by hilzoy
Anyone up for emailing Senators?
Today, according to Mark Schmitt, “Senators Chafee and Feingold are expected to offer an amendment to the budget resolution restoring the “Pay-as-you-go” rules, known as PAYGO”. From their press release:
“”The Senate once again has the chance to do its part to pass common-sense fiscal policies to rein in the federal deficit,” Feingold said. “This PAYGO amendment simply makes us find ways to pay for the things we want, rather than pushing the costs of the government’s fiscal recklessness onto the shoulders of our children and grandchildren. During the 1990s, we balanced the budget under the PAYGO rule and it only makes sense, especially as we face mounting debt, to go back to the system that worked for us before.”
“The pay-go provision, which requires 60 votes to be overridden, will have a powerful impact on federal fiscal policies,” Chafee said. “It would establish a binding legal framework – a disciplined structure – requiring Congress to make the tough choices that must be made. I do not believe this is a Republican or Democrat issue. We have an obligation to put this nation’s fiscal house in order. We should not shirk from that responsibility.”
The Feingold-Chafee amendment would force Congress to find offsets to pay for new tax cuts or new spending on entitlement programs. If offsets for spending or tax cuts were not included, the amendment would subject the proposals to a budget point of order. In the Senate, that would mean such proposals would need a 60-vote majority for them to pass. The PAYGO amendment succeeded in the Senate last Congress. Congressional leaders’ decision not to include the spending rule in the final version of the proposed budget resulted in no budget being passed last year.”
This is really important. By running huge deficits, we are mortgaging our country’s future. The PAYGO rules did a good job of restraining the deficit until we began to run a surplus, at which point discipline began to break down. Now that the deficit has returned with a vengeance, the requirement that any new taxes or entitlement spending be offset by cuts elsewhere unless they can get 60 votes in the Senate would probably go a long way towards returning us to something approximating fiscal sanity.
As Mark Schmitt notes, “this is one of those things that most Senators assume no one pays attention to. A little bit of attention might make a real difference. It’s probably the single most important vote in the budget process, because it sets a limit to just how much nefarious, dishonest tax-cutting is possible. So call your Senators and encourage them to vote with Feingold and Chafee on the PAYGO rules.” He’s right.
When this fails to pass it will be a club to bludgeon R’s come 2006.
This bill sounds great, but I’m so distrustful of Congress at this point that I’m worried there is a catch somewhere in the bill, some unintended consequences, etc. Anyone read it?
Jonas — it’s not up yet. But the PAYGO rules were in effect during most of the 90s, and worked well then. The key is requiring 60 votes for entitlement increases/tax cuts that are not paid for.
heet: It will only harm those Republicans who vote against it. It already has bipartisan sponsorship. This will probably end up being a somewhat partisan issue — I suspect the vast majority of Democratic Senators will vote for it, and most Republicans against — but it shouldn’t be. The GOP controls both houses of Congress. Any cuts that this requires will be the cuts they like, not the cuts I’d like. (Alas, farm subsidies are safe from me.) Plus, those of them who subscribe to the ‘starve the beast’ theory should be voting for this, though I suspect they won’t.
eff the Senate. Just voted 51-49 to drill in ANWR. Gotta figure out who defected.
praktike: Dems voting against the amendment (=for drilling): Akaka (D-HI), Inouye (D-HI), Landrieu (D-LA). Republicans voting for it (= against drilling): Chafee (R-RI), Coleman (R-MN), Collins (R-ME), DeWine (R-OH), McCain (R-AZ), Smith (R-OR), Snowe (R-ME).
Does the Bush admin. or the Repub leadership have a position on this? From the third Bush-Kery debate:
“KERRY: I’ll tell you exactly how I can do it: by reinstating what Pres. Bush took away, which is called “pay as you go.” During the 1990s, we had pay-as-you-go rules. If you were going to pass something in the Congress, you had to show where you are going to pay for it and how. Pres. Bush is the only president in history to [rescind pay-as-you-go]. I’m going to reverse that. We’re going to restore the fiscal discipline we had in the 1990s.
BUSH: I’ll tell you what PAYGO means, when you’re a senator from Massachusetts, PAYGO means: You pay, and he goes ahead and spends. He’s proposed $2.2 trillion of new spending, and yet the so-called tax on the rich raises $800 billion by his account. There is a tax gap. And guess who usually ends up filling the tax gap? The middle class.”
I guess we know how serious Bush is about PAYGO.
Here’s the catch, Jonas: We probably wouldn’t have gotten the 2001 tax cut, the ones, some insist, that rescued the economy from recession and terror and the threat of paying down the debt too quickly, if the old PAYGO rules had been in place. And we probably won’t continue to enjoy those cuts after 2010 (or whenever they’re set to sunset) if the PAYGO rules are re-enacted.
notyou,
So you can’t have tax cuts under PAYGO? Or it is just that tax cuts will be far less likely because Congress might actually have to cut expenses after they lowered taxes? Or do they have to cut expenses before they can lower taxes?
Feingold’s amendment just got defeated, 50-50. Every Democrat voted in favor; Republicans voting with the Dems: Chafee, Collins, McCain, Snowe, and Voinovich.
“This bill sounds great, but I’m so distrustful of Congress at this point that I’m worried there is a catch somewhere in the bill, some unintended consequences, etc. Anyone read it?”
Russ Feingold is not the guy you need to distrust; it’s the Republican leadership that’s appalling.
What’s with Akaka & Inouye on ANWR? They’re usually solid. Do Alaska and Hawaii vote as a bloc or something?
Anyone of you who votes for any Republican candidate in any house or senate race in 2006 is voting for corruption, one party rule, an energy policy that can only be explained as “they’re letting the oil and coal companies write it”, fiscal catastrophe, rampant dishonesty, homophobia, and a foreign policy that shows complete contempt for honesty and human rights and indifference to state sponsored torture. You may have good reasons to like your individual Congressman or Senator, in a few cases (really only Dick Lugar’s work on nuclear proliferation) it might be enough to override the other crap, but you’re voting for all of it.
Jonas: under PAYGO, the tax cuts need to be paid for with budget cuts. The offsetting budget cuts are to be included in the bill that contains the proposed tax cuts.
Pretty simple.
The same rule applies for expenditures — you wanna spend more, then you either up taxes or make cuts elsewhere.
If for some reason Senators decide some program or tax must become law, the PAYGO rules can be over-ridden with 60 votes.
The end result is that under PAYGO it’s more difficult to cut taxes (and to increase spending).
Heritage has an interesting take on PAYGO; they hate it.
I’m glad Katherine said what she did upthread. People are responsible for the policies of the candidates they vote for. Ignorance isn’t and excuse, nor is “trust” in an incumbent. And single issues voters are responisble for all of the collateral damage that arises out of their myopia.
Hmm. PAYGO expired in 2002 (after Bush’s tax cuts were passed…?). My internal timeline is all screwed up.
According to a Kos reader, Akaka and Inouye:
“made a deal with Frist a while back that for their “yea” votes on arctic drilling, Frist would allow the Hawaiian Recognition Bill (aka the “Akaka Bill”) to come to a vote on the Senate.”
We need party discipline in the Senate in the worst way. Reid’s a smarter, better leader than Frist, but he leads a caucus that’s used to doing whatever the hell it wants.
“Anyone of you who votes for any Republican candidate in any house or senate race in 2006 is voting for corruption, one party rule, an energy policy that can only be explained as “they’re letting the oil and coal companies write it”, fiscal catastrophe, rampant dishonesty, homophobia, and a foreign policy that shows complete contempt for honesty and human rights and indifference to state sponsored torture.”
Or they are voting for the individual who they think is the best choice for the office.
Dishonest and offensive comments like that one are making ObiW nearly unreadable. Or laugh out loud funny. I’m still on the fence which one.
“Anyone of you who votes for any Republican candidate in any house or senate race in 2006 is voting for corruption, one party rule, an energy policy that can only be explained as “they’re letting the oil and coal companies write it”, fiscal catastrophe, rampant dishonesty, homophobia, and a foreign policy that shows complete contempt for honesty and human rights and indifference to state sponsored torture.”
Too bad voting for Democrats is even worse on half those issues–corruption, fiscal catastrophe, rampant dishonesty, and horrific foreign policy.
“Or they are voting for the individual who they think is the best choice for the office. ”
It’s a floor wax and a dessert topping.
It’s a floor wax and a dessert topping.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Umm…Sebastian, have you been living a parallel universe for the past four years?
Mac, it seems that Tacitus.org is a bit more to your taste where, even as we speak, they’re having a party dancing on Rachel Corrie’s grave.
“Too bad voting for Democrats is even worse on half those issues–corruption, fiscal catastrophe, rampant dishonesty, and horrific foreign policy.”
Really? Please explain to me exactly how a Democratic Senate or House–there’s no possibility of both–will make any single one of those things worse. Is it the PAYGO rules you don’t like? Or the support of Markey and Durbin’s efforts to outlaw torture? Or the bipartisan appropriations for Iraq? Or the (in my view extremely unfortunate) majority of the Senate democrats voting for the Iraq war? Or the desire to hold hearings about Abu Ghraib instead of only on pressing issues like baseball and Janet Jackson’s boobies? Or Harry Reid’s efforts to reduce the number of abortions by reducing unwanted pregnancies? Or the opposition to the tax cuts that did as much as possible to turn a surplus into a deficit and as little as possible to stimulate the economy? Or the opposition to the disaster of a Medicare bill that was a blatant giveaway to the drug companies? Or the desire to have the ethics committee function as an ethics committee instead of paying the legal bills of powerful members under investigation? Or the desire not to change social security in a way that results in massive benefits cuts or massive deficit spending? Or the desire not to have bills changed in conference and then voted on before members can read them?
As for dishonesty, the Republican party relies on it so thoroughly that you can’t see it anymore.
Chuchundra,
Mac is as welcome here as anyone else. We’re multiPOV here.
e
“Sebastian, have you been living a parallel universe for the past four years?”
Have you been living in a parallel universe for the past 20? Did you miss the Carter years? Did you miss the Democratic majorities in both houses during the Reagan years? Did you miss the Clinton years?
If you want to fight instances of corruption or incompetence I’m right there with you. If you want to pretend that Republicans are uniquely corrupt or incompetent I’m going to have to beg to differ.
Or is it the opposition to destroying the employer funded system of health care? Or maybe the possibility that the “let’s invade Iran” vote will be close?
In case you’re wondering, it’s the PAYGO vote that’s driven me over the edge, not ANWR. I’m used to the whole “why do we drill? Because it’s there” energy policy, but the idea of wrecking the solvency of the federal government on purpose is harder to swallow.
It’s not whether the Democrats are virtuous and the Republicans aren’t. It’s whether you want to let one particularly corrupt, incompetent, dishonest group of people continue to have no limits whatsoever on their power–or whether you prefer the American tradition of checks and balances and honest debate instead of the current situation of corrupt one party rule. We’ve got a legislature where the overriding value is loyalty to the Party and it’s infallible eader, and a conservative media that exists to provide propaganda for said Party and said leader, and science is expected to bend to its will. And when you vote for a Republican in Congress, you vote for all of it.
whether you prefer the American tradition of checks and balances and honest debate instead of the current situation of corrupt one party rule.
You can’t have an honest debate with someone who paints with such a broad brush. Can’t even have a debate once you’ve gone that far round the bend.
See, I’d rather PAYGO-type rules let Congress get completely drunk and slash taxes easily; but then be forced, hungover, the next morning to make the cuts – which would probably take months. It’s easier to gain a consensus about cutting taxes than it is to figure out what will be cut. Nothing else, to my mind, will reduce government expenditures over the longterm.
