The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Category: Democratic Party Page 5 of 7

In Light of the Decision To Allow Unlimited Corporate Money Into the System

I offer a blast from the past, the post I wrote on Roberts nomination, when it became clear the Democrats weren’t going to fight it…  (Oh, and also, for those who think I use impolite language now, read this.)

People are very strange in very many different ways. To me what is strangest about people is how many of them cannot see what is completely obvious. Let’s take the Afghani elections. Some parties weren’t allowed to run. More votes were cast than the entire population of the country, US money was funneled to certain parties, we had reliable reports that registration cards were for sale, we know that bribed power brokers controlled voter registration. So, when the election monitors came back and reported that the election had been free, everyone smiled and patted themselves on their idiot backs. But, of course, even assuming they were right that no ballot boxes had been stuffed in the few ridings they were in, the election was as free as any other election where a foreign power determines what parties are allowed to run, where more people vote than are alive and where regional bosses determine who votes.

The whole Roberts thing is looking very similiar.

Bush has said that he loves Scalia and Thomas and that he would appoint a justice like them.

Roberts has spent a good part of his life working for Republicans in general and for the Bush family in particular. He gave Jeb Bush advice in the 2000 Florida recount (and we can guess, from what happened at the time, that that advice was how to recall the legislature and award the victory to Bush if the Supremes fell down on the job.)

His wife is in charge of a pro-life organization so extreme that they wanted Schiavo kept half-alive in a vegetative state.

He has given George Bush the right to ignore the Geneva conventions, in direct contradiction to the part of the constitution that makes any treaty part of the law of the land.

The rightest of right wing flakes, guys like Dobson and the Family Research Council, have endorsed him.

But because he doesn’t have a lot of judicial opinions he ordered written for him by his clerks we’re supposed to think we don’t know where he stands? We know who loves him. We know who he’s chosen to work with all his life. We know who he sleeps with. We have seen not a single decision from the bench that indicates that any of the other things we know is wrong.

We know he’s a telegenic, smarter, version of Thomas or Scalia – at best, Rhenquist.

Bush and his allies aren’t subtle people. They tell you what they’re going to do, often years in advance, and then they do it. They do this time in, time out. And yet, for some reason, people still don’t believe them.

So let’s bring it back. Any failure to recognize that Roberts is Scalia prettied up is just gutless timidity and an unwillingness to look the facts full in the face. It isn’t some intellectually principled ‘we must wait till all the evidence is in’, it’s the exact opposite – an unwillingness to operate on the strong evidence which already exists.

And compromising on Roberts, being unwilling to filibuster him, is just another way of saying “I don’t really give enough of a fuck about civil liberties, about a woman’s right to control her own body, about the imperial presidency, about habeas corpus, or about torture to put up more than a token fight.”

The filibuster deal was the pre-surrender of 14 “moderates” to the Bush administration. Fighting is too much bother, upholding the constitution and the rules of the Senate is too much trouble, so we’ll just compromise ourselves right now and save everyone from having a real fight on the real issues.

Democrats in Congress are only willing to take on fights they’ve already won. What’s their big victory these days? Oh yeah, saving Social Security. They managed to defend the third rail of American politics. That’s the level they’re reduced to – that their only significant victory of the last five years is keeping the most popular government program in existence going.

But if something requires a bit more of a fight than that, if it requires going out and saying “Roberts sleeps with a woman who thinks that Congress was right to try and keep Terry Schiavo alive against her own wishes and those of her husband”, well they can’t do it.

I mean, it’s not a hard fucking fight. Everyone is acting as if because he has a nice plastic smile and has some actual friends who say actual nice things about him, that he can’t be stopped.

Tie him to the loons who everyone despises – the ones who wanted to keep Terry a zombie, and then burn them together.

And while you’re at it, take out the Fedealist Society. The White House is now saying that Roberts doesn’t “recollect” if he was ever a member – does no one have any fucking killer instinct left? Mock him mercilessly on this. No one forgets such a thing. Use his unwillingness to admit it to destroy both him and the Federalist Society, so that no judge will ever dare join them ever again.

This fight is not only winnable, it is eminently winnable. If someone has the balls to fight, fight hard and fight dirty.

As always there are real consequences to this – real people are going to die and suffer because Roberts makes it to the court. Real women, real girls, may well bleed out in alleyways because of this. Innocent people may go to jail without ever having a chance to face their accusers and the US may go to more wars because Roberts believes that Senate oversight is lese majeste.

But apparently this is just another fight the Dems are going to roll over on. One look at Roberts’ pretty face and their knees went all weak and they decided that the trust they owe those whom they’ve spent the last thirty years promising, “if nothing else, we’ll protect Roe”, means nothing.

