Budget Deal: Norquist’s Nuts, And Other Core Principles Of Conservatism

The budget deal (deftly summarized here by Ezra Klein) announced on Tuesday by Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Patty Murray represents just how much of the playing field, in terms of fiscal policy, now belongs to drown-the-government-in-the-bathtub conservatives.

Oh, I understand that given the political realities of a divided Congress, given the economic need to restore at least some governing stability, that the deal is better than nothing. But so much of this un-grand bargain is tailored to sell to non- or semi-Tea Party Republicans in the House and Senate (the hard-core teapartiers will nevva evva buy into it, of course).

Take, for instance, the fact that the long-term unemployed are essentially told to go to hell, or to the soup line, whichever seems more appealing.  In just a few weeks, the benefits provided by the federal government to 1.3 million former workers will expire. These unfortunate folks are mostly the victims of the Great Bush Recession, an economic calamity so Great that now, more than four years after the thing supposedly ended, people are still suffering.

But helping to alleviate the suffering of these and other folks in need is not one of what House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan called the “core principles” of conservatives. That’s right, during the announcement of the deal on Tuesday, Ryan went out of his way to assure right-wingers that those principles have been preserved:

I expect we’re going to have a healthy vote in the House Republican Caucus. We are keeping our principles. The key here is nobody had to sacrifice their core principles. Our principles are don’t raise taxes, reduce the deficit.

Now, think about that for a minute. Paul Ryan could have said that “jobs” was a core principle of conservatives. He could have said “health care” was a core principle. He could have said “national defense.” Hell, he could have told the truth and said that “keeping Grover Norquist’s nuts warm” was a core principle. But he didn’t. The first thing that popped into his pickled pumpkin was, “Our principles are don’t raise taxes, reduce the deficit.” That’s it. Now that Barack Obama is president, that’s all that matters to these guys. Long-term unemployed? F’em!

Meanwhile, our side, because the economy is still limping along in so many ways, because we believe in governing, felt we had to make a pact that included abandoning those who, for a variety of reasons, can’t find a decent job. But is this the best deal possible? Could Democrats have insisted on continuing long-term unemployment benefits and called the implied Republican bluff to once again shut down the government?

Of course they could have. But it’s just not in the nature of those who value government to risk wrecking it again and injuring even more people. Our side could have told Paul Ryan that unless he included an extension of unemployment benefits, there would be no deal. And, given the dynamics involved, Ryan would have, eventually, had to take it. Why? Because there is no way in hell that Republicans, basking in the media-aided glow of the failure of the ObamaCare roll out, want to shift journalists’ attention away from all the “I got screwed” ObamaCare news stories to “Republicans did it again” stories about the harmful effects of yet another closure of government.

Thus there is one important reason why Republicans would have given up more than they did in this deal and why they would not have shut down the government again: They believe with all their hearts that keeping the focus on ObamaCare is their path to power. They believe, as Jim DeMint famously said before the Affordable Care Act was even passed, that “this health care issue is D-Day for freedom in America,” and,

If we’re able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.

And, you see, breaking Obama, breaking his black and Democratic back, is what this is mostly about, what it has always been mostly about. They despise this man. They hate what they deliberately misapprehend as his radical politics. They’ve never wanted him to succeed, domestically or diplomatically. If Obama wants a health reform law inspired by Republicans, they want to break him and call him a socialist. If Obama wants a jobs bill, they demand a deficit-reduction bill. If Obama suggests war, they want peace.If Obama wants peace, they suggest war. It’s been that way from the beginning of his presidency.

Alas, this deal will pass. It will become reality. And Democrats say that they will try to pursue extending long-term jobless benefits via separate legislation. Good for them. But it is hard to see how that will happen, now that the pressure is off, now that Republicans don’t have to worry about the backlash of a government shut down, now that they can go, full pelt, into an all-out assault on ObamaCare in their quest to break the law’s champion.

Meanwhile, the Super Bowl of politics continues to be played on the right side of the field. Meanwhile, the peopleless principles of the Republican Party—no new revenues and slashing government—continue to dominate the game.