Katherine, if you want to get into a shouting match about the deficiencies of the Democratic Party, I’m thrilled to and to be fair I’ll won’t even use your amped up mischaracterization of positions.
But for the record, I don’t mind PAYGO.
Democrats in public office typically have horrifically naive foreign policies which pretend that unenforced treaties actually protect things.
I see cuts in Social Security as a good thing. Rich people shouldn’t get ‘social insurance’ payments.
Abortion reduction methods could have been implemented in Democratic majority years if Democrats actually wanted to–see also homosexuals in the military.
Democratc opposed the Medicare bill only because they wanted to waste even more money.
Even on torture, being a Democrat doesn’t reliably tell you what someone’s position will be.
The court fillibuster stuff is ridiculous. And Byrd himself presided over fillibuster rule changes passed by mere majorities.
Historically Democrats have been amazingly awful at ethics committee issues. I don’t expect you to remember the 1980s scandals, but they definitely exist.
Democrats in government are good at identifying problems, but crappy at fixing them. Their solutions tend to create worse or more permanent problems than they try to fix.
Many Democratic domestic policy principles would tend to dramatically cripple innovation in such vital areas as drug development and new medical technologies.
But arguing about everything at once isn’t productive. If your party’s policy understanding is perfect, fantastic. But at some point you’ll have to convince the rest of us.
Katherine, I’m not sure there is an American tradition of honest debate or not – but I do know there is definitely an American tradition of fiery, zealous and contentious debate.
And it’s a tradition you’re upholding quite well today 😉
This is not about Democrats v. Republicans. Here is the situation: the Republican leadership, with extraordinary efficiency, tells its members what to do. They never, ever, ever defect when it will cause the Party to lose a key vote. Every single one of them votes for Gonzales. Zero co-sponsor Markey’s bill. Every single one of them votes for the bankruptcy bill.
When they do defect, it is carefully choreographed. Lincoln Chafee is allowed to vote against ANWR and PAYGO, only because those votes will not be decisive. He votes his conscience on that and Lindsey Graham’s arm is twisted (on PAYGO–I don’t imagine Graham cares about the caribou). When it comes to going on record in favor of massive deficit spending or benefits cuts for social security, Graham can vote like a sane person and Chafee must take it for the team. When it comes to the filibuster, I’m guessing it’s all hands on deck. When it comes to any supboena vote in any investigation, no matter how serious–if it could reflect badly on Bush every single Republican will vote against it.
The Republican leadership that controls this process has–if they have any redeeming qualities between the three of them, Hastert, DeLay, and Frist, I don’t know of them. You are voting for those three, and for their enabling of Bush’s worst tendencies.
It’s not about your individual Congressmen. It’s about the three guys who call the shots. And it’s not about whether Democrats or Republicans are better people, though God knows I prefer our caucus any day of the week. It’s about this: Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Did you miss the Clinton years?
Do you actually claim that Democrats are worse on fiscal matters than Republicans, and that comparing Clinton to Bush provides evidence for that claim?
That is beyond ludicrous.
I love checks and balances. And since Republicans aren’t the monolithic entity you seem to think, we can provide some checks and balances until your party gets its act together enough to be a useful opposition party–much less a useful check or balance. I don’t trust most Democratic officials on foreign policy which I think is the primary issue to be dealt with at this time, so I wouldn’t vote for a Democratic president or Senator at this time. With Dean as your new party chair, my worrys are anything but allayed.
Final note. Of these three scenarios:
1. Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist
2. Speaker of the House Christopher Shays, Senate Majority Leader Lindsey Graham
3. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
I prefer #2 to #1 by a much, much wider margin than I prefer #3 to #2. It’s not a hard question. It’s not that there aren’t good Republicans. It’s that they’re doomed to be almost as powerless as the Democrats as long as Hastert and DeLay are rewarded at the polls.
” And since Republicans aren’t the monolithic entity you seem to think, we can provide some checks and balances”
Name one example. One.
“It’s about this: Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Looks like we should get rid of that really corrupt New Deal crap that got passed by those tautologically defined as corrupt Democrats, right? Beside which, why do you want your party to get corrupted by power?
If you think this is absolute power, you have absolutely no sense of historical or international perspective.
Democrats in public office typically have horrifically naive foreign policies which pretend that unenforced treaties actually protect things.
I’m so entirely fed up with that notion.
Let’s note, shall we, that a Democrat was in office when we won WWII, when we won in Kosovo, Haiti, Bosnia, etc., etc.
A Republican was in the White House when we had to withdraw from Korea, from Vietnam, and (I’m finally handing this one back to y’all on a silver platter, since you insist on it) from Iraq before that job was done.
So who’s the Party of foreign policy disasters?
” I don’t trust most Democratic officials on foreign policy which I think is the primary issue to be dealt with at this time, so I wouldn’t vote for a Democratic president or Senator at this time. With Dean as your new party chair, my worrys are anything but allayed. ”
Hm, the corruption/dishonesty/fiscal disaster thing faded quickly enough. This is a pathetic excuse. Bush is the President. Howard Dean has approximately as much influence over foreign policy as Terry McAuliffe–which is to say, none. What, exactly, is a Democratic Senate majority going to do to f*ck up foreign policy in a way that is worse than the current torture policy whose continued existence you will help guarantee in November 2006? Are you worried they might ask a few questions before signing on to the glorious invasion of Iran? Allow North Korea to go nuclear and do nothing about the Pakistan nuclear black market–oh wait, it can’t be that…
Katherine you could just be wrong on the issues…
Nah… Republicans are corrupt. Yeah, that’s the ticket!
Excuse me while I go eat some kittens.
Uhm Edward… Korea and Vietnam aren’t cards you want to play. Just say’n.
“Allow North Korea to go nuclear and do nothing about the Pakistan nuclear black market–oh wait, it can’t be that…”
I begin to suspect you didn’t pay close attention to foreign policy in the Clinton years.
Uhm Edward… Korea and Vietnam aren’t cards you want to play. Just say’n.
Yes they are. I know what came before Ike and Dick made the decisions they did, but if the R’s were the foreign policy geniusese Sebastian’s insisting they are, surely they could have found a way short of retreat to resolve the situations, no?
I mean, if you’re gonna suggest the Dem’s are so naive they can’t be trusted, surely you have to demonstrate where the Republicans were superior. I’ll wait.
I’d be interested in hearing Macallan actually, you know, counter some of Katherine’s charges rather than attempt to simply gainsay. I’d say, “Curious that he doesn’t,” but then I’d get some snarky comeback as to how it isn’t worth his time to do so, and yet it is somehow worth his time to post unclever rejoinders.
So, Sebastian, what Democratic “foreign policy” positions can you point to which engender such partisan fervor against the party, as a whole, and cause you such a failure of “trust”?
I could make it a REAL challenging question, and ask you to (for the moment) leave Iraq out of it – but never mind.
Macallan, you guys are screwing up very badly a country I love very much, and no amount of trivializing VRWC jokes about eating kittens is going to convince me otherwise. It’s a cheap rhetorical trick.
Sebastian, “absolute power corrupts absolutely” is a well known expression that works a bit better rhetorically than “the temptation of corruption generally grows as the restraints on power declines, particularly if one is corrupt to begin with”. When I want to make historical analogies to dictatorship or whatever I’ll make them. As U.S. history goes, as far as I can tell we’re past Nixon, but not yet at Jackson or George III.
I appreciate your post on extraordinary rendition, and then–it seems pathetic I should be grateful for one post, one letter to one Congressman, as you blithely vote for the people responsible for all this again and again and again, and devote most of your energies to defending them. You may oppose it; you
This is the speech Edward Markey made on the floor of the Senate today:
“”Throughout United States history, we have been the world’s moral and political leader. One of the things that really strengthened our hand at Nuremberg was
that in turn the Germans could not make a case that we had engaged in the kind of human rights violations that the Nazis had engaged in. It made the trials at
Nuremberg a moral statement about the United States and our view of the way in which war should be conducted.
This debate that we are having is intended on ensuring that we restate that commitment. We cannot have Uzbekistan, we cannot have Syria dictating what the standards are for our country. We cannot take prisoners within our control, put them on planes, and have them flown to other countries where whatever standards exist in that country dictate whether or not and what kind of torture will be engaged in.
The statement which we are making today on the floor will be to once again reassert this Congress’ complete commitment to the Convention against Torture. I think it is important at this time that we once again make this point because the rest of the world looks to us as the moral leader and it is important for us in act as well as in word to uphold that standard.”
God knows we can’t have a lunatic like that in power; far better to keep DeLay and Hastert.
Self parody is an art Phil. Bravo.
sorry, floor of the House.
As far as North Korea, we’ve been over it 100 times, and even if I granted your inaccurate charges about Clinton you are totally and completely unable to defend Bush’s policies. And as far as Pakistan, the stakes became clear, and most of the evidence emerged after 9/11. They ignored it and ignore it still.
Macallan, you guys are screwing up very badly a country I love very much
That is merely your opinion. An offensive and immature opinion at that. You’re entitled to it, but don’t expect any republican to give it any respect or deference.
Thanks for proving my suspicions correct, Mac. You’re nothing if not predictable.
“I love checks and balances. And since Republicans aren’t the monolithic entity you seem to think, we can provide some checks and balances until your party”
I just want to reiterate: please name some examples of effective checks and balances by the Republicans. I am really genuinely curious about this, more than anything else on the thread or any other question I asked.
Is it the searching and thorough investigations of Abu Ghraib and prison abuse in Guantanamo and rendition? All the subpoenas issued about all the scandals? The irresponsible tax cuts that Congress wouldn’t pass? The irresponsible spending cuts Bush vetoed? The rejection of the largest expansion of entitlement spending in recent years? The careful oversight of evidence of corruption by government contractors? The attempts to restrain Bush’s assertion of an unlimited power to detain U.S. citizens? Bush stepping in and preventing Congress’ contributors from making policy? Congress stepping in and preventing Bush’s contributors from making policy? The careful scrutiny of Bush’s judicial nominees? The decision not to abandon decades and decades of Senate tradition for financial gain? The ethics committee’s careful oversight of Tom DeLay’s actions?
I have written only thousands of words on the subject of foreign policy Jay C. Feel free to look at them. But the short version is–Democrats are over-reliant on paper treaties as if they were solutions to the problems allegedly addressed. This would be fine if the response to a broken treaty were not merely further paper treaties ad infinitum. Instead, modern Democrats tend to be of the “This far and no further, wait ok this far and no furth.., ok this far and no…., ok this far and…” style of diplomatic capitulation. They are not WWII-style Democrats or Kennedyesque Democrats. They are Pelosi Democrats.
As for corruption:
Abscam, Traficant, Bustamante, Mavroules, Torricelli, Rostenkowski, Reynolds. HUD before Republicans forced it to reform. Willingness to let inner-city kids wallow in awful education institutions because they have been bought and paid for by the teachers’ unions(sorry I shouldn’t get caught up in rhetoric like you). Resistance to welfare reform in the 1980s and 1990s helping to maintain the vote-rich underclass rather than help them do better…..
” The decision not to abandon decades and decades of Senate tradition for financial gain? ”
Sorry, political, not financial.
Don’t you believe that the Supreme Court has offered generally the proper response on the various terrorism cases. Check/Balance.
“The irresponsible spending cuts Bush vetoed?”
And this should be “spending increases.”
Shorter Sebastian
I get a kick out of seeing my ‘military’ tax dollars at work that I don’t get when Democrats are in charge!
“Don’t you believe that the Supreme Court has offered generally the proper response on the various terrorism cases. Check/Balance.”
Yes. Well, almost; they shouldn’t have punted Padilla. And Rasul came out the way it did because of the liberal judges. Scalia is great on rights for citizens that existed in 1789, but he thinks non-citizens detained abroad have all the rights of gravel. Whatever the mertis of that as a legal opinion, it’s not a check or a balance.
Anyway, we’re talking about Congress. There’s a lot that courts can’t do, because their jurisdiction is limited when it comes to the war on terror.
Congress is about to take away the most likely limit on Bush’s ability to appoint judges who share Clarence Thomas, Alberto Gonzales, and John Yoo’s inspiring vision of the “unitary executive.” Bush is likely to appoint three justices and possible four. Have you read Wilkerson’s and Luttig’s opinions in Hamdi?
Haven’t read Wilkerson.
Ok about the Congress. Social Security reform. Unless I’m reading my tea leaves incorrectly, Bush isn’t going to get his preferred reform. Check/balance
“Macallan, you guys are screwing up very badly a country I love very much”
“That is merely your opinion. An offensive and immature opinion at that. You’re entitled to it, but don’t expect any republican to give it any respect or deference.”
Guess I’m with Katherine on the offensive and immature list – higher up or lower down depending on taste.
And I imagine a few Republicans out there both respect her opinion and will as a result of her reporting and eloquence change their minds. Hope springs eternal.
No if you want to take all the nuance out of my view it would be “Democrats don’t know the difference between a useful treaty and getting drugged and then robbed.”
Sebastian, do you have any particular opinion on the report that Louise Slaughter and co. just released on the degradation of procedure and debate in the House?
In terms of Congress being an effective check and balance, can you name any other major legislative initiative (hell, any other _minor_ legislative initiative) on which Bush has not gotten what he wanted?
This:
1) hasn’t actually happened, and I’m not counting on it happening at all.
2) is something that is on account of the unusually unified opposition of the Democrats, which may lead to the defection of, at most, 10% of the GOP caucus..
You said, and I quote:
“And since Republicans aren’t the monolithic entity you seem to think, we can provide some checks and balances until your party gets its act together enough to be a useful opposition party–much less a useful check or balance.”
This statement would seem to me to require more support than a hypothetical future example of maybe 5 Republicans who may or may not attach themselves to a unified Democratic opposition. If social security phaseout doesn’t pass it will probably be because the Democrats filibuster it and Frist decides for political reasons not to end the filibuster of bills just yet.
Sebastian – Bush isn’t going to get his preferred reform. Check/balance only because he isn’t willing to pay the political price, or I should say he is willing to pay but his party isn’t.
Sebastian – No if you want to take all the nuance out of my view Take Americas military out of your ‘view’ and see how that alters your perspective ‘cos that’s what the rest of the world has to deal with and that’s increasingly how the rest of the world sees the US, a big stick and no carrot! Not even a hint of lubrication.
“”Democrats don’t know the difference between a useful treaty and getting drugged and then robbed.””
Ah. Are you worried about Democrats passing “paper treaties” that fail to solve the problems that Bush has also utterly failed to solve & made worse with the Iraq War? There’s no need to fear! It requires a 2/3 majority and the signature of the President. Or in the case of a Congressional Executive agreement, just a simple majority, but the President has to negotiate it, sign it and submit to Congress. And the President can rip up one of those awful treaties all by himself.
To go off of what Katherine just said: Snow, Collins, Specter and Chafee, != the entire Republican caucus in the Senate, nor does the Main Street Coalition = the entire Republican caucus in the House. I find it amusing that the only Republicans who are aiding the Democrats in checking any WH initiatives at all are those whom a lot of movement Republicans (cf. RedState) consider apostate and RINOs anyway.
And I imagine a few Republicans out there both respect her opinion and will as a result of her reporting and eloquence change their minds. Hope springs eternal.
I do appreciate her reporting.
“Sebastian – Bush isn’t going to get his preferred reform. Check/balance only because he isn’t willing to pay the political price, or I should say he is willing to pay but his party isn’t.”
Right. Bush and/or the allegedly monolithic Republicans can’t get deeply unpopular bills to pass.
That doesn’t sound like absolute power. That sounds a lot like a normal functioning democratic government.
Now there is a problem that the people of the United States want both lower taxes and more government services. Yup, that is a problem. Has either party dealt with that fact well? Typically no. But I don’t think the “Would love to increase taxes slightly and have an explosion of new spending” party has that much of a theoretical advantage to the “Likes lowering taxes somewhat and increasing spending quite a bit” party.
The problem I’m beginning to see with my discussion with real-world friends (and in California that means lots of fairly liberal people) on the torture issue is (depressing as it may be) a lot of people really don’t seem to care about torture. I’m not happy about that–at all. But there it is.
Mac, I literally don’t remember you ever saying, on any issue, that the Democrats were right and Bush/the Congressional leadership were wrong. I’m almost sure it’s an oversight on my part, but I do think that if I literally don’t remember it happening, it doesn’t happen very often. So you’re not exactly the target audience here. And people who run every elected branch of the federal government ought to be able stomach being told they’re wrong–even shrilly told they’re wrong–on a weblog. I don’t expect you to agree with me, but I just don’t feel real guilty about it.
” Macallan, you guys are screwing up very badly a country I love very much
That is merely your opinion. An offensive and immature opinion at that.”
Easy on the frothing. I can’t imagine you think loving your country is offensive or immature, so I guess thinking a particular political party in power is screwing up the country is offensive and immature? That strikes me as a bizarre opinion and, at best, a selective one.
Actually, I thought Clinton did a good job on fiscal policy. — I really don’t want to get into a long “whose party is worse” thing, though. I prefer to debate clear points where there’s some prospect of beginning to get all the arguments out on the table.
I hate the defeat of PAYGO. We need some sort of fiscal discipline so much. We are saddling ourselves with debt, undermining our future prosperity, and to top it all off we’re giving an enormous amount of leverage to, of all people, the PRC. This is awful.
Sorry — my post was to Sebastian.
Sebastian: correct me if I’m wrong here, but would not PAYGO prevent either party from “increasing taxes slightly” while also having “an explosion of new spending”? Theoretical advantage? Maybe not. Advantage in _practice_? Hell yes.
“Right. Bush and/or the allegedly monolithic Republicans can’t get deeply unpopular bills to pass.”
They mananged on Medicare by dint of lying, as best I recall.
“The problem I’m beginning to see with my discussion with real-world friends (and in California that means lots of fairly liberal people) on the torture issue is (depressing as it may be) a lot of people really don’t seem to care about torture. I’m not happy about that–at all. But there it is.”
I think most people care, including some Republicans. It’s just that they don’t care enough to risk their political future. (See: Lindsey Graham, John McCain.) Or they just don’t care enough to say anything about it if it might harm the President politically. (See: Glenn Reynolds.)
Or they care enough to speak up, once or twice, but it’s not a high enough priority to actually influence their vote in any way in any federal election–although they know that the architects of the policy take their support as a mandate or at least a sign that “the issue is dying.”
The Democrats care, but they’ve largely given up. You should see the way they linked to hilzoy’s post:
“It’s extremely unlikely to pass, but I couldn’t agree more with Hilzoy that if it’s going to die, we at least have an obligation not to let it die a quiet and unmourned death.”
“I’m not an idiot. I know that this bill will never pass in this Congress. But I’d like to see at least one Republican co-sponsor for this bill.”
etc.
Katherine, I really admire your brave defense of our country. On another thread there is a discussion of how Sartre erred when he was seduced by an ideology. It is easy to look back and condemn from the safety of the present. meanwhile our country is being turned into a one-party oligarchy that worships money and sanctifies selfishness–but the proponents of this ideology can’t see how they have been blinded by their simplistic assumptions. Ideologies are seductive precisely because they make it so easy to be always right and to feel morally superior, too. Everthing is easy to understand if one has an ideology. It’s a faith-based community, after all!
Twenty years from now we will look back and wonder why the hell we let these people ruin our public lands, run up unpayable debts, piss away our prestige and crediblity, ignore real security issues, neglect our infrastructure, and destroy our civic institutions. The city in Canada I recommend is Whitehorse.
So you’re not exactly the target audience here.
Except, if you actually thought about it, I am.
people who run every elected branch of the federal government
…and will likely for sometime at the rate things are going.
I and other republicans are exactly the target audience, because we hold influence. In fact, if things are as direly monolithic as you claim we are the only audience. Preaching to the left choir loft might feel good, but they’re powerless to do anything in your construction. Insulting the very people most capable of doing what you want doesn’t strike me as wise.
If you make yourself unreadable, that’s your choice …but goodness, certainly don’t feel any guilt on my account.
Bush and/or the allegedly monolithic Republicans can’t get deeply unpopular bills to pass
I suggest you read the newspaper tomorrow morning.
Has either party dealt with that fact well?
One of them has, yes.
Not only readable but respond-able, it seems…fear not: journalism and law teaches you how to turn it down when you have to.
“Katherine, I really admire your brave defense of our country.”
On the other hand, this is just silly. It’s called “venting.” It has its uses. But it probably disrupted a thread about which we agree–on the other hand, if people abstractly agree that something is bad all day long, and then don’t do a damn thing about it, ever, it seems like we all get to congratulate ourselves on a our bipartisan comity and not a thing changes.
Shrillness has a place. I just wish I could do this kind of shrill:
Insulting the very people most capable of doing what you want doesn’t strike me as wise.
Well, it’s not like being diplomatic in her series on extraordinary rendition got Katherine very far. I suppose meekly accepting the current state of affairs (with a side helping of condescension) is one way to go about things though.
Right. Bush and/or the allegedly monolithic Republicans can’t get deeply unpopular bills to pass.
Hey, even Saddam couldn’t quite break 100% at the polls, and he had some impressive party discipline.
“Sebastian: correct me if I’m wrong here, but would not PAYGO prevent either party from “increasing taxes slightly” while also having “an explosion of new spending”? Theoretical advantage? Maybe not. Advantage in _practice_? Hell yes.”
Absolutely. I’m an advocate of PAYGO. As a purely political issue, parties in power don’t tend to like it because their preferred (yet unrealistic) basket isn’t as easy to get through. Split governments are generally ok with it because it keeps small shifts in attendance from causing swings on a moment to moment basis during the session.
I was happy to join the chorus on the PAYGO issue. Not happy with the general-level Republican bashing.
I and other republicans are exactly the target audience, because we hold influence. In fact, if things are as direly monolithic as you claim we are the only audience
The Republicans were in a similar situation a few decades ago, their approach was not in any way similar to what you suggest the Democrats do. Funny how that always seems to be the case when partisans offer their political opponents advice, isn’t it?
Hmm, wonder why it posted e-mail instead of name?
“Well, it’s not like being diplomatic in her series on extraordinary rendition got Katherine very far.”
Really? I suspect it got her much further than you think, and much much further than a series of Atrios-style posts.
Sebastian – Republicans can’t get deeply unpopular bills to pass. not sure which ‘bills’ you are referring to but if you meant to say Bush can’t even get his deeply unpopular ideas about SS to bill stage, unpopular with whom? democrats in congress? what Rebulican would give a flying ****?
It’s unpopular with the country, Republican members of congress up for re-election in ‘unsafe’ districts can sense that, public opposition is destroying GWBs crusade to ‘save’ SS not opposition by Democrats.
Right. Take it down from the abstraction for a second and look at it in purely practical terms: which party controlled Congress when PAYGO was enacted, and which party has allowed PAYGO to lapse and defeated efforts to reinstate it?
(Or to put it another way: which party would put into place a procedure that would preclude the very tendency that you criticize them for?)
Really? I suspect it got her much further than you think
Maybe I’m wrong. With maybe two exceptions, the positive reaction I saw to those posts came from liberals/leftists/Democrats. We saw how well your post on the matter went over on RedState; at least you managed to avoid the sneering that was directed at Katherine for actually doing some bloody research on the matter.
and much much further than a series of Atrios-style posts.
