By Ruth Marcus If you programmed a computer to generate a speech laden with cliches; solemnly vowing to achieve the unobjectionable; and all but devoid of substance, it would have come up with something approximating John Boehner’s remarks. Related Entries January 6, 2011 How America Exiles Unwanted Teenagers January 5, 2011 The House of Professors
Continue reading …Well, that didn't take long. AP reporters Calvin Woodward and Andrew Taylor answered the bell and came out swinging at the Republican House within hours after John Boehner was sworn in as Speaker, accusing the GOP of supposedly breaking a number of core promises. As usual when the wire service covers Republicans, there's no shortage of inconsistency bordering on hypocrisy coming from AP's alleged journalists. Here are selected paragraphs from this morning's report (“PROMISES, PROMISES: GOP drops some out of the gate”): read more
Continue reading …In an “exclusive” interview with new House Speaker John Boehner for Thursday’s NBC Nightly News , Brian Williams told Boehner the promised vote to repeal ObamaCare has “been called a stunt,” pressed him to justify repealing it given many would not call it “the best health care delivery system in the world because they, by the millions, weren't getting it” and demanded to know “where are you getting the notion…the American people want it repealed” given polling was “very evenly split on that?” Then he held Boehner responsible for a “birther” woman in the gallery who shouted out “except Obama” as a Congressman on the floor was reading aloud the part of the Constitution requiring the President to be a “natural born citizen”: I'm curious as to how much responsibility you feel — specifically, because of something that happened this morning. During the reading of the Constitution, Congressman Frank Pallone of New Jersey was reading a portion of the document interrupted by someone who heckled from within the chamber. It was to express doubt over the President's American citizenship. read more
Continue reading …Click here to view this media Dick Morris thinks that we should shut down the government if President Obama doesn’t agree to defund the health care law. Even Bill O’Reilly is skeptical of his nonsense. I’d like to know how may homeless people Dick Morris would like to take in after we have economic chaos if either the Congress or the president follow his suggestions here since he apparently has no concern whatsoever for what would happen if the government defaults on its debt. The Conservative Pledge to Freeze the Debt Ceiling Is a Looming Disaster : Led by the advice of Newt Gingrich, the former House Speaker who was the architect of the 1995-96 debt ceiling crisis, many conservatives are clamoring for a repeat of this past episode in recklessness. By law, a statutory limit restricts the total amount of debt the federal government can accumulate. Only Congress can raise this limit. On the heels of the worst recession since the Great Depression, this “debt ceiling” is projected to be reached sometime early next year. Increasingly, conservatives are pledging to vote against any increases to the debt ceiling—even if this means shutting down the federal government. This reckless pledge would have disastrous consequences for the U.S. economy and the global financial markets, and would severely worsen the long-term budget situation to boot. This conservative pledge has historical antecedents. In the fall of 1995, congressional Republicans refused to raise the debt ceiling for a period of about six months, until they reversed course in March 1996 in response to plummeting poll numbers. This original “debt ceiling crisis,” as it’s become known, was extraordinarily costly, roiling the financial markets and forcing two government shutdowns. The consequences of refusing to raise the debt ceiling would be even more costly today, given the precarious state of the U.S. economy and global financial markets, and potentially could be disastrous. Unlike in 1995, when our economic outlook was good, we are currently fighting our way out of the Great Recession and coming off of the worst financial crisis since the 1930s. Nonetheless, led by the advice of Newt Gingrich , the former House Speaker who was the architect of the 1995-96 debt ceiling crisis, many conservatives are clamoring for a repeat of this past episode in recklessness. The budgetary consequences of this conservative pledge would be catastrophic and far-reaching, forcing the immediate cessation of more than 40 percent of all federal government activities (excluding only interest payments on the national debt), including Social Security, military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, homeland security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance. This would not only threaten the safety and economic security of all Americans, but also have dire impacts for the economy and job growth. In short, the economic consequences of such a large and precipitous drop in spending would be crushing, and almost certainly result in a severe drop in economic growth and employment at a time when we can least afford it. Moreover, such a move could lead to a panic in the international financial markets. Following the 2008 financial crisis, we have seen debt crises hit Ireland, Greece, and Italy, with fears that this could spread further and cause a global economic downturn. The financial markets are on edge today, with U.S. Treasury bonds being the safe haven for most investment capital . Refusing to raise the debt ceiling would recklessly disrupt the sale and purchase of new Treasury bonds, and could potentially cause a run on outstanding Treasurys as well, as investors sought other investments. This could have catastrophic consequences for our economy as well as the economic stability of the rest of the world. Refusing to raise the debt ceiling would also exacerbate the problems with our long-term budget outlook. The budget deficit right now is the result of two distinct sets of changes since 2001, when we last had a budget surplus. First, a series of long-term policies enacted by the Bush administration—most notably the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, the decision to fight two major wars without raising taxes, and the passage of an unfunded Medicare Part D prescription drug program—created permanent structural budget deficits that will remain with us over the long term unless they are addressed. Second, the poor economy caused a drop in tax receipts alongside higher “countercyclical” spending, such as for unemployment insurance and food stamps. Implementing a debt ceiling freeze ignores the first set of issues and makes the second set of issues worse by forcing a massive multitrillion dollar hit to an already struggling economy and threatening to take us into a second Great Depression. This is hardly responsible policymaking. So let’s delve a little deeper into the consequences of such conservative folly. As we will demonstrate, the results of a replay of 1995 in 2011 would be the height of recklessness for our economy and global financial markets. Much more there so go read the rest. Someone needs to ask Morris to read the report as well.