Meanwhile, many of the victims of the Great Bush Recession are on their own.

[photo: J. Scott Applewhite]

“Psycho Talk” From Claire McCaskill?

I like Claire McCaskill.  I really do.

I mean, she’s no flaming lib, but for a senator from mixed-up Missouri, she does okay most of the time.  And she is an effective communicator most of the time, too. 

That’s why it was baffling to see her featured on Ed Schultz’s “Psycho Talk” last night for comments she made to St. Louis’ KMOV-TV regarding an extension of unemployment benefits:

I’m not for extending the unemployment benefits any further. The payroll tax cut, I’m always for tax cuts for working folks, because I think that helps our consuming economy.

Wow.  That would be psycho talk for a Democrat (Schultz called her comments “heartless”).  Except, McCaskill’s office issued a Claire-ification of that statement, which The Huffington Post reported this way:

McCaskill’s office says additional context omitted from KMOV’s report would show that she was responding to a question about giving the unemployed extra weeks of benefits. Her office said she supports preserving the existing extended benefits.

“Claire continues to fully support unemployment benefits for people who have lost their jobs by no fault of their own as a result of the struggling economy. This includes up to 99 weeks of unemployment benefits. Unfortunately, expanding benefits beyond 99 weeks — as some suggest — is unaffordable and unrealistic because of staunch opposition in the House.”

The dispute here is whether the question was “giving the unemployed extra weeks of benefits” or whether, as KMOV claims, she was asked a more general question:

…she was asked if she supported President Obama’s plan to extend unemployment benefits and payroll tax cuts….

KMOV’s website does have a link to the “raw video” of the interview which presumably would settle the “context” matter.  What question was McCaskill responding to? Was it a question about the extension beyond 99 weeks or just a question about extending unemployment benefits generally?

Beats me.  The so-called raw video doesn’t include the entire question for some inexplicable reason.  

But since the senator’s office disputes that the question was merely one of extending unemployment benefits and had to do with specifically extending them beyond 99 weeks, then it is incumbent upon the news organization to produce the footage that would back up its account.

I will take McCaskill—presumably she okayed her office’s Claire-ification—at her word until I see proof that she is being disingenuous about the context.  She doesn’t step into these kinds of communication messes very often, so she gets the benefit of the doubt.

Besides, look at what she said again:

The payroll tax cut, I’m always for tax cuts for working folks, because I think that helps our consuming economy.

Helps our consuming economy.”  Anyone who believes the Keynesian idea that tax cuts stimulate the consuming economy surely believes that unemployment benefits stimulate it much more, since nearly every penny of unemployment benefits get spent in the economy.

Until I’m proven wrong, my money is on Claire.

Remarks And Asides

The press secretary for Vice President Joe Biden said that Biden was not really napping during Obama’s budget speech yesterday, merely auditioning for a job as an air-traffic controller.  Good luck, Joe!

_____________________________

The Right’s fixation on Islam and Sharia is finally bearing fruit here in the talk radio-saturated Ozarks.

According to the Springfield News-Leader,

Leaders of the Islamic Center of Springfield say they received a threatening letter targeting Muslims on Sunday and earlier that day found charred remains of three Qurans.

In January, someone painted on the walls of the center, “You bash us in Pakistan. We bash you here.”  The paper also reported that “other messages were sexual, including drawing of a penis near the women’s entrance and a reference to Allah being gay.”

That’s nice. The extremists have figured out a way to get the most out of their graffiti dollar by insulting Muslims and gays in one spray.

Jamil Saquer, a board member of the Islamic Center and a professor at Missouri State University, had this to say about the perpetrators:

They are just acting out of darkness.

What a perfect description of the Right.

__________________________

Speaking of talk radio saturation and acting out of darkness, yesterday Rush Limbaugh called Obama supporters “savages” and “walking human debris.”  Not one Christian Republican will utter a word of criticism of this man, however.  Praise Jesus.

__________________________

It’s hard to tell whether Missouri Republicans in the state legislature are treating the unemployed like dogs or the dogs like the unemployed, but one thing is clear: neither the dogs nor the unemployed can count on Missouri Republicans to do the right thing.

