Rss Feed
Tweeter button
Facebook button
Technorati button
Reddit button
Delicious button
Digg button
Flickr button
Stumbleupon button
Newsvine button

Posts tagged with Republicans

0 comments

11:59 AM

IMF Reflecting Dodd Reforms

Apparently financial reform is in vogue and in full swing. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) just proposed what is being panned as two “radical” fees levied upon banks. These fees, basically a flat rate coupled with additional taxes on pay and profit, are intended to create a fund that would be reserved for future use in mitigating large firm collapses (re: bailouts). These funds specifically support the notion that banks, not tax payers, should bear the burden that their risky activities carry.

Does this sound familiar?

That’s because this is the exact scheme, which is included in Sen. Dodd’s Financial Regulatory Reform bill, that has been drawing so much heat from Republicans (re: Wall St. Lobbyists) in the USA. The point of this tenet of the Dodd bill is to shift any future burdens inherent in our now normal “too big too fail” capitalist America away from the tax-payer and onto the banks/hedge funds/insurers themselves.

In my personal opinion, I would think this is a great compromise for the issue. Obviously, government regulation weary Republicans would throw up barricades were the Obama administration or the Democratic Congress to try and outright prohibit the risky activities (securities bundling, derivative swaps, etc) that are simultaneously so profitable for banks and so dangerous for the economy. But instead, the administration seems to be creating incentives for banks to not partake in risky activities or to cook their books – by creating a direct relationship between fees/taxes levied upon the banks and what happens if a large institution collapses.

Of worth is also the fact that the IMF’s proposals were being received in two ways by our political allies and friends in Britain (who are in the middle of a very contentious, interesting electoral season). One, as vindication of Labour’s assertion that efforts to reform the financial institutions should be multi-national and therefore a damning of the Tories’s approach which would have privileged unilateral regulatory action over seeking an international arrangement. Two, both parties are arguing solely over the scope of reform as a matter of practicality (which scope will ensure reform gets enacted) and not over the meat and bones of reform – every party involved is urging some new form of bank taxes for this exact purpose.

Along with that, the only people who are expected to be perturbed by these proposals are the big banks who the fees target and the bailouts benefited.

Stunning sometimes the contrast between European political priorities and American.

Emerging from the mist of a settled Health Care Reform, we’ve watched a movement get loud, angry, violent, and we’ve watched them get nothing done. I speak of the Tea Partiers, teabaggers and pseudo-populist rage-fomenters that comprise such groups as the Tea Party Patriots and Freedom Works. I speak of the same absurd minority protest group whose numbers are constantly dwarfed by immigration rallies, anti-war rallies and pro-health-reform rallies but whose media presence implies a greater significance than any other movement that exists, past or present.

At this point however, when the Tea Partier’s cause celebre – preventing America from obtaining democratic reforms to the health care system – has fallen flat on its face, it is hard to distract from the fact that these folks have no real influence on policy. I don’t know if this statement can be regarded as at all controversial though, considering that it is infinitely hard to infer the policy consequences of such rallying cries as “Say NO to Socialism” or “Keep Government Out of my Medicare”…

Never mind the glaring contradictions of such sentiments when one acknowledges that this movement is fueled by our bunk economy’s bad habit of bringing innocent, hard-working Americans down with it. It began with the bank bailouts, where the policy sell was tough regardless of the facts on the ground because when viewed in the abstract, who would honestly be in favor of the Federal government handing hundreds of billions of dollars over to corporate mega-banks? Obama had his work cut out for him in trying to sell that policy after the fact, especially when one considers the immediate recoil Republicans have at any fleeting mention of the consequences of George W. Bush’s 8 year debacle, but now that the taxpayer has recovered nearly all the money that was spent on the TARP bailouts of 2008, populism is in favor of the Obama administration.

Shortly after our country fully realized that we have a bona-fide Black President, we began to realize the political and legislative potency of that President with the passage of a historic economic stimulus package. The facts more than a year later reveal the positive impact of the stimulus, with hundreds of thousands of Americans put back to work, state governments helped to stay afloat, and tax cuts offered to 95% of Main St. America. Apparently this all threatened the egos of Republicans and Tea Partiers alike because nothing says I’m confident in the strength of my ideas like calling the opponent Hitler.