I wasn’t suggesting that Katherine should have started out venting. But given the reception her series on rendition did get, I’m not going to fault her for venting. Nor am I going to look kindly on condescension directed her way.
“It’s unpopular with the country, Republican members of congress up for re-election in ‘unsafe’ districts can sense that, public opposition is destroying GWBs crusade to ‘save’ SS not opposition by Democrats.”
Are you agreeing with my point about democratic government?
I hate the defeat of PAYGO. We need some sort of fiscal discipline so much. We are saddling ourselves with debt, undermining our future prosperity, and to top it all off we’re giving an enormous amount of leverage to, of all people, the PRC. This is awful.
It is also 100% intentional Republican policy, which apparently our conservatives here love. That is, after all, the point. Repubs voted for the idiots who have adopted this policy, and defend them when it is blindingly obvious that this is their policy.
The record over the last 25 years is clear — Republicans have no fiscal discipline primarily because they belive it is OK to wreck the government’s fiscal policy. It is excused with “starve the beast” language except that the Republicans are also the beast. Repubs pretend not to be the “big-spender” even though they have 100% control.
Clinton fiscal policy leaves Bush in a second grade classroom reading “My Pet Goat”.
Macallan, you guys are screwing up very badly a country I love very much,
I agree with Katherine.
Insane fiscal policies, tax laws which will create a hereditary aristocracy, torture approved at the highest levels of government, a “business can do no wrong” attitude. That’s the start.
Add in repeated outright lies, slander of political opponents, gay-bashing, catering to religious idiots, etc.
Sebastian and Macallan and others may find it ridiculous, but I actually fear for the future of the US. I think the current leadership of the Republican Party, up to and including Bush, is loathesome, and I don’t see how that’s going to change in the near future.
Sebastian – Are you agreeing with my point about democratic government?
Not if you are proposing that a popular uprising is a sufficient check or balance on one party government.
I think I missed the popular uprising. Or do you just mean normal unpopularity?
Fine yes, normal unpopularity it is then, is that a sufficient check or balance against one party government in your book? It seems to be what you are implying, beyond that I guess we could always rely on the Republicans to self-police themselves in the vein of the ethicaly challenged Mr Delay perhaps?
Sebastian and Macallan and others may find it ridiculous, but I actually fear for the future of the US. I think the current leadership of the Republican Party, up to and including Bush, is loathesome, and I don’t see how that’s going to change in the near future.
It’s not going to change. You are. Time and separation from events will give you a healthier perspective. Of course you won’t believe me, as many republicans wouldn’t believe me when Clinton was “destroying” America. Otherwise you are going to end up like my old uncle who could ruin any family occasion by ranting on and on about how FDR ruined America. I’m old enough to remember when Reagan was simultaneously dim-witted and destroying the world, yet some of the very purveyors of those memes lionized him upon his death. Others cling to the memes and will ’til they die.
The key is requiring 60 votes for entitlement increases/tax cuts that are not paid for.
Include 60 votes for tax increases and I’m all for it.
“Others cling to the memes and will ’til they die.”
I used to imagine really vicious inscriptions for my tombstone so I could haunt Republicans for centuries after my death. Like:”Alger Hiss was innocent!” so that every conservative would get furious when they visited their loved ones.
Now I have to figure something imaginative to do with my ashes.
“It’s not going to change. You are. Time and separation from events will give you a healthier perspective.”
A seer in our midst! Cassandra-like, he will reveal the future, and we will not believe him until the walls of Troy collapse around us.
Now I have to figure something imaginative to do with my ashes.
Request that they be used to fertilize medical marijuana plants?
“Here lies Robert, but only in spirit
His last request, if you’d like to hear it
Was that his body go up in smoke
So that cancer patients could have a toke.”
“It’s not going to change. You are. Time and separation from events will give you a healthier perspective….Otherwise you are going to end up like my old uncle who could ruin any family occasion by ranting on and on about how FDR ruined America.”
This is 10x more arrogant and condescending than saying that “I think your politics are mistaken.”
Sebastian, they haven’t completely killed checks & balances yet, but you have utterly failed to name a single example of REPUBLICANS providing checks and balances since Democrats were so terrible. You came up with some Supreme Court cases, and the hypothetical future defeat of a social security bill that will have been defeated largely by Democrats if it is actually defeated, which is a pretty big if. Neither of these things supports your statement at all. Nor have you produced a single concrete example of what, exactly, a Democratic Senate is going to do to f*ck up foreign policy that trumps the fiscal wreck we’re heading for and the torture issue and DeLay’s corruption.
Sebastian: the deficit also affects foreign policy. In 2000 China did not have the power to bring our economy down. Now it does. People discount this because they say it’s not in China’s economic interest to do so. (Though how long we can count on its being in China’s interests to continue to amass stores of our depreciating dollars, I don’t know.) But China’s interests are not exclusively economic. Consider what would happen if they decided to use the leverage we have given them to pry loose Taiwan.
This is 10x more arrogant and condescending than saying that “I think your politics are mistaken.”
I think Mac wasn’t being very clear at first, or wasn’t bothering to explain himself for whatever reason – at least that’s how I understand the implication of Clinton-didn’t-ruin-the-country – it just means, “I think you overestimate the effect of politics on events.” Or Mac‘s decided that “this too shall pass” is the right attitude for the landed gentry – anyway, I find this unoffensive – not exactly the case re the previous “immature” formulation.
it just means, “I think you overestimate the effect of politics on events.”
I disagree. It came across to me as the equivalent of patting an ignorant child on the head and saying, “It’s okay, someday you’ll understand.”
“and the hypothetical future defeat of a social security bill that will have been defeated largely by Democrats if it is actually defeated, which is a pretty big if. Neither of these things supports your statement at all.”
I don’t mean to be rude but how exactly do you think checks and balances work between the Congress and the Presidency? The difference between a 51 (D) 49 (R) Senate and a 51 (R) 49 (D) Senate is that in the second on day to day things the Republicans get their way. On certain big issues a couple of them will vote with the Democrats, providing a check on the President. Great. That is Republicans mostly getting their way (President and Congress together) with certain harebrained Presidential schemes not getting pulled off.
I want Republicans to get their way more than Democrats on lots of issues.
So why would I prefer a closely divided Senate with Democrats in charge? I wouldn’t. On the day to day issues I want Republicans to win. I’m a Republican. I think a huge percentage of their policies are better than Democrats. Sometimes, if the President steps sufficiently out of line, a few Republicans will defect creating a check. Most of the time they won’t, which I like. Why in the world would I prefer a Democratic majority in the Senate? I would tend to prefer a narrow enough Republican majority that when the President acts in such a way as to go against the clear will of the people, a couple of Republicans will vote against his policy and it will fail. Otherwise the Republicans get their way. I like that.
“Why in the world would I prefer a Democratic majority in the Senate?”
I don’t think I had better type out my actual answer to this. Please read my 8:21 post, or the f*cking 45 page paper I just sent you.
You’re on Dennis Hastert and Tom DeLay’s side. You’re not on mine. And I should never have been so desperate as to let one post–however well written–convince me otherwise. But that was my own naivete.
On certain big issues a couple of them will vote with the Democrats, providing a check on the President.
Such as?
In 2000 China did not have the power to bring our economy down. Now it does.
Hilzoy so dramatic, why don’t you layout the scenario because I enjoy really good fiction.
“why don’t you layout the scenario because I enjoy really good fiction.”
I suspect you won’t need to wait too long to find out the ending. We may even see the first chapter this week, as Secretary Rice visits Beijing, and refuses to sign off on China’s new anti-succession law in exchange for China continuing to purchase our debt and hold its reserves primarily in dollars.
why don’t you layout the scenario because I enjoy really good fiction.
I’ll take a stab at that.
China now holds a little under $200 billion dollars of US debt (in T Bills). That amount will surely need to increase if Bush succeeds in making his tax cuts for the wealthy permanent. Meanwhile the US is opposed to China militarily invading Taiwan, which by many accounts China is indeed making perparations to do. Should the US live up to its stance on Taiwan independence (you know, keeping freedom on the march, like we’ve promised), thereby entering to a blunt confrontation with China, China could dump its US T Bills and send our economy into a nosedive.
Edward,
Great minds may think alike, but how does that explain our similar comments?
Great minds may think alike, but how does that explain our similar comments?
Our eyes are open?
Your own naivete is revealed politically in two ways, but neither are the one you have identified. You are making two fundamentalist-style ideological mistakes which poison your approach in this thread.
A) Not all Republicans are the demons you make them out to be. Your response is that they all go along with DeLay all the time, making them demons. You are wrong, but at this point I’m not even going to bother because point B) is just as important.
B) Not all Democrats are angels on the topic of torture. Need I remind you that extraordinary rendition was made an ugly habit by Clinton, a Democrat? In a slim majority legislature, Democrats would defect on the issue. This is not an issue where the whole community of Democrats would be willing to appear weak on terrorism. And the the reason they wouldn’t be willing to is in the next paragraph.
If the torture issue is going to get smacked down in the Senate or House it won’t be because there is a slim majority of Democrats in it. It will be because the American people make it clear that the issue is important to them–whoever controls the chambers. At this point you aren’t likely to believe me, but I’m not happy with the conclusion I’m about to put in bold. I STRONGLY SUSPECT THAT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC (INCLUDING A HUGE NUMBER OF DEMOCRATS) IS NOT STRONGLY WORRIED ABOUT TORTURE AND WHAT’S MORE THAT ISN’T JUST ABOUT A LACK OF PUBLICITY ON THE ISSUE–AND WORSE IT MAY EVEN BE THAT A FAIRLY LARGE MAJORITY IS PRO-TORTURE IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES. I’m going on into anecdote/data land here, but the data really isn’t available so you use what you can.
I am a Republican in a very Democratic state and I travel in very Democratic-oriented circles (I’m gay). I get into political conversations fairly regularly. Most of those conversations are with Democrats. Of the six Democrats which I have talked face to face with on the issue, 4 of them were very permissive about government torture with respect to the terrorism issue 1 was somewhat permissive and the last was more like you on the issue. None of these people have ever voted for a Republican. I suspect they felt free to tell me this when I raised the issue because they assumed that as a Republican I would be receptive to torture. I know a few Republicans who think the same way I do about the issue, but most are more in line with the 4 Democrat friends I mention above. It seems likely to me that the American public is either apathetic to the issue, or worse actively pro-torture when it comes to terrorism.
I’m not at all happy with that conclusion, but if torture is going to be dealt with in the way that we want it to, it will be because the American public joins our side. A slim Democratic majority in the House and Senate wouldn’t do it.
You are setting up a false situation where not only are all Republicans against your position–False–but that all or nearly all Democrats support your position–False. I freely admit that the ratios are better among Democrats, but you seem to be imagining the ratio among Democrats is in the 95/100 range. My experience with my Democrat friends is such that I seriously doubt it.
“Or the opposition to the disaster of a Medicare bill that was a blatant giveaway to the drug companies?”
The disaster of a Medicare bill would have been even worse if the Democrats had their way. They were for giving away even more, and stiffing drug companies in the process. Before you give away drugs, you should buy them, and that means that pharmaceutical companies will be paid for them.
“Or the desire to have the ethics committee function as an ethics committee instead of paying the legal bills of powerful members under investigation? Or the desire not to change social security in a way that results in massive benefits cuts or massive deficit spending?”
Actually, I’d like to change Social Security in a way that results in massive benefit cuts. The ratio of older people to younger people is headed upwards, and if we keep jacking up per-person benefits the way we’ve been doing on top of that, we’re going to get badly screwed. We pay enough to support retirees – we shouldn’t have to pay more, and more, and still more forever.
