation (a.k.a "one perosn, one vote") is an essential feature of democracy ( which the Senate violates; and yes, that's just wrong, democratically speaking) and established in both the Constitution's Article 1, Section 2, clause 3 and in case law from state and federal courts as well as acts of Congress.

So, even in the U.S., states aren't supposed to be free to just arrange their election of U.S. House representative any old way they may like to see fit. Of course, organized money has learned to simply buy out the entire weapon of democratic electoral politics and make it its own property--"lock, stock and barrel."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment

http://www.census.gov/population/apportionment/about/history.html

@17: Okay – but why? What’s the reason they do it that way? How is it a good idea?

Your question could be interpreted in either of two ways:

1) Why did the original drafters decide as they did?
2) Why do we continue to do things (when we do them) the same way today. Others above have offered answers to 2). As for 1), see below, in James Madison's Notes on the Debates of the Convention. E.g. @ June 19 - 21.

-----
Text of James Madison's
Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787

Links : June 19th: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_619.asp
................... 20th: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_620.asp
.................... 21st: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_621.asp

proximity1[37] I don't think that speaks to districts.

@proximity1 : Thanks for that info & links.

Guess my question was kinda both those really.

@39

Greg, Now I see the point you were making about districts. You're right on that point, then and, apparently there's no (Contitutionally-based) reason why states--even some subset of them--couldn't elect all their House of Rep. members "at large" and still keep a correspondence between number of voters per representative--as long as every state has a total population of at least one representative's worth of voters.

There's at least one practical consequence if that method was adopted: we lose "not only" in "fact" but also in "theory" the idea that a particular representative is accountable to a defined set of voters--IOW, there'd be only statewide "constituencies", leaving each representative open toan even easier and more flagrant defiance of any minority's particular needs as long as, over the state as a whole, enough voters find that representative's votes not so terrible as to warrant getting rid of him or her. At this point in our democratic degradation, its hard to imagine how our present system could actually be worse. But, here, by diluting representation across a state--think of California, for example--elected officials wouldn't even have to pretend to cater to voters' (other than corporate donors-as-ersatz-voters) interests. And, if those Reps. still bothered to respond to letters of complaint from a minority interest which couldn't afford expensive lobbyists, all he or she would have to do is offer a cynical, "Don't lilke it? So, vote me out of office next time."

Exactly which is why at large would be better. This almost falls into the category of "ideas so good THEY don't want you to know about them"

If reps were at large, constituencies, or SIGs, would grow to support them. The strength of the SIG would be exactly proportionate to the number of voters. If a SIG had a reasonable amount of internal loyalty and consistence, it could be a very powerful voting block. It would be true democracy.

Any individual could chose vote with any SIG so of course they would have to compete for ideas and loyalty (since the vote is secret).

GOP Response to Hurricane Irene: Take More Hostages

mikethemadbiologist — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 07:55:01 +0000

GOP Response to Hurricane Irene: Take More Hostages

They're getting pretty good at hostage taking, and it worked before. Alex Seitz-Wald reports:

Despite the devastation caused by Hurricane Irene this weekend, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) today stood by his call that no more money be allocated for disaster relief unless it is offset by spending cuts elsewhere. The Washington Post reported this morning that FEMA will need more money than it currently has to deal with the storm's aftermath and is already diverting funds from other recent disasters to deal with the hurricane, but Cantor's comments suggest Republicans won't authorize more funds without a fight....

Cantor referred a bill the Republican-controlled House passed that approves $1 billion in disaster relief, which was financed by a $1.5 billion cut from loan program to encourage the production of fuel-efficient vehicles. But the need in the wake of the hurricane will likely greatly surpass $1 billion, and that spending package was supposed to be used for tornado recovery efforts, for which several hundred million dollars has already been outlayed.

The recent disaster in upstate New York, Vermont, and parts of North Carolina and Massachusetts show just how stupid and irresponsible imposing a de facto gold standard through spending caps is.

People need help, and we are artificially limiting the response due to false currency limitations. The ~$700 million Cantor proposes will only be a small fraction needed to repair the damage.

If the president and the Congressional Democrats don't call this what it is--morally degenerate hostage taking--then what damn good are they? They need to be partisan, since there is one side trying to be responsible and perform the basic functions of government, while the other (Republicans) is being irresponsible and cruel. If Democrats can't figure out a way to make this case to the American people, then they aren't worth our support.

Can we sue for political malpractice?

mikethemadbiologist Tue, 08/30/2011 - 03:55

Tags

Basic Human Decency

Conservatives

Democrats

and it doesn't have anything to do with the observation that Irene hit state that voted for Obama...

Political malpractice is the only kind of political practice there is.

Can we sue for political malpractice?

It's called an "election." I'm sure that the good people of Alabama (to name one) will hold the coon in the White House responsible and vote him out.

Why dont the republicans just come out and say - disaster relief is not a government function - States, fix your own damage.

Guess Irene didn't do enough damage in Cantor's state of Virgina for him to care.

ne kasirgaymis birader

so bad,so bad!

Calling Foul on Risk Aversion and the Stimulus

mikethemadbiologist — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 09:45:38 +0000

Calling Foul on Risk Aversion and the Stimulus

Like Atrios, I don't believe this--nor would any person who takes mass transit or lives in (or near) an urban area:

Last month, I spoke to Christina Romer, Larry Summers and Jared Bernstein on this question. The three of them were arguably the administration's most persistent and consistent advocates for more stimulus. But they all said the same thing: The bigger the stimulus became, the harder it got to spend.

"We had a hard time spending $800 billion quickly, and with that much stimulus, the issue of diminishing returns could be important," said Romer. "I don't believe we could have efficiently and effectively put that large a stimulus to good use with requisite accountability," Bernstein said. "It would not have been possible to move vastly more money into quick trigger infrastructure projects," Summers said.

Ezra Klein needs to stop drinking the Washington Post's water or something. If you gave Boston Mayor Tom Menino $500 million, he would find a way to spend it. Would all of it be perfect goo-goo, progressive-approved--and most importantly, utterly scandal-free stuff? Maybe not. But the city's infrastructure needs a drastic overhaul, libraries are being closed and hours cut, and so much more. Likewise, you could easily throw $1 billion at the MBTA and it still wouldn't be enough.

There was plenty to do. There still is plenty to do. And I've never heard of a politician who returns money because she can't find a way to spend it. But the Obama administration was terrified that the Republicans would find any instance of graft or stupidity and pounce on it (of course, the graft would have been as likely to occur in Republican districts as Democratic ones). Because the Republicans only offer 'fair and balanced' criticism (to use a phrase), and only attack when it's legitimate.

It wouldn't have been hard for a new president, faced with a nation worried about jobs, to make the argument that even though mistakes will be made, the alternative would be keeping millions out of work.

The other issue is the whole 'shovel-ready' fetish. They clearly didn't think that the loss of $8 trillion dollars of housing worth and the ensuing recession was going to be long-term (why I don't know). If they had, it really wouldn't matter if it took 12 - 18 months to get a project off the ground, since the unemployment would still be there.

The bottom line is that Obama, who always stressed deficit reduction, never was interested in infrastructure rebuilding. He was more concerned about deficits instead of jobs.

And that's worked very well so far.

mikethemadbiologist Wed, 08/10/2011 - 05:45

Tags

Democrats

Funding

Be fair - OK, they could have spent the money, but they would have risked actually improving people's lives in the process. Some risks just aren't worth taking.

They took care of their rich friends and called it a stimulus.

Please note: This has no bearing on the economic theory about stimulus spending. I have no problem with that.