Continue reading …enlarge Credit: Huffington Post Yup, they really love the Constitution. On the same day they make the hugely gratuitous and emptily symbolic gesture of demanding that the Constitution be read on the House floor, the GOP leadership forgets to swear in two members of Congress. Undaunted, those unofficial congressmen had no problem participating in their first votes. Oh, the irony : Two House Republicans have cast votes as members of the 112th Congress, but were not sworn in on Wednesday, a violation of the Constitution on the same day that the GOP had the document read from the podium. The Republicans, incumbent Pete Sessions of Texas and freshman Mike Fitzpatrick, missed the swearing in, but watched it on television from the Capitol Visitors Center. “That wasn’t planned. It just worked out that way,” said Fitzpatrick at the time, according to local press on hand, which noted that he “happened to be introducing Texas Congressman Pete Sessions while glad-handing his supporters in the Capitol Visitor Center that he secured for them when the House swearing in began.” The Republicans are looking to get unanimous consent to have their subsequent swearings-in applied retroactively. If they are not able, Sessions and Fitzpatrick’s votes will be stripped from the final counts. All in all, not a game changer on the votes, but does show you exactly how much respect for the Constitution the GOP really has . “Jokes aside, Congressmen-elect Pete Sessions and Mike Fitzpatrick’s actions raise serious questions: What in the world was more important to Congressmen-elect Pete Sessions and Mike Fitzpatrick than taking the oath of office, committing to support and defend the U.S. Constitution?” said Jennifer Crider, a senior official at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “Why did Speaker Boehner and House Republican leadership allow two people who were not sworn Members of Congress to vote and speak on the House floor? Republicans have spent a lot of time over the past two days proselytizing about House rules, but they don’t seem very keen on actually following the rules.” I think we all knew that anyway. Speaking of rules, isn’t there one that specifically limits members doing fundraising in public buildings? I’m pretty sure that t his little excursion of Fitzpatrick’s that kept him from being sworn in skirts along the ethics rules. Seriously, day one of the new GOP-controlled Congress and they’re already ignoring the Constitution, breaking the rules and flaunting ethics violations. They didn’t waste anytime going back to the Culture of Corruption, did they?
Continue reading …Those “birthers” out there still hoping to contest President Obama’s American citizenship won’t have much of an ally in the newly installed House Speaker John Boehner, but he also won’t question their own beliefs on that front.