“Or is it the opposition to destroying the employer funded system of health care? Or maybe the possibility that the “let’s invade Iran” vote will be close?”
The employer-funded system of health care is a big part of the problem. It needs to be destroyed, yesterday, and individuals need to choose and buy their own health insurance on the open market without having to go to the company store for it. And if invading Iran is off the table, how do we keep them from getting nukes? Or do you really think that, if Iran had nukes and became immune to invasion and regime change, that they wouldn’t sponsor repeated conventional terrorist attacks on the United States? What possible reason is there to expect that the Iranians wouldn’t jump at the chance to do that to the Great Satan itself?
Ken,
“They were for giving away even more, and stiffing drug companies in the process.”
Do you think that bargaining with your car dealer is stiffing him? If not, why are you opposed to proposals that the government do the same in purchasing drugs?
“Actually, I’d like to change Social Security in a way that results in massive benefit cuts.”
Fine, sell it to the American people that way. Don’t insult our intelligence by pretending that privatization will magically allow everyone to get the same or greater benefits and that there are no costs.
I think Mac wasn’t being very clear at first, or wasn’t bothering to explain himself for whatever reason – at least that’s how I understand the implication of Clinton-didn’t-ruin-the-country – it just means, “I think you overestimate the effect of politics on events.” Or Mac’s decided that “this too shall pass” is the right attitude for the landed gentry – anyway, I find this unoffensive – not exactly the case re the previous “immature” formulation.
Almost rilkefan and I appreciate your effort. Given the All Republicans Are Corrupt and Ruining the Country meme in this thread, any counter points of view are going to be offensive to someone. That meme is immature. Sorry it just is. Sure that is arrogant on my part, but then I’m not going around saying that anyone who votes for a Democrat is responsible for destroying the country.
The point is that anyone’s worst fears are exactly that. It is their own worst imaginings, and their relationship to reality is likely to be in inverse proportion to how far they demonize those who see things differently. Down the road, and with hindsight, people see that their worst fears didn’t come true, and in most cases weren’t ever justified. There were just as many people who were certain, absolutely certain, that Clinton was going to destroy America as we know it. There were many people who openly speculated that Clinton would invent some excuse to impose marshal law and cancel the 2000 elections. I’m certain that they thought I was condescending toward them when I said, “you’re going to feel silly in about 10 years”. Sure I was condescending, I was also correct.
I’m glad lots of people have concerns about the current administration and that they call out those concerns, it’s an important part of the process. However, the fact that I don’t find their evidence leading me to the same suppositions doesn’t make me an accessory to every crime alleged or responsible for ruining the country that Katherine loves.
The comment sections here are looking more and more like dKos or Atrios. The number of republicans or conservatives who even bother to comment continues to dwindle and probably will continue to slide. Hey, I’m an obnoxious jerk so reactions to me are unsurprising, but look at how Katherine is treating Sebastian. He is 10x nicer than ‘ol Macallan, and I find it quite surprising that someone from the leftward sides of the aisle hasn’t said, “Hey Katherine I appreciate your passion, but you’re going overboard here”. Or that someone would seriously assume that I need to do anything more than “gainsay” against such over-the-top and all-encompassing rhetoric. Where would someone even start, and why would they even bother? The fact that Seb is even trying only proves that he is 10x nicer than I am.
Hey, I’m an obnoxious jerk so reactions to me are unsurprising, but look at how Katherine is treating Sebastian. He is 10x nicer than ‘ol Macallan, and I find it quite surprising that someone from the leftward sides of the aisle hasn’t said, “Hey Katherine I appreciate your passion, but you’re going overboard here”.
Katherine and Sebastian can duel without supervision. They’ve been doing so for quite some time now. It might not surprise you, given your generous position on Clinton, that many of Sebastian’s comments here are totally outrageous from a Dem’s point of view.
The best response when two gladiators start a brawl in a public square is to give them some room.
I share Katherine’s sense of dismay. If I felt the “Republicans” were actually in control, rather than an extreme subset of them, I’d perhaps agree that this is how the system is supposed to work. But when life-long Republicans like Christine-Todd Whitman become alarmed at what’s happening in the GOP, it’s time for other elephants to begin a little soul-searching as well.
From where I sit, most moderate to conserative Republicans are just happy to see progress in some of the program that have bothered them since FDR and so forgive the excesses they see from this adminstration. The problem with that is they’ve left themselves few tools to curb the excesses when they begin dismantling programs they actually like.
Italics off.
thanks hilzoy
I went behind the curtain and fixed it though…hate sloppy html.
Macallan: You are right, there has been some needless table pounding, but there is also something missing:
Any conservative poster discussing and/or defending the merits of the PAYGO vote (the subject of the post) or the merits of Republican fiscal policy (the subtext of the post). Some of the anger here is the apparent indifference of Republicans regarding these issues — that being in power allegedly means not having to answer for these policies.
I went behind the curtain and fixed it though…hate sloppy html.
Heh. Come on, you just didn’t want a post opening with ‘Hey, I’m an obnoxious jerk’
😉
I hope you will forgive me for thinking this Edward, but I imagine that if Seb used the same sweeping condemnations of ALL democrats as Katherine’s, and stated suppositions and accusations as established fact, you might not see it exactly the same. Heck, I know Seb can look out for himself, and I don’t need anyone watching my six, but I do think it is a shame that ObiW continues to lose its grip on a unique and difficult to hold position in the blogsphere. The front page continues to be great, but the comments…
Any conservative poster discussing and/or defending the merits of the PAYGO vote (the subject of the post) or the merits of Republican fiscal policy (the subtext of the post). Some of the anger here is the apparent indifference of Republicans regarding these issues — that being in power allegedly means not having to answer for these policies.
That is a legit point, but silence doesn’t always mean what people assume. I can only speak for myself, but I find that I more and more lack the fortitude to discuss complex issues (and PAYGO is likely more complex than most people imagine) because of the table pounding and outright dismissal of views that don’t look good on the back of Volvo.
For instance, I finally got a chance to read the Markey Bill and there were several issues with it. I started to write a post, then instead thought it would be a waste of time and effort to bring them up and I’d only get a slew of “when did you stop beating your wife” rhetoric, which has become SOP on the torture issues.
Heck, I know Seb can look out for himself, and I don’t need anyone watching my six, but I do think it is a shame that ObiW continues to lose its grip on a unique and difficult to hold position in the blogsphere. The front page continues to be great, but the comments…
Why do passionate conservative commentators prefer the environs of Redstate and the like?
Truth to power? as you have alluded to before?
The mountain must come to Mohamed!
Heh. Come on, you just didn’t want a post opening with ‘Hey, I’m an obnoxious jerk’
I believe in giving authors due credit…;-)
if Seb used the same sweeping condemnations of ALL democrats as Katherine’s,
What about these bits…did you miss them?
I don’t see the careful parsing there that you seem to see. Or even Sebastian’s pre-emptively declared avoidance of “amped up mischaracterization of positions.” Most of that is just plain wrong to me and all of it is horribly offensive. Given that they seem to be both well equipped in weapons here, again, I think I’ll leave Katherine and Sebastian the room to duke this out themselves.
Edward, those were in response to Katherine’s. When someone flings out the ‘you’re all idiots’ clause, few people have the charity and extreme goodwill to spend the extra effort to retort with a ‘but, a small subset of yours are idiots too’.
few people have the charity and extreme goodwill to spend the extra effort to retort with a ‘but, a small subset of yours are idiots too’.
Pity, that.
The comment sections here are looking more and more like dKos or Atrios.
What utter nonsense, but if you really believe that, well, what was it that you used to tell people over at tacitus? Something about not letting the door hit you on the way out, wasn’t it?
When called out with the rhetorical equivalent of “Why do you keep beating your wife”
it is important to look at the alternatives.
The alternative to the Republican party is not a non-corrupt, full of foreign-policy wisdom, ethical, fiscally responsible, socially excellent, party. If it were, I would vote for it. Unfortunately, the alternative is the Democratic Party. A party every bit as corrupt, historically unethical (Court-Packing anyone?), foreign-policy mess of a party.
The difference in my approach and Katherine’s (and it is a difference that Macallan alludes to) is that I understand the faults of both parties and reluctantly choose one. Katherine just demonizes and pretends that her party is vastly better. It just isn’t. Not at all. If you weight priorities differently you might get to ‘barely’ or ‘somewhat’ better. But this demons vs. angels thing is factually wrong no matter how comforting it may be psychologically. But especially on the issue of torture, the idea that a normal-sized Democratic majority would deal with it is unlikely.
The problem is the American public. I don’t think they care enough. I’m willing to do my part to help them learn to care. Getting demonized by both sides while doing so doesn’t make me feel much better, but since that isn’t the point I persist. But not everyone is as stupidly bull-headed as me, so if you want to have a chance at it–trying to make this into a Democrat vs. Republican game isn’t likely to be effective.
What utter nonsense, but if you really believe that, well, what was it that you used to tell people over at tacitus? Something about not letting the door hit you on the way out, wasn’t it?
Actually, what I most often told people was ‘there’s the diary section why don’t you offer up the kind of commentary you say is lacking instead of just saying BirdDog sucks?’ However, your point is a good one and should certainly be under consideration, I guess I’m just blinded by my fondness for people like Edward and Charles that I’ll let myself slip to such hypocritical depths. Sue me.
Applause, Sebastian.
Sebastian,
I can understand most of what you write here, and in a vaccum, I agree. Where your argument is less convincing however is where you don’t address the core problem within your party: it’s been hijacked by the extreme right. You’ll have to forgive the Democrats for waving their arms around, shouting “the sky is falling,” because you seem too pleased with the progress made on your pet issues to notice it yourself. Whitman, and others like her with long experience in the party, are speaking out, saying it’s time to stop the extremists. I can’t recommend her book strongly enough. I have many moderate conservative friends (many who voted for Reagan), but most of them are actually quite alarmed at what Bush is doing. So much so, that many of them voted for Kerry.
It’s understandable that you find more to praise in the R’s foreign policy than the D’s. We can all debate America’s proper role in the world. But to let that lead you to turn a blind eye to the excess and abuse of power going on is not understandable.
Yes, in the end you must choose and no one has the right to take that away from you. It would give me a bit more comfort, however, if I believed you recognized that your party is controlled by extremists.
And yes, there are extremists on both sides, but the difference here is that the extremists in the Democratic party pose as much threat to the nation as a boil of cold rice. The extremists it makes perfect sense to be all upset about are those in power at the moment.
So, Edward, you imagine that your party hasn’t been hijacked by the extreme left? Maybe not; maybe it’s not the extreme left so much as the extreme left.
boil?
Where your argument is less convincing however is where you don’t address the core problem within your party: it’s been hijacked by the extreme right.
[sigh]
It’s not going to change. You are. Time and separation from events will give you a healthier perspective. Of course you won’t believe me, as many republicans wouldn’t believe me when Clinton was “destroying” America.
I appreciate your concern for my mental health, mac. But I’m not a teenager getting over a crush. I have a fair amount of time and experience behind me. And my view of Bush is not based on particularly left-wing political opinions. I was no fan of Reagan, but did not think he was going to ruin the country. I supported Gore, but when Bush won I wasn’t wildly upset. I sort of assumed he would be a moderate rightist, with whom I would often disagree, but who would be tolerable on the whole. Wrong, but there you have it. My career has been mostly in small business.
Was my rhetoric “over the top?” I don’t think so. I’m not calling people traitors, for starters. If you want to criticize “over-the-top” rhetoric I suggest you start with some of the more prominent voices on the right.
I can’t possibly give you a comprehensive list of what I consider unfortunate policies and practices. So let me just pick out a few, as concrete examples.