Republicans—including every one of our local legislators—have sided with Missouri’s extensive puppy-mill industry and against the welfare of the animals.

And they have sided with Missouri’s extremists in the right-wing ideology industry and against the welfare of the unemployed.

From two stories in today’s Joplin Globe:

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — Missouri lawmakers capped an emotional debate about dog breeding and gave final approval Wednesday to legislation replacing many of the provisions in a law approved by voters to tighten regulation of the industry.

…Backers of that law argued that Missouri’s existing laws were too weak, allowing breeders to keep dogs in stacked cages and exposed to excess heat and cold.

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo.— Thousands of Missouri residents cut off from long-term unemployment benefits will soon get federal payments again..but anyone laid off beginning next week will see reduced state jobless benefits… The cut in state benefits was part of deal to end a filibuster against the federal benefits by four Republican state senators upset about federal spending and deficits.

It’s too bad the dogs can’t vote, although given the prevailing politics in this part of the state, more than half of them would vote Republican.  I’m sure clever GOP canine operatives could convince a majority that living in stacked cages, exposed to the heat and cold, is a small price to pay for allowing breeders to make a fast capitalist buck.

__________________________

The Unemployed Are Number One In Missouri

The Missouri Senate has given the finger to the unemployed.

AP story:

JEFFERSON CITY — Thousands of people in Missouri who have been unemployed for more than a year soon will lose their jobless benefits, marking a significant victory for Republican fiscal hawks who are crusading against government spending.

When eligibility ends Saturday, Missouri will become the only state to voluntarily quit a federal stimulus program that offers extended benefits.

As Barb Shelly of the Kansas City Star wrote, remember these names, the Filibuster Four:

Will Kraus of Lee’s Summit, Rob Schaaf of St. Joseph, Brian Nieves of Washington and Jim Lembke of Lemay…

Remember that Kraus glibly said from the Senate floor that he sees lots of jobs advertised on the Internet, so what’s the problem?

Remember that Lembke said the unemployed need to “get off their backsides and get a job.” Remember that Nieves happily reported on his Twitter account that he and Lembke were “enjoying cigars and port in my office,” as they celebrated their ability to bring the Senate to a halt.

Kraus, Schaaf, Nieves and Lembke. They live in a smug reality that looks down on ordinary people and their struggles.

Those ordinary people amount to about 34,000 Missourians, prior victims of national Republican malfeasance, who now suffer yet another beating from four calcified Republicans—and a Senate leadership that refused to stop them—who want to make a philosophical point and turn down $105 million from the federal government. 

The troubled Jim Lembke, said:

We have to take a stand and say ‘When is enough enough?’ and send a message to the federal government, and hopefully shame them into doing the right thing and quit spending money that they don’t have.

On top of the sheer cruelty of it all is the sheer stupidity of it all.  While striking a blow at those 34,000 unemployed Missourians, Republicans are also striking a blow at those businesses that won’t get the $105 million, since everyone this side of Rush Limbaugh understands that unemployment benefits are the most stimulative government spending of all—it all gets spent somewhere.

But nevermind that, the Missouri Senate had more important things to attend to yesterday.  Barb Shelly:

Update: Shortly before 11:30 a.m., the Missouri Senate adjourned so that lawmakers can attend the Cardinals and Royals opening games, if they so choose. “Drive safely and have a great weekend,” the leader told members as the august body called it a day.

Proud to be a Missourian today? 

Remarks And Asides

Newt Gingrich, as nearly everyone knows by now, was committing adultery at least twice, divorcing his wives—his first wife of 18 years claims he discussed terms of their divorce as she recovered from cancer surgery in the hospital—and generally making nasty on the Republic because he loves his country and worked too hard.

Yesterday he delivered the wonderful and comforting news that he has, of course, found forgiveness from the Almighty Republican In The Sky and he promises he doesn’t love his country as much as he used to and promises he will never work that hard again.

He’s got my vote.