But the Obama administration was terrified that the Republicans would find any instance of graft or stupidity and pounce on it

Despite the administration's precautions, Republicans actually did pounce on any instances of graft or stupidity they found. Anyone paying attention to politics in this country and not paid to ignore such things could have foreseen this result.

It's not any better out here in the countryside. Bridges are in bad shape, and in recent years many towns have had to divert maintenance funds to cover holes in the snow removal budget. It might be tough for my town to blow completely through $500M, but give us a million or two and we could do stuff with it. Give our rail people a billion, and we could have trains to Boston from most of this state's cities[*]. Improved bikeways would be nice, too.

[*]Though if I could get just one project to improve rail service to Northern New England, I would ask for a rail link between North Station and South Station. That would allow through and connecting trains to New York and beyond without the hassle of taxi to South Station or Orange Line to Back Bay Station from North Station.

It's hard for me to be surprised these days, but that utter crap takes the cake.

I can think of 13.9 million Americans who I am sure could find a way to spend it - to keep their houses, their clothes, and their kids fed.

I'm actually beginning to think - and Republicans would be worse how?

Not that I'm going to vote for them, but with friends like these...

But the Obama administration was terrified that the Republicans would find any instance of graft or stupidity and pounce on it

Something like have of the non-taxcut funds went to Republican governors. How, pray tell, did they hope to prevent "graft and stupidity" from happening when the money went to people who benefited not only directly but politically?

thanks useful entry

At the time of The Stimulus, our funding agencies told us to submit applications for mucha moolah. Somehow, we were never awarded any of that money. Which means there must have been many more applications, and that the system could have soaked up a lot more cash if it had been made available.

good for you istanbul yeÅilÃ§am zafir seba.
I can think of 13.9 million Americans who I am sure could find a way to spend it - to keep their houses, their clothes, and their kids fed.I'm actually beginning to think - and Republicans would be worse how?
bakiÅet beniyien uyutmadÄ±nÄ±z bukadar gÃ¼zelbir site yapÄ±lÄ±rmÄ± bekardeÅim, bilimteknolari neararsan var, birde ÅÃ¶lye yeÅilÃ§amarÅivleri olsaydÄ±dar dahane isterdir, o zamana bat olacaktÄ±r, ancak yidene ben size Ã§ok seviyior science blogs.

Yes, Food Stamps are More Important than Defense

sastyk — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 09:53:24 +0000

Yes, Food Stamps are More Important than Defense

On Friday, in a move that shocked, truly shocked America, President Obama said that food stamps were more important than Defense. Since this sort of prioritization is one of the fundamental differences between the US extreme right (aka Republicans) and the US center-right (also known as the Democrats), the fact that this caused an uproar among Republicans should also stun you. Republicans warn us that slashing America's defense budget until it is only double the next largest nations will cripple us, Democrats call the Republicans meanies, and everyone ignores the point.

The point is that food stamps are more important than Defense, for a fundamental reason - it is because we subsidize food stamps that we aren't having food riots like the middle east. Without food stamps, poor Americans would be starving - period. This is both bad for America's public image, but even worse for its civil function, and for its much articulated claims that we are, in fact, getting better rather than worse. Only because of food stamps and related programs can such claims seem even superficially credible.

Let's run the numbers. One in seven households in America receives food stamps, and one in six would qualify. Nearly 1/2 of all American children live in households that receive food stamps. One in eight food stamp households cares for an elder, one in five cares for a disabled non-elderly adult. One out of every five recipient households has *no* other countable income - more than 7 million Americans total.

Cancel food stamps and 7 million Americans drop to zero income. More than 2/3 of those households include children. The average food stamp recipient household owns $101 of goods and savings - total.

Food stamps also have other effects. They are the social program that is most beneficial to the overall economy, because the subsidies are spent immediately. They act as a subsidy to the larger food system - and in fact, when one out of seven Americans requires food stamps to feed their family, they act as an overall subsidy on our food system. Just like many poor nations, we are subsidizing food for a population that cannot afford it otherwise.

Given that food represents a tiny portion of most household incomes - between 10 and 12 percent - the fact that Americans cannot afford food in large numbers is significant. Much of this is attributable to the fact that medical care and food are often the only "fungible" expenses in a low income household. Cutting back on food and medicine are the only ways to get by when an unexpected expense arises. It gives us a measure of the costs of all our supposed previous "growth" - low income Americans can't afford housing *and* food, and almost no one can afford medical care.

Fundamentally, America subsidizes food for precisely the same reasons other nations do - not merely because it is the moral choice, but because it keeps us out of the streets. If Republicans don't know this yet, they'll certainly find out.

Sharon

sastyk Tue, 07/26/2011 - 05:53

Tags

Someone once tried to put another program into the context of how would it help with the defense of the Country. The person replied that it doesn't. It was one of the things that made the Country worth defending.

Food stamps and a safety net for the less well off is one of the things that makes the US worth defending. If we didn't have those, then spending money on defense would be penny wise and pound foolish.

I wonder if the the following is a fair argument:
Most military volunteers of low rank come from low income households.
This means a large percent of future volunteers are presently supported by food stamps.
Therefore the food stamp program is actually essential defence spending; the future of armed forces depends on it.

Did you contact your Representative and tell them that you wanted the Debt Ceiling raised and that a compromise of spending cuts and revenue increases was the better way to lower our debt? Last night President Obama asked all of us to contact our Representative. I did.

MissouriMule -- the number of servicemen on foodstamps is a disgrace; it's a clear sign we aren't paying them enough. It's also, as you say, evidence that food stamps really are *directly* essential to defense.

I like what daedalus2u brought up even more -- that programs like this make our nation worth defending. They're also another kind of defense. Defense against bad forture, which can strike any of us. Children are our future, even the children who had the misfortune of being born poor, and they are our best investment. We defend ourselves from future failure by increasing spending on schools, childcare, health care, and, yes, food stamps.

http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,82088,00.html

(Tongue in cheek) Admittedly, the Armed Services don't issue spouses - so our troops shouldn't have them.

"If Republicans don't know this yet, they'll certainly find out."

Alas, you may be overmisunderestimating the power of the religion our 'political parties' have spawned.

I'm afraid I have some neighbors who will, definitely, starve and die, and take their children with them, before they change their minds about how things work.

Riots in the streets will happen- but for other reasons; not because children are hungry. It will be the fault of those "liberals", etc, etc. The rhetoric is setting up, like concrete.

Calli and Eric: did not occur to me that current employees (and their families) of the armed forces required food stamps to survive.
I guess old folk like me all remember the army base where low ranks lived in barracks and ate at mess halls.

There needs to be a lot more teaching of and understanding of Maslow. Food is at the base. Without it the rest doesn't stand. It's really that simple.

I sometimes really regret what liberals have done to undermine peopleâs independence with all the handouts, but I highly concur with what Sharon writes here. Frankly, as much as I hate to think about it, weâre going to need more wealth transference going on in the future as well, but first, defense:

The amount we spend on âdefenseâ is a disgrace. I neednât tell anyone here how much the defense monster is out of control, and thatâs coming from someone who, over the past years, was all for a strong defense. But donât worry, the US cannot keep the defense spending up much longer. That Obama has continued the wars and all the imperialistic bullying â well, if *he* canât slow or stop this beast, then no one can. But again, our ability to continue feeding the defense machine is coming to an end whether a president likes it or not.

