Balls: UN Sanctions and Dialogue.

A new Mideast policy

Same as the old Mideast policy.

(With a tip of the cap to the Who)

  

By Editorial, Published: May 19

PRESIDENT OBAMA on Thursday laid out a far-reaching and energetic new approach to the unfolding Arab revolution.

Wow…talk about burying the lead. Okay, I’ll go with it for now.

The president unequivocally stated that “it will be the policy of the United States to promote reform across the region, and to support transitions to democracy.”

Except in the case of Isreal, where it has apparently become the policy of the United States to show such cowardice as to usurp a democratic ally’s sovereignty to surrender their territory. This is a claim not even the French can lay claim to.

Also, this whole “The role of the US is to spread democracy in the Middle East” thing sounds eerily familiar.

For the first time, he bluntly criticized several Arab rulers,

Boy, how brave of him to criticize deplorable despots who have already lost control of their country. Now. Two and a half years into his presidency. For the first time.

including U.S. allies,

Except Saudi Arabia.

who have responded to demands for change with repression; in the case of Syria, the rhetoric is being backed by sanctions.

Balls = UN Sanctions.

He outlined a major, and crucial, effort to help Arab economies, starting with Egypt and Tunisia.

Sigh. Not only was Obama late to the game in Egypt, but he missed it all together in Tunesia. Then he missed the best chance for regime change in Libya and has committed us to the dangerous and treasury-sapping mission-creep of unending aerial protection for rebels who may or may not be friendly to the United States and its interests. What’s more, Egypt is quickly turning to shit because (surprise!) it’s filled with Islamist radicals that will use the vehicle of democracy to entrench parliamentary despotism with farcical elections. So I suppose if you consider serial dithering as a “major, and crucial effort to help Arab economies,” then yes, the President is doing an excellent job giving our money away overseas.

In short, Mr. Obama gave coherence, resources and direction to a U.S. Middle East policy that had been confused and underpowered.

As opposed to the Dadaist clusterfuck of idiocy that had previously guided the Obama Administration’s foreign policy?

Though the United States cannot determine the outcome of the conflicts and attempted democratic transitions underway from Libya to the Persian Gulf,

Wait…we can’t? Then what the fuck are we doing in Libya? If we can’t determine the outcome, why is Obama’s stance on it important?

effective implementation of the new strategy could help tip what has become a seesaw battle between reform and reaction.

Jesus Christ. In other words, we can’t determine the outcome, but we can help determine the outcome. At least instead of being a complete breakdown in coherent thought, this merely qualifies as shitty writing.

Mr. Obama began by clearly stating American support for “a set of universal rights,”

He’s 200+ years late to the party. This was the function of the Declaration of Independence.

including freedom of speech, assembly and religion and “the right to choose your own leaders.” Importantly, he added that U.S. “support for these principles is not a secondary interest” but “a top priority that must be translated into concrete actions.”

This is political talk for “I’m super serious, guys. Super serious.”

If implemented, that means a historic change in a U.S. policy that —

A historic change to a US policy that is virtually identical to that of the previous president.

Does the dump I took this morning qualify as “historic” too?

including under Mr. Obama — concentrated on propping up autocratic but pro-Western regimes.

See what’s happening in Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood is the leading horse to take control of the government? That’s why we supported Mubarak. Some places aren’t ready for democratic principles.

This new formulation would not be credible to many in the region without specifics. So it was important that Mr. Obama called out rulers who are violently resisting change, including U.S. allies. He urged Yemen’s president to “follow through on his commitment to transfer power,”

Yemen. That there’s a major global power broker. Balls.

and he castigated Bahrain’s ruling family for “mass arrests and brute force.”

Boy, talk about speaking truth to marginally influential regional power! Double balls.

Mr. Obama addressed the carnage in Syria in public for the first time, saying that the regime of Bashar al-Assad had “chosen the path of murder” and rightly calling for “a serious dialogue to advance a democratic transition.”

Murderous despots must always be met with dialogue.

Yet his suggestion that Mr. Assad could still “lead that transition” is hardly credible. Mr. Obama’s alternative for Mr. Assad — that he “get out of the way” — should have been the only one offered.

How about a “or we’ll make you get out of the way?” (Just trying to offer a little productive criticism) Seriously, if there’s anything that we should have learned from these Arab revolutions and the bin Laden killing, it’s that assassination is an effective tool for foreign policy. We have really good snipers and the ability to fire GPS-guided missiles with pinpoint accuracy. Seems like a waste.

The economic assistance program Mr. Obama outlined for Egypt and Tunisia, including debt relief, funds for fresh investment and a trade initiative, appears substantial and well grounded.

Good luck getting it past the House.