Fiscal policy: We have run up a huge deficits, and they are growing. There is zero evidence that the Bush Administration wants to do anything but make it worse. If you don’t think this is going to have long-run negative effects on the country I’d like to know why.
Tax structure: Our tax policies are creating a privileged group of wealthy people who will pay little or no tax. This is not a “class warfare” argument. It is simple arithmetic. Eliminate or sharply reduce estate taxes and taxes on capital income – capital gains, dividends and interest – and that’s what you’re going to get. If you disagree, or think that’s fine, I’d like to know why.
Torture. I do think this comes from the top. We’ve been over it here a lot, but, rhetoric aside, it is clear that the Bush Administration is not much troubled by torture. You don’t appoint people like Gonzales and Bybee to the jobs they got otherwise. Is Sebastian correct that torture is not a matter of great public concern? Maybe. But what ever happened to leadership? Aren’t the Republicans the great party of morality? No. They are “outraged at the outrage.” This is a huge moral stain on the country. It won’t go away soon. It won’t go away at all without strong action against the culprits. Do you think Bush is going to take strong action against anyone but low-rank offenders?
There were just as many people who were certain, absolutely certain, that Clinton was going to destroy America as we know it.
So the arbiter of truth is… the number of people who believe something? I’m having a hard time seeing the relevance of this anecdote.
Sure that is arrogant on my part, but then I’m not going around saying that anyone who votes for a Democrat is responsible for destroying the country.
Perhaps not, but in 2003 over on Tacitus — in the archives that seem destined never to be reconstituted, so I’m unfortunately unable to locate the relevant cite — you did say that people who opposed Bush were clinically insane. I’m hoping that the use of the present tense in your sentence above indicates a recanting of that view rather than merely the obvious fact that you have not said as much here.
Don’t take my word for it Mac…ask the life-long Republican, former Governor of New Jersey.
[longer sigh]
What utter nonsense, but if you really believe that, well, what was it that you used to tell people over at tacitus? Something about not letting the door hit you on the way out, wasn’t it?
I would like everyone here to please recognize that ObWi is NOT like other sites. We DEPEND on folks with contrasting view points commenting here to make us work. Please do NOT invite your fellow commenters to leave. If you simply can’t stand what they write, please do your utmost to ignore them. Otherwise, we’ll become just one more echo chamber in the blogosphere and I suspect most the authors will want to leave.
Thanks,
e
So, Edward, you imagine that your party hasn’t been hijacked by the extreme left? Maybe not; maybe it’s not the extreme left so much as the extreme left.
No, it’s been hijacked by the Center. Take Carter, draw a line to Clinton, and you’ll see what I mean.
So, Edward, you imagine that your party hasn’t been hijacked by the extreme left? Maybe not; maybe it’s not the extreme left so much as the extreme left.
I have no idea what you’re trying to say here, Slarti; is it a pun on X-TREME! or are you arguing something like “The Democrats have been taken over by Stalinists”?
Senastian: for what it’s worth, I try not to demonize Republicans as a whole, or to overlook the scandals in my own party. That said, if we restrict ourselves to the last, oh, couple of decades (since I don’t take either court-packing or GOP isolationism in the runup to WW2 to be relevant to my decisions about who to vote for now), I think there is a clear choice on some of the issues you mention. Fiscal policy is an obvious one: Clinton’s record here is not “barely” or even “somewhat” better than Bush’s; it’s a record of responsible fiscal policy that brought us into surplus compared to a reckless fiscal policy that has jeopardized our economy and (as I said above) undermined our freedom of action abroad. (And for the record: China would not need to dump its dollar-denominated assets to cause serious problems. Stopping buying more would be enough.)
On torture specifically: a party can lead, and a glance at the sponsorship of the Markey bill would seem to indicate that the Democrats are a whole lot more likely to do so than Republicans. And the reactions of liberal vs. conservative bloggers to your post would seem to me to show that we are more likely to try to mobilize our constituents, and to try to make the case to them that even if they don’t care, they should. (BTW, wanna post on HR 952 on RedState? I’d do it myself, but it’s not my place, I think.)
On the environment, I don’t think there’s much room for debate.
Even on foreign policy: whatever your issues with Clinton’s foreign policy (and I had them too, especially in the first few years), the results of Bush’s foreign policy are not, to my mind, anything to write home about. Saddam Hussein is gone, but we screwed up the occupation needlessly; ditto Afghanistan; no real progress on Russian loose nukes, North Korea with nuclear weapons in part because fights within this administration prevented the development of a real policy, ditto Iran, no real action on Darfur, no real action on AQ Khan (and I take nuclear terrorism very seriously as a threat, so this seems to me unconscionable), and the above-mentioned ceding of real leverage over us to the PRC. And then, of course, there’s the squandering of the good will we had after 9/11, and the damage to our relations with other countries, and oh I forgot, the failure to actually do anything to keep most of our promises in re subSaharan Africa. It’s hard for me to see this as the sort of record of success that would counterbalance the deficit.
Again: I am not interested in demonizing you or your party. I do not believe that the Democrats would be perfect, or saints, or whatever. I do think they would be better, and on some issues considerably better. I also think that some of those issues, like the deficit, are extremely important, both for domestic and foreign affairs.
However, your point is a good one and should certainly be under consideration, I guess I’m just blinded by my fondness for people like Edward and Charles that I’ll let myself slip to such hypocritical depths. Sue me.
Jesus. If you want to lecture people here, then stop playing in the gutter.
you did say that people who opposed Bush were clinically insane.
Oh please. How convenient that you can’t reproduce that quote. How very convenient.
And before I head out, one last question: Macallan, your responses in the past few threads have been almost completely content-free, consisting more or less of “You’re wrong” and “It’s not going to be like that”. Would you mind expanding on exactly why you think that Bush’s fiscal policies are not ruinous, why you approve of the structuring of his tax cuts, and what your particular views on the issue of torture/aggressive interrogation/Markey bill/rendition (however you want to subdivide that agglomeration) are?
No, that it’s been taken over by extremists. It’s just not extremity in the left-right sense.
You’ve been commenting prenatally?
Oh please. How convenient that you can’t reproduce that quote. How very convenient.
To quote the Shawshank Redemption, I find it decidely inconvenient since I happen to know it’s true.* Like I said: I’d be happy to dig up the exact quotation if someone can reconstruct the Tacitus archives from that era (or can point me to an existing archive).
* How, you ask? Simple: it was Tacitus’ failure to rebuke you for that remark that made me decide not to be a regular there. Things like that, you don’t forget.
He can’t, Anarch, because if he does, people might be mean to him. Or something. At least that’s what I gather.
The funny thing about decifts vs. surpluses in the Clinton era is that they were tightly related to the high-flying dot.com era which nearly everyone admits was unsustainable.
Don’t take my word for it Mac…ask the life-long Republican, former Governor of New Jersey.
OK. Can I take the word of the life-long Democrat, current Senator of Connecticut on your party? He’s not even trying to sell a book.
OK. Can I take the word of the life-long Democrat, current Senator of Connecticut on your party? He’s not even trying to sell a book.
Are you saying we can have Whitman? Because you most assuredly can have the Bush-kissing Leiberman. What a Judas.
The funny thing about decifts vs. surpluses in the Clinton era is that they were tightly related to the high-flying dot.com era which nearly everyone admits was unsustainable.
They were related, but not in the way you are trying to imply. As DeLong argued, in regard to Clinton and the deficit:
Under Bush, that investment is again being crowded out, and future growth will be much lower than it would have been if someone fiscally sane had been elected.
Whom do we trade for David Durenberger (I know, this link is already posted elsewhere, but how can I resist it on this thread?). Perhaps Zell Miller?
“The funny thing about decifts vs. surpluses in the Clinton era is that they were tightly related to the high-flying dot.com era which nearly everyone admits was unsustainable.”
Not really. Consider the following:
The last surplus prior to Clinton was LBJ’s last budget, 1969.
Carter’s deficits in each year were less than Ford or Reagan’s.
Clinton reduced the annual deficit starting with his first budget, long before the dot.com boom.
national debt history
Dan Republicans with the assistance of the likes of Macallan and Sebastian are re-writing that history as we speak.
1. Are my fellow Democrats, in endorsing this view, going to admit that all Federal Expenditures “crowd out” investment, and ought to be contained? As opposed to the usual “just raise taxes to cover the deficit” policy? Saying that $300 Billion in bonds crowds out investment is probably true; saying that increasing taxes $300 Billion magically doesn’t crowd out investment makes no sense at all.
2. Are Republicans going to face head on that there is no impetus in their party while in power to constrain spending at all?
Jonas: actually, no. When the government spends more than it takes in, that amount has to be borrowed, which is what does the crowding out. Any federal expenditures that lead to deficits crowd out investments (which of course doesn’t mean that they might not make up for it, if they’re deficits used for productive public investment. I imagine that any deficits incurred in constructing the interstate highway system paid for themselves.) But it’s not spending per se that does that; it’s deficits.
Also, unlike spending, deficits are a gift that keeps on giving, since there’s also debt service etc.
“Also, unlike spending, deficits are a gift that keeps on giving, since there’s also debt service etc.”
But the same is true of almost any large ongoing government program.
Hilzoy,
You do a good job describing the perils of deficit spending which I agree with wholeheartedly.
I’m going to remain non-bullish on such investments until such time that I see a non-corrupt procurement process for Government expenditures put in place. The amount of money I’ve observed local and state governments wasting with crony contractors makes the possibility of “return on investment” seem extremely tenuous. Never mind that it cultivates this wasteful economic sector whose survival is wholly dependent upon the continuance of a corrupt relationship with government officials and representatives.
Um, no. Clinton was elected in 1992, took office in 1993, so his first budget would not have been implemented until 1994. The downturn in defecits began in 1993, which was what’s-his-name’s budget.
Jonas: I was just trying to make a gesture at completeness. That said, I support efforts to reduce corruption, of course. But when they don’t succeed in removing it all, those investments whose cost, corruption (and debt service) included, still pays for itself are still a good deal (at least economically; other things might make it a bad idea.)
Actually, I just found out there’s some good news on the Highway Contracts front. I was despairing previously because States were not allowed to prohibit campaign contributors from bidding on Highway Contracts by the Federal Government. It looks like the House just passed a bill that stops that sort of nonsense.
“deficits”, even.
That describes for me why I support Public Schools. Cost? Too high. Corruption? Lousy with it. Quality? Piss poor. Benefits? Worth it.
Although it would still be nice to reign all that in…
“Um, no. Clinton was elected in 1992, took office in 1993, so his first budget would not have been implemented until 1994. The downturn in defecits began in 1993, which was what’s-his-name’s budget.”
I suppose this is going to get nit-picky, but since the largest increase in debt was from ’90 to ’91 ($432 Billion +/-), the downturn in deficits started before that. Then it went to approx. $399B, then $347B under the remaining Bush the Elder budgets. Clinton’s 1st budget reduced this to $281B (a larger year-on-year reduction in the deficit than any of Bush the Elder’s budgets), and never rose above that amount thereafter.
So, I’ll stand by my statement as being substantially more useful in analyzing budget history than yours.
Um, no
Um, yes. Clinton reduced the annual deficit. When do you think he started doing so?
Just noting that he didn’t exactly kick off a trend, there. And that if fiscal responsibility was his goal, pushing enormously expensive national healthcare wasn’t, as far as I can tell, the way to accomplish it.
pushing enormously expensive national healthcare wasn’t, as far as I can tell, the way to accomplish it.
We will leave aside for the moment the fact that Clinton did in fact accomplish it – 8 times. But note that other industrialized countries with national health care and longer life expectancies than the US spend far less per capita on health care even when private R&D spending in the US is taken into account.