Then came Health Care Reform, the legislative priority that dominated the protest signs of teabaggers for the next year and will likely continue to exist at the forefront of anti-government activism in the year to come. All these agitations by the Obama Administration, these efforts to realign the priorities of the government from top to bottom, these audacious attempts to stave off the inevitable courses as set by the most powerful moneyed interests in the years prior, these actions incited the most virulent conservative activism in the last few decades.

The NYTimes profiles some connected figures in the Tea Party network, and the narrative that was sparked by cries against socialism and big government contrasting the ever present, supported, and oft-lauded role of government in these folks’ lives continues seamlessly. In my mind, one has no ground to stand upon to protest big government while accepting unemployment benefits, Medicare, Social Security or any of the other completely non-controversial, popular and necessary programs. This shallow margin by which Tea Party rhetoric has made its way into the halls of Congress is necessarily shallow. To delve deeper into the political discourse of the teabaggers, one must overlook the logical gaps of arguments that are created by the emotions of a populist reaction to economic uncertainty.

But that glaring hypocrisy is not a concern for much of the Tea Party movement. Principle and integrity of political arguments be damned, because these people are pissed! They are entitled to their government handouts, but fuck anyone else who tries to balance the scales. Fuck anyone else who has found themselves a victim of machinations larger than themselves. Fuck anyone whose woes lead them to vote for Democratic candidates or to support Democratic platforms. But to what avail is all this resentment being levied?

Rooting out government waste and spending taxpayer money more wisely is not some new idea that the Tea Party owns. Being against totalitarianism and facism isn’t new, but for christsake only the most paranoid and conspiratorial among us would actually buy into the notion that this Health Care Reform is even related to those despot regimens. Not trusting the notion of government is not an excuse for being completely and utterly irrational in one’s rhetoric. In fact, when such sentiments of paranoia and fear are allowed to prevail in political movements the result can be nothing but more paranoia and fear. As we’ve seen, the Tea Partiers and Republicans could not thwart the democratic will of the electorate or the administration to reform our health care system. But what have they done?

I can’t honestly answer that question. I can’t produce a single tangible result of this movement, beyond the ratings boost Fox News enjoyed by creating a fictional picture of America in revolt. The Tea Party movement really has no objectives beyond trying to elect Tea Party candidates and agitate for agitation’s sake. Does anyone really know what Tea Party candidates are for? What would a government run by Tea Partiers look like? Do Republicans really have to do much to convince the Tea Partiers that they are friendly? Would a Republican administration or a Republican congress just give in to the demands of this minute faction of the electorate simply because they are afraid of agitation from within?

I’m not trying to pose these questions or ruminate on this subject to salt the wounds created by Health Care reform becoming law, but because I think that any political movement needs to justify its existence in no uncertain terms. And they need to do it constantly. This isn’t a call for more delusional rhetoric to stir up the passions and prejudices of the tea-baggers, but a call for this movement to grow up and try to dispel the facts surrounding their inadequacy. I say this because I’m tired of the rigor that is applied to criticizing liberal politics and liberal movements not being applied to these Tea Partiers and the Republican/conservative ideologies that they push. This criticism is being levied not only at conservative outlets like Fox, but at similarly mainstream outlets like CNN and MSNBC who have dedicated countless hours of coverage to the Tea Party cohorts while unwaveringly ignoring other legitimate movements.

As a last aside, the Tea Parties are not doing themselves any favors by enlisting the inept former gov. Sarah Palin to be their poster child. Didn’t they get the memo that this person hurts things more than she helps things? Or maybe they really just want to ride the media coattails of a future reality TV star?

2 comments

11:56 PM

McCain ’08 Nightmares

‘‘Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010’’.

Brr…I think a cold chill just swept through the room. Can you hear the war drums beating towards Iran?

Back to reality in year 2 of the Obama administration though.