Not too long ago, Stuart Staniford did several pieces on the so-called Singularity, that supposed time thatâs soon to come where human knowledge and technology takes off on some vertical asymptote and everybody lives happily ever after in some computer Utopia. ( http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2011/07/taking-singularity-apart.html and http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2011/07/hmmm.html and especially: http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2011/06/morning-singularity-watch.html in which one commenter identified as âThe Caretakerâ said: âI see the combination of peak oil and automation greatly increasing inequality across society. The stats show this has already happened over the last twenty years, as the benefits of productivity increases have gone to the elite while wages stagnate. The future is heading towards an economic system where the globalized elite reap larger and larger productivity gains from automation, while also being the only class able to afford oil and the easy transportation lifestyle that is seen as normal today. They use the funds to buy up "distressed properties", as they are already doing, and increasingly extract their wealth from the rents of the masses. Meanwhile, the middle class will be competing with machines that can do our job faster and cheaper, and spending more on food and energy, leaving little else in the way of discretionary spending. The gap in market power increasingly leads to elite consolidation of the political system....heck, we are basically already there. The gap will grow until....well something will have to happen and it won't be pretty. Will the middle class institute redistributive economic regimes, or be coerced into fighting the middle class of the neighboring country for the scraps? Time will tell.

In all of those blog entries, along with the reader comments, I had a *duh* moment, not unlike when I read about Peak Oil a decade ago, in which I suddenly realized just how close we are to automation and machines rendering not just a few factory workers vocationally obsolete, but a good deal of everybody else as well. Somewhere also in Stuartâs blog, somebody mentioned Martin Fordâs book, The Lights in the Tunnel, (free download of the pdf version at: http://www.thelightsinthetunnel.com/) which is Mr. Fordâs take on just where the accelerating march of technology is taking our world economy and society, and Iâve realized, itâs not going to a good place. Itâs going to a hellish one, and more to the point weâre much closer to it than I had realized. The reality is that automation and technology has killed many jobs already, but is poised to kill far, far, more jobs and occupations very shortly. Automation was supposed to give humanity much free time, and well, yes, so far itâs done just that to not just the upper class, but the lower classes as well - the latter very much against their will. If not for the food stamps and other wealth transfer programs the US already has, weâd be in for a world of hurt, but reading Fordâs work, along with the insightful comments at Stanifordâs blog, it hit me like a ton of bricks that weâre going to be needing and enduring a whole lot *more* govt. wealth transfer programs shortly out of necessity.

The only major question I have is how much Peak Oil and Climate Change short circuits this march towards the (economic) Singularity and mega job loss through automation. That is, where is the balance between Fordâs work and that of Sharon and Aaronâs thesis in A Nation of Farmers, where reduced energy availability forces millions of people back into more basic work - work those workers will find happiness doing?

Over the past several weeks, while trying to think through all Iâve concluded about the current and soon to be future impact of automation and technology on the greatly accelerating wealth concentration going on in this country has me looking at wealth transfer entitlements in a warm way I just didnât think was possible some months ago.

That said, anything people can do at all to increase their self sufficiency and ability to work outside the present formal economy will be a very wise and welcome thing going forward.

Sharon, Iâd be most interested in your take of Fordâs book and thoughts and just how his view of the future meshes with the one most of the rest of us here have developed of the Post Peak world. I mean, I know you have so much free time on your hands :-)

Sharon, I just posted a largish comment to this blog, but due perhaps to its shear size, along with several embedded URLs, the software is holding it for moderation. Specifically, it comments on the necessity of many more wealth transfer systems such as food stamps in the face of what the explosion of automation and technology is doing to so many people's jobs and vocations.

If you see fit to release it... :)

Greatly reducing America's defence budget would do wonders for its image overseas. America's bully boy tactics make it the most loathed on the planet. One country has been found guilty of International Terrorism by the World Court, that right, its the good old USA. No other country claiming to be developed has so many people living below the poverty line, with a social welfare system 100 years out of date. With a debt so large it can never be paid off, why does America still have a AAA credit rating?

@ MissouriMule,

In the times you recall, you had to get a CO's permission -- and not just a formality -- to get married. And you had to be married to get out of the barracks. And that came from a time when there was no cohabitation, at least not publicly known.

I think there is room to quibble about whether some recipients could survive intact, without food stamps. Not all, and truly. But some will buy the food stamp-approved groceries, then double the amount in beer, movies, and other non-essentials. And I am deeply suspicious of such an entitlement program so closely identified with one political party; it seems at times to be a deliberate vote-buying operation, that incidentally helps feed some people.

I think it is more reasonable to say that the American military has been an immensely successful way for the poor to improve their economic and social status.

Sharing service has also been an effective social engineering cauldron for desegregation and civil rights overall. Both the disadvantage and the nominally advantaged they serve with learn from the association, and carry that breadth of personal experience to the communities and families they come to live in later in life.

Sharon makes the better point that food stamps improve national security by staving off social, and economic, unrest. It has ever been true, that a sound national defense begins with a sound economy.

I just hope everyone that wants to gut (not just trim back) military spending remembers that other nations aren't issuing food stamps. And the traditional remedy outside the US for unrest is to label the neighbors as the enemy and send off an army or three to grab resources and punish "the enemy" they made up.

@ Adrianne,

Unfortunately, the Monroe Doctrine in the past showed the harm done by a "let's take care of ourselves" military posture.

I think there are enormous savings available, if we change how we budget military units, and change how we procure material. JFK's Secretary of Defense Robert MacNamara started the current process, where before letting a contract, everyone interested had to survive a paper evaluation. When procuring one fighter, one of the contractors had a flying demo but the other contractor won the contract on paper -- then experienced enormous delays and over-runs trying to get one to fly and in production. We all remember stories of the golden hammers and toilet seats. The real problem is that it literally costs companies thousands of dollars to get a hammer or toilet seat documented, reviewed, and evaluated by the government.

Are there troops overseas or in various states that should be dispersed? Yep. But there are a lot of them that by being available, keep the world situation a bit calmer than it might have been.

I thought you might find the Heritage Foundations recent backgrounder on poverty...um...interesting. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty
I find it telling that they talk about the poor being adequately nourished but only mention food stamps in passing and do not mention WIC at all.

"However, even though the poor, in general, have an ample food supply, some do suffer from temporary food shortages. For example, a poor household with an adequate long-term food supply might need temporarily to cut back meals, eat cheap food, or go without if cash and food stamps run out at the end of the month."

Stephen, that'll be my next stop. Brad, no offense, but the "vote buying" thing is pretty silly. The majority of the extremely poor in the US don't vote at all, and the ones that do are just as likely to vote Republican - the working poor in the south and heartland of the US have long been convinced that they are just one lottery win or business venture short of becoming rich and having to worry about death taxes. This is totally insane, of course, but I don't think there's any worry about vote buying.

There are certainly some abuses of food stamps - there's no point in denying that. Any program large enough to matte will have some abuses - at the same time, the stats are extremely clear - families that receive food stamps are not doing well, and most of them run out of food regularly at the end of the month. Since half of them are kids, even if someone does buy beer with their limited other income, is it worth visiting hunger on small kids to prevent Dad from drinking - something he'll probably do anyway? Historically speaking, if Dad prioritizes beer over well-being, the kids just went hungry. With food stamps, at least they can (mostly) only be used for food, so the kids get some food.

Sharon

IIRC, malnutrition presented the UK with serious recruitment issues in WWI - some recruiting stations were turning away a third or more of applicants as being too stunted, or in too poor health, for service. While you don't need quite the same level of mobilisation in a modern army, it could start to cause problems, especially since, as an earlier commenter noted, the poorest are disproportionately represented in the ranks.