Cause hey, their wives, their daughters, will be flown out of the country.

It’s only the little people who’ll pay the price.

And who gives a fuck about them?

Ok, I keep underestimating Obama’s

stupidity.  Seriously. (h/t Agonist.)

President Obama plans to announce a three-year freeze on discretionary, “non-security” spending in the lead-up to Wednesday’s State of the Union address, Hill Democratic sources familiar with the plan tell POLITICO.

This is in reaction to polling which shows that Americans are worried about the deficit.  Of course, if Obama does this, the economy will not recovery properly, and people will vote against him and Democrats anyway.  The correct response, politically and policy-wise, is to fix the economy, in which case people won’t give a damn about the deficit.

I should add, also, that security spending is very ineffective stimulus and even worse development or industrial policy. It’s better than tax cuts, admittedly, but it’s not better than most non-security spending.

I really don’t know what to say about Obama any more, other that the law of Bush is still in effect: no matter how bad you think things are they are always worse than you think, even if you take this law into account.  Except it’s now the rule of Obama.

Please re-read my post on getting out.

An optimist and a damned fool are the same thing

Back in April I noted that the fools (and yes, they were fools) who kept mocking the right for being dead, and believing their own propaganda, were full of it.

Enjoy mocking Republicans all you want, but in your cold hard calculating heart, take them very very seriously.

Of course, Huffington Post didn’t promote that piece, because back then those of us throwing the cold water of realism on the fevered delusions of Obamadom were out of favor.

So how’d that work out for the reality denying triumphalists?  Hmmm?

Mind you, Obama and the Democratic leadership screwed things up even faster than I, whom most people consider a pessimist, expected.  Leading me to conclude that the rule of Bush is now the rule of Obama.

“Obama is more incompetent than you think he is, even if you take this rule into account.”

Also, optimists and damn fools are the same thing, at least when it comes to analysis.  It may be good for your health to be unrealistic about the future, but it makes you bloody lousy at predicting the future.  Thinking back to major analytical mistakes I’ve made in the last 5 years, only two of them were due to negative expectations, and one of those was actually optimism in pessimism drag: I thought the Fed would not be so foolish as to keep the housing and financial bubbles going for as long as they did.

My grandmother told me that an optimist and a damn fool were the same thing when I was 5, and so far nobody has ever shown me otherwise.  Lord knows, Obama isn’t going to, and neither are any of his Obots.

Pessimism is usually, actually, realism.  Because most people have an optimistic bias.  Their optimism feeds them the delusions they need to get through their lives.

No carrots for lawmakers without sticks

Once upon a time, a variety of blogs convinced a number of House Representatives to sign a letter saying they would vote against any bill which did not include a public option.  Happy with the promise, blogs then raised money for those Reps.

And many of those Reps are now breaking their word, after having taken the money, and saying they will vote for a bill without a public option.

This is a failure of carrots and sticks.  The problem is that the carrots (money) were given upfront.  Believing there is no real stick, the Representatives will now break their word.

Let me suggest, then, than in any future efforts, any money raised be put into escrow.  If Congress critters keep their word, they get the money.  If they break it, it is automatically used to run attack ads during the next election, noting that the Rep in question is the sort of person who thinks nothing of breaking their word.

Carrots without sticks mean people will take your money, then spit in your face and laugh at you because they know you’re too cowardly to do anything about it.

No carrots without sticks.

Why Democrats Are Trying to Commit Electoral Suicide

This question keeps coming up, so let’s tackle it.  45% of the Democratic base now says they aren’t going to vote in 2010 or are thinking of not voting.  This is a direct result of Democrats in Congress and the Presidency doing things the base disagrees with or not doing things the base wants to see done.  It appears politically stupid to act as they have, and yet, they did.  So why?

Elected Democrats at the Federal level are members of the national elite.  If they weren’t a member when they were elected, they are quickly brought into the fold.  They are surrounded by lobbyists, other members and staffers who were lobbyists, as a rule.  They learn they need to raise immense amounts of money in the off years when normal people aren’t giving, and that the only way to raise that money is for corporate interests and rich people to write the checks.  They also receive the benefits of elite status, very quickly. It’s not an accident that the every Senator except Bernie Sanders is wealthy.

Whatever Americans think, whether they support a public option or single payer; whether they’re for or against Iraq or Afghanistan; whether they agree with bailing out banks or not, elite consensus is much much narrower than American public opinion.  It starts at the center right and heads over to reactionary (repeal the entire progressive movement and the New Deal, taking America back to the 1890s).