McCain unveiled this radical piece of legislation while providing the wisdom that only a Senator as old and as wise as he can provide:

“Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that sets forth a clear, comprehensive policy for the detention, interrogation and trial of enemy belligerents who are suspected of engaging in hostilities against the United States.  This legislation seeks to ensure that the mistakes made during the apprehension of the Christmas Day bomber, such as reading him a Miranda warning, will never happen again and put Americans’ security at risk…

..A key provision of this bill is that it would prohibit a suspected enemy belligerent from being provided with a Miranda warning and being told he has a right to a lawyer and a right to refuse to cooperate.  I believe that an overwhelming majority of Americans agree that when we capture a terrorist who is suspected of carrying out or planning an attack intended to kill hundreds if not thousands of innocent civilians, our focus must be on gaining all the information possible to prevent that attack or any that may follow from occurring.  Under these circumstances, actionable intelligence must be our highest priority and criminal prosecution must be secondary…

…Mr. President, deliberate mass attacks that intentionally target hundreds of innocent civilians are an act of war and should not be dealt with in the same manner as a robbery.  We must recognize the difference.  If we don’t, our response will be hopelessly inadequate.  We should not be providing suspected terrorists with Miranda warnings and defense lawyers.  Instead, the priority and focus must be on isolating and neutralizing the immediate threat and collecting intelligence to prevent another attack…I believe the handling of the Christmas Day bomber – including the law enforcement focus and the decision to read a Miranda warning after only 50 minutes of interrogation– demand that Congress and the Administration first address the issue which is most crucial to our national security. ” (Mar. 4th, 2010)

For a taste of what exactly Senator McCain prescribes to lessen the burden of those pesky civil liberties, continue past the jump or read it for yourself in its entirety here. Keep Reading »

0 comments

9:12 AM

Reconciling Healthy Differences

Well, reconciling something – hopefully this time it will be the reconciling of Washington with what the majority of the electorate wants : comprehensive health care reform with at least a national public plan. I for one have had enough of the emphasis placed upon bipartisanship to pass this legislation (Tom Schaller on 538.com basically ruins the argument that bipartisanship means anything tangible here). That is why I was delighted to read this morning in the NYTimes that the health bill the Obama administration is preparing ahead of the bipartisan summit is being crafted expressly for the purpose of attaching to a budget bill that won’t be subject to minority hijacking (filibuster).

Numerous Democratic leaders in the Senate have expressed their willingness to use the budget reconciliation process in recent days and weeks, but hold outs still exist – those who think that using Senate rules to pass legislation with a simple majority constitutes some sort of disregard for “the will of the Senate” (to borrow a phrase Orrin Hatch used to try and cast Obama as a tyrant over the move to use recess appointments to break the Repub’s stranglehold on his nominees).

On top of all this, it shows that there is still a damn good chance that this bill will be revitalized and removed of certain detrimental give-aways that weren’t meant to improve the bill but rather to gain conservative votes (of which zero were gained).

Monday should be the day that we see exactly what sort of health care bill Obama thinks should act as a jumping off point to pass with a simple majority. I’ve seen many articles on this reconciled bill that seem to cast doubt upon whether or not Democrats have enough votes to pass a comprehensive bill through reconciliation…but I think these folks are forgetting that the Senate bill passed with exactly 60 votes in December, and the House passed a much more progressive piece of legislation in the fall with 220 votes (including 1 republican).

There has been much speculation surrounding the recent Citizen’s United supreme court ruling, ranging from those who assert that now foreign-owned corporations can and will spend unlimited money to influence American elections to those who assert that this was a major victory for free (corporate) speech. But really this is just speculation. While the ruling is indeed disheartening for those of us who do not control a majority interest in a large corporation, its ramifications have been subject to the typical Washington politicization.

For one thing, there is no way to say for sure if this ruling will lead to increased direct advocacy/partisan activity by multi-national or domestic corporations. The big caveat to the effect of this ruling is that any corporation that engages in direct advocacy could easily become the target of negative ad campaigns, which would potentially effect their customer base, thus throwing a blanket of discouragement on the political agendas of these businesses. The bad news though, is that opportunists on K street have already solved that little dilemma.