Sharon, your commenters may have hit upon EXACTLY the phrase we need to keep hammering to shut down the republican rhetoric - food stamps ARE national defense.

@ Stripey cat: I was watching a WWII show on the History Channel not too many days ago (not too crazy about their spin but I love seeing the footage) and one thing that really stood out was how very *skinny* and malnourished many of the US soldiers looked, even when still at basic training. The Depression hit Americans hard, even when they DID have a farm to go back to.

Let's run the real numbers:
Since the mid 60's we have spent $16 Trillion on means tested government income re-distribution programs. We are now $14.2 Trillion in debt and have
44 million people on food stamps,
over 40 million kids getting free school lunches,
9 million more on WIC,
about 8 million in subsidized housing,
5 million on TANF,
8 million on SSI (including 1.2 million kids),
about 49 million on Medicaid and
71 million households not paying taxes because of EITC and the Child Tax Credit.
Does anybody really think more debt or taxes to pay for more income re-distribution programs is really going to help anything? How can a tax system be called "fair" when 47% of households are getting a free ride on the backs of the 53% who are paying income tax and carrying their own weight in society? What part of that is sustainable? What part of that is fair?
All the corporations combined have never received this much of the taxpayers money. The cost of all the wars this country has ever fought doesn't come close to this massive shift of wealth from the people who earn it - to the people who do not earn it.
The more we pay people to be poor, the more poor people we have. The above numbers prove that beyond any argument. And no - I am not wealthy, just sick and tired of paying other people's bills while the poor folks keep crying "woe is me" and their "benefits" just keep growing and getting passed from generation to generation.

taxed: "The more we pay people to be poor, the more poor people we have." Is that what happened three years ago - we started paying poor people more to be poor? I could have sworn that folks who had gotten rich by gambling with other people's money screwed up, and other folks who had worked for years found themselves without house and home. But the rich got compensated for their recklessness, so I guess it's OK. Except for all those taxes they pay.

The Koch brothers and their ilk are rich beyond the dreams of Midas, and they are determined to get all the richer in the few years they have left. We are all subsidizing them by our lives, and the quality of life, by our lungs, and our children's health.

I am also taxed, but most of it goes to those far richer than I. And most of the poor I've known work their fingers to the bone. Most of the debt comes from TARP, Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and two wars, one poorly fought, and the other based on lies.

Taxed,

You may not frequent Sharon's blog much and hence, may not have noticed me, but I am generally on the fairly conservative end of fiscal discussions here.

I too was pretty right of center when it came to govt. spending - up until TARP, however. TARP was the most blatant bail out of wealthy, reckless folks who made bad business decisions that this federal government has done in its 2 centuries of existence. I mean, come on, TARP and the other bailouts (GM) were, what? something like twice the size of the ordinary federal annual budget? Then there were the 2 stupid wars of the past 10 years - I'm all for a true national defense, but Kermit's comments hit the nail on the head here.

I have come to realize that we are pretty much stuck with lots of wealth transfer programs coming out of this government because, with the march of technology obsoleting people's jobs left and right, the only thing left to do is pay people a meager sum to kick back in their subsidized abode, eating their subsidized food - only now we're talking about cutting all that support as well. So there we have it, automation and offshoring, things that have been reducing jobs for some time, are moving ever faster. Now, not just the factory workers are losing jobs, but IT managers as well. I've even seen stories where lawyers are being replaced by computers - computers to do legal research and write up cases - the real lawyers merely review the output before presenting it in court. Bingo: one lawyer and a computer now do the work of 3 or 4 lawyers before. Meanwhile, this march of automation is going hand in hand with the rising price of food and energy, squeezing people even harder. No amount of re-education and job training is going to keep up with this either. The vocational obsoleting is just proceeding too quickly.

I don't like all the entitlements either. I'd rather see people standing on their own, but what's going on here is much more complex than simply a liberal govt. run amok, handing out goodies. These entitlements are becoming a vital part of our social maintenance.

Technology through automation, instant global communication, and transportation, is consolidating and eliminating jobs like never before. I used to think constrained world energy supplies would put a brake on this, but now, I'm not so sure. What is happening is that all this technology is allowing a wealth concentration into the hands of a very few on a scale that civilization has never before seen. I repeat: it isn't just the manual laborer jobs going away anymore. Entitlement payments are becoming a way (a poor way, but a way nevertheless) to redeploy a bit of the wealth back to common people that the impending economic singularity it trying to concentrate in some kind of ultra tight circle of a very few ultra rich, elite.

I've recently seen it written that these automation and technological trends could lead to 30 to 60 percent of today's jobs being eliminated with no replacement jobs created. You think entitlement spending is large now? Just wait.

I know we want to reward hard work and intelligence, but we're headed into uncharted waters regarding wealth concentration. If you think this is an okay and good thing, I'd think again if I were you.

Hungry people start revolutions.

Marie Antoinette found that out the hard way, as did several other rulers.
The Republicans may be next.

Sharon: long-time reader here from your early, early days...

So, I'm in a MPA program right now (Public Administration) and I'm writing a white paper suggesting the reforming of SNAP such that families can't use Food Stamps to buy sugar-sweetened-beverages (soda, etc.) as a way to combat child-hood obesity and force the money to be spent on more healthy choices. I'm aware of the Massachussettes program that gives an incentive to buy healthy foods. And also of the snowballs-chance-in-hell of my suggested change being adopted over the sugar-lobbies dead body...and a few libertarians.

Still, any thoughts on that? From the research I've read, the general consensus is that even the high-poverty segment is getting enough calories by standard measure, but the lack of quality food is driving the strange starved-but-obese paradigm. But then, if I were really starving, I'd take whatever I could find. But if all you have access to is processed crap sugar foods, isn't that like drinking sea-water on a life-raft? Oi.

I'm just having a hard time getting my head around this. And that's without even getting into the "can we even afford this?" question. Double-oi.

Dan, I'm of two minds on this - in principle I think that denying people the right to buy crap food with food stamps isn't inherently a bad idea. At the same time, I think it will be ineffective - particularly since something like 1/4 of food stamp recipients are spending them illegally - often not for bad reasons. Sure, some of them trade their food stamps for cigarettes and liquor, but most of the illegal usage is spent trading at convenience stores for things they need but can't use food stamps for - toilet paper, tampons, pencils for their kids to use at school, soap, etc... We've had pretty poor luck controlling how food stamps are really used. But yes, no soda seems like a pretty reasonable regulation.

Sharon

Once upon an old and slippery slope we glide....

Cooking a frog at a slow boil drastically reduces the odds that it will succeed by employing fight or flight strategies, but when the frog can see what's happening to other frogs and understand it's implications it might stand a slightly better chance of survival.

Interestingly, giving frogs a vote on who does the cooking, which recipe to follow and what water temperature should be employed seems rather disturbing to me, but apparently it's effective in diverting the frog's attention.

Meanwhile, back in the budget office folks are still trying to decide where the lines between rich and poor are drawn.

The Clinton Era and Revisionist Economic History: Why Fiscal Austerity Will Fail

mikethemadbiologist — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 07:59:40 +0000

The Clinton Era and Revisionist Economic History: Why Fiscal Austerity Will Fail

As with history in general, I suppose the victors write--or rewrite--economic history too. One of the arguments for balancing budgets that's floating around is that Clinton got us a surplus, times were good, and therefore, we should do it again. Of course, things were better for some people, including those at the bottom (which is a worthwhile gain), but most of the spoils went to those at the top. As the joke went, "Clinton has created millions of jobs, and I'm working three of them." Snark aside, the reason why Clinton was able to lower the debt was no mystery: private sector debt increased, and the trade deficit was relatively low. There was no 'virtue' involved, but simply the balance of accounts. That is:

Government deficit = Trade deficit + Total private savings

You can't beat the algebra. I've been through the evidence for this before, so let's just go straight to the consequences.

If we cut government deficits, then either the trade deficit has to drop, or we have to decrease total private savings. Put another way, if the trade deficit decreases due, let's say relatively low energy prices, and we give people the opportunity to rack up massive amounts of private debt, then we will lower budget deficits, or even have a surplus. Let's see what happened:

To walk you through this, the blue bar is the amount of private savings (all numbers are scaled to the size of the economy using GDP); a value above zero means that, on the whole, the U.S. has net savings. The red bar is the deficit; a value above zero means a budget surplus, a value below zero means a budget deficit. The green bar tells us about trade: a positive value means we are a net exporter, a negative value means we are a net importer (i.e., we are running a trade deficit).

So let's look at the halcyon days of Clinton (1997-1999). Yes, the budget was in surplus (the red bar is above zero). The trade deficit was much lower than it would have been had oil prices been where they were when Clinton took office, which helps lower the budget deficit (~50% higher in nominal terms, never mind adjusting for inflation). But the key point is that private savings plunged: during the Clinton era, we took on private debt at unprecedented levels (the blue bars). A lot of people seem to have forgotten that massive increase in personal debt (especially you whippersnapers).

The irony of the recent Elizabeth Warren non-confirmation is that Warren made her political bones by decrying this massive increase in debt, including household debt. While some of this debt was frivolous 'lifestyle' debt, a lot of it was either due to medical hardship or other emergencies (by the way, credit card debt is once again on the rise due to financial difficulties in middle class households).

On the other hand, if we look at the Great Compression--the 1950s through the 1960s--in which the middle class prospered, we see that the savings rate was high and associated with equivalently large deficits. But TEH DEFICITZ R EVIL!!! Or something.

I bring this up because--as I noted about the trade deficit--it is straightforward to reduce the budget deficit if you want to. Or more accurately, if you want to have high unemployment* and/or massive household debt, you can do this**.

You would suck as a human being, but it is very simple to do. Just follow what the Gang of Six are recommending.

This is why it's so frustrating to hear all the talk about how we should cut budgets, when there is no discussion of why we should do so. What worse is that people who call themselves progressives and liberals want to make the Clinton era argument. I understand the desire to score points, but it's lousy policy. And, in the long run, arguing that we should enact conservative policy, but just not right now is both bad politics and bad policy.

As I've written many times on this blog, deficits or surpluses per se are not bad, it's what you do to achieve them that matters. Deficits and surpluses have consequences. Other than the ludicrous case of showering people with money and shutting down the IRS (which would probably demolish the legitimacy of our currency), it's just a matter of accounting.

And scientists: Senator Coburn and his ilk always frame assaults on science funding in the context of deficit reduction. Just saying.

*Being unemployed is a great way to reduce savings.

**Like any politician would have the balls to tackle the trade deficit.

mikethemadbiologist Fri, 07/22/2011 - 03:59

Tags

It's Not My Party, But If I Were a Republican I Would Back Romney (It's the Liberals, Stupid)

mikethemadbiologist — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 08:03:29 +0000

It's Not My Party, But If I Were a Republican I Would Back Romney (It's the Liberals, Stupid)

Or more accurately, it's the revolt of the liberals. Personally, it's none of my business whom Republicans nominate for president, but, to me, Romney seems to be a strong electoral candidate (albeit one disliked by the Tea Party/theopolitical base). Why?

Liberals.

Hunh? Let me explain.

I've been talking to liberals who have non-overlapping circles of friends in Virginia, one of the closely contested swing states (thanks to Google+, the ability to use the phrase "circle of friends" is rapidly drawing to a close. But I digress). As I far as I can tell, there are enough liberals who would not vote for Obama if the GOP ticket were deemed non-threatening--that is, didn't have Michele Bachmann or Rick Perry on the ticket (apparently, God is trying to convince Perry to run or something. I always thought God was supposed to be rather clear about these sorts of things). Anyway, with a Romney ticket, some liberals will hold their noses and not vote for Obama.

Twenty percent of the 2008 electorate identified as liberal. Even if battleground states have a lower percentage of liberals (let's say fifteen percent), if five or ten percent of liberals decide to not vote in the presidential election, that's enough to tip the balance in a close election (Got 2000?).

But candidates like Perry terrify the liberal base: they'll rally and vote against someone they see as worse than George Bush. But my impression is that a small sliver will not vote the top of the ticket if the GOP nominates Romney. Many liberals don't really see that much of a difference between Romney and Obama, and enough are pissed off that they'll not vote for Obama. In a close state, every vote counts, even the liberal ones. If five percent of liberals stay home, in VA, Obama will probably lose 0.5% - 1% of the vote.

In 2012, that might finish Obama. Consider this from a Democratic polling group (by way of Susie Madrak):

Obama's poll numbers are worse in Pennsylvania than they are in places like Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, and New Mexico, all states that went Republican in 2004 even as Pennsylvania voted Democratic. The President's persistently poor numbers in a state that's gone Democratic in every Presidential election for the last 24 years probably make Pennsylvania the place where Obama should be most concerned about his current standing.

It does though look like the Republicans are going to need to nominate Mitt Romney to take advantage of Obama's weakness in the state. He fights Obama to a tie while all the rest of the Republicans, including home state candidate Rick Santorum, trail him by at least 7 points. Obama and Romney run even at 44% with the former Massachusetts Governor picking up 18% of the Democratic vote and holding 80% support from GOP voters. None of the other Republicans get more than 15% of the Democrats and Romney's the only one who gets 80% of his own party's vote.

They note Obama is doing better in typically more conservative states, which should tell you how much trouble he currently is in.

Like I wrote at the outset, Republicans should elect whom they want to be president. But Romney could encourage enough liberals to sit this one out. In close states, that could very well be enough and cost Obama the election.

mikethemadbiologist Thu, 07/21/2011 - 04:03

Tags

I'm one of those liberals that really doesn't want to vote for Obama next time. He's been a disaster.

Yeah... but would the end-result of a Romney presidency (likely only possible if he pulled on a far-right-wing VP) really be something that a liberal would want?

Romneyâs Mormon belief that Jesus Christ is a robot is raising eyebrows in the mainstream Christian community:
http://spnheadlines.blogspot.com/2011/07/republican-religions-raise-ruc…

"Many liberals don't really see that much of a difference between Romney and Obama"

There's a few social issues--like the DOMA--where Obama remains more liberal than Romney or any Republican could get away with. But on the economy and corporate policy, there's no difference.

But yeah, there's always a good chance that Romney gets the nomination, but to placate the TP and religious right, he pulls a McCain and goes nutball on the VP choice.

There's a few social issues--like the DOMA--where Obama remains more liberal than Romney or any Republican could get away with. But on the economy and corporate policy, there's no difference.

There is a difference. If Romney were in the White House right now, the same policies Obama has pushed (health care reform, stimulus, etc.), would be heroic and business-savvy maneuvers rather than socialist terrorism designed to destroy the customer. See?

As usual, the liberals ignore the implications for the Supreme Court if any Rethuglican is elected. It is very doubtful that Justice Ginsburg will make it to 2016. If there is a Rethuglican in the White House making the appointment, another piece of filth like Roberts or Alito will be nominated. The liberals who were dissatisfied with Al Gore in 2000 and voted for Nader in Florida and New Hampshire to send them a message are responsible for Alito and Roberts. But, of course, liberals never learn so Dr. Mike is probably right.

Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito,

Count me as one of those liberals who would love to vote for someone other than Obama. (I would love to see him challenged by a real progressive in the primaries).

But I am also more than willing to vote for someone relatively safe like Romney just to register my extreme displeasure for Obama's campaign self-misrepresentations, and the complicity of the Democratic party in the abandonment of progressive ideals.

Why in the world would I vote again for a Democratic nominee who would - just for one example - sell out Social Security?

To hell with Obama, and to hell with the nonprogressive corpus of the Democratic party as well. I really do hope I get blitzed by Democratic tele-fundraisers this season - man, are they going to get an earful!

While I have been disappointed in Obama, there is no way I'd vote for Romney - the man switches positions in the slightest breeze.

It is a conundrum who to vote for. I certainly wouldn't vote for Romney ("Mom, Dad, don't touch it, it's evil!"), but I'd really rather not vote for Obama.

I really don't know, does one hold his/her nose, or does one make a probably useless and potentially even more damaging statement? Could it be worse though - at least Bush motivated progressives to do something different?

Problem is, if Obama loses the Democratic leadership will probably decide they just need to "triangulate" to the right again. It wasn't that they didn't sufficiently represent their base, just that they're not "conservative enough".

I'm increasingly thinking the shit just has to hit the fan before we'll see the light (if we ever do). That's something I can live through, but may gawd have mercy on our children.

Finally, it sucks in a two party system. The implication for many if not most it seems if guy from party A sucks then party B must be the answer. That's a totally false choice. It's like going from the guy holding your head underwater at the shallow end to the guy pulling your feet underwater at the deep end. No one seems to be offering to get out of the damn pool altogether.

Mike, I think you're underestimating the hysteria of the far-right. Romney may still be a Good Ole Boy, but his past social positions, Romneycare, and his notorious flip-flopping send a clear signal to the far right that he's not "one of them", not a True Believer. Frankly, if Romney gets the nomination, I would not be surprised if the far right actually breaks from the GOP entirely.

Plus, while Romney might entice liberals to either switch or just allow them to stay home, he'll also *never* be able to motivate the core GOP voters the way Perry or Bachmann do, resulting in much lower voter turnout from that demographic.

I see some of the Naderites haven't learned their lessons. They haven't even learned over thousands of other peoples' dead bodies, or over a destroyed economy. And they're lining up for a chance to keep not-learning now.

"Oh, sure, Obama passed healthcare reform, ended DADT, withdrew most troops from Iraq, and killed Osama bin Laden, but I'm so mad that he's a *CORPORATIST* that I'll vote Republican next year. That'll teach him! Or it'll teach a bunch of poor people and women who need abortions, which is the same as teaching him, right?"

Self-described "liberals" have a moral responsibility to keep the Republican Party out of power forever, just like self-described doctors have a moral responsibility to keep tumors from spreading. Doctors might want their patients to live better, healthier lives, but that's out of their immediate control. When they get a tumor at the end of their scalpel, though, THAT at least they can personally fix.

You don't get your hopes and dreams to come true, you don't get a perfect leader or government, you don't get a pony. You get to either maintain America basically as it is now, or see it deteriorate even worse. Wise up already and get used to voting "D" until a viable *second* (not third) party comes around.

@13 --- you are exactly right. I get so tired of this crap about how there's "no difference," because we don't get everything we want from Obama. There's a bunch of stuff he's done that I don't like one bit, but "no difference?" Please.

I think the Nader analogy is right on. Ralph Nader and the people who followed him to the end of the campaign in 2000 have blood on their hands. Tens of thousands of dead Iraqis might beg to differ about the "no difference" thing. They might ask if you really think the response to 9/11 wouldn't have been at least a little different if a President Gore had been making the response. Except that they're, you know, dead.

The conservative wing of the Republican party is more dangerous to this country ... heck this planet ... than anything disappointing Barack Obama could do in your wildest dreams. Argue as hard as you want against Obama's not-progressive-enough policies and I'm with you. Start talking about there being no difference with a Republican administration and you've become part of the problem.

It's good to see the sentiment of the comments generally reflects exactly what I thought when I read this. SLC, TTT, and ecologist are dead on. The Naderites are apparently stupid enough to repeat the exact same mistakes. Just like their Tea Party counterparts in the GOP, the "die hard liberals" favor ideology over pragmatism. Two sides of the same coin.....

@13 TTT

I see some of the Naderites haven't learned their lessons

I voted for Gore

Obama passed healthcare reform

Basically Romneycare, certainly not anything that'll actually help the healthcare problems.

ended DADT

Not yet, he hasn't

withdrew most troops from Iraq

Yeah, a second "Mission Accomplished", but without the banner and costume. Wake me when we get them all out. Oh, and how's the withdrawal from Afghanistan going? What's that? We're in Lybia now too? Yeah, he's really good on that front.

killed Osama bin Laden

Who cares? What did that really change?

Also note: Guantanamo, still open. Torture, still going on. Military tribuanls, still continuing. Declaring state secrets faster than Bush? Check. Prosecuting whistleblowers at the drop of a hat, check. Buys into Supply-Side economics. Thinks we need to worry about the deficit with 9% unemployment. Willing to sacrifice Social Security, Medicare, etc...

I'd much rather vote liberals into the House and Senate, taking complete control of congress, perhaps with some new people who are actually effective.

Obama's Supreme Court picks haven't been stellar either. Maybe if we get Liberals in control of the House and Senate, we can impeach Scalia and Thomas for their corrupt practices and force more sane replacements, even with a Republican president.

@14 ecologist

because we don't get everything anything we want from Obama

FIFY

First blush, I vote for Obama because he is likely to be the most liberal of viable candidates. Yes, there might be a more liberal candidate but go too far that way and you end up with another Carter. I liked Carter but he was too liberal for, and too disconnected from, the existing DC political situation and he spun his treads ineffectually because of it. I wish Obama was liberal or progressive but he may be the best we can get if you want to get things done.

Seeing a Obama second term would be sweet just to see the right fulminate and steam. Reason enough in my book. It would be payback for the POG crippling the economy, liquidating the poor, gutting the middle class, and committing high treason to have the one thing they did it all for, preventing a second Obama term, fail. The GOP has been enthusiastic about ramming the nation through a knothole with a broomstick if it gets them their Galtian paradise. Most of the GOP operatives are wealthy enough that they will feel no pain in the short term more significant than having to chase the derelicts off the front porch and hosing the blood off the walkway. But if Obama gets a second term there is going to be a big hole in their paradise.

And all this against a backdrop of changing demographics where the GOP may be at or near their most powerful. If they can't get it now they may have to wait another twenty years. So for the POG it is crunch time. Not accomplishing their main goal would be demoralizing. Reason enough to want it.

@18 Art

Carter's problem wasn't that he was "too liberal" it was that he simply wasn't effective. He didn't know how to get DC to work with him, it had nothing to do with how "liberal" he was. Roosevelt certainly didn't have many problems or spin his tires, but he was at least as liberal as Carter.

And Obama isn't exactly working counter to gutting the middle class, liquidating the poor, etc... He's right there with them on all the wrong economic policies. Now is exactly the time to tell him that if he keeps going this way we won't vote for him. Otherwise you might as well roll over and accept whatever the Right is dreaming up 'cause that's where we'll end with either party if we don't push back.

Guantanamo, still open. Torture, still going on. Military tribuanls, still continuing. Declaring state secrets faster than Bush? Check. Prosecuting whistleblowers at the drop of a hat, check.