____________________________

A director of Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum, Rosina Kovar, addressed the Colorado Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this week, according to the Daily RFT (via FiredUp!Missouri).  The subject was, I think, civil unions, but it turned into a God-inspired anatomy lesson:

“I think we ought to be telling the truth about fornication and sodomy,” she said. “The anus is an exit. It is not an entrance.” Added Kovar, “Unlike the vagina, nature put a tight sphincter in the entrance of the anus. It’s there for a reason — to keep out!”

Awesome!  Now I have another excuse not to get that prostate exam. Thanks Rosina!

_____________________________

We’ve got to quit taking the opium,” Missouri State Senator and amniotic Republican Jim Lembke said. 

He was referring to the federal government’s dangling of $285 million for, as the St. Louis Post Dispatch reports, “extended jobless benefits and public school funding” in Missouri.

Lembke is threatening a filibuster to prevent our state from taking the feds money because he thinks it should be used to reduce America’s deficit. 

I know it’s easy to criticize Lembke for this nonsense, but the truth is he is merely following the logic of the Tea Party: To hell with Missouri’s unemployed and educating Missouri kids. We’ve got to put a 0.00002 dent in our national debt.

______________________________

Sean at FiredUp! Missouri has, as far as I know, coined a wonderful way of describing those who toy with our President’s birth bona fides, but can’t quite jump all the way in: “birther-curious.”  He wrote:

…in Missouri, we have a long list of birther and birther-curious elected officials who have received little of the scorn and mocking they’ve earned.

He also provides a handy list of the offenders, complete with links:

Three local Missouri legislators qualify as “elected officials who have co-sponsored at least one bit of birther legislation”:

Melissa Leach of Springfield; Mike Kelley of Lamar: Barney Fisher of Richards.

Congratulations all!

Republican Congressman Says Next Year’s House Can “Correct” The “Damage”

I was listening earlier to the House debate the Obama-McConnell tax deal, also known as the Free The Middle Class And Unemployed From The Republican Kidnappers Act of 2010.  The bill will add $858 billion to the nation’s debt, including $32.5 billion for the estate tax giveaway over the next two years, according to CBO estimates.

Along comes Rep. Tom McClintock, a Republican from California, who warns the House of peril should the tax cuts expire and we return to those horrible 1990s, when we were enjoying budget surpluses.  But I want to look at something else Congressman McClintock—who supports the tax deal—said this morning:

Some of my fellow conservatives object to the 15% of this bill that spends money we don’t have, and I agree. But that damage can be corrected through off-setting spending reductions next year. The new Republican House majority can do that without the Senate or the President simply by refusing to appropriate funds—and is committed to doing so.  But it cannot rescind the taxes next year without the Senate and the President…

Now, this, my friends, is instructive.  If Mr. McClintock is correct, if next year the tea-drunk House can simply refuse to fund the government to the tune of $129 billion—15% of the tax deal—then don’t we have a right to know how they plan to do that, before Democrats agree to this tax cut package?

Obama’s Arms Are Tired, But The Battle Goes On

“After the victory, the Lord instructed Moses, ‘Write this down on a scroll as a permanent reminder, and read it aloud to Joshua: I will erase the memory of Amalek from under heaven.’”

—Exodus 17:14

In Exodus 17 we find the story of the desert-wandering Israelites in their first battle “test” against a collection of nomadic raiders called the Amalekites. It’s a typical Old Testament case of good guys versus bad guys, the righteous versus the unrighteous.  Democrats versus Republicans.

As background, the wandering Jews had been so upset with the harsh conditions of their new-found freedom that they began to question the motives of their leader, Moses, who had successfully led them out of Egypt:

Are you trying to kill us, our children, and our livestock with thirst?

Moses, not one to appreciate the finer points of leadership, growled at the Lord:

What should I do with these people? They are ready to stone me!

Now, the Lord, being a crafty and inventive Deity, told Moses to go in front of the people and strike his staff against a rock and “water will come gushing out. Then the people will be able to drink.”

Needless to say, Moses did as he was told, since his arms were way too short to play Joe Frazier to a celestial Muhammad Ali, and the people drank heartily from the gushing rock.

