Tag Archives: congress

Political Rants

Lemmington D.C.

My dad never said it to me, but growing up I heard it said by adults to impressionable young people many times. The conversation would go something like, “But, dad… all my friends are going. Why can’t I?” And dad (or whoever) would say, “Well, if they all jumped off a cliff, would you do that, too?” It’s such a staple of parentage as to be cliche, but I’m not certain the G.O.P. class of 2010 was ever confronted with that type of challenge when they were in short pants. (Perhaps they are still in short pants – I’ve only ever seen most of them from the waist up.)

There’s nothing particularly unique about this attitude. It is, however, being applied in a very, very destructive way right about now. I will be charitable and suggest that perhaps many of these freshman House members (and some of their more senior colleagues) simply do not understand the gravity of the situation. Having said that, I’m going to do what people who say “having said that” inevitably do and say the complete opposite. I think it’s very possible that they know their failure to raise the debt ceiling is going to result in disaster, and that they hope that will gain them political points and cost the president more than a few. The Norquist-endorsed promise never to contemplate higher taxes under any circumstances is a very attractive position for conservatives and watery republicans like Boehner. It’s very, very shiny. Also, the consequences of breaking that promise are painful for them to contemplate. So …. over the cliff we go!

I’ve gotten agitated about this impasse over the last couple of weeks, as some of you readers know, and last night I took it upon myself to write my representative, Richard Hanna (R-NY) and ask him to be the adult in the room, show some leadership, and get his caucus to stop using the debt ceiling as a cheap bargaining chip. It was a respectful, serious letter – very unlike me. This is the response, in essence:

I voted no on H.R. 1954 which would implement the President’s request to increase the debt limit by $2.4 trillion. The bill did not include any spending cuts or budgetary reforms. I do not support raising the debt limit without any spending cuts or budgetary reforms. I do, however, understand that raising the debt limit will eventually be necessary and I hope that when the time comes it is accompanied by reforms that put our nation on a path to long-term fiscal responsibility. This will ensure that the dollar remains the world’s reserve currency and that the United States maintains a solid credit rating, boosting our fragile economic recovery and job creation.

Okay, so he’s another lemming, basically. He supported the efforts of his caucus to politicize the debt ceiling vote, and though he admits that raising it “will eventually be necessary,” he hopes it will be accompanied by “spending cuts or budgetary reforms”. He then expresses the hope that the austerity measures he advocates will bring about the credit security that his conference’s game of chicken – which he apparently supports – is threatening to blow to smithereens.

This isn’t the first time otherwise sensible legislators have followed wingnuts off a cliff. But it just may prove to be among the most disastrous.

luv u,

jp

Political Rants

Barry’s hand.

The ongoing debate over raising the debt ceiling has dominated another week’s worth of news coverage. Now Moody’s has put the U.S. government “on notice” – something I thought only Stephen Colbert could do – that our debt rating may be downgraded if the current impasse continues. As I mentioned in my last rant, this is a manufactured crisis. It’s a standoff not over debt yet to be incurred, but debt already booked by Congress by virtue of budget items already agreed to. There is no reason for this threatened default other than to make political points… and yet it continues, even though the downside risks are substantial.

How substantial? Default – or even near-default – could cause a global financial disruption on a scale that would dwarf that of late 2008. At the very least, a downgrade of the investment rating of U.S. Treasury bonds would be not only unprecedented but extremely costly, making service on our existing debt far more costly, blowing an even bigger hole in the federal budget. If that alone were to happen it would be bad enough. But these facts just don’t seem to register on Capitol Hill.

It’s often been said that, in a Democracy, we get the government we truly deserve. Last fall, the American people – by voting or by abstaining to do so – sent to the House of Representatives a class of Republicans that amount to the American version of the Taliban. The core of this class are fanatical believers in their own delusions; they see reality as a nefarious socialist plot. Fueled by tea party faux-populism, the new G.O.P. goes beyond their party’s traditional obsession about cutting taxes. Anything – anything – that brings more revenue to the Federal government is to them an unacceptable burden on the American taxpayer. (i.e. rich people. They apparently don’t consider burdensome the enormous costs displaced to workers, pensioners, etc. as a result of the massive cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs they demand.) That much is a given. The only wild card is in the president’s hand – what will he sacrifice to appease them?

This is what we voted for, whether we realize it or not. More likely not, since the Republicans did not advertise this part of their program. (It was going to be jobs, jobs, jobs, remember?) While it’s far from the only thing we need to do as citizens, it’s obvious that voting is essential… just as it’s clear that we need to hold our leaders – namely Obama – accountable when they give away the store.

luv u,

jp

Political Rants

Sex, lies, and the internets.

Okay, I’ll admit to being a bit disappointed in the guy. He went on a lying tour, and that was dead wrong as well as impossibly stupid. Didn’t think Weiner had that kind of stupidity in him, but I guess a certain amount resides within us all, eh? Though I’m not particularly given to admiring politicians, it’s always encouraging to see one that’s combative and unapologetically in favor of things like single-payer health insurance. Still, the basis of that is a willingness to speak often unpopular truths, so if you undermine your credibility, you lose your voice.  That is the worst of what a guy like Weiner is facing. One wishes he had thought of that before taking chances like a drunken fourteen-year-old.

I think, personally, that he missed an opportunity to make a point here: namely, that we all have private lives – that we all do things that are not illegal but that we prefer not to make known to the entire world. What Weiner was confessing in front of the ubiquitous blue curtain of shame is probably slightly less compromising than the secret online activities of most of the people in that room. He’s a sexting addict. There is a growing population of middle-aged people who are fans of sexting. It’s not an obsession I share (not at my data rates – every time I get a freaking text weather alert it costs me 30 cents… and I get a lot of alerts) but I may be in the minority. What Breitbart and his minions have done is just “out” the guy, not because they have some overriding conviction about fidelity and niceness, but because they disagree with him politically on a range of other issues, and Weiner has always been outspoken.

The basic question is this: Does a public figure have a right to a private life? Is it anyone else’s business if Anthony Weiner or Chris Lee or whoever engages in dalliances on the side, unbeknownst to their wives, if those persons they exchange x-rays with are 1) adults and 2) willing participants in the exchange? Sure, it’s embarrassing to have a picture of your privates circulated to all and sundry. It would be so if that image was taken from an airport scanner, too. The real question here is what are the limits to legitimate human sexuality, and do these limits apply to members of congress? I’ll be honest – I don’t give a shit what people do over the internets, so long as they are not exploiting, harassing, or otherwise abusing people, children, animals, etc. Relationships between consenting, fully informed adults are between those adults. All Breitbart did was thrust it into the public space (so to speak).

Gotta love the guy, though. When Breitbart hijacked that press conference, he had the gall to complain about how Weiner’s dishonesty spoiled his weekend, then he proceeded to explain how he was blackmailing him with yet another photo, framing it as an act of human decency. As far as I’m concerned, any passing discomfort caused to Breitbart – rightly or wrongly in this case – is richly deserved.

luv u,

j