The Inscrutable Center Keeps Moving Rightward

Let us suppose we were watching a sporting event and the referees, or the umpires, depending on the sport, called far more fouls on one team then on the other. Very likely we would conclude that the team that had the most fouls called on it was violating the rules more frequently. Now let us suppose that the team that kept violating the rules started complaining that the referees were unfair and that they ought to call an equal number of fouls on both teams, and the referees complied. Would anybody think that was a good thing? Now let us suppose that the team that that had been committing the most fouls wasn’t satisfied with the evenness of foul calls regardless of actual behavior, then called for the abolition of all rules, and people wanting to seek a middle ground started saying, well lets get rid of half of them, would that be a good thing? But that is exactly what is happening.

The media, which I have criticized again and again, ought to be fearless, but they are craven. They are always seeking to call an equal number of fouls on the two political parties regardless of actual behavior.

Everything in the media has become one side says and the other says. What about facts? The media has abandoned its role as the ultimate fact finder. Thus evolution has been an established fact for many decades, but because one of our major parties has denied it, the media reports it as though it were a partisan issue.

Man-made global warming is an established scientific fact, with more than 90% of climatologists agreeing with this finding, but out of fear from the Republican deniers, the word “global warming” is rarely mentioned in our media and a so-called scientific TV channel, The Discovery Channel, runs a series on Climate Change, without ever mentioning its established causes.

If one of our parties decided that the earth was flat, or that the sun moves around the earth, these established facts, would, in the treatment by our media, become, “Republicans say…and Democrats say…” That makes our media no better than my hypothetical referees. John Huntsman, may be a good Republican in so far as he support its regressive approach to taxes and the safety net, but he says: “I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming” and warns against his party becoming the “anti-science party”.

But the question is how has the Republican Party’s Rightward drift moved the Middle so far Right.

If we start with Reagan we find that while his rhetoric laid the groundwork for the present rightward drift, his actual policies were moderate by comparison. Thus while present Republican orthodoxy is no increase in taxes or revenue to close the huge budget deficit, Reagan, when faced with a growing deficit introduced TEFRA, which is described by the Right Wing blog The Free Market as “the largest tax increase in American history” and his supply-side economic plan was described by his Vice President, George H.W. Bush as “Voodoo Economics." It was not until the Presidency of George W. Bush that the groundwork was laid for actually destroying all that had been accomplished by both Republican and Democratic Administrations since FDR, and under the guidance of V-P Cheney the plan was set in motion.

Bush tried to abolish Social Security and substitute for it “individual investment accounts," but that was met with so much opposition across the political spectrum that it was soon abandoned. But it is not opposed by the Tea Party, which is now synonymous with the Republican Party.

Instead a plan was put into action that called for creating a large deficit, taking the country from the surplus that was inherited from the Democratic Clinton Administration of  $236 billion and a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion, and turned it into a $1.3 trillion deficit and a projected 10-year shortfall of $8 trillion, while at the same time leaving the country in the worst economic downturn since the great depression of 1929.

(I believe that turning a huge surplus into a huge deficit was part of the plan. The recession was not, and Bush should not be tasked with the deficit from the TARP, because given the threat of a meltdown of the financial system, this step was essential, as was the rescue of the auto industry, and the stimulus, which had the almost immediate effect of ending the economic recession.)           

In the last year of Republican dominance (2008) the US lost 2.6 million jobs. Almost an equal number were lost in the first year of the Obama Administration, but the difference can be seen from this graph: 

I urge the reader to access and examine in enlarged size. During 2008, the last year of Republican control, the trend was constantly downward, going from minute job creation in the first two month, to a constant decline, with only two month bucking the trend slightly. After President Obama took office, and before he could take any action on job creation, the job losses remained stagnant at over 800 thousand a month. At the beginning of February 2009, the President signed the Recovery Act, (also known as the stimulus, which has been denounced as ineffective, causing the public to believe this to be true) and for the next two month job creation continued to tank, while the stimulus worked itself into the economy. But the following month the decline went from 800,000 jobs lost to 300,000 jobs lost. The following month there is a set back causing the job losses to increase by just under 100,000, and then there is a steady decline in jobs lost, until beginning in 2010 there is job creation in every single month through 2011 and continuing into 2012, but according to US News & World Report, the total job creation would be much greater, but for the constant decline of public sector jobs, e.g. in June of 2011 a disappointing 18,000  total jobs were added. But actually 57,000 private sector jobs were created, offset by the loss of 39,000 public sector jobs. 464,000 public services employees have found themselves jobless since local government employment peaked in September 2008 under the Republican Bush Administration.