To quote you: "Who cares? What does that really change?" These are not everyday, bread-and-butter issues for normal people.

You would piss away the at-home social protections for women, gays, the poor, and the sick, because you're much more upset that we're mistreating people who aren't even Americans on some tiny island a thousand miles away.

Well, your precious Mittens has said he wants to "double Gitmo," AND while he's doing that he'd destroy the social safety net at home too. So as any alert 5th-grader can remind you, voting for Republicans never ever helps normal people, it only hurts them.

In my opinion the liberal/conservative issue was important but minor compared to Carter being outside the system and attempting to restructure the very entrenched system. Politicians are vastly outnumbered by the DC insiders, gatekeepers, villagers, power brokers, financiers, and lobbyists. Carter was surrounded, wide and deep, by people who did a lot of nodding, smiling and foot-dragging while just waiting for his four years to expire.

... "you might as well roll over and accept whatever the Right is dreaming up 'cause that's where we'll end with either party if we don't push back".

Great plan ... except it won't work.

Obama is in office and isn't going to change. We got what we got and public criticism just undermines his authority. Problem is that Democrats want easy answers. Just get the right guy in office and 'we win' sort of mentality. The GOP, as evil as it is, understands you build coalitions and advance by owning offices from dog catcher on up. This high point is a result of fifty years of media and regulatory capture, investment in think tanks, creation of an all encompassing alternate reality. Blaming Obama is cheap and easy compared with doing the hard political work.

He got into office because he was the most liberal of the viable candidates and he will get reelected for exactly the same reason. Get over it. You work with what you have. Bucking this reality, making believe you change things by bitching, playing at being independent, is cheap consolation and a loser's strategy.

Things would be different if more of the media was owned by liberals. If more state houses were Democratic. If more of the judiciary was not conservative by inclination. If the SCOTUS had two more liberals and two fewer conservative ideologues. If the penalty for lying in the national media was losing all credibility and being shunned instead of the deafening silence from fearful journalists. But none of that is true so yes, we are going to roll over and take what is given.

I often wonder how the Elections in the US would turn out if you guys had a similar system to Australia: compulsory voting (well compulsory ticking off the name on the roll at a polling places anyway), combined with a preferential voting system. I don't know if anyone has ever done a study on a likely election outcome with such changes, but I'd be fascinated to read one.

If the US democratic voter is holding their vote back from Obama because he wasnt liberal enough, and he loses the election based on lack of turnout with the inevitable result of a republican president... Ohhh boy we are in a loooooot of trouble.

@20 TTT

You would piss away the at-home social protections for women, gays, the poor, and the sick

You mean like Obama is trying to do now when he said he's put Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid on the table?

because you're much more upset that we're mistreating people who aren't even Americans

Yeah! Fuck anyone who isn't an American. Like your grandparents or whatever generation of yours it was that first came here. They aren't really people anyway. And who cares about how the world sees us?

your precious Mittens

I'm guessing you're talking about Romney here. I don't like the guy, I think he'd make a terrible president. I'm sure not going to vote for him. The problem is there's so little difference between him and Obama that you can't see daylight between them.

voting for Republicans never ever helps normal people

This is true, but you haven't made the case that voting for Obama is any different.

@22 Art

But none of that is true so yes, we are going to roll over and take what is given.

So why bother to vote at all? The only power we have to push Obama to the left is our votes. If we just said "we'll vote for you no matter what because the other guys are scarier" then he wouldn't have backed off on plans to change entitlement programs to the extent that he has. He's been pissing on the Liberal wing since he got into office and still has the gall to call himself a "progressive". He's going to have to be pushed to the left and there's only one way to do that.

He got into office because he was the most liberal of the viable candidates and he will get reelected for exactly the same reason.

I disagree that that's why he got elected. He will get re-elected because he's the incumbent and no-one will run to his left.

You work with what you have.

"Work With" doesn't mean rolling over and accepting whatever happens after an election. Unfortunately, sometimes you then have to work to change the elected offical's positions. I'm all for working with him, but he's shown he isn't interested in working with liberals, so now he needs to be pushed. You have a better way to push, go for it.

Why We Aren't All in This Together: The Middle Class' Lack of Economic Agency

mikethemadbiologist — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 09:58:49 +0000

Why We Aren't All in This Together: The Middle Class' Lack of Economic Agency

I think one reason that the Obama adminstration (including the preznit) don't comprehend the level of anger about the economy is that many of them dwell in a world where they possess economic agency, whereas too many people do not. John Lanchester writes (italics mine):

From the worm's-eye perspective which most of us inhabit, the general feeling about this new turn in the economic crisis is one of bewilderment. I've encountered this in Iceland and in Ireland and in the UK: a sense of alienation and incomprehension and done-unto-ness. People feel they have very little economic or political agency, very little control over their own lives; during the boom times, nobody told them this was an unsustainable bubble until it was already too late. The Greek people are furious to be told by their deputy prime minister that 'we ate the money together'; they just don't agree with that analysis. In the world of money, people are privately outraged by the general unwillingness of electorates to accept the blame for the state they are in. But the general public, it turns out, had very little understanding of the economic mechanisms which were, without their knowing it, ruling their lives. They didn't vote for the system, and no one explained the system to them, and in any case the rule is that while things are on their way up, no one votes for Cassandra, so no one in public life plays the Cassandra role.

I think the other thing that pisses people off is the feeling that the rules were suddenly changed on them--they did what they were supposed to do--got that government job or showed every day on time to the plant--only to be told that how they earn their livelihood is 'antiquated' or 'wasteful':

Greece has 800,000 civil servants, of whom 150,000 are on course to lose their jobs. The very existence of those jobs may well be a symptom of the three c's, 'corruption, cronyism, clientelism', but that's not how it feels to the person in the job, who was supposed to do what? Turn down the job offer, in the absence of alternative employment, because it was somehow bad for Greece to have so many public sector workers earning an OK living? Where is the agency in that person's life, the meaningful space for political-economic action? She is made the scapegoat, the victim, of decisions made at altitudes far above her daily life - and the same goes for all the people undergoing 'austerity', not just in Greece. The austerity is supposed to be a consequence of us all having had it a little bit too easy (this is an attitude which is only very gently implied in public, but it's there, and in private is sometimes spelled out). But the thing is, most of us don't feel we did have it particularly easy. When you combine that with the fact that we have so little real agency in our economic lives, we tend to feel we don't deserve much of the blame. This feeling, which is strong enough in Ireland and Iceland, and which will grow steadily stronger in the UK, is so strong in Greece that the country is heading for a default whose likeliest outcome, by far, is a decade of misery for ordinary Greeks.

It's also felt here, trust me. Just visit a dying mill town in the Northeast.

But don't you know, it's hard all over, especially for those who make above $250,000 or $450,000 per year.

mikethemadbiologist Tue, 07/12/2011 - 05:58

Tags

Democrats

Jobs

I don't quite agree with this since - according to an NPR story I heard - Greecians have raised avoiding taxes to an art form.

@ KeithB: That's part of the same deal. If there is a feeling that you're going along with everyone else, why should you be the one to absorb the hurt. It's part of the mass delusions that [almost necessarily] accompany democracies. Even where it is obvious that shared sacrifice is needed, this feeling is translated into group rage instead of a calming the one would hope for. This is added onto the fact that those who have profited the most from the system will probably end up sacrificing the least.

It's just a part of common denialism. This economic denialism is roughly parallel to climate denialism. People just went with the flow, buying houses in the suburbs, bought energy sucking toys, became dependent on their cars and are faced with the fact that in the near future, they will be faced with giving up with many of those things. It becomes easy to deny climate realities as it is to deny economic realities.