The elites are convinced they know what has to be done.  Not necessarily what’s “best”, but what is possible given the constraints they believe America operates under and the pressures which elected officials work with.  So Obama can say, and mean, that if he were creating a medical system from scratch, he’d go with single payer.  But he “knows” that’s impossible, not just for political reasons, but because there are huge monied interests who would be horribly damaged or even destroyed by moving to single payer.  On top of that, he looks at the amount of actual change required to shift all that money away from insurance companies and to reduce pharma profits, and to change which providers get paid what, and he sees it as immensely disruptive to the economy.  In theory, it might lead to a better place, but to Obama, the disruption on the way there is unthinkable.

The same thing is true of the financial crisis.  The banks may be technically insolvent, but the idea of nationalizing them all, or shutting them down and shifting the lending to other entities would mean that the most profitable (in theory, not in reality) sector of the economy would largely be wiped out.  Add to that the fact that Obama was the largest recipient of Wall Street cash of the major candidates for the Presidency, and the immense influence the banks wield through their alumni who are placed throughout the Federal Reserve, the Treasury and other departments, and the idea of actually radically reforming the banking system becomes unthinkable.  Virtually every technocrat giving Obama or most Senators advice, will be against it.

Moreover they understand that with a few exceptions, the financial economy is the American economy.  It’s what the US sold to the rest of the world: pieces of paper in exchange for real money which could be used to import real goods, so Americans could live beyond their means.

Shut that down and what’s going to replace it?  How are you going to avoid an immediate meltdown of the US standard of living? How are you going to avoid a large part of the elite being wiped out?  You or I may have answers to that, except to wiping out a large chunk of the elite, which is something which needs to be done, but those who grew up under the system, who believe in the system, and who ran the system don’t.  What they’ve done all their lives is what they understand.  And more to the point the system has been good to them.  The last 35 years may have been a bad time to be an ordinary American, but the elite has seen their wealth and income soar to levels even greater than the gilded age.  The rich, in America, have never, ever, been as rich as they are now.

And if you’re a member of the elite, your friends, your family, your colleagues—everyone you really care about, is a member of the elite or attached to it as a valued and very well paid retainer.  For you, for everyone you care about, the system has worked.  Perhaps, intellectually, you know it hasn’t worked for ordinary people, but you aren’t one of them, you aren’t friends with them, and however much you care in theory about them, it’s a bloodless intellectual empathy, not one born of shared experience, sacrifice and the bonds of friendship or love.

So when a big crisis comes, all of your instincts scream to protect your friends, your family, and the system which you grew up under, prospered under and which has been good to you.  Moreover, you understand that system, or you think you do, and you believe that with a twiddle here and an adjustment there, it’s a system you can make work again.  Doing something radical, like single payer or nationalizing the banks or letting the banks fail and doing lending direct through the Fed and through credit unions: that’s just crazy talk. Who knows how it would work, or if it would work?  Why take a chance?

And so, until disaster turns into absolute catastrophe, the elites will fiddle with the dials, rather than engaging in radical change.  When the time comes when it becomes clear even to them that radical change is required, they are far more likely to go with their preconceived notions of what’s wrong with the US, which are very reactionary, than to go with liberal or progressive solutions.

So you’re far more likely to see Medicare and Social Security gutted, than you are to see the military budget cut in a third or Medicare-for-all  enacted. You’re far more likely to see a movement to a flat tax (supported by idiot right wing populists) than you are to see a return to high marginal taxation.

To the elites, ordinary Americans are pretty much parasites.  It’s not the bankers, with their multi-trillion dollar bailouts who are the problem, it’s old people with their Social Security and Medicare.  The elites made it.  They are rich and powerful.  They believe that their success is due entirely to themselves (even if they inherited the money or position).  If you didn’t, then that means you don’t deserve it.

Democratic party elected leaders, as a group, are members of this elite, or are henchmen (and some women) of this elite.  They believe what the elites believe, and they live within a world whose boundaries are formed by those beliefs.

They have no intention of engaging in radical change which threatens elite, which is to say, their, prosperity and power.  The financial industry must be saved, the medical industry must be saved.  Social Security and Medicare, which they don’t need and don’t benefit from, not so much.  The military, which funnels huge amounts of money to them, must continue to expand (in real terms military spending is now twice what it was in 2000.)

As long as elected Democrats at the Federal level are members of this elite, or identify with the elite they are not going to make fundamental changes against the interests of that elite.

And so, no, there is no “change” you can believe in from this class of Democrats.  There is no “hope” of an America which is better for ordinary people.

That doesn’t mean things are hopeless, but it does mean there’s little hope for anything radical from this Congress or President.