Republicans would argue that what happens in the public sector is irrelevant, since in their view the more public sector jobs are eliminated the better. But I would suggest that the people who need jobs, care little whether it is a public or a private sector job, and as for the economy, every job in whatever sector adds to consumer purchasing power, the engine that ultimately drives the economy, or at least 70% of it. Certainly, wasteful jobs in the public sector (or for that matter in the private sector) are never desirable, but all statistics show that the jobs lost are not patronage jobs, but rather teachers, firemen, policemen, and other public servants providing vital services to their communities. Why are they being laid off in such large numbers? The answer is mostly the necessity of falling off revenues due to the recession, but partly due to political fanaticism, which seems to believe government and all its employees are ipso fact bad.

Nothing can be done about the political fanaticism, but as for budgetary constraints this could have been avoided if the price for support of the stimulus by Republican Senators Snowe (ME), Collins (ME) and Specter (PA) were not the elimination from the bill of roughly $40 billion in aid to states. But for that price, which had to be paid, total job creation would now be much greater, resulting in more purchasing power, and a more robust recovery. But even moderate Republicans, and not many are left, are, after all, Republicans, and if they are to cooperate, they must have their pound of flesh. See here.

But I digress!!!

As I have said many times before in my posts, it is not about the deficit. That is a phony stalking horse. Republican budgets, including the latest Ryan budget, do not lead to a balanced budget. The purpose of having created, (and I am convinced it was deliberate), a large budget deficit, was because they were hoping to use it as a cudgel to achieve what they always wanted to achieve, the abolition not only of the entitlements, but of all federal programs other than defense. This would include ending financial support to women’s health programs, abolishing the Environmental Protection Agency, formed in the Republican Nixon Administration to protect our health from the contaminants in the air that we breathe and water that we drink, to keep our food and our children’s toys safe, to make sure our drugs are efficacious and safe, and that we not return to the days when snake oil was the order of the day, etc. The list is far too long to enumerate here.

They claim that they only want to push these functions to the states, but anyone who follows state politics knows that the industrial interests that want carte blanch to run rough shot over consumers, find it much easier to do so at the state level, where far fewer people vote, where media coverage is much less intensive, and where as a result, their lobbying efforts are even more effective than they are at the federal level.

Even as I write this the Republican Party continues to drift further rightward, as Senator Lugar, who was rated by the very Right Wing Club for Growth in 2006  as having voted according to their dictates 52% of the time, and under pressure moved rightward so that in 2007 it was 57%, in 2009 it was 76% and 2011 it was 80%, goes down to defeat in the Republican primary.

No wonder Susan Collins went from an approval voting record in 2008 of 30%  to one in 2009 of 60% though she has since gotten some backbone, voting 51% and 44% in 2010 and 2011 respectively, still much more Right-wing than in 2009, and her colleague from Maine Olympia Snowe, after having gone from an approval rating from the Club for Growth of 12% in 2008  went to an approval rating of 55% in 2011, before being unwilling to give up even more of her independence, retired.

Next time I will focus on the so-called Ryan budget, which isn’t really a budget, and discuss how the so called Middle, in the face of this Rightward drift, or is it a Rightward dash, makes excuses and drifts further and further right in an effort to stay in the new Middle.

Comments, questions, or corrections, are welcome and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified.

Eating Crow

On January 21 2010 I posted a commentary on my blog entitled: "Lying pays off!!!!! Smears succeed!!!! Obstructionism is rewarded!!!!"

