It Gets Better

This won't stop all the self appointed 'liberal base' hucksters from freaking out for maximum blog traffic. But for people who aren't dependent on continual outrage for a living, it's some good news in what appears to be a dark time.

There are two parts of the spending cuts in this package that really do matter. One is the cuts that will apply in Fiscal Year 2012. There probably won’t be very big; there will be $22 billion in spending cuts compared to the baseline for 2012, or about 0.15 percent of GDP. (That’s out of the $1 trillion in cuts that will be agreed upfront.)

A “Super Committee” will be charged with finding a further $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction, and we can expect that the cuts it recommends will again be backloaded. (Indeed, if the Super Committee deadlocks, we will go to an automatic “trigger” process which involves no cuts at all until FY 2013). Discretionary spending cuts that come out of the Super Committee process will again be subject to the whims of future Congresses. Any changes to mandatory spending that come out of the Super Committee are more likely to be sticky—that’s the second part of the cuts that matters—but I’ll believe we’re getting meaningful entitlement reform when I see it.

So, liberals who are upset that this deal is destimulative, or who expect it to tank the economy, are off base. Suzy Khimm cites a study finding that a 1 percent of GDP fiscal consolidation implies a 0.5 percent reduction in GDP after two years—or a reduction in the growth rate of 0.25 percent each year. That points to a hit to annual GDP growth of roughly 0.04 percentage points from the FY 12 changes in this plan—an effect that will be impossible to pick up amidst the noise.

Hit the link at the top & read the whole thing.

Spot On

The linked article is a must-read. I couldn't agree more.

My experience with the Obama Administration has been that they play a low-key game and get things done. This frustrates progressives who want the Obama Administration to be about carthartic acts repudiating conservative world views first, and results second. In the media there will always be the contrarian need to judge any speech not by whether it achieved the Administration’s goals, but rather by a perceived lack or surfeit of emotion/policy details/ponies.

David Frum, The Honest Conservative

Remember Jim DeMint?

Here's what American Enterprise Institute fellow David Frum has to say about that:

Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s.

...

So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson:

A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.
...
There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?

Must Read DKos FDA Diary

Quick link to great diary about how our President is reviving the FDA. Maybe now we can eat spinach or jalepenos or take medicine without seeing it on a lawyer's tv ad 6 months later...

In February 2009, he also called for a full review of all departments at the FDA.

In March, he appointed two esteemed professionals--Margaret Hamburg and Joshua Sharfstein--as commissioner and principal deputy commisioner of the FDA and announced establishment of the Food Safety Working Group to meet regularly with cabinet officials and help advise the president on food safety issues and needs of the department.

These were clearly steps in the right direction. Since taking over, Hamburg's FDA has conducted several raids of manufacturers of items like soaps and food products, closing the companies down for poor sanitation and, in some cases, prosecuting owners. A maker of tuna salad sandwiches was closed after:

Recent FDA inspections found evidence of widespread and active rodent and insect infestation, filthy conditions, and poor employee practices, such as allowing food-processing utensils to lie on the floor near live insects.

Change is (still) Good

My first reaction to the "underwear bomber" story was that my trip tp India next month is going to be a huge pain in the ass, with all kinds of inconveniences that do zero to actually stop attacks.

My second reaction was to notice that, despite Republican politicians trying to get that ol' fear fest going again, the national response is much different. The President didn't give some stupid macho speech. Instead, he gathered information and then announced that there had been failures in the intelligence community and that they will be addressed. I have no doubt. Gone are the Bush days of seeming to think that admitting any kind of mistake at any level of the federal government was an admission of weakness. Gone are the days of "heck of a job Brownie!" and giving medals for failure.

Business as usual is no longer acceptable. I have no doubt from the President's speech today that there will be something that hasn't been seen in the last near decade. Accountability. Speaking of accountability, why am I not seeing either of these stories on TV?

Chris Good at The Atlantic has a statement from Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the chairman of the House homeland security committee, calling for the administration’s nominee to run TSA, Erroll Southers, to receive an up-or-down vote in the Senate:

Erroll Southers, an experienced, highly-qualified nominee, continues to be held up in the Senate by someone who obviously puts process ahead of progress. If TSA is to become the kind of nimble, responsive organization the American people deserve in times like this, it will need a Senate-confirmed administrator. If nothing else, the events of last week highlighted this lack of leadership.