As Adam Smith pointed out, there’s a lot of ruin in a nation.  America’s going to have to endure a lot more of it before things actually change.

Number of Democrats thinking of not voting in 2010 up to 45%

How to (not) win elections and motive the base:

the highest percentage of Democrats to date (45%) indicated this week that they are either unlikely to vote, or certain not to vote.

Once more, doing things badly (health care “reform”, an inadequate stimulus, refusing to properly take on the banks) or doing things the base opposed (escalating in Afghanistan) has a price.

In 1994 Clinton lost Congress. He lost it in large part because of NAFTA, failing at health care reform and the the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell fiasco.  Democratic base voters stayed home and Republicans were motivated.  Doing “moderate” things didn’t make Republicans not vote against Democrats, but it did make Democrats not vote Democrats.

Clinton may have gone on to win re-election in 1996, but after losing Congress, he did very few truly progressive things and did or signed off on many non-progressive things, like Welfare “reform” and gutting Glass-Steagall (a major reason for the financial crisis.)

Obama stands to repeat.  His major achievement, health care reform, is too compromised to really motivate the base.  He has two things going for him:

  • a large money advantage, since they are now the favored party of corporate America, and raking in money as a result;
  • the Republicans being in severe disarray.

The next year will have some bones thrown to the base, in an attempt to convince them to get out and vote.  But since Obama can’t, and won’t, do anything major for the base, I wonder what they’ll be. Healthcare is off the table, the immigration bill will not be good, carbon trading will be badly done and so on.

Convincing base voters they haven’t been betrayed, that there is hope and the change doesn’t mean “Bush’s 3rd term” is going to be an uphill struggle.

Oh Wait, the Freddie/Fannie Scam is Now Unlimited

Update: Go read Numerian.

Per Bloomberg:

The U.S. Treasury Department will remove the caps on aid to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for the next three years, to allay investor concerns that the companies will exhaust the available government assistance.

The two companies, the largest sources of mortgage financing in the U.S., are currently under government conservatorship and have caps of $200 billion each on backstop capital from the Treasury. Under the new agreement announced today, these limits can rise as needed to cover net worth losses through 2012.

The Obama administration is “beginning to realize it’s not getting better and it’s not likely to get better” soon in the housing market, said Julian Mann, who helps oversee $5.5 billion in bonds as a vice president at First Pacific Advisors LLC in Los Angeles. “They don’t want the foreclosures now, so they’re saying, we’ll pay whatever it takes to continue to kick the can down the road.”

Basically, at this point, almost all mortgage lending is guaranteed by the federal government under the FHA, or it doesn’t happen.  Private lending has pretty much dried up.

Since there’s no way Freddie and Fannie took unlimited losses, one has to wonder what all this money is going to be used for.  Is it to make up losses they don’t want to admit?  Is it to make future bad mortgage loans?  Is it so they can take bad debt from the banks and put the government at risk for it?

Notice also how they’ve made an unlimited commitment without consulting Congress.  You only need Congressional approval to spend money on wars and healthcare, when it comes to bailing out banks, apparently the Presidency controls the power of the purse all by itself.

It’s also interesting that this is unlimited till the end of 2012.

(See also the earlier post when it was just a 400 billion increase, not unlimited.)

With Friends Like Democratic Congresspeople

Well, well, well.  It turns out that Acorn broke no laws.  None.  In the last five years.

But the Democratic Congress still threw them under the bus, with an illegal bill of attainder, banning them from receiving any government money.  Very similar to how they censured MoveOn for daring to challenge Petraeus.

Can you imagine the Republicans doing the same?  When the Swift Boat Vets lied repeatedly about John Kerry, did the Republicans vote to censure them?

And for that matter, did Dems try and censure the Swift Boat Vets?

Democrats constantly throw their own supporters to the wolves.  It’s one of the reasons there is little real loyalty on the left.  On the right, someone may occasionally have to take a bullet for the team, but afterwards they’re well taken care of and even rehabilitated if possible.  And major conservative organizations aren’t repudiated, nor do Republican leaders generally speak of “conservatives” with the sort of contempt that Democratic leaders reserve for liberals and progressives.

Democratic Congresspeople, as a group are weak people without strategic sense or the ability to bargain.  The exceptions, the strong ones, are unfortunately mostly conservadems – Republicans in drag like Ben Nelson.

If 40% of Dems are thinking of not voting in 2010 it’s exactly because Democrats won’t stand up for their own base.  For their own people and what those people believe in and need.  They only stand up for Pharma, banks, insurance companies and other entrenched powers.

Loyalty.  It’s a two way street.  And neither the White House, nor Congress, have shown any.

Page 5 of 7

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén