Tag Archives: republicans

Game over.

Some storm, that Irene. Trouble is, it may – as so many recent catastrophic weather events have – turn out merely to be a taste of things to come. I can tell you, I’ve lived in the northeast for fifty years – that’s 350 dog years, young ‘uns! – and I have never seen anything like the flooding that has affected so much of northern and eastern New York. For chrissake, a street two blocks away from me was evacuated due to flooding… and we got just a very small piece of the storm. I shudder to think what might have happened to us if that storm had hit a bit further to the west.

Here’s the thing, though – this has been a disastrous year for weather pretty much everywhere. We’ve had tornados here in upstate New York. Multiple tornados. (My cousin saw three funnel clouds while out on the golf course that day.) Sure, we’ve gotten them before, but they were more like three in a decade, and not anything on a grand, midwestern scale. Just this morning, on NPR, the first three or four minutes of their news summary was taken up by extreme weather and other disasters – the aftermath of Irene in Vermont and New York, a tropical storm bearing down on New Orleans, record-breaking drought in Texas as well as wildfires there and in Louisiana. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve heard harried residents of some devastated town say something like “this is the worst ____ I’ve ever experienced” or “we haven’t had a ______ this bad in 60/80/100 years.”

Former NASA scientist James Hansen (denounced by conservative hacks as an “alarmist”) and others have spoken out for years on the forces behind this extreme weather. But you hardly have to be a rocket scientist to work this out. Our climate is more unstable than it’s ever been in our lifetimes – I think we can all acknowledge that. And as of a few years ago, we seemed to have something like a broad consensus that the burning of fossil fuels was a major contributor to global warming. I think at that time major corporations saw some profit potential in what was agreed to be an unshakeable truth. Since then, the financial crisis and the Great Recession have convinced them and their political allies that cash-strapped Americans can more easily be sold comforting lies than inconvenient truths. Now it’s all about getting the economy moving again, drilling out more oil and gas, and turning everything into cash.

There are perceived upsides to things like building a massive pipeline to carry tar sands oil from Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico. But there are enormous costs, as well. As Bill McKibben has said, the tar sands deposits represent an enormous carbon bomb waiting to go off. If it gets tapped more efficiently via that pipeline, it’s essentially “game over” in Hansen’s words, with costs previewed this past week in places like Montpelier VT and elsewhere.

luv u,

jp

Thinking small.

President Obama is on vacation this week, sort of. Him and about a thousand other people, bringing him information, taking his orders, blah, blah. I don’t know why he bothers, but… he does. With that job, you may as well assume that you’re going to be working straight for four to eight years. Even so, every American president since Carter has been determined not to seem like he’s barricaded in to the White House, manning his vigil in vain. So Obama, like his predecessors, takes a ceremonial vacation, and his detractors take aim. Of course, they would anyway. He has locked himself into Washington! He’s out of touch with (white) America! they would cry if he were to cancel his outing. May as well go, Barry.

Frankly, if he were to come back from the Vineyard with a Jobs / Recovery Act proposal that involves bold efforts to fund infrastructure projects, incentivize hiring, raise taxes on the rich, and so on, I would be the first to say that the man has earned his rest. But that is an extremely unlikely scenario. Obama, smart as he is, does not want to have to walk back every statement he has made about the debt since last year. That’s my best take on that. My worst is that he really believes that cutting spending, basic social safety net programs, and government investment in the short term will, as his Republican opponents believe, create jobs. If he doesn’t know they’re smoking crack on that one, we could be in for Japan in the 1990s.

Speaking of smoking crack, Texas Governor Rick Perry has launched himself headlong into the race to defeat Obama, entering amid a flurry of wild claims and random threats against the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Here’s a guy who has publicly referred to Social Security and Medicare as “ponzi schemes.” Seriously? This should not be hard to beat. Honestly, if Obama had just done what he needed to do, none of these freaks would stand a chance of winning. That it’s a race at all speaks to the weakness of his policies, not the strength of theirs…. because clearly, they’ve got nothing except tax cuts, tax cuts, and more tax cuts. And that’s nothing.

Will the president suggest a solution that is on the same grand scale as the problem, or is it small-bore policy all the way from here on out? We shall see.

luv u,

jp

Six of one, half-dozen of the other.

Consider this an open letter to the Congressional “Super Committee,” or gang of twelve – whatever you may wish to call them. (Keep it clean out there!) While you are considering how best to shaft poor, elderly, and working people (employed and unemployed) to bring greater benefits to our nation’s rich, I ask – nay, demand – that you consider these items:

How we got here. I’ve heard a lot of people in Congress, as well as various talking heads, putting their spin on the orgy of ignorance that led us to the creation of your Committee, as well as the series of missteps that led us to Standard and Poor’s decision to downgrade the nation’s debt rating. The factual answer to those questions is simple – the Republican party, a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America, was driven by its most radical faction (the so-called “tea party”) to manipulate the once mundane process of raising the debt ceiling for political gain. S&P’s judgment that our government can no longer make rational decisions about its debt is based on their recognition that, from now on, raising the debt ceiling will involve a similar political standoff.

The decision to politicize the debt ceiling legislation – really just an authorization to accommodate borrowing already mandated by Congress through the budget process –  has done perhaps irreparable damage to the faith and credit of the U.S. But even more importantly, it has backed us into a political process that is practically guaranteed to deliver to the G.O.P. precisely what they want: the gutting of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Who owes what. I’m not happy with president Obama, but the notion that he and the Democrats are responsible for exploding deficit spending is ludicrous. As the New York Times reported recently, based on figures from the CBO and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, $1.44 trillion of the national debt can be laid at Obama’s door; more than $5 trillion is attributable to his predecessor, including the FY 2009 deficit of $1.44 trillion, set before Obama took office.  The Bush tax cuts have contributed $1.8 trillion; unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have pitched in more than $1.4 trillion. How is this an issue of “entitlements” … unless that term can be used to describe tax cuts for wealthy people?

Seriously… (and apologies to Barney Frank) … are we going to ask 90-year-old ladies living on less than $20k to do without cost of living raises while allowing those who clear more than $250,000 a year to keep an extra $30 per thousand? I think not.

luv u,

jp