I received a comment from Bruno Lederer of Stamford, Conn. that read as follows:

“It is true that there were many smears and lies by the Republicans, and that that had some influence on the outcome in Mass. However, the main reason for the voter revolt there and in NJ and Va. was the use of federal money to rescue the automobile companies, AIG, and the banks, coupled with the unemployment situation in the country, and the fear that the health bill would result in more taxes. The trouble with Obama's approach was not that it was wrong, but that there was no real attempt to educate the voters as to the reason for his policies. I know that it does not seem fair for voters to penalize the democrats for policies that are much more reasonable than those of the Bush administration but that is the way voters are. The fact that special deals were made with the senators from Louisiana and Nebraska rubbed many voters the wrong way, and confirmed their negative view of Congress and politics. It is now imperative to fashion a health bill that will be acceptable to Olympia Snow, if possible, though the road will be much rougher now. Moreover, there is still time for Obama to try to educate the voters.”

When I published my commentary: “Doesn’t Anybody Really Care," I intended to use this comment in the body of my opinion piece, but in doing so inadvertently misquoted the comment and misrepresented it. This led to the following exchange between Bruno Lederer and me, which I am publishing in order to correct this misrepresentation.

Bruno wrote:

“Just two short comments in response to your recent misquote of my letter and mischaracterization of what it contained. Your changed "Republicans" to "Republican" in the first line, giving the impression that I was referring only to Sen. elect Brown as the person guilty of lies, smears etc. when I was referring to the Republican party as a whole. I also never said that the filibuster may have had some influence on the outcome in Mass. when I was not referring to the filibuster as influencing the election result, but the lies and smears of the Republicans. I also take exception to the statement that my letter shows no indication that I care, which I do, as you should know.”

To which I responded:

“I just spent quite a bit of time reviewing your complaints. At first I could not figure what their basis was, and then as I searched further I saw your point. You are right!

“I was careless, though none of it was intentional."

“The dropping of the s in Republicans was the result of a spelling and punctuation check, though that should not have applied to a quote. In adding a comma, I apparently substituted the comma for the s."

“As for my misquoting you on the filibuster when you referred to the "many smears and lies" again inexcusable carelessness, due to my equating them in my own mind."

“I will distribute this exchange, or any other statement you wish me to make, though I recognize that corrections never undo the damage done by the original misstatement."

“What bothered me about your comment was that I had written an angry commentary which can best be summarized by its title, "Lying Pays off!!! Smears Succeed!!! Obstructionism is Rewarded!!!" and you came back with what I considered to be a dispassionate analysis of the election. Of course, I know you care, but I don't think that one could tell by what you wrote. But in any case, I was not intending to attack you, but looking for a good lead in to the contention that we liberals should be able to muster at least as much anger and outrage as the Tea party people. 

“You may be right that Obama did not spend enough time educating the voters, but that is a difficult, if not impossible task, when you are being savaged by not only the opposition, but by the liberal organizations whose support you should be able to count on, not to speak of the media, whose job is to inform. How much space has been devoted in the press to the Democrats being blocked at every turn by an unprecedented use of obstruction, requiring unanimity on the Democratic part. As I pointed out, people like Krugman, actually lie (distort) in attacking Democrats, ignoring that compromises which they may disapprove of were unavoidable. MSNBC which is supposed to be a counterweight to Fox joins in the attack, distorting the realities of the political scene and demanding that the President undo acts of Congress by executive order - "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"; not defend acts of Congress though that is a duty of the Solicitor General, and take hopeless appeals where the law is settled. They demand that the previous Administration be prosecuted for war crimes in connection with torture.”

“It isn't the voters who infuriate me. It is the ‘liberal organizations, like moveon.org and the others mentioned…, as well as Krugman, Herbert, MSNBC, etc.” 

Doesn't Anybody Really Care?

Almost nine years ago, on March 8 2001, I posted a commentary entitled: “The Death Of Outrage."

I went on to discuss the agenda of the Bush Administration even in that early configuration and found them the most outrageous of any bar none. Their agenda made the Reagan “revolution” mild by comparison, but I did not get any sense of outrage among the American people, not even among its most progressive elements. Somehow that ability to be outraged even by the most egregious agenda, or for that matter the most anti-democratic tactics brings no emotion and no outrage.

The Right, seems to be able to mobilize a sense of “Outrage,” as can be seen from their ability to mobilize the “Tea-Party” demonstrators. But liberals do not seem to be able to bring that kind of emotion into their movement, except maybe against their allies.
My last commentary, was entitled, “Lying pays off!!!!! Smears succeed!!!! Obstructionism is rewarded!!!!."