The current US health care system leads to the unneccesary deaths of tens of thousands of people each year, and costs more while doing so. All solely for ideological reasons. Reminds me of the famines in China.
So we go from “Clinton did it too” to “FDR did it too”. Jesus. Dan Rostenowski. Bob Torricelli. Welfare reform. There is no single example on this list of the wrongs of Democrats from after 2000. You have literally not given one specific example where the position of the Republican Senate Caucus, today, is preferable to the position of the Democratic Senate Caucus, today. Not one example of the Republican House, Senate or Executive providing any check on each other as opposed to 3 of them hanging on the coattails of the Democrats. You also don’t seem to get the purpose of checks and balances; you seem to think “okay, we’re not a dictatorship, so I don’t need to worry about checks and balances.” It doesn’t seem to register that a party is intrinsically more dangerous when it holds all the political power in Washington & votes in lockstep, than when it would have one undisciplined caucus controlling one branch of the government.
I have never, ever attempted to whitewash Clinton’s record and I have gotten angry at others who tried to do so. But the year is 2004, not 1996. Here is the record of Congress on the torture issue:
In response to Abu Ghraib, there was close to universal condemnation from Democrats. Republicans were more likely to be “outraged by the outrage.”
In every committee vote that I know of on this issue, every single one of the Democrats in Congress has voted to issue subpoenas of the relevant government documents. In every single vote that I know of, every single Republican has voted not to.
The Republican committee chairs held a few hearings. Then they stopped, allegedly to allow the court martials on Abu Ghraib to go forward. Then after the court martials ended, they told Democrats that the issue was dead.
Specifically on extraordinary rendition, the ranking Democrats on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees have requested an investigation. The Republican chairs have refused.
Last fall, Tom DeLay and Dennis Hastert inserted a provision into the intelligence reform bill that would have legalized extraordinary rendition. The provision was requested by the Department of Homeland Security; Hastert also liked it as a potential “poison pill” that would lead Democrats to vote against the intelligence reform bill & give the GOP a winning issue in Congressional races. Fortunately, when some reporters shone a light on it, the administration decided they needed to distance themselves, and the provision was watered down and eventually was removed from the bill in conference. But when the House voted on whether to keep Hastert’s bill with the extraordinary rendition provision or replace it with the Senate version, every Democrat supported the amendment, while only 5 Republicans did. (There were other issues in that vote, but it’s the closest we have to a direct vote on the legality of rendition, because Hastert did not allow a separate vote on Congressman Markey’s amendment.)
At the Alberto Gonzales hearings, Arlen Specter granted less time to question Gonzales than the Democrats requested. Every Democrat on the judiciary committee questioned Gonzales about the torture issue–some less effectively than others. The only Republican who asked any hard questions was Lindsey Graham. When Senators had an opportunity to submit written follow up questions to Gonzales, close to a dozen Democrats asked careful questions about U.S. torture policy. Zero Republicans did. Every Democrat on the judiciary committee voted against Gonzales’ nomination. Every Republican on judiciary supported it. On the floor debate, Democrats raised serious, substantive concerns about Gonzales’ evasive answers about torture and whether the President could set aside laws he didn’t like. Dick Durbin, who had unsuccessfully attempted to convince the caucus to filibuster the nomination, and Harry Reid gave eloquent species about the need to renounce torture. Republicans not only did not raise similar questions; they said that the Democrats had no legitimate concerns and were only motivated by spite and (this was sometimes stated outright, sometimes strongly implied) racism. In the end 36 Democrats voted against Gonzales, while 6 voted for his confirmation. Every single Republican Senator voted for him.
Twice last year, Dick Durbin introduced an amendment to a bill to forbid interrogators from using cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. Durbin argued that such treatment inevitably led to torture. His amendment passed twice on a unanimous or near-unanimous voice vote. Twice, it was stripped out of the bill at the request of the Republican administration & by a conference committee controlled by Republicans.
Edward Markey’s bill is now co-sponsored by 52 Democrats and 1 independent. 0 Republicans support this bill. Given Speaker Dennis Hastert’s announced policy that only bills supported by “a majority of the majority” will receive a house vote, Markey’s vote simply will not. Jane Harman’s interrogation bill will probably face a similar fate.
When it comes to conservative commentators, I can think of exactly two who have given sustained attention to the issue: Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe, and Andrew Sullivan. I can think of several more who have written one or two good posts or columns about it, and promptly forgotten it; or who have expressed their opposition only when another reporter called them up and asked them.
The overwhelming majority have dismissed the issue and attacked Democrats and the press for making too much of it. But more than anything else, they have ignored it.
Not all Republicans’ hands are dirty, and not all the Democrats’ hands are clean, and perhaps the party roles would be reversed if a Democratic president were in power. But there is, today, a huge, gaping and growing between the GOP and the Democratic party on the issue of torture. It is possible for an individual Republican to try to change that, but he has to actually make a sustained efort, not just write one post that allows him to sleep a little easier but accomplishes little else. And he is in no position to sigh and say the public just doesn’t care very much about it, when it does not even occur to him for one moment that this is an issue that might possibly influence his vote in a Congressional election–although he cannot actually say what issue is overriding it, other than a pathological fear of treatiest that a bare majority in a Democratic Senate would not be capable of passing anyway.
Since that post, you’ve mainly made excuses for DeLay and Hastert, tried to pretend the parties are comparable when they aren’t, and made a bizarre effort to say it’s partly Amnesty International’s fault. I doubt you’ve even bothered calling or emailing your Congressman or Senators about HR 952 or the calls for an investigation; perhaps I’m wrong about that.
It’s a lot better than most Republicans have done. But it’s a lot less than, say, Hilzoy has done, or Randy Paul, or the Amnesty International employees you criticize, or any number of Democrats. And yet we’re pathetically grateful, because we’re so surprised that even one Republican will actually say it’s wrong. Andrew Northrup was right–it’s “the soft bigotry of low expectations.” If you oppose these things, do so actively, in a sustained way that has some hope of actually accomplishing something. If you don’t do that, if all you do is make a few pro forma blog comments and quickly change the subject–don’t come be shocked when people blame you for the actions of the men you vote into power & devote most of your energy to supporting.
actually the year is 2005.
Yes, we’ve killed tens of millions purely for politics. One of these things is not like the other, felix.
Which means what, exactly? Do you think it means that we’d have still accomplished deficit reduction?
(the rendition issue is very far from the only thing this applies to; it’s just the issue that I can speak off the top of my head about at the greatest length.)
Bob Torricelli is after 2000 I guess, but until you come up with one single example involving the good actions of the Republican caucus right this minute, or the bad actions of the Democratic caucus right this minute–it’s weak excuse making. I want to know what votes, about which the GOP is right and we’re wrong,are going to outweigh everything I’ve mentioned.
Which means what, exactly? Do you think it means that we’d have still accomplished deficit reduction?
In the long run there would have been more deficit reduction if a decent national health care plan had been adopted, although I do not know enough about the Clinton plan to know if that plan was a decent one.
I’d have to say that if anything, Clinton should be criticized by Democrats for cutting deficits as much as he did. All that he accomplished in the end was to allow the Republicans to cut taxes for the rich. As long as one party is going to be fiscally insane, it does not pay for the other party to use its political capital to undo the damage.
The first thing the Democrats should do when they regain power (and they will), is to cut the retirement age by 10 years without any discussion of how to pay for it. If people are going to try to pin fiscal irresponsibility on the Democrats in spite of the last 35 years of history, they should at least be given something to really complain about.
“You have literally not given one specific example where the position of the Republican Senate Caucus, today, is preferable to the position of the Democratic Senate Caucus, today.”
Corruption tends to occur in the party in power, the party out of power has many fewer opportunities. Of course I’m looking at the times Democrats were in power. That is when they had a chance to be corrupt. And quite spectacularly, they were. Furthermore 2000 isn’t a different generation. The Democratic Party has most of the same officials now as it did then.
“I doubt you’ve even bothered calling or emailing your Congressman or Senators about HR 952 or the calls for an investigation; perhaps I’m wrong about that.”
One of hundreds of little assumptions where you are wrong. And I didn’t just write mine (California Senators are Democratic), I also wrote some key Republicans. Sheesh. So much of this is projecting your demonization of the ‘other’ onto me that it is just poisonous to debate.
“Corruption tends to occur in the party in power, the party out of power has many fewer opportunities. Of course I’m looking at the times Democrats were in power.”
This is, precisely, my point. When I said, “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.” I was NOT attempting to compare today’s Republican party to the Bourbons or some Vladimir Putin or whoever else. I am saying when you deliberately choose to place as few limits as possible on their power, you invite their corruption and share a little bit of the responsibility for it.
Sorry about H.R. 952 any other factual mistakes. I don’t apologize for the rest of it. You vote for them, you vote for all of it.
” So much of this is projecting your demonization of the ‘other’ onto me that it is just poisonous to debate”
Please explain, specifically, where any of what I have said about Hastert and Delay is inaccurate or stop calling it “demonization.”
And read Andrew Northrup’s post.
At the risk of making your head explode… Katherine, is it possible, just maybe possible, that all the votes and sponsorships you listed that break so clearly along partisan lines are in fact, just politics? Is it even the slightest bit possible that some or even all of those democrats are not acting out of principle at all? Is it possible that many of them even agree with the policies they are opposing?
The downturn in defecits began in 1993, which was what’s-his-name’s budget.
Yeah. The Republican President who almost got ridden out of his party on a rail because he showed some guts and responsibility by asking for a tax increase. His son sure isn’t going to make that mistake.
Not all Republicans are the demons you make them out to be. Your response is that they all go along with DeLay all the time, making them demons. You are wrong,
The issue is not whether they always go along with DeLay and Hastert. The issue is that they vote to put DeLay and Hastert in positions of great power. That probably is the most important vote House members cast.
Like I said, it could be entirely different if Bill Clinton were in power. Then again, it might not be. In any case, he’s not President; he’s not the one in charge of U.S. interrogation policy; and it’s not the Democrats who are ensuring that it doesn’t change. I’m not trying to judge the immortal souls of Dennis Hastert and Tom DeLay and Bill Frist and Harry Reid and Dick Durbin. I’m trying to judge the results of voting them into power. I’m not saying that you are responsible for the content of their character; I am saying when you vote a group of people into power, you bear some responsibility for the completely predictable ways in which they abuse that power.
It’s like Bush and the war: you think you can escape all responsibility for the bad consequences of your actions by saying, “yes, but I didn’t want that to happen.” That’s nice, but it was pretty obvious that it would.
Katherine, just reread your thread. You don’t make any distinction between DeLay and other Republicans. So far as you are concerned they are all the same. You then start long diatribes on how they are destroying the country etc. etc. etc. You aren’t talking about DeLay and Hastert, you are talking about Republicans. You regularly ascribe to me all sorts of characteristics on the basis of being a Republican. Ascribing exaggerated characteristics of evil to a group and by that to its individuals is the very definition of prejudicial demonization.
Lets cut to the chase. Do you believe that a majority of Americans are as clearly against torture as you are? If not, don’t you think the anti-torture cause might be best served by trying to convince them instead of railing against someone who already agrees with you for not taking what you think are the proper steps?
As for the damage a Democratic majority could do, see the infamous I voted for it before I voted against it Appropriations Bill for Iraq.
“Do you believe that a majority of Americans are as clearly against torture as you are? If not, don’t you think the anti-torture cause might be best served by trying to convince them instead of railing against someone who already agrees with you for not taking what you think are the proper steps? ”
No. And I can’t convince them through argument, only through factual reporting. And if none of them vote differently because of that reporting or even consider doing so, it will not make a damn bit of difference.