Continue reading …So it appears that Bill Daley will be the new Chief of Staff to President Obama. Another corporatist centrist. I guess if Obama decides what agenda to follow as Steve Benen argues, then the choice might not really matter all that much: The banker background isn’t encouraging, but I could find it relatively easy to overlook this. By all accounts, Daley enjoys the support and respect of those who’ve worked with him, and has proven himself as an excellent manager. Those are good qualities to have in this job. But it’s his political instincts that rankle. Daley has opposed some of the same Obama policy achievements I think are worth supporting, and Daley’s belief that the mainstream Democratic agenda is too liberal strikes me as absurd. The flipside, though, is that I’m not sure just how much this matters. Rahm Emanuel wasn’t exactly a choice to get excited about, and his ideological instincts weren’t quite reliable, either. Indeed, it’s an open secret that Emanuel pleaded with Obama to forget about health care reform in 2009, insisting that the political investment wasn’t worth the reward. And as we know, the president ignored him, and pursued the priorities he wanted to pursue. Emanuel’s instincts didn’t get in the way of the best two years of progressive policymaking since LBJ. That’s why I’m not worked up either way about the Daley selection. He wouldn’t have been my pick — Obama neglected to ask me for my input again — but as far as I can tell, this isn’t a White House in which the chief of staff necessarily sets the agenda. That’s the president’s job. But it’s the centrist pols who have hurt the Obama administration the most. It doesn’t matter how far right Obama goes, he’ll always be painted as a socialist Kenyan anti-American President by the right. By not making legislation actually more progressive, Obama has lost major support from his base. When will he start showing some love to the base he needs? He could have hired a progressive Chief of Staff and it would have helped him, but maybe that’s what the President wants. I heard Charley Cook tell Andrea Mitchell that the left is going to be angry for the next few years. Ya think? Greg Sargent: As many have already pointed out, Daley repeatedly criticized Obama’s agenda as too left-wing. For instance, he said : “They miscalculated on health care. The election of ’08 sent a message that after 30 years of center-right governing, we had moved to center left — not left.” Now that Daley has been picked, there will be a fair amount of commentary to the effect that Obama has wisely received this message and is in the midst of a course correction. But here’s the thing: Daley is wrong. Obama didn’t govern from the “left.” And as it happens, he did govern from the “center left.” This has all been argued already at length by others, but here goes. Obama’s approach to the crises he inherited were by any sane measure mostly moderate and reasonable. The stimulus was smaller and less ambitious than most liberals wanted. The health care plan he adopted jettisoned the most liberal elements and embraced solutions once championed by Republicans. The Wall Street reform bill was the most sweeping overhaul of financial regulations in generations, but as observers across the spectrum have noted, it wasn’t fundamentally transformative. Obama is winding down the Iraq War, but he escalated in Afghanistan. And he has embraced some controversial Bush policies on civil liberties and terrorism. And so on. Digby reminded me of Recount : The film has already caused intra-party squabbling, not surprisingly. Some prominent Democrats have championed the film in full-page HBO ads. Others assert that it portrays key players in the George W. Bush versus Al Gore showdown, especially Gore adviser and former Secretary of State Warren Christopher and Gore campaign chairman William Daley (brother of Mayor Richard M. Daley), in an inaccurate and unflattering light. And this: Daley understood that before the campaign hit Florida they needed to set the tone early. Daley and Eskew decided the campaign tone would be over and they would take a statesmanlike and not confrontational tone. They then decided to bring on former secretary of state Warren Christopher to join the fight in Florida. Danny Strong, the actor (“Buffy,” “Gilmore Girls”) who wrote “Recount,” told the New York Times recently that, according to his research, Christopher and Daley “wanted to concede [the election] from Day 1,” a view both men strongly dispute in the same piece. Will Daley be a fighter or a conceder?
Continue reading …The Obama administration is working on cutting back defense spending to levels the U.S. hasn’t seen since before Sept. 11, 2001, but the proposed changes have more to do with economic reasons than any big strategic change from within military ranks, as The New York Times explained Thursday. The New York Times: The White House has ordered the Pentagon to squeeze almost all growth from its spending over the next five years, which will require eventually shrinking the Army and Marine Corps and seeking controversial increases in the fees paid by retired, working-age veterans for their health insurance, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Thursday. The reductions of up to 47,000 troops from the Army and Marine Corps forces — roughly 6 percent shrinkage — would be the first since the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, reversing the trend ever since. They will be made easier by the withdrawal under way from Iraq, and will only begin in 2015 — just as Afghan forces are to take over the security mission there according to agreements with NATO. But Mr. Gates said the cuts in Pentagon spending were hardly a peace dividend, and were forced by a global economic recession and domestic pressures to find ways to throttle back federal spending. Read more Related Entries January 5, 2011 Gibbs to Sign Off as Press Secretary January 4, 2011 Darrell Issa, Step Away From the Corporations
Continue reading …[Note: First an appearance from Lawrence O'Donnell's The Last Word on this topic, below my weekly column at AJE .] What does he want? Revenge. For what? Being born. This is the way famous gunslinger Doc Holliday answers equally famous lawman and good friend Wyatt Earp’s inquiry – in their depiction in the movie Tombstone – into why their sworn enemy, Johnny Ringo, is such a misanthrope. Sadly, this description would be equally accurate in explaining the actions of another Arizona transplant filled with endless rage: Senator John McCain. I first encountered the seething side of McCain when I was writing my 2008 book, The Real McCain, which was critical of him while pointing out a then-controversial fact, one no longer in dispute among those who lionized him back then: Namely, that the Led Zeppelin-groupie relationship he then enjoyed with many in the media was based on a faulty premise. John McCain was not a maverick (which he has since admitted after long identifying with the title), but a man driven by a need to fight. To fight for his own redemption, to fight with those who dared disagree with him, and most particularly, to fight with anyone who had delivered him a perceived humiliation of any sort. Think Yosemite Sam on a bender, or Vladimir Putin in those half-naked martial arts pictures. Sure, McCain was also motivated by the very same political expediency which drives too many politicos, as well as coveting an appearance on the Sunday morning talk circuit, the way an ambitious twenty-something blonde does meeting Edward Pattinson, or marrying Hugh Hefner. But the driving force for McCain has been pure vitriol and spite. When I first pointed out this inconvenient truth in my book — that many Republicans, including some willing to go on the record, were sure McCain was motivated by demons and not decency — I was criticized or dismissed in many quarters. Yet, it was obvious to me back then that his battles with fellow Republicans and Democrats had become personal, crusades for the eternally perturbed Abe Simpson stand-in. I broke two stories in my book that spoke to McCain’s temperament, first that he had physically assaulted a member of his own party after taunting him (Republican Representative Rick Renzi), and second, that he had called his wife a very not-safe-for-work term of non-endearment. In perhaps an emblematic McCain moment, during a policy meeting with a fellow Republican, McCain “called the guy a ‘sh—head.’ The senator demanded an apology. McCain stood up and said, ‘I apologize, but you’re still a sh—head.’” There’s a reason the dude was nicknamed “McNasty” in high school. So when others still saw McCain’s breaking from President Bush on taxes, healthcare, the environment and gun control in the early 2000s as a sign of “independence,” I tried to point out what I had learned: He was just doing it because he hated Bush for beating him in the primaries. And when others saw his loss to then-Senator Barack Obama and thought he’d work with Obama to display his maverickyness once Obama was sworn in, I warned that in all likelihood we’d see McCain once again do his best Judge Elihu Smails impression. But even I couldn’t have expected how truly ridiculous he’s become. As Deputy Political Director Michael McMurray of NBC News pointed out in a tweet just before Christmas, outside of Afghanistan, “the AZ senator didn’t support any major Obama WH policy in ’09-’10.” In fact, it has been much worse than that. Bush’s tax cuts for top earners, immigration reform, a nuclear arms treaty and even a military suicide prevention bill were not worthy of McCain’s support during the last two weeks. Not supporting a bill to prevent military suicides? Really? It’s almost like this particular Scrooge got a visit from the Ghost of Christmas Crazy while napping after an especially large portion of Quaker Oats. As journalist David Corn recently pointed out, looking at McCain’s increasingly desperate attacks against repealing the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy of allowing gays to serve in the military only if they were as vocal as a Buddhist Monk about who they really were, “…McCain practically threw a tantrum on the Senate floor, decrying ‘this bizarro world’ and denouncing senators in favor of repeal…Looking as if steam would shoot out of his ears at any moment, McCain went on to exclaim that ending DADT would endanger ’the survival of our young men and women in the military.’” Of course, as Corn also wrote, “Not only had McCain flip-flopped, he had become an angry crusader, seemingly full of rage at a policy initiative he once quasi-endorsed…It seemed more personal than policy — as in he really doesn’t fancy seeing a victory for President Obama, the fellow who prevented McCain from becoming BMOC.” That is really the gist of it, and it’s at the heart of who McCain has been his entire time in Washington, whether most journalists have been willing to see it or not. He’s not a statesman, nor has he ever been. He’s a petulant bomb thrower. He’s Simon Cowell in a suit. In fact, in a slightly alternative universe, it wouldn’t really be all that hard to imagine McCain standing on a Times Square street corner screaming at passersby that they all deserve to go to hell, or challenging random strangers to a fight to the death using sticks to determine who gets his clay marble collection. But in this one, he was just elected to another 6-year Senate term. And that tells you a helluva lot about the predicament in which we currently find ourselves as a nation. [Follow Me On Twitter: @cliffschecter ]
Continue reading …