About this time the Israelites were attacked by the “warriors of Amalek.” Moses texted an up-and-comer, Joshua, and ordered him to,

Chuze sum men 2 go out & fite the army of Amalek 4 us. Tmrrow, I will stand at top of hill, hold the staf of God in my hand.

Apparently, Moses believed there wasn’t anything he couldn’t do with God’s staff, except maybe cure cancer and other horrid diseases that made life for the Hobbesian ancients rather nasty, brutish and short. 

In any case, Joshua followed orders and went out to fight the Amalekites, and Moses held up his end of the bargain by climbing atop a nearby hill and holding up the staff of God. The Bible gives us an account of the effectiveness of the staff strategy:

As long as Moses held up the staff in his hand, the Israelites had the advantage. But whenever he dropped his hand, the Amalekites gained the advantage.

Now, you can see that after awhile even Moses might get tired of standing there with his arms raised for so long.  And you might think that God, who is able to do all things, might give him some supernatural strength, enabling him to keep his arms raised long enough for Joshua to finish the job on the Amalekites.

Nope. It just doesn’t work that way in the counter-intuitive world of Old Testament reality. The Bible reports:

Moses’ arms soon became so tired he could no longer hold them up. So Aaron and Hur found a stone for him to sit on. Then they stood on each side of Moses, holding up his hands. So his hands held steady until sunset. As a result, Joshua overwhelmed the army of Amalek in battle.

This story, like all Bible tales, holds a lesson for us today.

As the Democrats battle the Republican Amalekites during this lame-duck session, a tired Moses Obama will need his Aarons and his Hurs to keep the staff of God held high and to secure victory for working and middle class American Joshuas.

And I submit that Obama’s only Aarons and Hurs are the liberals in the House and Senate, particularly in the House. 

Some potential good news from Howard Fineman:

WASHINGTON — While the public focus of the Great Tax Battle remains riveted on the U.S. Senate, top Democratic insiders are privately worried about the real lame-duck end game: a last-minute, potentially deal-breaking revolt by Democrats in the House.

Fineman goes on to say that any Obama-Republican deal on the Bush-era tax cuts may run into trouble in the House because:

The biggest problem — most seem to have forgotten — is in the House. Many seem to have forgotten that it is the House, which must originate tax bills, that last week voted by a 234-188 margin to limit the extension of the Bush tax cuts to families making less than $250,000 — Obama’s original campaign pledge.

While it’s doubtful that liberals in the House or the Senate can get to President Obama in time to keep his arms from failing on the issue of the Bush tax cuts, there is always an audacious hope—the same audacious hope our Moses Obama once championed—that they can.

Meanwhile, out on the battlefield of the American economy, there are shrinking middle class incomes and joblessness.  And the Amalekite Republicans are attacking the good guys by cutting taxes for the wealthy and killing unemployment benefits.

Will The Last Democrat Out Turn Off The Lights?

Shannon McCaffrey reports on a disturbing, but not surprising, result of the 2010 election:

Staggering Election Day losses are not the Democratic Party’s final indignity this year. At least 13 state lawmakers in five states have defected to Republican ranks since the Nov. 2 election, adding to already huge GOP gains in state legislatures. And that number could grow as next year’s legislative sessions draw near.

These 13 state lawmakers, frauds all, did not abandon the Democratic Party for any other reason than the lust for power.  These people ran as Democrats, took Democrats’ money, and got elected as Democrats. Yet, today, less than a month after the election, they are Republicans.

And in some cases, the switches made a significant impact:

In Alabama, four Democrats announced last week they were joining the GOP, giving Republicans a supermajority in the House that allows them to pass legislation without any support from the other party. The party switch of a Democratic lawmaker from New Orleans handed control of Louisiana’s House to Republicans for the first time since Reconstruction.

Shameful and disgusting.

Since I was once a bull-headed conservative, I can understand switching political allegiances due to disagreements with a party’s philosophy. But despite what these opportunistic scoundrels say, there wasn’t much of an ideological component to their betrayal of the Democratic Party.