Talking Points Memo reported on a “Public Policy and Law Alert” issued by lobbying giant K&LGates last week. This alert indicated that hope remains for those politically-minded corporations who want to pour copious amounts of money into a direct advocacy campaign, while avoiding the burden and bad-business of public scrutiny :

“Currently, any entity, including a corporation that spends more than $10,000 per year on electioneering communications, must file a disclosure statement with the FEC, sometimes within 24 hours of the date of a communication’s first public dissemination. That disclosure must state who makes the expenditure, the amount, the election to which the communication was directed, and the names of those entities donating $1,000 or more to the entity making the disbursements for that communication. Furthermore, a corporation (or any non-candidate funding an electioneering communication) must state at the end of a television or radio advertisement that “ABC Corporation is responsible for the content of this advertising” and must do so in a clear, direct way pursuant to certain technical requirements…”

“…most corporations will probably proceed cautiously. If such independent expenditures are made, groups of corporations within an industry may form coalitions or use existing trade associations to support candidates favorable to policy positions that affect the group as a whole. While corporations that contribute to these expenditures might still be disclosed, this indirect approach can provide sufficient cover such that no single contributing entity receives the bulk of public scrutiny.   Corporations could further lower their profile in such cases by not making contributions specific to a particular expenditure by that third-party corporation. Such independent expenditures can also take the form of advertisements in “under-the radar” sources, such as ideologically-based talk radio, web-based ads or phone banks.”

The thing that still gets me is how the individuals who make the decisions about how a corporation’s money is spent (ceos, board of executives, share holders) are essentially endowed with more rights than individuals such as me, who have no controlling interest in any corporations. Let me explain :

These folks undoubtedly participate in and have an interest in the affairs of a corporation because they see some benefit for themselves (most notably and commonly – they make money because of their involvement in the corporation). So these individuals are already benefiting from their participation in the corporation because it generates some form of income for them. At the same time, these individuals can donate any amount of money into any political campaign, advocacy campaign and so on. The individuals who comprise the corporation had that right – the same right that I currently have – before this supreme court ruling. But now, they have an extra right, a special right that only these folks enjoy. They get to use funds that are not their own personal funds, that are business funds, to advance their own personal agendas (if controlling agents coalesce around issues).

Imagine a scenario where a state is legislating on minimum wage laws, and for fun, lets place this scenario in a tea party conservative’s fantasy – the state is legislating on abolishing minimum wage laws. Now, it would be easy to see how a corporation that has numerous employees could seek to benefit from the abolition of minimum wage laws, so in our scenario this corporation will be donating copious amounts of cash to not only electoral candidates who support the abolition but also to advocacy groups who support it and to other media campaigns supporting their agenda. This is now their right. On top of the expenditure of business funds, each individual who shares a controlling interest in the corporation may also donate as much cash as they like to support direct advocacy campaigns or electoral candidates.  But the effect of the passing of this piece of legislation, whose chances of passing become greater as more money is funneled into the campaign, is clearly detrimental to and against the interest of the employees of that corporation (both present and future employees). Yet the employees are likely to have zero say in the decision made to donate to such campaigns, even though the money being used is in part a product of their labors. The one caveat in this scenario is that the employees, if unionized, can now use union funds to advance their interests in political issues (however, this is a obscenely disproportionate caveat as the only sector of our economy that is unionized to any significant degree are federal employees).

Why in the world is our government actively creating these scenarios? The supreme court ruled in an astonishing rebuke to the balance of influence in politics, removing any barrier from allowing already powerful interests to leverage their power more greatly. The consequences of such a ruling are uncertain, but the fact remains that the ruling set the stage for a remarkable shift in power/influence in American domestic politics that favors large corporations and foreign subsidiaries over individual citizens.

My opinion remains steadfast that no such change was necessary, as the extra rights bestowed upon corporations were already guaranteed to the individuals who comprise those corporations, and that legislative action or constitutional amending will be necessary to re-align the laws governing political activity with our Constitutional tenet of individual rights.

I know the tea-baggers love them some individual rights and freedoms, but remind me – do they support those rights being granted to corporations ? Are they and the Republicans willing to damn their credibility on and emphasis upon the Constitutional rights of the individual to curry the good graces of their corporate sponsors?

0 comments

10:57 AM

Move On, Evan Bayh

So the latest thing to shake up Washington’s frail bones is the news that a conservative blue-dog Democrat from Indiana is not going to seek re-election. Sure, he had an easy 20 point lead over his nearest Republican contender in prospective polls, but the man just has got to be moving along.

What is the problem here though? It seems like from the way people are already reacting to it, that something inconceivable is happening. But really, he is a 2 term Senator – 12 years! Let him go. He has been in Washington too long already.