Remember: DeMint is holding up the new TSA chief not because of any concerns over Southers’ qualifications. He’s holding Southers up because Southers is too pro-labor. Because the last thing you want for the safety of the nation’s airports is for the individuals responsible for their security to earn a fair wage.

ABC breathlessly reported that the bomber was trained by someone that WAS RELEASED FROM GITMO!!!!!!!!11!!1! AAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!! (by the Bush admin. in 2007. Oh wait, that didn't actually make it onto the news broadcast - just the online article.)

Two of the four leaders allegedly behind the al Qaeda plot to blow up a Northwest Airlines passenger jet over Detroit were released by the U.S. from the Guantanamo prison in November 2007, according to American officials and Department of Defense documents. Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the Northwest bombing in a Monday statement that vowed more attacks on Americans.

Good riddance to the (failure at every business venture daddy bankrolled) "CEO President." Welcome to the "I expect results" President.

These Guys Must Be In On It!!

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is clearly a socialist muslim kenyan weatherman front:

Some critics charge that the new policies pursued by President Obama and the 111th Congress generated the huge federal budget deficits that the nation now faces. In fact, the tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the economic downturn together explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years.

Ethics, what a concept!!

Nice article from The Hill, complete with "this doesn't comply with my programmed worldview, therefore it is a conspiracy!!1!!1!" comments section.

President Barack Obama scores well among ethics watchdog groups in his first year in office, though they’d still like to see more from the president.
...
“What I find most encouraging is that there is a core group of people at the White House who genuinely care about these issues,” said Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at Federation of American Scientists. “There is now ‘someone to talk to’ at the White House in a way that there wasn’t before. And we are already starting to see some results from those conversations, such as the Open Government Directive, and other emerging policies.”
...
“The greatest surprise is just how extensively these revolving door restrictions apply,” said Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen.

The President and the Wars

Read this

What I got was an unexpected look into the eyes of a man who intertwined his roles as commander in chief and consoler in chief on a solemn day filled with remembrance and respect for sacrifices made - and sacrifices yet to be made.

I'm sure the cynics will assume this wasjust another Obama photo op.

If they'd been standing in my boots looking him in the eye, they would have surely choked on their bile.

His presence in Section 60 convinced me that he now carries the heavy burden of command.

Optionally, read this.

Time for a Change

OK, here's a long, rambling post. I started blogging as a way to highlight things that I found noteworthy, mostly in the areas of music and politics, my main interests at the time. As it went on, music took a back seat to the politics. This is something that I've been meaning to change. It's not just that I want to talk/think less about government and politics, I also want to change my approach to discussing both.

Back in the Clinton days, I was in my late 20's. Life in America was pretty good for a lot of people and I was pretty apolitical. When I did think about politics or government, I definitiely leaned liberal, but I didn't put a lot of thought into the subject.

During the 2000 election, I had two overriding thoughts:

1) Gore was much more qualified from an intellectual level to lead than Bush, but he (and Democrats in general) were not willing or able to fight back against the Lee Atwater/Karl Rove political attack style. The Atwater/Rove playbook is basically to throw out as many baseless attacks and distortions as possible, in hopes of bogging your opponent down with bullshit which they can either spend all teir time refuting or let stand. Gore and the Democrats had took the wrong lesson from the ridiculous Clinton impeachment. They got the idea that the only way to deal with the B.S. coming from the right was to "rise above" a.k.a. ignore it.

2) Bush was a simple minded Christianist who could be easily manipulated by the Nixon administration retreads he was surrounded with. I also knew how incompetent he was from a governing standpoint because I live in Texas. I wasn't too worried at first because the debates showed him to be barely able to speak in sentences. Thanks partly to the so called "liberal press", The 2000 election somehow came to be about who you would rather have a beer with (amazing the things that seem to be important when the economy is rocking) and the alcoholic apparently was a more "likeable" guy.

Even with all that, Bush got < 50% of the vote and needed some trickery to close the deal. I don't blame him for that. I do blame Gore and the Democrats for being unwilling and unable to fight back. If you didn't really want the job, why run?

The Bush administration radicalized me politically. They increased the wealth gap, started a completely unneccessary war and declared the Geneva conventions to be "quaint" while torturing accused enemies. I could go through the top 20 ways they did tangible damage to America and the world, but that's been covered pretty thoroughly elsewhere.

The thing that really got me concerned was how, post-9/11, they used fear (fed by ignorance) to sell every crappy idea they had. It got to the point where the Republicans were using fear the way advertisers use sex. "We need to lower the capital gains tax, or the terrorists will kill you in your sleep!" It's a lot easier to make people fearful if they don't have the knowledge to independently validate what you're telling them. This is part of the reason you started seeing what some have called the "war on science" and the close alignment between Fox News and the Bush administration.

An aside about Fox:

I recently posted a link on Facebook to a Pew survey that showed that Fox viewers have a different viewpoint than people who get their news from other sources. I'm actually OK with Fox wearing their affiliation on their sleeves. What I'm not OK with is when they "report" demonstrably false "news". A quick example follows.

My oldest daughter went to San Antonio recently to visit relatives. While there, she got a heaping does of Fox News and Fox News-informed opinion. One of the opinions (stated as fact) was that the text of the Senate health care bill hadn't been posted online. She asked a couple of reasonable questions (did you look online for it yourself? "No", did you confirm that via any other news media? "No"). When she got home and told me about this, we popped open the laptop and did a single Google search for the bills, which are here (finance committee) and here (HELP committee). Hell, it took longer to load the pdf of the finance bill into the browser than it did to find it online.

If you are going to tell people "facts" that are demonstrably false, you need to get them to either ignore or discount sources that contradict you. Fox seems to be successful in getting their viewers to do both.

Anyway, now that Obama is in the White House and Democrats "control" Congress (if they could ever actually get out of their own ways), my focus is on making sure that they do the right thing. From my point of view, the worst of the crisis has passed for now. I understand that on the conservative side, they see the crisis as just beginning (believe me, I get the emails from the RNC, Erik Erickson, the NRA, etc.), but that's not my problem. I'm not fired up all the time, and I won't engage on that level. Hell, I don't even watch Olbermann that much anymore. That doesn't mean I don't have opinions, I do. What it means is that if I express an opinion, and you respond with name calling or some other attempt to attack me (rather than addressing the merits of my opinion), don't expect me to play along. I don't have a need to, and I won't.

Sooooooo....All of that was a long-winded way of saying that I will be changing the tone of this blog and expanding the subject matter. Oh, and I'll be posting more often.

The Old Double Standard

I just got done watching ABC News trot out 3 right wing commentators to criticize President Obama for taking a week of vacation, 7 months into his first term. So I did a quick web search and found this:

well-funded anti-reform group Conservatives for Patients Rights has been preparing a new ad attacking President Obama’s Martha’s Vineyard vacation.

Another quick search and I found this (note the date):

08/06/2001 - Updated 10:24 PM ET
CRAWFORD, Texas — Taking a 30-day working vacation at his ranch after six months in office, President Bush is spending too much time away from the White House, according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll.
...
Bush's advisers are sensitive to the perception that he doesn't work as hard as some of his predecessors. If Bush returns as scheduled on Labor Day, he'll tie a modern record for presidential absence from the White House — held by Richard Nixon at 30 days. Ronald Reagan took trips as long as 28 days.

I can't help but think that the current criticism is rooted in the idea that the President is predisposed to be, you know, "lazy and shiftless" (for reasons they finally learned to not call out explicitly in public.)

The Cards Are Starting to Fall

I know it's painful to watch when our President uses his strategy, but it works. It's not even that hard to figure out.

1. Let your opponent take the initiative, while appearing to be caught off guard


2. Offer weak enough resistance to make them think they have the advantage


3. Make public attempts to compromise with your opponent, which will be refused


4. Present your case while (rightly) pointing out that your opponent has:
   a) staked out an extreme position
   b) refused your repeated efforts to work together (or in the case of the campaign, to find common ground)
   

It's no secret that this is his approach. It's exactly what he did in the campaign. It continues to be effective with the conservatives (Rs & blue dogs) because they are so willing to charge ahead and overreach.

This is not "37 dimensional chess", it's poker.

Liberals have the right and the duty to pressure their elected officials to be responsive to our agenda. I won't tell others to STFU, but I will say that there is an observable pattern here. Remembering that, I suggest not wasting energy on the "Obama is selling us out" drama.

I suspected that he would make his play toward the end of the recess. It's coming a little earlier than I thought. I think the "public option is not essential" talk was designed to elicit the response we saw both from the left (getting stirred up and active) and the right (Republican Senators stating publicly that it doesn't really matter what's in a HC bill, they're not voting for it).

And I bring up C&L today to see...

White House may ditch Republicans after all on health care reform

Anderson Cooper of CNN did a report last night that echoes the NY Times piece.

Cooper: After negotiating with republicans, conservative democrats and seemingly themselves over parts of a plan CNN has learned that the administration could be getting closer to a very big change. Namely crafting a health care bill and try to ram it through the Senate even if it passes by only a single vote.

Henry: Well Anderson there is no final decision, but Democrats close to the White House are saying that they are now actively considering the possibility of doing a go it alone strategy. It's a budget maneuver, very obscure known as reconciliation where they would only need a simple majority, 51 votes instead of 60 votes to push through health reform. Republicans would scream that this is a power grab, it's an underhanded move but White House officials privately are already laying out the ground work by saying look, we've been working with republicans for months. If they don't get something done in the next weeks we're going to have to take drastic measures....

John Amato attributes the change solely to pressure from the netroots. That may be true. I think it's also possible that Obama didn't leave his brain and soul at the door when he got to the white house and actually has a left of center agenda and a plan to implement it...

Repairing the Damage

New Pew poll on international opinions of the U.S. here.

The image of the United States has improved markedly in most parts of the world, reflecting global confidence in Barack Obama. In many countries opinions of the United States are now about as positive as they were at the beginning of the decade before George W. Bush took office. Improvements in the U.S. image have been most pronounced in Western Europe, where favorable ratings for both the nation and the American people have soared. But opinions of America have also become more positive in key countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia, as well.

Signs of improvement in views of America are seen even in some predominantly Muslim countries that held overwhelmingly negative views of the United States in the Bush years. The most notable increase occurred in Indonesia, where people are well aware of Obama's family ties to the country and where favorable ratings of the U.S. nearly doubled this year.

A sample:

Hey, That Guy's Pretty Smart

From The Hill:

In doing so, the president appeared to be steeling and warning Democratic fundraisers that Republicans were sharpening their attack lines for the midterm elections, a subtle prod to "dig deep" lest they lose control of Congress.

Obama noted that many of the actions that he has taken are "not necessarily popular," and he warned that the criticisms of his administration will only get worse as he takes on more issues.

"But that's the nature of things," Obama said. "This is when the criticism gets louder. This is when the pundits get impatient. This is when the cynicism mounts."

The president dismissed those who say he is not changing the way Washington works, laughing at critics who question whether or not change is possible.

"Can't do it. System overload. Circuits breaking down," Obama said, mimicking a robot. "It's so predictable.

"So this is exactly the moment when we need to fight the hardest. This is the moment when we need to band together.

To critics of his healthcare agenda, Obama issued a challenge for alternative ideas but brushed off Republican proposals for tax cuts for the uninsured as more of the same, asking, "What's your plan?"

Barack Rocks Green Bay

You can have your Reagan & your Bush (hell, even Clinton), no president since I've been alive has this kind of touch with people. There's so much to appreciate in this clip, from "Kennedy? That's a cool name" to listening to the question and responding while writing the note. The guy is by no means perfect, but he's the best I've seen.

The haters can't lay a glove on him and it's literally driving them crazy (more on that later).

President Obama Calls For Release of Aung San Suu Kyi

Today:

Making his first statement on the trial of Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi, President Obama issued a stern statement late Tuesday calling on the Burmese government to release her "immediately and unconditionally."
...
The Obama administration has been conducting a high-profile review of policy toward Burma, including the effectiveness of sanctions. But the sudden trial of Suu Kyi, just as her detention was set to end, has instead inspired calls for increased sanctions.

"Suu Kyi's continued detention, isolation, and show trial based on spurious charges cast serious doubt on the Burmese regime's willingness to be a responsible member of the international community," Obama said, adding the government had "an important opporttunity... to demonstrate that it respects its own laws and its own people."

Burma Democracy and Development has the full text. Another excerpt:

By her actions, Aung San Suu Kyi has represented profound patriotism, sacrifice, and the vision of a democratic and prosperous Burma. It is time for the Burmese government to drop all charges against Aung San Suu Kyi and unconditionally release her and her fellow political prisoners. Such an action would be an affirmative and significant step on Burma’s part to begin to restore its standing in the eyes of the United States and the world community and to move toward a better future for its people.

Elections Have Consequences

This is a nice summary of the change as exhibited yesterday

A view from the Justice Department

Found this to be pretty interesting:

I think the President respects, and wants to restore, the Department of Justice to its rightful place: as representatives of the American people in the cause of justice in defense of the Constitution. And not, as it has been in large measure for the last 8 years, a White House tool for implementing ideological policy goals, law be damned; and, perhaps more damaging, as a shop to help cover, excuse me, a lot of ass.

Those days are gone. I can see it from here, where I sit, on the inside.

So, for President Obama to make that statement--"The Department of Justice and our courts can work through and punish any violations of our laws"--he meant it.

He is not shutting the door on prosecutions. He could have shut the door today, but he did not.

He's going to let this Department--a group of attorneys who cherish their independence and role as protectors of the Constitution and the laws of this nation--look into the matter.

And:

Here's another little secret: I work with conservatives. People I would clearly classify as conservative ideologues. I have a guy next door with some pretty zany views on some things. He walks into a booth and likely pushes every candidate button I do not. The guy is Hannity lite. He's a nut bag.

But you know what? You put my legal writing next to his, and there's no difference in argument. His position on certain sections of the law are the same as mine, and the same as everyone in our office. Because it's the law. It says A, we argue A. Because in 90% of our cases, the law always says A. And that's true even though we're doing some things in a relatively hot policy area. Not to brag, but my office is not doing asset forfeiture work or postal truck crashes. We are doing stuff in hot areas.

You can read the whole thing at Daily Kos.

I agree with Amanda Marcotte

...an Austin blogger over at Pandagon. This is pretty interesting:

I get email

This one is from Michael Steele, head of the Republican National Committee:

Dear dan,
I hope Arlen Specter's party change outrages you. It should for two reasons:

First--Specter claimed it was philosophical--and pointed his finger of blame at Republicans all over America for his defection to the Democrats. He told us all to go jump in the lake today.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe a word he said.

Arlen Specter committed a purely political and self-serving act today. He simply believes he has a better chance of saving his political hide and his job as a Democrat. He loves the title of Senator more than he loves the party--and the principles--that elected him and nurtured him.

Second--and more importantly--Arlen Specter handed Barack Obama and his band of radical leftists nearly absolute power in the United States Senate. In leaving the Republican Party--and joining the Democrats--he absolutely undercut Republicans' efforts to slow down Obama's radical agenda through the threat of filibuster.

I'll say it as well. Republicans, go jump in the lake. Then have a picnic by the lake. Maybe tell some jokes. It's time for the grownups to clean up your mess.

Sincerely,
Radical Leftist (a.k.a 68% of Americans)

The President's Weekly Address

Man, he just keeps on working. From the transcript:

"I realize that passing this budget won’t be easy. Because it represents real and dramatic change, it also represents a threat to the status quo in Washington. I know that the insurance industry won’t like the idea that they’ll have to bid competitively to continue offering Medicare coverage, but that’s how we’ll help preserve and protect Medicare and lower health care costs for American families. I know that banks and big student lenders won’t like the idea that we’re ending their huge taxpayer subsidies, but that’s how we’ll save taxpayers nearly $50 billion and make college more affordable. I know that oil and gas companies won’t like us ending nearly $30 billion in tax breaks, but that’s how we’ll help fund a renewable energy economy that will create new jobs and new industries. I know these steps won’t sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they’re gearing up for a fight as we speak. My message to them is this:

"So am I."

Go get 'em.

Here's the video: