The Commentariat -- Dec. 18, 2013
** Tom Edsall of the New York Times: "In practice, [economist Mike] Konczal writes, the political left has abandoned its quest for deep structural reform -- full employment and worker empowerment -- and instead has 'doubled-down' on the safety net strategy. The result, in his view, is 'a kind of pity-charity liberal capitalism.' ... Survey data find that during hard times people become less altruistic and more inclined to see the poor as undeserving. They turn to the right, not the left, in periods of economic stress." ...
... CW: If you haven't time to read Edsall's column just now, save it for later. Konczal has put his finger on the key reason for the great American decline. The instigators of this decline, of course, are conservatives whose long-running plot to destroy popular empowerment has been a great success. But the other side -- the ostensible good guys -- have acquiesced & accommodated the villains. If you're looking for Neville Chamberlain, you'll find him in Bill Clinton & his Wall Street wolf pack. Barack Obama fell under their spell, where he remained his entire first term. It wasn't until he made his speech on income inequality a couple of weeks ago that we saw any evidence he had escaped the surly bonds of Clintonomics. Maybe he read Konczal. Maybe he read Robert Reich. Or Harold Meyerson. Something changed. What has not changed is his apparent belief that he can turn the destroyers into facilitators, that his red/blue/American states rhetorical fantasy of 2004 can come true. ...
... Sarah Hughes of the DCist: "... the D.C. Council unanimously passed an increase in the minimum wage [Tuesday] to one of the highest levels in the country.... The increase will raise the minimum wage to $9.50 in July 2014, $10.50 the following year, and $11.50 by 2016, with future increases tied to the Consumer Price Index."
Mark Mazzetti of the New York Times: "The Senate Intelligence Committee has asked the C.I.A. for an internal study done by the agency that lawmakers believe is broadly critical of the C.I.A.'s detention and interrogation program but was withheld from congressional oversight committees. The committee's request comes in the midst of a yearlong battle with the C.I.A. over the release of the panel's own exhaustive report about the program, one of the most controversial policies of the post-Sept. 11 era. The Senate report, totaling more than 6,000 pages, was completed last December but has yet to be declassified."
I mean, I am not kidding myself. It doesn't matter, however I rule. -- District Judge Richard Leon, to the parties during the NSA trial, on the likelihood that the case would go to the Court of Appeals and likely to the Supreme Court
Adam Liptak of the New York Times: "... it seems reasonably likely that the [NSA case decided by Judge Richard Leon], or a related one, will for the first time result in a definitive legal ruling [from the Supreme Court] on the constitutionality of one of the post-Sept. 11 government surveillance programs." ...
... Maureen Dowd: "Whatever we think of Snowden -- self-aggrandizing creep or self-sacrificing crusader against creepy government spying or sociopath with stolen documents, as The Wall Street Journal put it, or someone who should 'swing from a tall oak tree,' as John Bolton told Fox News -- it is absolutely clear that the N.S.A. went wild with technology that allowed it to go wild."...
... Cecelia Kang & Ellen Nakashima of the Washington Post: "Leaders of the nation's biggest technology firms warned President Obama during a lengthy meeting at the White House on Tuesday that National Security Agency spying programs are damaging their reputations and could harm the broader economy." ...
... Jackie Calmes & Nick Wingfield of the New York Times: "President Obama met with top technology industry executives on Tuesday to discuss two seemingly distinct controversies: a faulty health care website, and the digital surveillance practices of the National Security Agency. The meeting started with an announcement by Mr. Obama that he was reaching into the ranks of Microsoft, the software giant, to select Kurt DelBene as the next person to run HealthCare.gov. But the focus quickly turned from the health care site to the concerns of Apple, Microsoft, Google and other technology companies about the spying efforts, the latest illustration of the strained relationship between an industry and a White House that had long been close." ...
... Obama likes "House of Cards":
... Juliet Eilperin of the Washington Post: "The Obama administration tapped former Microsoft executive Kurt DelBene to take over managing HealthCare.gov on Tuesday.... DelBene, who recently retired from Microsoft and is married to Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), will serve as an unpaid senior adviser. He will succeed Jeffrey Zients, who is scheduled to head the National Economic Council beginning in February."
Kelly Whiteside of USA Today: "The White House delivered a strong message of opposition to Russia's anti-gay laws Tuesday with the announcement of its delegation to the opening ceremony of the Sochi Olympics. The White House delegation will include an openly gay athlete: tennis great Billie Jean King.... This marks the first Olympics since the 2000 Sydney Summer Games that a U.S. president, vice president, first lady or former president has not been a member of the delegation for the opening ceremony, which will be Feb. 7 in Sochi." The Politico story, by Jennifer Epstein, is here.
Keegan Hamilton of the Atlantic: "Excluding immigrants [from the ACA] was a key concession offered to moderate Democrats and conservatives, who insisted that no tax dollars go toward the undocumented. But keeping immigrants out of the ACA means that states and cities with large immigrant populations are likely face a huge strain on their budgets in the coming years. It gets worse: The law also trims $22 billion from Medicaid charity-care reimbursements.... In immigrant hubs such as New York..., nearly 70 percent of uninsured patients in the city's public hospitals and clinics are also undocumented."
On the Road with Darrell Issa & His Band of Obama-Bashing Rascals. Sherry Jacobson of the Dallas Morning News: "Four Texas congressmen took aim Monday at the federally paid navigators who are helping Texans access insurance coverage through the Affordable Care Act. Their criticism came during an unusual 'field hearing' by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform." Best bit: Darrell "Issa [RZealot-Calif.] asked [Dr. Randy] Farris, [regional administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] whether he knew that all applicant information ended up on the federal site. Farris said private information was not stored there. 'You need to watch more Fox, I'm afraid,' Issa said." Via TPM. ...
... Molly Reilly of the Huffington Post: "Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius is accusing Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) ... of attempting to 'stifle, intimidate and impugn the reputation' of Obamacare navigators, the individuals tasked with helping others sign up for coverage under the Affordable Care Act. In an op-ed in the Dallas Morning News, Sebelius said a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on the Affordable Care Act set to be held in Texas on Monday was 'designed' to derail the work of the navigators."
Congressional Job Openings
Richard Cowan of Reuters: "Three veteran members of the House of Representatives, two Republicans and one Democrat, announced their retirements just as the 2014 congressional campaign season starts to heat up. Republican Representatives Frank Wolf of Virginia and Tom Latham of Iowa, along with Democratic Representative Jim Matheson of Utah, made their separate announcements on Tuesday as Congress was winding up its legislative activity for the year."
News Lede
Reuters: "Russia's parliament on Wednesday approved an amnesty which lawyers said would free two jailed members of punk band Pussy Riot and enable 30 people arrested in a Greenpeace protest against Arctic oil drilling avoid trial."
Share Article
Reader Comments (18)
Looks like more economists are piling on (finally!), "Income Inequality Is Hurting The Economy, 3 Dozen Economists Say"
—Christopher S. Rugaber http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/17/income-inequality-economy_n_4460725.html
(Scott)* Brown, the Raymond James economist, says analysts used to debate whether inequality was worsening.
Now, he says, "there's not much denial of that ... and you're starting to see some research saying, yes, it does slow the economy."
Yeah, 'starting to see,' huh? What took you guys so long?
*(Not the centerfold hottie-ex-MA Senator-maybe-coming-to-you-next-from the South-Carolina-of-the-North. New Hampshire).
@CW : Actually found Edsall's commentary today easier to read & less lengthy than his usual.
Journalism 101: Both of the news stories about Rep Issa and Texas ACA issues quote the exchange in which Issa says Dr. Farris should watch more Fox News, after Farris said that personal information is not stored on the federal site. Neither report states whether or not Dr. Farris' statement is correct (i.e., whether personal information is on the fed site), or whether Fox News has conveyed more accurate information. I don't know for sure which is true -- but would expect that people who do news for a living would have told me in their report, so I don't have to research it. Crappy reporters, crappy editors = crappy journalism.
Marie, once again, thanks for putting your daily together so that at least we have a fighting chance of sorting out events and what they mean. You make your readers' day better, a life preserver on an ocean of bullshit.
@Patrick. I agree. I also looked for the answer in a couple of other reports. Maybe it depends on the meaning of "personal information." IMHO, SS#, financial statements, etc., constitute "personal information." Is that stuff is just "passing thru" Healthcare.gov? I just don't know.
Update: This Healthcare.gov page is helpful. So is this page:
"We will also use the information provided as part of the ongoing operation of the Marketplace, including activities such as verifying continued eligibility for all programs, processing appeals, reporting on and managing the insurance affordability programs for eligible individuals, performing oversight and quality control activities, combatting fraud, and responding to any concerns about the security or confidentiality of the information."
Sounds to me as if they're storing personal info for a long time.
Marie
I found the story (see today's Ledes) re: the Harvard student whose fake bomb alarm resulted in shutdowns, postponed exams, money spent, etc. so very disturbing. To think this guy would pull this crap because he wasn't prepared to take his exams stretches credulity. This is the third kind of University shutdown down in some months––two here in CT. The one at Yale because the police got a phone call miles away from the campus saying there was someone walking around with a gun––another phony threat. Looks like a copy cat syndrome (like school shootings). But back to the lad with the bad, bad moves–-Eldo Kim. I'm glad to know we have the technology to sniff out little bastards like this–––he used a fake email address––and so glad to know this:
"In addition, he claimed to enjoy “playing pool, trying new restaurants, watching terrible cult films, and playing with his Mini Schnauzer puppy.”
REALLY? Why in the world would I want to know this??? Good lord, we even get to know what KIND of dog? Why do we do this kind of reporting. Was this to portray Kim as just your ordinary student–––see folks? Anyone can call in bomb threats–-you don't have to be plumb crazy. Grrrrrrrrr!!!
The Edsall article is scary good. It perfectly defines the "I've got mines, F-U attitude." Succinct summation of the here and now:
"A mix of economic, social and political forces have weakened the clout of those in the bottom half of the income distribution. The list of forces is long, but its signal features are the decline in manufacturing jobs, the strengthening of the bargaining power of corporations, the gutting of middle income employment and competitive pressures to limit wage growth."
Gosh I felt like I missed out on the verve of yesterday's discussions. I was busy making copious amounts of tamales. Barbossa, you precisely captured my thoughts on Snowden and saved my keyboard from sticky masa fingers.
Late yesterday @cowichan asked:
"Quinnipiac poll released today.
"Who would you vote for president? Christie 45%, Clinton 40%
"Do you think Christie would make a good president? yes 46%
"Do you think Clinton would make a good president? yes 53%
WTF?"
As usual, you have to look at the polling data to understand the answers.
What the poll results reveal is that -- surprise, surprise! -- Republicans/conservatives are more rigid in their views than are Democrats/liberals &/or Clinton is a more polarizing candidate. Democrats & Republicans are consistent on whom they would vote for for president: 85 percent of Democrats said Clinton & 83 percent of Republicans said Christie.
But when it comes to whether or not these two would be good presidents, the story changes. Republicans just can't see Hillary as being any good; Democrats are more open-minded about Christie:
Thirty-three percent of Democrats said Christie would make a good president; only 19 percent of Republicans said Clinton would. Similarly, 40 percent of Democrats said no the question on Christie; 77 percent of Republicans said no on Clinton.
I'll bet you could have figured this out for yourself instead of having somebody else -- namely me -- look it up for you. (You also didn't provide a link. I had to find that myself, too.) Anyway, that's WTF.
Marie
Regarding the ongoing battle of Republicans to attack the social safety net: there was a jaw-dropping story on The Daily Show last night. The lead in was Jon Stewart's account of the efforts of conservatives to cut $40 billion from the SNAP program. Then they showed Jessica Williams (brilliant IMO) interviewing a Forbes reporter named John Tamny who believes that welfare is actually cruel to the recipients and challenges the idea that people in America are hurting for food because you don't see people in the streets with distended bellies. He believes that all government food welfare programs should be ceased; if in fact really hunger develops (you know it by the distended belies, see preceding) then private charities will jump in, he's just sure. So nobody should have to die - at least not too many. Here is the link to this nauseating performance:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/tue-december-17-2013-erik-prince
Re: Christi–––the bridge closing scandal is going to heat up and I'll betcha our New Jersey governor at large had one of his hidden hands into that mess. I'm finding this story quite intriguing.
Report from your sneaky, peeky Fox watcher:
Last night on Hannity who was going on and on about Obama taking so many vacations was stopped short by no other than Ari Fletcher, of all people (who must have gotten contacts because he no longer wears glasses) tells the half-wit Hannity that presidents need all the vacations they can muster because, heck, presidents work hard and even when they are on vacations they are working. Along with Ari was a Democratic strategist who reminded everyone how many vacations Ari's old boss Bush took (which explains Ari's position here) and Ari responded by saying that Bush spent his vacations at his home while Obama doesn't have a home (never mind that Hawaii was once home to Obama). This did not comfort Hannity who continued to blather on while showing a photo of Obama on the golf course––"He sure doesn't seem to be working here!"––he says. I'm getting to love Fox News–-it's like getting my fix of taradiddles and tommyrot to keep the blood flowing to the left.
Excuse me if everyone in this commentariat already knows this, but it escaped my attention until today, and better fits yesterday's discussion:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/12/18/the-cia-and-the-washington-post/
On interpreting Q-Poll -- another major definitional issue is, when asking if X would be a "good" President -- what is the responder's perception of the meaning of "good." The term "good", unless anchored in a definition and some scale (1-10 type), is totally subjective, with unknowable meaning.
Example: I'm a Democrat and want to see progressive values built into our society, so an R-President, anyone, who would appoint another Scalia and sign a bill to repeal the ACA is "bad" -- because he's an R.
Or: I'm apolitical and think either Christy or Clinton could handle the job of President, so either of them is OK, thus "good."
As a TAC Officer in Flight School used to tell us at exam time, RTFQ.
Meaningful poll Q's take a lot of work to craft. Not all pollsters do it.
@Pattrick, you point out a key problem with polling ~ that questions take a lot of work to craft and not all pollsters do it. Also, good polling must TEST the questions on a sample of the audience to be polled (which is already a sample of the greater audience) before administering the actual poll. And, aside from the actual questions and their definition of key words/phrases, the person doing the polling brings in bias which can be reflected in the way the question is asked, the tone of voice, the gender, the color of the skin, etc., etc. ~ even, in 'statistically significant' research!
PD,
Since you brought up the alternative universe inhabited by wingnuts, on display 24/7 courtesy of Roger (Winger in Chief) Ailes, I felt obliged to return, very briefly, to the hilarity of a few days ago ensuing from Megyn (Only White People Matter) Kelly's proclamation regarding the skin color of Santa Claus and Jesus.
Well, Megyn tried to walk that crazy back and say that she was only kidding (Did you watch it? Kidding my ass...), then that she was only talking to the kiddies (oh, even better Megs, lets fill those little heads with racist propaganda). Now it seems the Fox-rots are all up in arms because how dare anyone take what they say and repeat it and say stuff about them that's true!
But never fear racist pigs! Bill (Killer) O'Reilly has leapt upon the pale horse and will defend her right to spread hatred and discrimination (the Fox Prime Directive, isn't it?). First he says it's no big deal but then goes out of his way to remind everyone that she was right and Santa IS a white guy, and everyone should just shut up about it.
Of course Christmas is white!
I guess if you're gonna run that dessicated old "War on Christmas" saw year after year you might as well take every opportunity to remind the drooling regulars of all the ways in which THOSE people are trying to run you--and your superior race--into the ground, and pull you down with the mongrels.
This must all be going down swell with those three guys in the GOP who are hoping to set up satellite Republican tents in locations other than country clubs and KKK rallies.
We're talking about a party whose best presidential candidate lost 83% of the minority vote. No wonder the wingnuts want to kill the voting rights act and bring back poll taxes.
This is the party whose representatives consistently disparage, insult, and defame non-whites. Take Phyllis Schlafly (Oh please) who recently advised Republicans to forget Latino voters because they don't know much about anything and "They’re running an illegitimacy rate that’s just about the same as the blacks are" and aren't big on "limited government". So forget 'em. (Don't you just love expressions like "the blacks"? As if they're some kind of species of bug?)
They can cut the grass but don't try talking to them
Of course not all Republicans are that hard-hearted. Take Don Young (R-Stupid), representative from the state of Palin who told an audience that he and his dad "...used to hire 50 to 60 wetbacks to pick tomatoes" on their farm. Nice, Don. Cesar Chavez would have been proud to work for you guys.
Then one of the premiere wingnut "think" tanks (Heritage, natch) last spring released a report, co-authored by Jason Richwine, warning that allowing all those non-white, non-Republicans into the country would cost the US billions of dollars. This same guy wrote elsewhere that Latinos were just too stupid to be Americans because of their chronically low IQs which would likely never improve, even after generations of mooching off real Americans.
White people are just a lot smarter than brown people. And always will be. So get over it.
These are just a few of the many reasons--new ones every day folks--that the GOP needs to keep short-circuiting democracy, making voting harder than ever for non-whites, and stealing and rigging elections. As their base of angry white people and staggeringly stupid racists dwindle, the chances of them winning a national election comes closer and closer to circling the drain
But, hey, Fox idiots. Keep on with the White People Rule meme. You're a boon to the cause. I'm sure Ted Cruz/Rand Paul/Rick Santorum/Mike Huckabee/Some Other Idiot will do fine in '16. As long as they're running against a dead person.
White Peeples Rool!
@Patrick. Exactly. You have to know the question before you can understand the answer.
In the early 1980s when I lived in Oklahoma & there was still a chance the ERA would pass the Oklahoma legislature, a conservative friend of mine came to me incensed that a female Democratic legislator had pulled a misleading dirty trick in polling her constituents. What did she ask in this "misleading" poll?
"Do you agree or disagree that this should be the law:
"'Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.'"
The vast majority of her constituents agreed. The "dirty trick" of course was that the legislator did not mention that this was the language of the ERA. My friend said, "Of course people are going to agree with that! But they hate the ERA." He couldn't see the irony of his reaction.
And of course he was right about the poll results: they would have been quite different if the legislator had asked what my friend thought was an "honest" question: "Do you favor the ERA?" (The state senate did vote to ratify the ERA; the assembly didn't, so Oklahoma was one of the states that caused the Amendment to fail.)
Of course a sly reporter could have written a news story that read, "Eighty-seven percent of voters in District 99 favor passage of the Equal Rights Amendment, according to recent a poll conducted by State Sen. Missy Leading (D-Okiedokie)."
It all depends on how you word the question.
Marie
Victoria D: Yup that interview (skewering) with the Forbes guy was worth a watch just to watch that guy get his ass handed to him.
I carried on to watch Erik Prince: he is why the Left gets beat. Smooth, well spoken, cool under pressure, completely doesn't give a shit about anything other than his objectives. A more sociopathic slimeball all dressed up in a nice suit you will seldom see. Unless, that is, you look inside America's corporate boardrooms. I needed a blanket, a sweater and a hot cup of cocoa after seeing that cold snake in action.
The Left needs a widely published, centralized list of the activities and whereabouts of fascists like Prince, the Cheney's, any of the Bushes, certainly any of the Kochs, etc. These guys hate any light they can't control; like it or not they're good at what they do and dispoiling general society is their game.
Frank Rich on the NSA Ruling "...Heartening Moral Victory, Not Much Else..."
"...the lawsuit that prompted Leon’s ruling came from a fringe player: Larry Klayman, a longtime “lunatic” (in the apt epithet of Jeffrey Toobin), birther and tea party firebrand who has called Obama a “half-Muslim, anti-white, socialist fraud.” If Klayman is by default the most effective protector of civil liberties in America, we’re in even more trouble than we had thought."
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/12/frank-rich-the-nsa-ruling-was-a-moral-victory.html
Salon is publishing their 2013 hack list. Our favorite Coulumnist made the list:
http://www.salon.com/2013/12/18/hack_list_no_4_david_brooks/
Marie: your hypothetical sly OK reporter (above) would have been mis-reporting. Just because you (a poll responder) agree with the words' intent, doesn't mean that you agree that they should be a stand-alone amendment to the U.S. Constitution. To get trivial and absurd, I believe (2+2=4) to be objectively true and provable, and I agree with the equation; I don't agree it should be an amendment. (Absurd, right?)
@ Patrick: I guess I should have made that, "You have to know the whole question before you can understand the answer." The preamble here -- "Do you agree or disagree that this should be the law:" -- covers both the law & the content. That is, if you think the content should be law, you say "yes"; ergo, the question covers your objection.
Obviously, if the legislator had asked, "Do you think this should be an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? -- which would have been more accurate -- she would have given away her dirty trick. However, I doubt many poll responders mull the difference between a law & a Constitutional Amendment. If they're fer it, they're fer it.
Marie