I don't see how any American who isn't a complete idiot can vote for a Republican

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Mitt Romney, yesterday, at The University of Chicago:

I don't see how a young American can vote for, well, can vote for a Democrat.

He was referring to national debt and the accumulation thereof, trying to make the case that Republicans are "consumed with the idea of getting federal spending down and creating economic growth and opportunity so we can balance our budget and stop putting these debts on you."

Which makes him sound all responsible, though of course what he was doing was being dishonest.

Republicans aren't consumed with balancing the budget, they're consumed with lowering taxes on the rich, on people like, oh, Mitt Romney.

And if they were really consumed with improving the country's fiscal health, they'd support the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare, itself derived from Romneycare, Mitt's relatively progressive reform package in Massachusetts), which seeks to get health-care spending under control and which will significantly reduce the deficit. But of course they consider it the worst attack on freedom in American history (one of the truly most ridiculous claims in American history) -- even if it's actually a Republican idea.

And if they were really consumed about balancing the budget, they'd support cuts to military spending and, yes, progressive taxation that places a fair burden on the shoulders of the rich, particularly Romney and his plutocratic ilk, not just letting the disastrous Bush tax cuts expire but advocating higher taxes on those who most certainly can afford to make a greater sacrifice. But of course tax increases of any kind, even returning to the tax rates of the prosperous Clinton years, are anathema to Republicans, without exception. And, no, they don't support military spending cuts either.

But let's get back to what Romney said. Why would a young American vote for a Democrat? Because it's not just about balanced budgets, it's about doing something about climate change, about caring for the poor, about not waging war on women and their health, about extending health coverage to the uninsured, about not getting entangled in imperialist foreign wars, about making sure air and water are clean, about being fair and compassionate to undocumented immigrants who only want a better life in America. It's about so many things that really, truly matter to young people today, things about which Romney either doesn't seem to give a shit or doesn't seems to have a clue. And on these and so many other things, it's the Democrats who stand for the hopes and dreams of young Americans.

Mitt, if you want to know how a young American, or any American who isn't a complete idiot, can vote for a Democrat (you know, like President Obama), go take a good long look in the mirror. There's your answer.

(photo)

Democrats capitulate to Republican demands, Congress averts government shutdown

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Last night, Congress reached a deal on a massive spending bill that will, among other things, keep the federal government running:

Retreating from their harsh partisan sniping, and perhaps fearing public rebuke, Congressional leaders said Thursday that they had agreed on a large-scale spending measure to keep the government running for the next nine months.

But an accord on extending a payroll tax holiday set to expire at the end of the month remained elusive, with Democrats weighing a possible short-term extension, setting the stage for another fight with Republicans over how to pay for it.  

And there's the problem, or at least the most glaring problem.

President Obama and (presumably) Democrats on Capitol Hill wanted to offset the extension of the payroll tax holiday, which would benefit 160 million workers, by imposing a surtax on income over $1 million, that is, on millionaires. Republicans love tax cuts but, plutocrats that they are, opposed any such tax increase on the wealthy. (Their priority is tax cuts for the wealthy, not tax cuts for everyone else.)

Instead of fighting for the tax cuts for 160 million people, though, Democrats capitulated, taking the surtax off the table and thereby giving up their main bargaining chip.

The spending bill will go through, but, needless to say, the payroll tax holiday battle will continue, with the GOP now holding the upper hand. Democrats are reportedly "considering a plan that would find savings in other ways, including fees on the federal housing finance agencies, and could seek to end certain deductions and other tax benefits for millionaires," but, with Democrats committed to the payroll tax holiday extension, it looks like Republicans will be able to get what they want out of this: not a surtax on millionaires and nothing else that would in any way increase the tax "burden" on millionaires but spending cuts of some kind.

How the hell did this happen? Over to you, Charles Pierce:

Oh, they have made a day of it. First, the pillars of Jell-O in the Senate roll over on the itty-bitty surtax they wanted to lay on the plutocrats to pay for a payroll tax cut for the rest of us. Then, the president announces that he's not going to veto after all the bill in which 400 years of Western jurisprudence is pretty much torn to ribbons and tossed to the wind, albeit slightly less deeply into the wind than the original monstrosity would have liked. And, finally, Ron Wyden of Oregon steps forward to give cover to zombie-eyed granny-starver Paul Ryan's latest attempt to "reform" Medicare in the same way that Arthur (Bomber) Harris "reformed" the building codes in Dresden. It's a Very Special Holiday Episode of the long-running hit comedy, Ah, Who Gives a Fk Anyway?

This is an outrage. This is borderline sociopathic. This is so gloriously suicidal that I keep waiting for an angel to come down from heaven to show David Plouffe and Harry Reid what Washington would be like if they'd never been born.

**********

It cannot be emphasized enough. Of the three issues under discussion, the polling data on two of them simply could not be clearer. The American people want taxes raised on the very wealthiest among us, and the American people do not want Paul Ryan's clammy hands anywhere near the Medicare program. Public opinion is (distressingly) ambivalent on the detainee provisions, but it's not overly popular with the people who have to implement it, and it has retired Marine generals throwing bricks at it, and, dammit, the president taught constitutional law, or so we are told repeatedly.

None of these "compromises" will solve a single one of the country's critical problems. None of these "compromises" will create a single job. All they will do is toss away almost every one of the major political advantages the Democratic party has going into the 2012 elections. My god, six months ago, Paul Ryan was a squawking albatross around his party's neck. (Remember how he said he'd "given up fear for Lent," and then proceeded to start charging people a fee to come to his town meetings, and setting the cops on constituents who showed up at his office while he was on vacation? Ah, thim was the days.) The "Ryan Plan" was well on its way to being an anchor. Now, thanks to the Democrats, and to a preposterously compliant elite political press, Ryan's rehabilitation is nearly complete. Nice work, fellas.

Here's a tip, gang: The American people are not angry at government because people yell at each other and nothing ever gets done. The American people are angry because people yell at each other and nothing the American people really want ever gets done. They want higher taxes on billionaires. They want Medicare kept out of the hands of the vandals. If they think about it a little, they even like their jurisprudence with a little habeas corpus sprinkled on top. Instead, they get endless platitudes, and the steady, futile placating of an insatiable political opposition.

Yes, well done. (And brilliantly put, Mr. Pierce.) Democrats willingly relinquish the advantage, to the extent they ever really had it, on winning issues (both in policy and electoral terms), and, while the government stays open, we end up with a convoluted appropriations bill that is heavily Republican.

Yeah, Merry fucking Christmas.

**********

I'm with my friend Libby on this: "I understand the need for pragmatic compromise. But this isn't compromise, it's the same devious cave-in to placate the plutocrats. It's not only spineless, it's stupid. I'm really sick of stupid."

Unfortunately, stupid is all we've got.

In praise of Tom Coburn, our Smartest Republican of the Day

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I can't quite believe it, given what a crazy right-wing nutcase he is, but, well, credit where credit is due and all that.

Here, via Think Progress, is what the extremely conservative Oklahoma senator said yesterday about liberals and the budget deficit:

All of us are going to give a little something if we're going to get out of the hole we're in. Everybody's going to see something different... I think it's better for us to take the pain that we're going to have to take and make sure it's meted out in the proper order than take much more severe pain. When I talk to my colleagues on the other side, and some of my closest colleagues are the most liberal, I find them more intellectually honest oftentimes, the very people they want to help, unless we change these [government programs] now are the very people who are going to get hurt if we don't fix it.

I still don't agree with the vast majority of the positions he takes, but here he acknowledges that there is a need for compromise (and that Republicans must compromise), praises his liberal colleagues (i.e., Democrats) for being more honest than his own kind, and actually makes a case for reforming entitlement programs so as to help those who need those programs the most. How very refreshing.

And this wasn't a first. As Think Progress notes:

Coburn is absolutely a staunch conservative with whom we disagree on most budgetary issues, but to his credit, he has consistently said that new revenue needs to be a part of any realistic deficit reduction package, acknowledging what the vast majority of his Republican colleagues won't. He has said it's "pretty stupid and naive" for Republicans and anti-tax zealots like Grover Norquist to think that a budget deal won't include new revenue, accurately pointing out the depths to which government revenue has plunged in recent years.

How very... not Republican of him. 

Christie calls Obama "bystander" on supercommittee failure, displays characteristic idiocy

By Michael J.W. Stickings

In case you missed it, New Jersey Governor (and all-around bully and blowhard) Chris Christie slammed President Obama on Monday:

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie ripped President Obama for the failure of the debt supercommittee, calling the president "a bystander in the Oval Office" in comments Monday.

"I was angry this weekend, listening to the spin coming out of the administration, about the failure of the supercommittee, and that the president knew it was doomed for failure, so he didn't get involved. Well, then what the hell are we paying you for?" Christie said in Camden, N.J. "It's doomed for failure, so I'm not getting involved'? Well, what have you been doing, exactly?"

This is complete and utter bullshit, as Steve Benen explained yesterday:

The New Jersey governor added that he's "astonished" that the president "refuses" to just call people into a room and solve problems. This is the kind of criticism the media finds compelling, but which is nevertheless idiotic.

The president has tried every negotiating tactic that exists to get congressional Republicans to work on finding solutions. Obama has tried hands-on talks; he's tried keeping his distance. The president has tried hard sells and soft sells, directly and indirectly. He's made private appeals and public appeals. He's made arguments based on policy, polls, and principles. He's tried charm offensives, combativeness, and everything in between. He's made partisan, bipartisan, tripartisan, and nonpartisan arguments, all in the hopes that maybe, just maybe, GOP leaders will be open to good-faith compromise.

And yet, nothing has worked. Nothing. 

Obama isn't blameless, to be sure, but he should be blamed for being so willing not just to compromise with Republicans but to agree to a deal that leans heavily Republican. He should not be blamed for not trying to reach a deal. If anything, he's gone out of his way, much to the ongoing chagrin of progressives, to get a deal done. (Actually, he hasn't really gone out of his way. It's more that his way isn't the progressive way.)

If there is blame to be assigned here, and there most certainly is, it is the Republicans who must be blamed. There hasn't been a deal only because, being anti-tax absolutists, they have been absolutely unwilling to budge on revenue increases even when the president, with Democratic support, has offered them massive spending cuts even to major entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

The president has been anything but a bystander throughout this whole mad exercise, from the debt ceiling talks through to the supercommittee (which was never going to reach a deal, let's be honest; it was just for show). And for Christie to call him that is just plain ignorant.

(Yes, let's make him our Craziest Republican of the Day.)

**********

Nice location for some gubernatorial remarks. What is that behind his right shoulder, a big jar of garlic powder?