I’m no fan of political dynasties. Bayh had a certain edge in his pursuit of national politics, as his father was a notable Indiana political figure, which many pundits and pollsters are already saying makes any other Democrat’s chances of winning in Indiana in November slight. But fuck that. For the first time in more than half a century there will not be a single Kennedy in Congress. Yet, we continue to bemoan the electoral downfalls that occur when political dynasties end. The people who comprise these dynasties may indeed be high caliber statesmen and women, worthy of their service to our country, but I refuse to consider the political dynasty as an inherently good characteristic of any government.

There is something to say about political/congressional veterans, those who know how the machine works, in their ability to help grease the gears of legislative agendas. But is that information that cannot be communicated to someone new?

I’m the type of partisan who likes my party’s goals, but lordy do I hate my party’s tendencies. We exalt the virtues of participatory democracy, but somehow that only extends so far. For one thing, why don’t Democrats support Congressional term limits? The logic applies wonderfully to the executive, and the public implicitly accepts that as good for our country. So why does that logic not extend to the Congress?

That is what I mean by how I hate my party’s tendencies. If they ever came out to support term limits for Congress (I have no idea how much/what portion of the public would support this idea – any polls out there?), their whole electoral strategy would be flipped on its head. Political party’s love incumbents. There is no way to hide that fact. But do incumbent politicians do any better for those who elect them than freshmen would?

While I’ve got you on a tangent, I predict that the only way for a Congressional term-limit system to work would be within a public campaign finance system. Maybe that would be the way to get the Dems/Repubs behind this, to ease their purse string concerns over how expensive it would be to elect so many less incumbents. That seems pretty realistic to me though, especially considering how the gridlock and partisanship of Congress has become “common wisdom”.

0 comments

3:32 PM

Choice of Words : DADT

An interesting disparity found in a new New York Times / CBS news poll, no visuals available yet though.

Apparently 16% of the Democratic public would support a gay man or lesbian’s right to serve openly in the military before they’d support a homosexual’s. That is just a mind-boggling poll result, but it matches up perfectly with what textbooks on surveys/polling assert: that choice of words makes all the difference. The mind-boggling part is just that such a discrepancy exists in some people’s minds between the word homosexual and gay man/lesbian.

But the take-home lesson from this poll will be that a majority of the public supports the repeal of DADT, regardless of word choice.

The result of this poll reminds me though, of another survey taken in Iowa recently by the Des Moines Register. Lead-in to the survey :

Gay marriage hasn’t affected most Iowans’ lives.

(surprise, surprise)

But this now leads me to question, what if the survey had used “same-sex marriage”?

News is that the east coast, which includes Washington DC, which is where our national politicians live, is getting some snow. Oh wait, scratch that, not really news, because it is February. Despite that little fact of life (winter tends to mean snow, sometimes lots of it), the NYTimes decided to run an article in their Science/Environment section titled, “Climate-change debate is heating up in deep freeze,”. This article basically provides an outlet for all the shenanigans pulled by climate-change skeptics who like to take advantage of the average American’s shaky grasp on science, with seemingly anecdotal rebuttals by “scientists” provided as the factual context to this debate (which is heating up, but wait it’s cold outside – leave it to the NYTimes to spend more time coming up with a witty headline than writing a worth-while article).

Sorry, but it isn’t debate that is heating up. It is opportunism. The Republicans pulling these stunts, like building an igloo and declaring it “Mr. Gore’s new home”, don’t care what the factual basis for climate change is. They care that they have an opportunity to reinforce the conclusion that they and their constituents have already come to, science be damned. Rachel Maddow covered this last night, eviscerating those climate-change deniers with the help of Bill Nye, but she did so in an entirely appropriate way – by condescendingly mocking the shallow logic that these Republicans are subscribing to. But the NY Times has decided that all this agitation on the right, completely devoid of evidence-based arguments to buffer their case, constitutes debate.

If you want to know what is wrong with Washington, look no further than what constitutes debate in the media. I had more conclusive, heated debates in high school.

0 comments

10:43 PM

Bill Nye on climate change

Tonight on Rachel Maddow, Bill Nye (the science guy) provided commentary on certain people’s insistence that a snowstorm on the east coast in February proves that climate change isn’t real. I’m psyched but disheartened that Maddow felt she needed to ask for Bill Nye to explain the difference between climate and weather. I know I learned that concept in school (probably thanks to Bill Nye, come to think of it), but the fact that she thought this was a necessary fact to air is very telling of the level of discourse in which these certain people are conducting themselves.

