Okay, kiddies, now that we're a mere 5 months to New Hampshire and Iowa, the race for the GOP Presidential nomination is in full-swing. Heck, we even have our first drop out. That's right, we no longer have Tim Pawlenty around to ignore. Too soon? No, just no one cares? Ouch.
In the interim, we have the entrance of GOP Savior No. 1,387 - Rick Perry. Waiting in the wings are grossly unpopular in his home state, Chris Christie, let's end Medicare, Paul Ryan, and the poor man's Tim Pawlenty, George Pataki. Not exactly a thrilling list for sure.
Okay, so let's start grading the contendahs:
Rick Perry: He's been in for what, a week? Well, he's become the frontrunner, and has turned into a rich man's Michelle Bachmann. He's just as nutty, but has been elected to state-wide office, and doesn't have a creepy husband. On the other hand, he advocated for the end of Social Security and Medicare (which he has since retracted), his "Texas miracle" is based on minimum wage jobs, and he's a bit too Bush-like. In fact, I'll go ahead and call him a poor man's George Bush. Still, the Tea Party is basically all of Bush's diehard supporters, so that isn't a bad thing. Also, because Perry can be "folksy," the media will like him, and he won't get completely crushed against Obama. Overall, not a bad pick for the GOP Primary voter.
Mitt Romney: Mittens is still the flip-flopping, extremely creepy and weird guy he always was. To be honest, I think he's done, because everyone knows who he is, and if they were going to vote for him, they would've done so before. Some would argue that Bachmann loses the most by Perry being in the race because Perry appeals to the same base of voters. I disagree. Mittens loses his biggest cache - the frontrunner status. Without it, is there any reason to pay attention to the Mittster?
Michelle Bachmann: Here's the thing about Michelle Bachmann, even though she's nuts, and even though her husband is a little bit flamey (though totally not gay, allegedly), she still has a strong appeal to the Tea Party faction of the Republican Party (also known as the average GOP Primary Voter). After all, she was on the ground first. Perry's presence hurts her, but she won't go down without a fight. At the same time, being elected to a statewide office is actually an important step in running for President, and so go down she will. Now, I can see Bachmann on the ticket, but if Perry is the nominee, this is less likely.
Ron Paul: Like Bachmann, he has deep levels of support, though he's not as crazy. The problem with Ron Paul is that the faction he appeals to isn't big enough in the GOP and he has no crossover appeal. Also, everyone knows who he is. If he was going to be the nominee, he'd be up big by now.
Herman Cain: Recently, a Tea Partier told a Latino Democratic Congressman from New Mexico (which is 45% Latino), who's parents held elective office in the United States, to get out of public office to make room for an American. I mention this because no matter how conservative Herman Cain is, he is still an African American, and thus, still suspect to a significant portion of the GOP. So Cain will make waves, but he won't get the nod.
John Huntsman: There is no way in hell John Huntsman will take the GOP nomination. None. He believes in evolution, agrees with scientists on Global Warming, and used to work for Barack Obama. But, I'm getting the feeling that he's okay with that. Given the anger with Obama from the Left and the Center, I think that Huntsman is setting himself up for an independent campaign. And I'm not alone - Nate Silver thinks so too.
As far as the other candidates in the race are concerned, I don't see any of them going anywhere.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Monday, August 22, 2011
Quick Primer on Constitutionality
One thing I keep hearing as an attorney is about how x is unconstitutional (when it really is constitutional), or how I hear y is a great program and that there's no reason for it to be unconstitutional, and so on. So, let's lay down a few laws about I think is constitutional and what's not.
First the framework - the Constitution of the United States of America is an amazing document that lays out what the Federal Government and the State Goverments can and cannot do, and lays out our various freedoms. As this document is based upon the work of John Locke, the Constitution is generally concerned with life, liberty and property, plus a few protections actually spelled out (freedom of religion, speech, due process, equal treatment, etc.)
Now, let's consider this for a brief moment - virtually every part of your life, your property and your liberty are regulated in some way, shape or fashion. So, if the Constitution is supposed to protect those things, what gives? Well, because government couldn't effectively function without regulating your life in some way, courts will allow the government to interfere with your rights if it has a good reason.
Take jaywalking, for instance. State governments can actually prohibit you from walking across the street where you want, and when you want. Why? Because people are dumbasses and will get themselves killed by oncoming traffic. Also, jaywalking laws don't take away your liberty as much as ask you for a few seconds of your time. Because its a low level right (seriously, you don't need to cross the street that fucking badly), Courts will allow this one if the government has a reason for it.
As you go up the ladder of rights, reasons need to get better and better. Say you want to forcibly sterilize women who have mental disabilities because you don't want them to have kids with mental disabilities - woah, woah, hold up there mister. That kind of regulation crosses too many lines, because you're fucking with someone's ability to have kids - a major part of the right to life and liberty. There have better be a damned good explanation for that.
There are also some areas where the Courts won't buy the government's argument. This is especially true if the regulation has to do with anything race-based. Thanks to 100 years of segregation and Jim Crow laws, anything that remotely touches on race comes with a "you better have all your ducks in a row, Government" warning label. With gender discrimination, the level isn't quite as high, but its close.
There is also another intervening factor - the Constitution actually gives the government the right to do stuff. As you might expect, if the government has the right to do something, then fuck all rights. Conscription, for instance, affects the right to life, liberty, property and a whole host of other rights, but the Courts let it through because Congress has the right to pass laws to create armies and navies. Civil rights laws are explicitly allowed because Congress has the right to affect interstate commerce (which is basically everything) and have the right under the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to pass laws to guarantee equality.
But when faced with what's constitutional or not, the issue is 1) how important is the right affected by the law; 2) how good is the government's reason for the intrusion; and 3) does the Government have an explicit right to intrude on your rights? So, when the Courts say something is unconstitutional, its generally because they've done that analysis. Now, they're not always right, but they all follow this general framework.
First the framework - the Constitution of the United States of America is an amazing document that lays out what the Federal Government and the State Goverments can and cannot do, and lays out our various freedoms. As this document is based upon the work of John Locke, the Constitution is generally concerned with life, liberty and property, plus a few protections actually spelled out (freedom of religion, speech, due process, equal treatment, etc.)
Now, let's consider this for a brief moment - virtually every part of your life, your property and your liberty are regulated in some way, shape or fashion. So, if the Constitution is supposed to protect those things, what gives? Well, because government couldn't effectively function without regulating your life in some way, courts will allow the government to interfere with your rights if it has a good reason.
Take jaywalking, for instance. State governments can actually prohibit you from walking across the street where you want, and when you want. Why? Because people are dumbasses and will get themselves killed by oncoming traffic. Also, jaywalking laws don't take away your liberty as much as ask you for a few seconds of your time. Because its a low level right (seriously, you don't need to cross the street that fucking badly), Courts will allow this one if the government has a reason for it.
As you go up the ladder of rights, reasons need to get better and better. Say you want to forcibly sterilize women who have mental disabilities because you don't want them to have kids with mental disabilities - woah, woah, hold up there mister. That kind of regulation crosses too many lines, because you're fucking with someone's ability to have kids - a major part of the right to life and liberty. There have better be a damned good explanation for that.
There are also some areas where the Courts won't buy the government's argument. This is especially true if the regulation has to do with anything race-based. Thanks to 100 years of segregation and Jim Crow laws, anything that remotely touches on race comes with a "you better have all your ducks in a row, Government" warning label. With gender discrimination, the level isn't quite as high, but its close.
There is also another intervening factor - the Constitution actually gives the government the right to do stuff. As you might expect, if the government has the right to do something, then fuck all rights. Conscription, for instance, affects the right to life, liberty, property and a whole host of other rights, but the Courts let it through because Congress has the right to pass laws to create armies and navies. Civil rights laws are explicitly allowed because Congress has the right to affect interstate commerce (which is basically everything) and have the right under the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to pass laws to guarantee equality.
But when faced with what's constitutional or not, the issue is 1) how important is the right affected by the law; 2) how good is the government's reason for the intrusion; and 3) does the Government have an explicit right to intrude on your rights? So, when the Courts say something is unconstitutional, its generally because they've done that analysis. Now, they're not always right, but they all follow this general framework.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Environment, Economics and Externalities
Recently - okay, earlier today - the guys at Two Cathedrals (a great blog by the way) put up a post equating environmental protection with patriotism. As much as I like the blog, I think the post missed the point. Environmental protection isn't important because it protects democracy, but rather, when democracies protect the environment, its evidence that the democracy is working. Sort of a chicken and egg kind of a thing, I know, but bear with me.
First of all, let's clarify something - for all of the many benefits of the market system, the market fails repeatedly at environmental protection. In a typical market transaction, a buyer and a seller come together, have a meeting of the minds and then money changes hands. Now, the environmental degradation in the use or the manufacture of the product isn't really a part of the transaction, because often the environmental effects hit someone who isn't even part of the transaction. With SUV's, for instance, the seller and buyer both knew that SUV's were dangerous to the environment, but went ahead with the sale because the seller wanted to make money, and the buyer wanted a kickass Escalade for under $50k. The guy living in the South Pacific who ends up having to leave his home because of rise of the oceans gets screwed, but he isn't part of the deal.
The thing is, we know all of this. There are lots of examples of industry screwing the environment - whether its out and out dumping of toxic chemicals, or selling products that are environmentally unfriendly - and the people on the outside are the ones who get screwed. This documentary on HBO about Ford and illegal dumping is particularly depressing. In authoritarian regimes and malfunctioning democracies these horrific acts of degradation are ignored because they stand in the way of "progress" or money making at the hands of the economic elites.
In functioning democracies, on the other hand, the other guy, the one who suffers from the externality that the buyer and seller ignore, has power to go to the government and say, "Hey, hey, I'm fucking dying over here man!" And not only can he say this, but someone will actually listen to his complaints, and act on it because its the right thing to do. Thus, environmental protection isn't so much a necessity of a functioning democracy, but a symptom of a functioning democracy.
By the way, those who argue that the market can cure all ills without government intervention forget that the market is a human invention, with all of humanity's foibles. For instance, it turns out that owners of hybrids are bigger douchebags than drivers of Hummers because hybrid owners feel like they've done enough good by owning a hybrid. This carries over to lots of other areas as well - we humans have only so much altruism in our hearts. Also, keep in mind, that if the market was going to stop environmental degradation without governmental interference, it would have done so already. Instead, economists created the concept of externality to specifically address environmental degradation.
First of all, let's clarify something - for all of the many benefits of the market system, the market fails repeatedly at environmental protection. In a typical market transaction, a buyer and a seller come together, have a meeting of the minds and then money changes hands. Now, the environmental degradation in the use or the manufacture of the product isn't really a part of the transaction, because often the environmental effects hit someone who isn't even part of the transaction. With SUV's, for instance, the seller and buyer both knew that SUV's were dangerous to the environment, but went ahead with the sale because the seller wanted to make money, and the buyer wanted a kickass Escalade for under $50k. The guy living in the South Pacific who ends up having to leave his home because of rise of the oceans gets screwed, but he isn't part of the deal.
The thing is, we know all of this. There are lots of examples of industry screwing the environment - whether its out and out dumping of toxic chemicals, or selling products that are environmentally unfriendly - and the people on the outside are the ones who get screwed. This documentary on HBO about Ford and illegal dumping is particularly depressing. In authoritarian regimes and malfunctioning democracies these horrific acts of degradation are ignored because they stand in the way of "progress" or money making at the hands of the economic elites.
In functioning democracies, on the other hand, the other guy, the one who suffers from the externality that the buyer and seller ignore, has power to go to the government and say, "Hey, hey, I'm fucking dying over here man!" And not only can he say this, but someone will actually listen to his complaints, and act on it because its the right thing to do. Thus, environmental protection isn't so much a necessity of a functioning democracy, but a symptom of a functioning democracy.
By the way, those who argue that the market can cure all ills without government intervention forget that the market is a human invention, with all of humanity's foibles. For instance, it turns out that owners of hybrids are bigger douchebags than drivers of Hummers because hybrid owners feel like they've done enough good by owning a hybrid. This carries over to lots of other areas as well - we humans have only so much altruism in our hearts. Also, keep in mind, that if the market was going to stop environmental degradation without governmental interference, it would have done so already. Instead, economists created the concept of externality to specifically address environmental degradation.
Friday, July 29, 2011
On Gay Marriage and Polygamy
Recently, my favorite conservative, Bogart, asked me about the legal challenges to anti-polygamy laws using the precedents from the gay marriage debate to argue that government has no right to prohibit the actions of consenting adults. I have a distinct impression that Bogart was trying to bait me into saying that either (a) the precedents such as Lawrence v. Texas were wrong; or (b) that polygamy is all good. The thing is, same sex marriage and polygamy are two different things. When states allow same sex marriage, the following happens:
In other words, states print up the marriage licenses (and get paid for them), but otherwise everything remains the same. Marriage, in the government's eyes is simply a way property is distributed. Two people want to enter into an agreement to share property for whatever reason, government is good with that. There was a time when traditional gender roles were entrenched in government family law statutes (making same-sex marriage a bitch to administer), but those days have long since passed. As Judge Walker noted in his ruling overturning Proposition 8 (California's gay marriage ban), there is simply no half-assed reason to keep the ban.*
Polygamy is a completely different animal. For one, plural generally occurs when there is a distinct power imbalance between the sexes. Indeed, plural marriage would necessitate that one gender is dominant. If I had three wives, I could afford to piss off two of them at any one time, and be fine. And if I managed to piss off all of my wives, I could just as easily find a new wife. This is why cultures that allow plural marriage tend to have an extreme inequality between the sexes. For this reason alone, plural marriage would violate the governmental policy of equality between the sexes.
Now, a way to avoid the inequality, of course, would be to allow my hypothetical wives to marry other men while being married to me. But ultimately, this leads to the other problem with plural marriage - it would require states to redefine marriage. Now, this argument has been made about same sex marriage, but in the case of same-sex marriage, the only difference between same-sex marriage, and opposite sex marriage without traditional gender roles is who is getting married, and maybe the sexual practices of the participants in that marriage. That's not a good reason to ban same-sex marriage.
Plural marriage would necessitate the rewriting of the family law statutes because all marriages come to an end - either by divorce or death. What happens then? If one of my hypothetical wives divorces me because I'm being a dick, or because she likes her other husband more, how is the marital estate divvied up? Or, if the State deems me and my wives married to one another, what happens if one of my hypothetical wives divorces one of my other wives? The whole concept of the marital estate would have to end.
And ultimately, that's reason enough to not legalize plural marriage. Marriage from a government's perspective is all about property. Not love, not commitment, not children, but property. Two people want to become one in the eyes of the government, fine, then they're property is as of one. Throw that out, and there is no reason for government to even acknowledge marriage. So yes, people should be able to live their lives as they want, and certainly decriminalization of plural marriage isn't a bad idea, but the legal recognition of plural marriage is simply too problematic to allow.
*I'm referring, of course to the Rational Basis Test where Courts will allow minor intrusions into due process or equal protection rights for even the most half-assed reasons. If you have the chance to read Judge Walker's decision, please do so. The arguments in favor of Prop. 8 all fell into "gay people are bad, m'kay," category.
Polygamy is a completely different animal. For one, plural generally occurs when there is a distinct power imbalance between the sexes. Indeed, plural marriage would necessitate that one gender is dominant. If I had three wives, I could afford to piss off two of them at any one time, and be fine. And if I managed to piss off all of my wives, I could just as easily find a new wife. This is why cultures that allow plural marriage tend to have an extreme inequality between the sexes. For this reason alone, plural marriage would violate the governmental policy of equality between the sexes.
Now, a way to avoid the inequality, of course, would be to allow my hypothetical wives to marry other men while being married to me. But ultimately, this leads to the other problem with plural marriage - it would require states to redefine marriage. Now, this argument has been made about same sex marriage, but in the case of same-sex marriage, the only difference between same-sex marriage, and opposite sex marriage without traditional gender roles is who is getting married, and maybe the sexual practices of the participants in that marriage. That's not a good reason to ban same-sex marriage.
Plural marriage would necessitate the rewriting of the family law statutes because all marriages come to an end - either by divorce or death. What happens then? If one of my hypothetical wives divorces me because I'm being a dick, or because she likes her other husband more, how is the marital estate divvied up? Or, if the State deems me and my wives married to one another, what happens if one of my hypothetical wives divorces one of my other wives? The whole concept of the marital estate would have to end.
And ultimately, that's reason enough to not legalize plural marriage. Marriage from a government's perspective is all about property. Not love, not commitment, not children, but property. Two people want to become one in the eyes of the government, fine, then they're property is as of one. Throw that out, and there is no reason for government to even acknowledge marriage. So yes, people should be able to live their lives as they want, and certainly decriminalization of plural marriage isn't a bad idea, but the legal recognition of plural marriage is simply too problematic to allow.
*I'm referring, of course to the Rational Basis Test where Courts will allow minor intrusions into due process or equal protection rights for even the most half-assed reasons. If you have the chance to read Judge Walker's decision, please do so. The arguments in favor of Prop. 8 all fell into "gay people are bad, m'kay," category.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Now for Something Completely Different
While all this debt ceiling craziness has been going on in Washington, a right-wing anti-Islamic, anti-immigrant sociopath killed over seventy people in Norway. I'm eschewing the link because you all know what I mean. This attack, by the way, is proportionally a worse attack than 9-11 (Norway is a much smaller country). Now, its important to consider the guy's ethnicity (undoubtedly Norwegian) and his religion (Christianity), because far too often we think of only Muslims committing terrorist attacks. As we have all witnessed, this is simply not the case.
Religious extremism, it seems, leads to violence. From the Crusades (where we Christians reintroduced the idea of jihad to the Muslim world), to al Qaeda, to the Islamist regimes in Iran and Afghanistan, we have a deep history of supposedly deeply humble people doing truly awful things. Heck, the Old Testament of the Bible applauds acts of genocide on several occasions.
As the same time, religion can elevate our lives and our actions to greater heights. I have been to Quaker prayer meetings that restored my faith in humanity, seen Christians risk life and limb to help their fellow man (one of my fellow parishioners at St. David's Episcopal Church was arrested in South Africa for helping Bishop Tutu fight against apartheid), and have heard of other acts of stupendous bravery, kindness, and humility inspired by deeply held religious beliefs.
So how is it that on one hand religion is so destructive and on the other appeals to our best instincts? Roger Williams believed it had to do with the mixing of Church and State. And in part, he was right. Most religious violence is committed whenever religion is mixed with politics. But its not just mixing politics with religion, its religious coercion that is so ugly. When a single faith is deemed "the only religion" and all must believe in it or perish, that is when its okay to kill those who disagree with you (about really tiny and stupid stuff - the Thirty Years' War was fought over whether God like people who have faith or people who have faith and do good stuff), blow up innocent civilians, and otherwise do terrible things.
But when people willingly submit to God, there is something beautiful about it. Faith is a glorious thing, and something that atheism simply cannot reproduce. Unfortunately, every time I allow my faith to be rekindled, I realize that for many, the beauty of faith is skin-deep.
Religious extremism, it seems, leads to violence. From the Crusades (where we Christians reintroduced the idea of jihad to the Muslim world), to al Qaeda, to the Islamist regimes in Iran and Afghanistan, we have a deep history of supposedly deeply humble people doing truly awful things. Heck, the Old Testament of the Bible applauds acts of genocide on several occasions.
As the same time, religion can elevate our lives and our actions to greater heights. I have been to Quaker prayer meetings that restored my faith in humanity, seen Christians risk life and limb to help their fellow man (one of my fellow parishioners at St. David's Episcopal Church was arrested in South Africa for helping Bishop Tutu fight against apartheid), and have heard of other acts of stupendous bravery, kindness, and humility inspired by deeply held religious beliefs.
So how is it that on one hand religion is so destructive and on the other appeals to our best instincts? Roger Williams believed it had to do with the mixing of Church and State. And in part, he was right. Most religious violence is committed whenever religion is mixed with politics. But its not just mixing politics with religion, its religious coercion that is so ugly. When a single faith is deemed "the only religion" and all must believe in it or perish, that is when its okay to kill those who disagree with you (about really tiny and stupid stuff - the Thirty Years' War was fought over whether God like people who have faith or people who have faith and do good stuff), blow up innocent civilians, and otherwise do terrible things.
But when people willingly submit to God, there is something beautiful about it. Faith is a glorious thing, and something that atheism simply cannot reproduce. Unfortunately, every time I allow my faith to be rekindled, I realize that for many, the beauty of faith is skin-deep.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Estamos Jodidos en California. . .
Okay, title is something of an inside joke. Back during my political activist day, a friend of mine used to do a spot-on impression of California Governor Gray Davis - stilted language and all. Then to get huge laughs, he'd talk in Spanish as if he was the Governor, and we would all laugh our asses off. Stupid I know, but to get Davis' uberwhiteguy pitch while speaking in Spanish was hilarious.
Anyway, in case you haven't bothered to look it up, "estamos jodidos" means "we're fucked." And not just in California (that was the hat tip to my Gray Davis impersonating friend), but the whole country is about to be fucked. Big time. Our Congress is about to let the United States renege on its debts for the first time E-V-E-R. That's right kiddies, ever. Thing about it - during the first years of the republic, we paid our debts. When the British were kicking our asses and burning down Washington, D.C., we paid our debts. During the horrific violence of the Civil War, and the extreme financial crisis that was the Great Depression, we paid our debts. So why can't we pay our debts?
Because Congress won't pass a stupid bill to raise the debt ceiling so that the U.S. can borrow money to pay for the crap that Congress requires the U.S. to pay for. Got it? No? Okay, put it this way - go to a restaurant, order a bunch of crap, and then when the bill comes out, tell the restaurant you're only going to pay with the cash in your pocket, and not bust out the credit card. Do you think the restaurant will mind if the cash in your pocket only covers 50% of the bill? Yeah, it will.
And so will the people who are supposed to get paid by the Federal government by this time next Wednesday. But since no one can beat the Feds into paying (except maybe the military, who may or may not be paid), the only thing our creditors can do is raise interest rates on everyone else. For someone like me, who's looking to buy a house, I am about to get fucked. But guess what, everyone is going to get fucked. The higher interest rate will create a ripple of inflation throughout the world. Or, to put it in economic terms, failing to raise the debt ceiling is going to create a supply shock while we're going through a demand side recession. Kinda ironic that this would be done by supply-siders.
Make no mistake, unless something radical changes, there will be no deal. John Boehner, facing an increasingly hostile freshman class, knows that any debt ceiling deal will cost him his Speakership. The Tea Party, meanwhile, wants so badly to prevent Obama from getting reelected that its willing to destroy the country. As Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo put it, this is a game of chicken where one car doesn't have a driver.
And before we go all "a pox on both your houses," let's keep in mind that this fight has nothing to do with the deficit or the national debt. Failing to raise the debt ceiling will actually increase the deficit substantially. But even then, Obama and the Congressional Democrats have gone well to the right in hopes of forging a compromise. The Republicans, who have become slaves to their own base, simply cannot and will not make a deal. Hell, even John Boehner can't even pass his OWN plan.
So, in the nasally voice of Gray Davis, I say "Estamos Jodidos en los Estatos Unidos. . ." Ugh.
Anyway, in case you haven't bothered to look it up, "estamos jodidos" means "we're fucked." And not just in California (that was the hat tip to my Gray Davis impersonating friend), but the whole country is about to be fucked. Big time. Our Congress is about to let the United States renege on its debts for the first time E-V-E-R. That's right kiddies, ever. Thing about it - during the first years of the republic, we paid our debts. When the British were kicking our asses and burning down Washington, D.C., we paid our debts. During the horrific violence of the Civil War, and the extreme financial crisis that was the Great Depression, we paid our debts. So why can't we pay our debts?
Because Congress won't pass a stupid bill to raise the debt ceiling so that the U.S. can borrow money to pay for the crap that Congress requires the U.S. to pay for. Got it? No? Okay, put it this way - go to a restaurant, order a bunch of crap, and then when the bill comes out, tell the restaurant you're only going to pay with the cash in your pocket, and not bust out the credit card. Do you think the restaurant will mind if the cash in your pocket only covers 50% of the bill? Yeah, it will.
And so will the people who are supposed to get paid by the Federal government by this time next Wednesday. But since no one can beat the Feds into paying (except maybe the military, who may or may not be paid), the only thing our creditors can do is raise interest rates on everyone else. For someone like me, who's looking to buy a house, I am about to get fucked. But guess what, everyone is going to get fucked. The higher interest rate will create a ripple of inflation throughout the world. Or, to put it in economic terms, failing to raise the debt ceiling is going to create a supply shock while we're going through a demand side recession. Kinda ironic that this would be done by supply-siders.
Make no mistake, unless something radical changes, there will be no deal. John Boehner, facing an increasingly hostile freshman class, knows that any debt ceiling deal will cost him his Speakership. The Tea Party, meanwhile, wants so badly to prevent Obama from getting reelected that its willing to destroy the country. As Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo put it, this is a game of chicken where one car doesn't have a driver.