I think the other thing that pisses people off is the feeling that the rules were suddenly changed on them--they did what they were supposed to do--got that government job or showed every day on time to the plant--only to be told that how they earn their livelihood is 'antiquated' or 'wasteful'

What pisses me off is how the meme among the GOP is that my job (a federal gov't job) is "not a real job" because it "doesn't generate wealth". Like somehow the money I spend on my mortgage, groceries, gas, etc. is specially tagged as "not real money" or something.

I rather doubt the average citizen had any control of the policies that lead to our current economic debacle; none of them were running the banks in question. Most of the ones who did get involved in any way did so on advice from people who supposedly knew what the "right thing to do" was. One can argue people need to pay attention more when it comes to the people who are in charge of these things (or the government regulation of them at least), but aside from voting and contacting representatives I don't see how the average person had any way to influence the current situation at all.

So it's no wonder they're pissed; they're getting squeezed for something somebody else did, and in fact said somebodies are dancing away casually doing even MORE of the same crap that caused problems in the first place (and complaining how "ungrateful" the average person is being). People are damn right the rules have been changed to screw them over, they just missed it happening for years until now is all.

The "pain" of cleanup should be distributed exactly as the "profits" over the past ten years were distributed...

Hear, Hear, MP.

Republicans: Stealing from the middleclass to give to the rich.

More on the Congressional--and Congressional Staffer--Retirement Program

mikethemadbiologist — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 08:01:13 +0000

More on the Congressional--and Congressional Staffer--Retirement Program

It appears the de facto Congressional retirement plan is spreading to the lower orders. For those who aren't familiar with the Congressional retirement plan, here's what I mean:

One of the dirty secrets about many, if not most, congressmen and senators is that they like Washington, D.C., rhetoric notwithstanding. They want to stay in town after they leave (or lose) office. Once you've tasted the Capital of the Free World, do you really want to go back to Pierre, South Dakota? (Tom Daschle comes to mind...). It's funny how many politicians, having made a career out of bashing War-Shing-Tun, don't...seem...to...ever...leave.

I can't blame them: I moved to Boston, and would be very happy to stay here. Places do grow on you. The problem comes, for politicians, when they have to find a job. For an ex-politician, there aren't that many 'straight paths' to getting your next job: lobbyist and corporate board member are the easiest and the most lucrative.

But if you get a reputation as someone who opposes large business interests, what chance do you have of getting either of these types of jobs? Sometimes, the quid pro quo is very crude and direct (e.g., Billy Tauzin), but the Village's political culture makes it clear what is acceptable. One should not be 'populist', or, heaven forbid, liberal.

According to Matt Stoller, the contagion is spreading (italics mine):

Let's take a look at someone that I liked a great deal while I worked in the House, a staffer named Doug Thornell, who worked for Rep. Chris Van Hollen. Van Hollen was the architect of the Democratic response to Citizens United, as well as the Chair of the electoral arm of the House Democrats, the DCCC. Thornell was his communications staffer, and you could always count on him for a quote to go after the GOP's reliance on special interests. Thornell was also one of the Hill's 50 most beautiful people in 2010.
In 2010, Doug Thornell would let the GOP have it.

"For 20 years, John Boehner has been in Washington caddying for powerful corporate special interests and working against middle class families," Doug Thornell said. "He rushed to support President Bush's Wall Street bailout, but when President Obama asked for his support for middle class tax cuts, help for small businesses and aid for those most in need, he turned his back."

Fast-forward to 2011. Doug Thornell is now working for a group seeking to allow corporations to repatriate profits without paying taxes. His tune on special interests has changed.

"Our broken tax system currently penalizes U.S. businesses that want to bring their global earnings home," said Doug Thornell, a former House Democratic staffer who is now a spokesman for the Win America Campaign. "The simple truth is there are few policy options left that will inject this amount of money into our economy and cost taxpayers next to nothing."

You can say "how dare he do this!" But that's actually beside the point. Doug is a highly trained and highly competent communications staffer, and he genuinely did want to help people when he worked for Van Hollen. Where else could he go after the Democrats lost the majority? It's obvious that the career path options in the political class are so limited that they constrain behavior within the institutions themselves.

While Stoller proposes that liberals should have well-heeled ~~retirement homes~~ think tanks in which former Democratic operatives can be esconced, what this really tells us is that our political betters--the ones who supposedly know so much more than we hoi polloi--are fatally compromised. And I don't know how to fix that.

It would appear that once upon a time, Democratic operatives were able to serve their country without an off ramp. Not sure what happened since then.

mikethemadbiologist Sun, 07/03/2011 - 04:01

Tags

bidness

Democrats

Unlike Many Progressives Kevin Drum Avoids the Obama Category Error

mikethemadbiologist — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 08:05:04 +0000

Unlike Many Progressives Kevin Drum Avoids the Obama Category Error

Matthew Yglesias wonders why Obama didn't push for a debt ceiling increase when he had the chance last year:

It didn't happen. Obama said he trusted John Boehner. Harry Reid said he didn't want the debt limit to be raised by the 111th Congress because he wanted to force the incoming 112th Congress to take ownership over it. The results of these decisions have been a disaster.

What's more, not only was the disaster predictable but even once it was visibly on the horizon the White House bungled it. There was a brief opportunity for the President to dig in his heels and simply refuse to compromise. Then the debate rapidly would have become "can John Boehner round up the votes in his caucus necessary to avoid a default." Instead, the White House conceded the unprecedented point that even though Boehner and Obama agreed about the desirability of raising the debt ceiling that the White House should make concessions to the Speaker in order to obtain it. Consequently, you get what we have here this week.

As I pointed out in this post about the male employment deficit, these 'failures' aren't bugs, but features (italics mine):

...during his first two years in office Obama had gotten enough deficit religion from the likes of Peter Orszag and Tim Geithner that he actually welcomed the opportunity to put in place some long-term spending cuts. He couldn't very well admit that publicly, of course, since his base would go bananas, so instead he punted on the debt ceiling, knowing that Republicans would then use it to "force" spending concessions out of him. Mission accomplished: long-term spending is reduced, and Republicans get all the blame. Democrats mostly forgive him because everyone knows Republicans are crazy, and as a bonus, Republicans don't even get much of a boost from their own base out of this since any real-world spending cut won't come close to the demands of the tea party crowd.

...the kind of negotiating position Matt is talking about isn't rocket science. It's not even Negotiation 101. It's more like the fifth grade version. There's just no way that Obama and Reid and the rest of the Democratic brain trust were literally so stupid that they didn't understand this. A far more parsimonious explanation is that this is roughly what Obama wanted. He wanted spending cuts, but he wanted Republicans to be the ones to take the lead. And that's what happened.

Drum is absolutely right. When Obama lashes into the 'left' (which currently is defined as centrist technocrats and moderate Democrats), he really believes it. Looking back at his dreadfully mistimed equating of environmentalists with global warming denialists (dreadful because the oil rig Deepwater Horizon blew up only days later), it's clear he does not care for the views of moderate, never mind liberal, Democrats (in a sane political system, where batshitloonitarians and theocrats aren't running one of the two major parties, Obama would be a Rockefeller Republican).

So 'progressives' need to stop trying to figure out why Obama won't do the 'right thing', since the answer is pretty straightforward: he doesn't think it's the right thing to do.

There is no time for category errors.

mikethemadbiologist Wed, 06/22/2011 - 04:05

Tags

Democrats