Democrats, including Barack Obama, campaigned on an aggressive agenda in 2008, some of which they actually tried to convert into law.  After assuming office in 2009, they never “moved left” one inch, in terms of what they ran on to get elected in 2008. And the turncoats who defected to the GOP knew all that.  The only thing that has changed since then is that Republicans made substantial gains this time, and that means a period of wandering in the political wilderness, something that phony Democrats just can’t tolerate.

McCaffrey writes:

Most of the party swaps are in the South, where GOP rule is becoming more entrenched and Democrats – many of them already more conservative than their counterparts elsewhere – are facing what looks like a long exile in the minority.

The prospect of a “long exile” is unacceptable to people who never cared much about anything except “relevance,” or to put it more starkly, power. And it’s no accident that most of the disloyalists were in the South, The Land of Betrayal.  Remember the Civil War?

In any case, I write all of the above to make a point about those who still retain the Democratic label but appear to be backing away from the principles it is supposed to represent. I speak of President Obama and certain members of the still Democrat-controlled Congress.

If anything should differentiate Democrats from Republicans, it is the issue of extending the Bush tax cuts for wealthy Americans. Not only have Democrats been on the fiscally responsible side of this argument—that the wealthiest Americans should see their rates go back to Clinton-era levels—but a majority of Americans agree with them. And everyone, except ideologically-poisoned Republicans, understand that giving rich folks tax cuts has almost no stimulative effect.  It’s simply just a giveaway to a Republican constituency.

Yet, I hear talk everyday that Democrats are ready to compromise on the issue, despite the fact that they still run the bleeping government.  It’s really just incomprehensible to me.  Oh, I understand the dynamics of next year’s mix of Tea Party Republicans and weak-kneed Democrats, but this isn’t next year.  It’s now.  And Democrats still have an overwhelming advantage in the House and the Senate.

At the very least, Democrats should put up a bill that includes tax relief for only middle class Americans and force Republicans to vote against those tax cuts. Republicans claim that Democrats don’t have enough votes in their own caucus to pass such a bill.  Let’s find out. Rather than talk about compromising with Republicans, Obama should be twisting the arms of his fellow Democrats.  That’s what leaders do.  If the middle class is worth fighting for, then, by God, fight.

It’s the same for extension of unemployment benefits. Republicans refuse to extend them for nearly two million Americans. Why isn’t President Obama on television every damned day pointing out what Republicans have done to folks who lost their jobs because of Republican policies?  I don’t get it.

And now Democrats are talking about trading tax cuts for the wealthy for an extension of unemployment benefits.  Are you kidding me?  The Republicans are holding the unemployed—and the economy—hostage and Democrats are willing to pay the ransom?  Huh?

When Republicans were walloped in 2008, they didn’t go running to the Democrats to compromise. Even though voters turned away from them in droves, Republicans doubled-down on the philosophy that brought the nation to its economic knees, hoping against hope that the public’s understanding of the causes of the Great Recession could be muddled by overblown rhetoric against Obama and Pelosi and Reid.

Unfortunately, that strategy worked because of a slow-recovering economy and because too few Democrats were willing to defend Democratic principles in the face of Tea Party resistance. And after what Obama did yesterday, I don’t hold out much hope that Democrats are up to any kind of fight for what is right.

President Obama, desperate to impress anyone who will listen that he is serious about deficit reduction, said he was freezing pay for federal workers, including underpaid people who care for our veterans and pick up trash in our national parks.  Yeah, that’ll show ’em. Mr. Obama said his pay freeze will save about $2 billion in 2011. That’s about .0005 of the projected 2011 budget. Get that? That’s 5/100 of 1%!

And besides the mere symbolism of it all, the federal pay freeze nonsense was a Republican idea, based on a faulty notion that government workers are overpaid and underworked. If Democrats, who are supposed to be the party of good government, won’t stand up for government workers, including many at the top who could earn more in the private sector, then who will?

If President Obama and the Democrats can’t do better than this, when they still have a majority in both houses of Congress, what will the next two years be like?

Maybe those Democratic state legislator-defectors have a point.