In that I set forth the lies that Republicans have deployed against the President in general, and the Health Care bill in particular, and their use of the extra-constitutional filibuster to prevent an overwhelming majority from governing. I expected outrage primarily against Republicans, but also against the many liberal groups who have often been unintended allies of gridlock imposed by the filibuster.

But instead of outrage, I get the following comment from Bruno Lederer of Stamford, Conn.

“It is true that there were many smears and lies by the Republican and that had some influence on the outcome in Mass. However, the main reason for the voter revolt there and in NJ and Va. was the use of federal money to rescue the automobile companies, AIG, and the banks, coupled with the unemployment situation in the country, and the fear that the health bill would result in more taxes. The trouble with Obama's approach was not that it was wrong, but that there was no real attempt to educate the voters as to the reason for his policies. I know that it does not seem fair for voters to penalize the democrats for policies that are much more reasonable than those of the Bush administration but that is the way voters are. The fact that special deals were made with the senators from Louisiana and Nebraska rubbed many voters the wrong way, and confirmed their negative view of Congress and politics. It is now imperative to fashion a health bill that will be acceptable to Olympia Snow, if possible, though the road will be much rougher now. Moreover, there is still time for Obama to try to educate the voters.”

What Bruno says undoubtedly has some truth in it, but is totally unresponsive to what I wrote. I wrote about the misuse of the filibuster and he clearly finds nothing about it to upset him. He dismisses it with, “(It may have had) some influence on the outcome in Mass."

Whether it had an outcome in Massachusetts is beside the point. It prevented the Health Care Bill from passing; it caused the stimulus to be watered down. It kept innumerable other bills from seeing the light of day. And it gives the election of one Senator out of a hundred a significance, which it should not have on the legislative process

He shows no anger or even consternation at the smears that have been told and he clearly finds nothing about it to upset him.

It is totally unresponsive to the petty carping of the various liberal special interest groups who refuse to compromise. But for those liberal groups, who will not support the Senate bill, that bill could already have been passed, and can still be passed. All the House has to do is pass the Senate bill. But I have not seen one liberal columnist, commentator, or organization advocate that.

As for a health bill that will be acceptable to Olympia Snowe that is totally unrealistic. Snowe, said she would support the bill if there is no public option. There is no public option and she voted for the filibuster. She has never said what else she wants, and doesn’t say what would be needed to secure her vote. Furthermore whatever is given to Snowe, is likely to lose votes of liberals in the House.

But allow me to return to the “liberal” groups like moveon.org who savage the Administration for having rescued the banking system from collapse and thereby avoided a ’29 meltdown. Who write, “Pro-bank Democrats killed real mortgage reform; they watered down the financial regulations bill in the House and are poised to gut it in the Senate.” Not one word about how “Pro-bank” Democrats were empowered only by the Republican filibuster. They rant about the Auto company bailout - do they not care about the huge number of jobs it saved? - and very likely without any cost to the taxpayer in the long run, since it is expected that every penny will be repaid. They show some outrage – but at whom? They sound like an adjunct to the Republican Party.

Or Paul Krugman who I said in my last commentary had a short memory. He deliberately ignores the political realities.

Or boldprogressives.org who distributed an e-mail saying:

“Tonight, Democrats lost Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in a bitter special election… The Senate health care bill is not the change we we were promised in 2008, and it must be improved. The Senate must use 'reconciliation' to pass a better bill with a strong public option.”

Or Credo Action:

“The loss of Ted Kennedy's seat — due to a lack of enthusiasm among Democrats and Independents — sends a clear message to Congress. The Senate health care bill is not the change we were promised in 2008, and it must be improved. The Senate must use 'reconciliation' to pass a better bill with a strong public option.

Or NOW, the National Organization for Women:

“Tell members of your congressional delegation that throwing women under the bus in health care reform legislation is not acceptable. Contrary to what women's advocates have repeatedly been told, it now appears health care legislation allows gender rating after all. This, coupled with the anti-abortion rights language and other problems, renders the bill not worth passing unless these harmful provisions are removed.”