The whole theme of the full-court shot and the montage of the facts that don’t negate concepts/theories was great, though it was hard to tell exactly where she was going with it at first. I’m more partial towards the insights of David Byrne on this matter :

Facts are simple and facts are straight
Facts are lazy and facts are late
Facts all come with points of view
Facts don’t do what I want them to
Facts just twist the truth around
Facts are living turned inside out
Facts are getting the best of them

– From “Crosseyed & Painless”

A headline on the Huffington Post caught my eye just now. It read “Paulson, Buffet : Bank bailout may result in profit for U.S. taxpayers”.

The article was a terrible let-down, as it provided the least thorough of an analysis possible. They basically provided some out-of-context quotes and short narrative descriptions in between. Very limited. And I really wish they sourced their articles better, it is nearly impossible to look further into an issue when presented by the Huffington Post. I usually don’t get any deeper than the headlines, for this reason.

But that sounds good doesn’t it – the bank bailout resulting in a profit for the taxpayer? It would be great for it to actually be true and not just the educated guess of two very rich, white men. Despite how often that scenario leads to let-down, this time it seems likely to be true.

Now that is where the Obama administration has hit a home-run. Never mind the lock-step opposition by Republicans to Obama’s every policy, this policy really sells itself especially in a time when lob losses on Main St. are high and Wall St. is reporting record bonus payouts. You might know what I’m talking about here, especially if you watched the State of the Union. If not, look below and pay special attention around 1:40.

The arguments against this will be tenuous, but hopefully they will be based on facts, not like that Republican representative who used some fuzzy math during the lead-in to his question to the President. An interesting NYTimes article gives some numbers associated with this proposal, and arguments from both sides. I just don’t see there being much of an upside for the Repubs to push back on this, especially not while simultaneously trying woo the tea partiers (I’m forgetting, do they like the bank bailout?)…

According to a new Washington Post/ABC news poll, 63% of Americans want comprehensive health care reform.

Note that even 42% of Republicans want comprehensive health care reform.

I’m really shocked by these numbers – 63 % of the public still wants comprehensive reform – when you take into consideration the tepid support that Congress has received from the public over the last year in regard to health care reform. Here is the result of a poll conducted in July 09 by the same pollsters, showing 54% of the public supports the legislation in Congress (which included at the time, a public option) :

It remains elusive to me, the logic used by Republican congresspeople and pundits to oppose health care reform which always rests so firmly upon their perception of the public as being completely against anything resembling the current legislation. As well, many suggest that the Senate bill is just too messy and advocate that the only way forward is to “start over”. From an FOXnews interview with House Minority leader John Boehner… Keep Reading »

0 comments

10:03 AM

Your Health Care Reform

Not exactly the institutionalization of “question-time”, but a darn good idea – a live broadcast “Bipartisan Summit”.

The point of this summit would be to use as a starting point the bills that passed the House and Senate and, as President Obama says, “to go through systematically all the best ideas that are out there and move it forward,” (NYTimes, 2/7/10). That means unscripted, unedited health care reform negotiations will be aired on live TV.

Sounds like this is exactly what candidate Obama promised to do when he was elected (albeit it 1 year late). I, for one, think this is a major tool in Obama’s political arsenal that he should use more often. We saw the gains that Obama made following the State of the Union, with his 2 live q&a sessions with Congress, in terms re-framing the health care debate and his legislative agenda. Also, we saw the gains he has made in the polls. But more importantly, at the last crossroads of the health care debate, we the people will be let into the room – so this summit will have an inherently different quality than all other health care negotiations to date. No one who was involved with writing this legislation at any point thus far was brokering deals with the American news media looking over their shoulders, they were brokering these deals in closed rooms, bowing to the power of any single senator who happens to be positioned as that 60th vote. Snowe, Nelson, Lieberman – we know the crew. So what I am looking forward to the most is to be able to see these folks, the 60th vote crew, try and yield that inordinate amount of power while the American public is watching. My bet is that they won’t, that they can’t; but this will just reinforce how good candidate Obama’s idea really was. And how much of a shame it is to be employed so late in the game – literally the last possible moment it could have been used.