And before we go all "a pox on both your houses," let's keep in mind that this fight has nothing to do with the deficit or the national debt. Failing to raise the debt ceiling will actually increase the deficit substantially. But even then, Obama and the Congressional Democrats have gone well to the right in hopes of forging a compromise. The Republicans, who have become slaves to their own base, simply cannot and will not make a deal. Hell, even John Boehner can't even pass his OWN plan.
So, in the nasally voice of Gray Davis, I say "Estamos Jodidos en los Estatos Unidos. . ." Ugh.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
The Debt Ceiling Debate
Over the past few weeks and months, Washington has been bracing for a fight. With the debt ceiling about to be reached by the end of the month, the President and Congress have to agree to raise the debt ceiling or else the Treasury has to shut down parts of the government, and all sorts of bad things happen. I'm not sure exactly what, but I'd imagine that hyperinflation would be one of the many fun things around the bend.
Now, with his usual eye for negotiating, Obama has been a complete disaster. From the get-go, he should have demanded, insisted and cajoled Congress to send him a clean debt ceiling bill. After all, Wall Street is going to get hit just as hard from a default as anyone else (harder even). Instead, he opted to listen to their arguments on the long-term debt, giving credence to their economic policies (which are ridiculous). And he willingly put Medicare and Social Security on the table, which would undermine a great Democratic election point. . .seriously, Mr. President, you are the worst negotiator ever.
What is of equal interest, though, is the interworking of the Republican Party. The Tea Party faction, which is hard-core conservative, is absolutely refusing to support any increase to the debt ceiling absent serious cuts. So, for Boehner, the Speaker of the House, to get a deal done, he has to convince Democrats to support the debt ceiling deal. But if Boehner does that, he will not remain Speaker. Hell, he may not remain in Congress. For the past several years, every Republican has been threatened with a primary from a more conservative candidate. And since these candidates are invariably well-funded, and since legislatures are gerrymandering to make Congressional districts more Republican or more Democratic, these more conservative candidates win. A lot.
So, what has the GOP leadership done? Well, they've decided to run away. Seriously. There is an escape hatch in this debate - the 14th Amendment seems to suggest that debt ceiling legislation is unconstitutional because the U.S. government has constitutional requirement to cover its debts. Now, Obama looked into this idea before, kinda, sort-of, threatening (but not really) to use this provision as an escape hatch in the bargaining. But his own Treasury Department thought that the 14th Amendment argument was on shaky ground.
Does this mean that Obama will take up the GOP on its offer to continue to raise the debt ceiling? I have no idea. What I do know is that neither Boehner nor McConnell cannot negotiate on behalf of the GOP. Not because they are bad negotiators, but because they do not speak for the Republican rank and file.
Now, with his usual eye for negotiating, Obama has been a complete disaster. From the get-go, he should have demanded, insisted and cajoled Congress to send him a clean debt ceiling bill. After all, Wall Street is going to get hit just as hard from a default as anyone else (harder even). Instead, he opted to listen to their arguments on the long-term debt, giving credence to their economic policies (which are ridiculous). And he willingly put Medicare and Social Security on the table, which would undermine a great Democratic election point. . .seriously, Mr. President, you are the worst negotiator ever.
What is of equal interest, though, is the interworking of the Republican Party. The Tea Party faction, which is hard-core conservative, is absolutely refusing to support any increase to the debt ceiling absent serious cuts. So, for Boehner, the Speaker of the House, to get a deal done, he has to convince Democrats to support the debt ceiling deal. But if Boehner does that, he will not remain Speaker. Hell, he may not remain in Congress. For the past several years, every Republican has been threatened with a primary from a more conservative candidate. And since these candidates are invariably well-funded, and since legislatures are gerrymandering to make Congressional districts more Republican or more Democratic, these more conservative candidates win. A lot.
So, what has the GOP leadership done? Well, they've decided to run away. Seriously. There is an escape hatch in this debate - the 14th Amendment seems to suggest that debt ceiling legislation is unconstitutional because the U.S. government has constitutional requirement to cover its debts. Now, Obama looked into this idea before, kinda, sort-of, threatening (but not really) to use this provision as an escape hatch in the bargaining. But his own Treasury Department thought that the 14th Amendment argument was on shaky ground.
Does this mean that Obama will take up the GOP on its offer to continue to raise the debt ceiling? I have no idea. What I do know is that neither Boehner nor McConnell cannot negotiate on behalf of the GOP. Not because they are bad negotiators, but because they do not speak for the Republican rank and file.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)