And Campaign for America’s Future:

“Let’s see. Obama packs his White House and economic team with former Clintonistas; devotes one-third of his stimulus plan to ineffective tax cuts; rescues the banks without reorganizing them; wastes months seeking bipartisan support on health care, jettisoning the public option along the way and insisting on taxing health care benefits rather than the wealthy.”

I don’t know from where the people who write these diatribes get their information, for they seem astoundingly out of touch and misinformed. A Health Care Reform bill cannot be passed by “reconciliation.” If that could have been done, don’t they think that this procedure would have been employed in the first place? Reconciliation under the rules is limited to taxes and expenditures. If a bill passes, reconciliation could be used to fix some of its rough spots. But for them to call for reconciliation on the whole bill is pure demagoguery.

As for NOW’s concern. It is understandable. But it is not a question of getting a bill with this provision or that provision. It is a question of getting a flawed bill or none at all. And there is no question that a flawed bill would be better for most women than no bill at all. The discrimination in rates exists now. The bill would not make it worse. It would reduce it by eliminating Pre-Existing Health Conditions and by increasing coverage for pre-natal care. It always comes down to allowing the perfect from being the enemy of the good.

As for Campaign for America’s Future, do they really think that turning the country back to the Republicans would serve their objectives better? As I said about Krugman, The Democrats didn’t have 60 votes when the stimulus was passed. To get the three Republicans, and even some of the Democrats from conservative states they had to have tax cuts, which were most certainly not totally ineffective. The banks, as unpopular as they were and are, had to be rescued or we would have had a ’29 meltdown. First the rescue – then the regulation-, which without 60 votes may no longer be possible - thank you very much. Since a unanimous Democratic vote on Health Care Reform was made necessary by Republican intransigence and the filibuster, and some Democrats wouldn’t accept the public option, it was again compromise or nothing and the Public option was made into a symbol which as long as we had adequate regulation, which the bill provided for, was far from essential, though it became a rallying cry for organizations more interested in raising money for themselves than in reform.

As for taxing some Health Care benefits – that, it is agreed, is one of the few means for controlling costs, and without controlling costs we will all lose out.

But as can be see all these “liberal organizations” train their attacks not on Republicans but on the people laboring to actually accomplish reform instead of grandstanding.

They seem intent on returning Republicans to power. Maybe that will further increase their fund raising, but it will not advance reform. I for one will no longer contribute to any of them.

But right or wrong, sincere or not, they show passion.

What bothers me about Bruno Lederer's comment is its total lack of passion, or even any indication that he cares. He appears to seek the position of an uninterested commentator.

Lying pays off!!!!! Smears succeed!!!! Obstructionism is rewarded!!!!

 Lying pays off!!!!! Smears succeed!!!! Obstructionism is rewarded!!!!

So many lies have been told and the truth never really catches up. We are warned about death panels, which is a boldfaced lie, and not one Republican stands up for the truth.

We are warned about rationing in Health Care, which is not contemplated in any versions of the pending bills, but not told about the rationing that exists now, that kills about 22,000 of our fellow Americans each year of treatable diseases because they lack insurance and can't afford a doctor which the reform bill would eliminate. That is more than four times as many people who die each year than were killed by terrorists in the US in the past ten years.

We are subjected to political discourse that consists of the “birthers” who without any basis whatsoever question Obama’s American birth even though his birth certificate is a matter of public record and shows his birth in one of the fifty states, (Hawaii) and even though while McCain was born outside the fifty states, no one questions his qualification under the Constitution.

Michele Bachmann, Republican congresswoman of Minnesota, said she was “very concerned” that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama “may have anti-American views,” and suggested that the American media “take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out, are they pro-America or anti-America?” and more vicious smears were propounded without repudiation by their brethren.

The lying and the smearing have succeeded and Republicans who practice them are in the ascendancy. Their win, in the Democratic state of Massachusetts, follows upon wins in Virginia and the Democratic state of New Jersey.

The people are angry because there is over 10% unemployment and even more underemployment.

During the eight years of the last Republican Administration the unemployment rate went from 4.2 per cent to 7.2 per cent and climbing; consumer confidence dropped to an all-time low; a budget surplus of two hundred billion dollars became a deficit of that plus a trillion; more than a million families fell into poverty; the ranks of those without health insurance rose by six million; and the fruits of the nation’s economic growth went almost entirely to the rich, while family incomes in the middle and below declined.

But Obama couldn’t undo all the damage in less than a year and so the people, in their wisdom, decided they preferred the party that brought us to this pass.

They voted for the party of Pat Robertson who saw God’s just punishment in 9/11 and in Katrina and now in the devastation of Haiti. I wonder does he think the same about the holocaust? They voted for the party of Bill O'Reilly who responded to a Jewish caller who objected to "Christmas going into schools" with “if you are really offended, you gotta go to Israel then” not to speak of Rush Limbaugh or the many segregationists the Republican party embraced when they defected from the Democratic fold. They voted for the party of Geoff Davis who referred to the President of the US as “that boy.”

The so-called Tea Party crowd cried, “We want our country back.” What makes them think it’s their country and whom do they want it back from. Is it from people who may not be white and Christian?

They thought it more important that the Democratic candidate in Massachusetts didn’t know that Curt Schilling was a pitcher for the Red Sox, than that aspiring Republican candidate for the Presidency and now a commentator for Fox News, Sarah Palin, didn’t know that Africa was a continent or why North and South Korea were separate nations and she did not know what the Federal Reserve did.

But what is worst than the lies and the smears from Republicans is the unfounded carping from the left. Thus ten days ago, nine days before the Massachusetts election, moveon.org wrote in the Washington Post, “2009: Washington stood by while Wall Street firms that had taken hundreds of billions of our tax dollars swiftly returned to practices that led to the meltdown. Pro-bank Democrats killed real mortgage reform; they watered down the financial regulations bill in the House and are poised to gut it in the Senate. Pharma and Big Insurance scored high-profile victories on health care, and while what's left will still help most Americans, this hasn't sunk in yet for voters. Likewise, the stimulus did some good, but it was overshadowed by the Troubled Assets Relief Program and the bailout of the auto companies.”

Not one word about the fact that the Republican filibuster on all matters made it impossible to pass anything except by a unanimous vote of the Democratic caucus in the Senate, a situation that would, of course, empower single Senators from conservative states, and that this would in turn require undesirable compromises, or that the money loaned in the Troubled Assets Relief Program would soon be repaid, possibly with a profit to the tax-payer. Or that the “bailout of the auto companies” may have prevented direct and indirect job losses of 2.5 million to 3 million. Even if that figure were to be an exaggeration, the economy at a moment of dire danger of a 1929 depression could hardly afford the loss of half that number.

Even the denouncing of the few Democratic Senators who have insisted on certain undesirable commissions or omissions in the Health Reform bill, which has become a sport in Liberal circles ignores the enormous difference between the parties, for the best of the Republicans is worst than the worst of the Democrats. Thus according to the National Journal’s ranking of Senators voting records on liberal v. conservative issues the Republicans who ranked the best were Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins who had a liberal voting record of 47.8 and 47.2 respectively. The only Democrat with a poorer score was Ben Nelson with 46.7 score. Every other Democrat scored better than the “best” Republicans and these moderate Republicans were not at the table. That much reviled Independent, Senator Lieberman, had a score 57.5, but he was at the table, even if he insisted on concessions that moveon.org or I may not like.

And Paul Krugman writing in the New York Times two days before the Massachusetts election in a column that is syndicated, and therefore read far more widely than the Times readership, wrote, “The stimulus was too small; … Mr. Obama’s top economic and political advisers concluded that a bigger stimulus was neither economically necessary nor politically feasible.” This is simply not true!! Obama, in fact, proposed a stimulus that was substantially bigger than the one that passed, but at that point he did not have 60 votes to overcome the Republican filibuster. To get it passed he had to get the votes of Susan Collins, Olympia Snow and Arlene Specter. They demanded a substantial cut in the stimulus as a condition of their support including a cut in the vital aid to states. How short Mr. Krugman’s memory is.

And then there are the liberal special interest groups who urged a vote against the Health Reform bill if this or that provision wasn’t to their liking, ignoring that a flawed bill was better than none.

The slander and lies from Republicans is to be expected, but the attacks from natural allies were foolish.

Well I say to these natural allies – are you satisfied now. Now nothing will get done! In Shakespeare’s words, "Et tu, Brute?"