In any case, I can promise you that I’ve spent more time on this than you have.
You are effectively voting into power Tom DeLay, Dennis Hastert, and Bill Frist Sebastian. You therefore have some responsibility for the entirely foreseeable ways that they abuse this power. That’s what I said at the beginning. If you could’ve accepted that the discussion would’ve ended there.
As for the Iraq appropriations bill: The Senate would’ve passed a bill that paid for the $187 billion instead of adding it to the deficit. The House would’ve passed a bill doing the opposite. They would’ve fought over it in Congress. I don’t know who would’ve won that fight; I suspect there would be a compromise that was heavily tilted towards the GOP’s preferred version, because Bush would’ve threatened a veto and hawkish Democrats would have caved. One thing that was never a possibility was the army not receiving its funding.
Like I said, it could be entirely different if Bill Clinton were in power.
Well…and I tread gently here…apparently it was very different. From my understanding, rendition was conceived and executed under Clinton, and with full congressional oversight. So it seems out of line, not to mention politically unwise, to frame this as a republican policy or issue. I wonder if nearly everyone in congress, on both sides of the aisle, has been aware of this, and even see a legitimate purpose for it in rare instances. Is that possible?
“Katherine, just reread your thread. You don’t make any distinction between DeLay and other Republicans. ”
I specifically said that I would prefer a Senate led by Graham and a House led by Shays over the current situation, by a larger margin than I would prefer Reid & Pelosi over Graham and Shays.
I specifically said that part of the problem with voting for the current GOP is that it confirms to DeLay and Hastert that their tactics work and they should do more of the same, and destroys moderates’ hope of having a voice.
They almost never break party lines on a vote, and when they do it is in a way that is carefully calculated to provide the moderate with political cover without jeopardizing the extremists’ ability to do whatever the hell they want.
As far as rendition I appreciate your support, for what it is worth. But I’m through with the soft bigotry of low expectations. If you guys are so ashamed of the leaders ofyour party that you find it a slur to be associated with their actions, leave the party or work actively to change its leaders.
That’s all.
As for the damage a Democratic majority could do, see the infamous I voted for it before I voted against it Appropriations Bill for Iraq.
Great statement with which to gage your partisanship Sebastian, I’m sure you are quite happy with the type of leadership Delay, Hastert and Frist provide.
“In any case, I can promise you that I’ve spent more time on this than you have.”
Where the hell did that come from? Of course you have. But if the ideological criteria for moral purity is “people who have worked on the issue of torture as much as Katherine” I strongly suspect that none of the Democratic Congressman would qualify.
“One thing that was never a possibility was the army not receiving its funding.”
So Democrats use power-politics votes then? I’m amazed you don’t seem to acknowledge that possiblity in other votes.
“I suspect there would be a compromise that was heavily tilted towards the GOP’s preferred version, because Bush would’ve threatened a veto and hawkish Democrats would have caved.”
Caved. Not been too afraid of their constituents. Not decided in the spirit of compromise. Not weighed out the pros and cons of different approaches and came to a conclusion different from Katherine’s preffered conclusion. Just caved.
Every disagreement with Katherine isn’t just a disagreement, it is an admission of moral depravity.
“Well…and I tread gently here…apparently it was very different. From my understanding, rendition was conceived and executed under Clinton, and with full congressional oversight. So it seems out of line, not to mention politically unwise, to frame this as a republican policy or issue. I wonder if nearly everyone in congress, on both sides of the aisle, has been aware of this, and even see a legitimate purpose for it in rare instances. Is that possible?”
Based on the reactions of Democratic Senators and Representatives, it is not possible. This stuff is highly classified. The intelligence committee may have known but if so they were forbidden from saying anything about it. It is not, for f**k’s sake my “framing” that makes it a partisan issue. I scrupulously avoided it describing it that way for over a year. It is the votes cast by every single Republican member of Congress, and most of all the contrast in Reid and Durbin’s actions to DeLay and Hastert’s.
As for the damage a Democratic majority could do, see the infamous I voted for it before I voted against it Appropriations Bill for Iraq.
Infamous only for the degree to which Republican talking points have distorted that vote and the reasons for it beyond all recognition. I thought better of you than to think you’d regurgitate that kind of crap.
“If you guys are so ashamed of the leaders of your party that you find it a slur to be associated with their actions, leave the party or work actively to change its leaders.”
No, the slur is when you exaggerate DeLay and especially Hastert into demons and then try to associate me with them. I know you weren’t politically active (or in some cases aware) during the Democratic majorities, but if you think House discipline and smashing of the minority party is a Republican trait, you really need to consider looking up Tip O’Neill and Jim Wright (the latter being an excellent example of corrupt). If you think Senate shenannigans are a Republican trait you need to look into the histories of Byrd and Mitchell and Cranston.
It may be an ugly part of the American tradition, but it isn’t just a part of the Republican tradition.
“The intelligence committee may have known but if so they were forbidden from saying anything about it.”
The intelligence committees are notoriously leak-happy with issues they care about. Either Clinton was hiding it from them, or they didn’t care enough about it.
“Caved. Not been too afraid of their constituents. Not decided in the spirit of compromise. Not weighed out the pros and cons of different approaches and came to a conclusion different from Katherine’s preffered conclusion”
For f*ck’s sake, it was a colloquial expression that is exactly synonymous with “been to afraid of their constituents” in this context. How many times have you accused liberal judges or journalists of acting in bad faith?
Your complete inability to defend the people you vote for on the merits speaks for itself. Here is the list of things that started this:
“corruption”
I’m talking about DeLay’s shenanigans & ethics committee here, though there are less obvious examples too.
“one party rule”
this is sort of tautological, but I also went into detail about the complete failure of House & Senate Republicans to limit abuses by the executive, and vice versa. You came up with exactly zero counterexamples, unless you count the Democrats hypothetical future defeat of Bush’s social security plan. This will only grow worse when they eliminate the filibuster–it will not stop at judges.
“an energy policy that can only be explained as “they’re letting the oil and coal companies write it”,”
If you disagree with this you’ve not said so.
“fiscal catastrophe”
Others have explained this in detail
“rampant dishonesty”
I stand by this but the specifics could take up another thread this size; best to leave it aside for now.
“homophobia”
self evident.
“and a foreign policy that shows complete contempt for honesty and human rights and indifference to state sponsored torture”
Again; let’s shelve honesty–I’m quite confident of my argument there but let’s leave it aside because we’d be here all night liking each other even less. I should’ve given them more credit for Darfur & Sudan in general. It’s immigrants rights and torture that I’m thinking of most. I’ve been through that pretty extensively.
So. Which of that was an inaccurate description of the leaders of the GOP in Congress & the voting record of the GOP caucus?
You haven’t been able to say. You’ve given no specifics at all in their defense–just thrown a lot of stuff about past Democratic wrongs to see if it stuck.
But if I impute their actions to you, you consider it a personal attack on your honor.
It may say something bad about me, but I’d say it reflects worse on Tom DeLay, Bill Frist and Dennis Hastert.
I thought better of you than to think you’d regurgitate that kind of crap.
Well we know what thought did, and we also know how he voted!
“”The intelligence committee may have known but if so they were forbidden from saying anything about it.”
The intelligence committees are notoriously leak-happy with issues they care about. Either Clinton was hiding it from them, or they didn’t care enough about it.”
Both possible. They do now–or they’re willing to pretend to.
For the absolute final time. This is not about the immortal souls of individual members of Congress. This is about: how do we vote in a Congressional election if we want this policy and all the bad policies I’ve listed to change?
The answer is blindingly, glaringly obvious, and you refuse to even consider it for a moment, and you give no reason whatsoever for your refusal.
Sebastian, if you want to talk about House discipline and treatment of the minority party by the majority, you really ought to read Rep. Slaughter’s report first. Just a thought.
You know, I was trying to help believe it or not. I’ll stop now.
“You haven’t been able to say. You’ve given no specifics at all in their defense–just thrown a lot of stuff about past Democratic wrongs to see if it stuck.”
“This is about: how do we vote in a Congressional election if we want this policy and all the bad policies I’ve listed to change?”
These two are related. I mention past wrongs of Democrats because the alternatives are Democrats.
And if alternative to these bad policies wasn’t other bad policies supported by Democrats, we would have super-easy choices.
We have two years to decide how Republicans are doing. What in the world does that have to do with now? If you want change sometime in the near future, all the railing in the world about who I ought to vote for in two years is counterproductive. I’m applying the pathetic little bit of pressure I can to the people that I can. I’m not the Republican Party leader. I’m not a media personality. I don’t even have the small bit of influence you have. I probably have mild influence over less than 100 people in the world. And mild is probably an overstatement.
And your claim that you don’t attack me is a little silly. There are quite a few parts in our exchange where you specifically target me, not DeLay or Hastert.
I’ll admit that I even attacked you back. I shouldn’t have, but well there we are.
Oh come on let’s not have peace break out just as it starts to get interesting.
As for the damage a Democratic majority could do, see the infamous I voted for it before I voted against it Appropriations Bill for Iraq.
Wasn’t that whole thing about whether we were going to raise taxes (shudder) to pay the $87 billion or just borrow it?
Our fiscally ever-so-responsible President wanted to borrow it, as I recall, and got his way, probably being reassured by Cheney the whole way that it didn’t matter.
Right. Make sure you run a high deficit, by any means, because you certainly don’t want the tax burden on the top bracket to be less than four times that on the bottom.
Hey Slarti, I would sign up to pay that tax rate in a New York minute, assuming the income/wealth came along with it, who wouldn’t?
I think you have cause and effect a bit confused.
You’ve been commenting prenatally?
I sometimes think my comments are still-born; does that count?
I think you have cause and effect a bit confused.
Nope, just the perspective from my end of the pyramid.
Right. Make sure you run a high deficit, by any means, because you certainly don’t want the tax burden on the top bracket to be less than four times that on the bottom.
A high deficit? Pessimists like you have no faith whatsoever in the productivity of the American worker.
don’t know if anyone cares but: some of the things I said to/about Sebastian were over the line & undeserved & I apologized to him privately. I stand by pretty much everything I said about the GOP Congressional leadership. generally, being immersed in this rendition stuff is leaving me temporarily unfit for even a faint semblance of bipartisan comity so it’s probably better than I stay away for a week or two. Hilzoy’s keeping track of legislative stuff on the rendition bill–there’s now a Senate version. good night and have a pleasant tomorrow.
Is this a non sequitur or is there some connection between this statement and the rest of the conversation that you’re keeping private? I believe I never mentioned workers or their productivity; introducing it as a counterargument seems a bit of a diversion.
Is this a non sequitur
I thought it was a bit of levity, which I think by definition is a diversion. Given that your comment was a bit wry, I think it’s a bit silly to be demanding seriousness (unless there is a serious argument being made that I am completely missing, which is always a possibility)
With leftover corned beef from St. Paddy’s day Irish dinner. Yes, it was wry, but was at least an attempt at on-topic-ness.
It’s Been an Ugly Week
At least in my opinion, it’s been a bad week for American politics. The inevitable flexing of conservative muscles since the re-election of W has begun in earnest, and brought us this: 1. Paul Wolfowitz has been nominated to head…
Two Gladiators Brawl at ObWi
I don’t link to Obsidian Wings nearly enough, considering it is one of the few outposts in the blogosphere dedicated to temperate debate among many divergent view points. Oddly, it’s this temperance, I think, which subliminally interferes with me visit…
Two Gladiators Brawl at ObWi
I don’t link to Obsidian Wings nearly enough, considering it is one of the few outposts in the blogosphere dedicated to temperate debate among many divergent view points. Oddly, it’s this temperance, I think, which subliminally interferes with me visit…