The administration appears prepared to push Arab regimes to adopt economic policies that favor the proven formula of free markets, trade and private enterprise.

How is it that they can push for one set of beliefs in the Middle East and a completely different ideology here at home?

Mr. Obama concluded by recommitting himself to pursuing an Israeli-Palestinian peace process. He forcefully dismissed a nascent Palestinian initiative to seek U.N. recognition of Palestinian statehood. Yet the president’s attempt to lay out principles for resolving the conflict — including a reference to Israel’s 1967 borders as the basis for a territorial settlement —

Well that’s one way of putting it. Pre-emptive surrender on behalf of an ally is another.

provoked a bristling reaction from Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who, like some U.S. analysts, perceived a shift in U.S. policy by Mr. Obama toward Palestinian negotiating positions.

In other words, reversing a long tradition of American presidents, Obama has, for no discernable reason and with no known political pressure, capitulated to extremist Palestinian demands.

If the president’s promise of a new diplomatic effort is to be more than rhetoric, he will need to begin by rebuilding trust in his administration among both Israelis and Palestinians.

Yes, if only he’d give a few more rousing speeches, all the wounds of a decades-old strife would be resolved.

My word, you’re not pretty enough to be this dumb. No one’s pretty enough to be this dumb. Maybe Kate Upton, but only if she does the dougie.

Judo'd

That sneaky bastard! I’m onto him.

President Obama is not releasing the bin Laden death pictures. It has nothing to do with sensitivity to the Muslim world or not “spiking the football;” I know because he’s done nothing but “spike the football” since. It’s gotten to the point of the fawning New York times editorial board debating whether or not he’s being too political with the issue. (found here) I get that the pictures show brain matter spilling over his right eye, (Well done, SEALs.) but this has nothing to do with a sensitivity the graphic nature of the images; I know because the White House continues to trot Jay Carney out in front of the press pool.

It’s about being the puppet master of the national narrative.

On April 27, President Obama released his long-form birth certificate.

On May 1, Osama bin Laden was assassinated.

The plan to assassinate bin Laden began in March.

The arithmetic isn’t complicated. When President Obama released his birth certificate, he knew he was going to get a tremendous surge of goodwill by killing Osama bin Laden. When he did offer his birth certificate, we all asked “why now?” Here’s our answer. Unsurprisingly, it had nothing to do with Donald Trump.

President Obama learned well from the birther narrative. He learned that having a conspiratorial opposition was politically advantageous. Ordinary Americans don’t like associating with conspiracy theorists. They’re creepy and generally don’t shower. That’s why he didn’t release his long-form birth certificate earlier; he liked that elements of the right looked a little unhinged. As the conspiracy over his birth certificate reached a fever pitch, he gave all the evidence he could that it was all bunk. All reasonable parties were convinced. He then shifted his attention to cultivating the bin Laden conspiracy. To date, the White House’s narrative on bin Laden has been “he’s dead; just trust us.” He might as well be asking a child to not touch the big red button that says “do not press.”

But this wasn’t about swapping one conspiracy for another; this was about shifting the conspiracy from one that highlights his greatest political weakness (his inability to access the American narrative and connect with ordinary people) to one that highlights the strongest moment of his presidency (the raid on bin Laden’s compound). Now, instead of birthers reminding everyone that there’s just something off about Obama, we have a chorus of conservatives—most of whom have no real doubt that bin Laden is actually dead—calling for the pictures of dead bin Laden. Day and night, dominating cable news. With every demand, American voters are reminded that this is the president that got bin Laden.

This has stretched the story for at least an extra two weeks. It will continue to stretch the story into campaign season. Yes, we’re getting politically judo’d.

You sneaky bastard.

The More You Know: Perils of (Binge) Drinking on the Job

Life’s got to be getting pretty lonely for Paul Krugman, sentinel of the School of Keynes. Literally the entire world is moving away from the ideas he has devoted his professional life to defending.

Binge drinking causes you to make asinine arguments...
Now I know. And knowing is half the battle!

I guess that’s as good a reason as any to turn to the bottle.

OP-ED COLUMNIST

Seniors, Guns and Money

By PAUL KRUGMAN

This has to be one of the funniest political stories of recent weeks: On Tuesday, 42 freshmen Republican members of Congress sent a letter urging President Obama to stop Democrats from engaging in “Mediscare” tactics —

Crickets.

that is, to stop saying that the Republican budget plan released early last month, which would end Medicare as we know it, is a plan to end Medicare as we know it.

Of course, simplifying a very complicated plan like that completely misses the point. Firstly, it only ends Medicare as we know it. Which is to say, it makes it better than the Medicare that we know. This is, by definition, a necessary byproduct of constructive Medicare reform.

Now, you may recall that the people who signed that letter got their current jobs largely by engaging in “Mediscare” tactics of their own.

I suspected Krugman was hitting the sauce pretty hard last year. His comma usage spiked in June and plateaued through the election. Oh well, I’ll fill in the holes in his alcohol-addled memory. Medicare wasn’t an issue at all last election; Obamacare was an issue. However, the biggest issue was that Americans get an uncomfortable shudder when they observe Democrats acting like Democrats.

And bear in mind that what Democrats are saying now is entirely true, while what Republicans were saying last year was completely false. Death panels!

This from the guy wrote a column not three weeks ago arguing that health care was not commerce and that a panel (he called them boards, but the premise holds) of experts was the only civilized means to ration the scarce resources of the healthcare community.

You ask how he could possibly fail to see the stark similarities between a board rationing healthcare and “Death Panels?” You ask in vain. He’s passed out on lawn furniture with a speck of vomit in his beard.

Well, it’s time, said the signatories, to “wipe the slate clean.” How very convenient — and how very pathetic.

He says, with breath reeking of scotch.

That was an olive branch. If Obama’s smart, he’ll take it, because Republicans are about to wipe the floor with him if he makes it a big issue.

Anyway, the truth is that older Americans really should fear Republican budget ideas — and not just because of that plan to dismantle Medicare.

It’s a voucher system. Of all people, I trust the elderly to understand the concept of vouchers.

Given the realities of the federal budget, a party insisting that tax increases of any kind are off the table — as John Boehner, the speaker of the House, says they are — is, necessarily, a party demanding savage cuts in programs that serve older Americans.

Oh you pitiable little dullard. There’s a reason why—as the inestimably inane Matt Miller points out—the Ryan budget plan increases spending on Medicare over the next 10 years from $563B to $953B. That is because the Ryan budget insists—to the detriment of its deficit-reducing stats—that the government honor its financial commitments to seniors.

The more significant changes to Medicare don’t happen for years. Not to be morbid, old people, but the Medicare cuts won’t take place until after you die.

To explain why, let me answer a rhetorical question posed by Professor John Taylor of Stanford University in a recent op-ed article in The Wall Street Journal. He asked, “If government agencies and programs functioned with 19% to 20% of G.D.P. in 2007” — that is, just before the Great Recession — “why is it so hard for them to function with that percentage in 2021?”

An exellent question, considering that the historical revenue-generation of the federal government is roughly 18%.

Mr. Taylor thought he was making the case for not increasing spending.

He was.

But if you know anything about the federal budget, you know that there’s a very good answer to his question — an answer that clearly demonstrates just how extremist that no-tax-increase pledge really is.

Old people get older and costs are going up. Doesn’t answer the question though.

For here’s the quick-and-dirty summary of what the federal government does: It’s a giant insurance company, mainly serving older people, that also has an army.

Now it’s not just the speck of vomit in his beard that’s making me nauseous.

The United States federal government is a beacon for freedom across the world. The Constitution is the single most important document ever penned by man. And yet, he views the United States government as nothing more than a means of pooling money for the sake of ridding its citizens the any last shred of self-reliance and dignity in their dying moments…also it’s got an army.

This is the government that liberals tell you that you should love and want more of. That you should demand solves all of your problems. These are the people that they say should man the reins of the leviathan. Except by Krugman’s own admission, the lumbering government of progressivism only has two tools at its disposal: other people’s money, and a monopoly on force. When the other people’s money runs out, where, then, do you think they’ll turn?

We’re Americans; we have been given the birthright of liberty from a collection of men that reshaped the course of history. We’re better than this. At least we should be.

The great bulk of federal spending that isn’t either defense-related or interest on the debt goes to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The first two programs specifically serve seniors. And while Medicaid is often thought of as a poverty program, these days it’s largely about providing nursing care, with about two-thirds of its spending now going to the elderly and/or disabled. By my rough count, in 2007, seniors accounted, one way or another, for about half of federal spending.

And in case you hadn’t noticed, there will soon be a lot more seniors around because the baby boomers have started reaching retirement age.

Here are the numbers: In 2007, there were 20.9 Americans 65 and older for every 100 Americans between the ages of 20 and 64 — that is, the people of normal working age who essentially provide the tax base that supports federal spending. The Social Security Administration expects that number to rise to 27.5 by 2020, and 31.7 by 2025. That’s a lot more people relying on federal social insurance programs.

Don’t look now, but Paul Krugman is arguing that entitlement spending is unsustainable.

Nor is demography the whole story. Over the long term, health care spending has consistently grown faster than the economy, raising the costs of Medicare and Medicaid as a share of G.D.P. Cost-control measures — the very kind of measures Republicans demonized last year, with their cries of death panels — can help slow the rise, but few experts believe that we can avoid some “excess cost growth” over the next decade.

Keep in mind, he’s arguing that using federally-mandated healthcare rationing to  limit options to the sick and dying is more humane than buying private health insurance.

I’d wager that the sick and dying disagree.

Between an aging population and rising health costs, then, preserving anything like the programs for seniors we now have will require a significant increase in spending on these programs as a percentage of G.D.P.  And unless we offset that rise with drastic cuts in defense spending — which Republicans, needless to say, oppose —

The idea that defense spending should be the first thing on the block is just stupid, but that was what Boehner meant when he said that everything was on the table. He was specifically referring to defense.

this means a substantial rise in overall spending, which we can afford only if taxes rise.

That will, predictably, will be followed by perpetual recession, massive unemployment, calamitously volatile financial markets, poverty, destruction, riots, and ultimately more drastic cuts to programs to seniors than the ones currently proposed. Then after all that, we’ll default anyways because we waited too long.

So when people like Mr. Boehner reject out of hand any increase in taxes, they are, in effect, declaring that they won’t preserve programs benefiting older Americans in anything like their current form. It’s just a matter of arithmetic.

He just admitted that he can’t preserve programs benefitting older Americans in anything like their current form without a) cutting defense spending to next-to-nothing—in which case we’re vulnerable to hostile takeover from such formidable military powers as Ghana, Estonia, Swaziland, and Canada—or b) massively raising taxes. Meanwhile neither option will resolve the underlying issue that the entitlement society is buckling under its own weight. This isn’t me arguing it—it’s him.

Which brings me back to those Republican freshmen.

And brings me to a bottle of wine. He still doesn’t get it, does he?

Last year, older voters, who split their vote almost evenly between the parties in 2008, swung overwhelmingly to the G.O.P., as Republicans posed successfully as defenders of Medicare.

Not defenders of Medicare. Opponents of Obamacare.

Now Democrats are pointing out that the G.O.P., far from defending Medicare, is actually trying to dismantle the program.

Vouchers!

So you can see why those Republican freshmen are nervous.

Fuck wine. I’m going to need gin. Not only did he blithely skate past the whole issue of entitlement sustainability, but he also gave the most staggeringly incompetent political analysis I’ve seen since the election, and used it to make a point diametrically opposed to reality.

Republicans are trying to reform Medicare, not gut it.

Their reforms do not affect current seniors.

They can’t do anything right now anyways because the President and the Senate will never go along, at least for the time being.

They are bringing up the issue because a) it’s important and b) it’s a winning issue for Republicans.

Entitlement reform is no longer an issue Republicans would rather avoid. Thanks to buffoons like Krugman, the country knows (not believes; knows) that entitlements can’t continue in their current form in perpetuity.

But the Democrats aren’t engaging in scare tactics, they’re simply telling the truth.

Except time and time again, you’ve said that Republicans want to gut Medicare without once using the word voucher, which pretty simply sums up the Ryan plan for Medicare. That’s not spinning the truth. That’s not flirting with reality. That’s flat-out predatory lying.

In an article designed to show the allegedly undeniable truth that the Republican plan is bad for seniors, Krugman hasn’t even addressed the Republican plan. Indeed, he fails to distinguish the Ryan budget from Republicans other budget proposals.

That’s not just lying, it’s lazy lying.

Policy details aside,

Because you’re too lazy/drunk to look them up.

the G.O.P.’s rigid anti-tax position also makes it, necessarily, the enemy of the senior-oriented programs that account for much of federal spending.

Again, revenue as a percent of GDP is uncorrelated with tax rates.

And that’s something voters ought to know.

In one column, Krugman has managed to crystallize the difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives view the government as the protector of their sacred rights; liberals view it as an ATM.

Given the results of the 2010 elections, that’s something that voters already know.

The Insufferable Noise of Hacks Crying for Quality in Discourse

Boehner’s awe-inspiring hypocrisy on the debt limit

By Matt Miller, Published: May 11

There’s politics-as-usual.

There’s even hypocrisy-as-usual.

But then — at rare moments — there is political behavior that can only be dubbed Super-Duper Hypocrisy So Brazen They Must Really Think We’re Idiots.

Yes, I know. We all remember Obama’s 2008 campaign speeches.

Sad to say that’s where the Republicans have taken us on the debt limit.

Clearly the responsible thing to do is give carte blanche to federal debt. After all, how do you deal with financial irresponsibility in your personal or professional life? Throw more money at it, of course. Got a kid with a gambling debt? Give him more money. Got a company that’s bleeding money in the marketing department? Give them more money. It’s the only reasonable thing to do.

In a perverse sense, I suppose, it’s a thrill to have such a sighting. The kind of frisson bird-watchers must experience when they spy a golden-crowned kinglet or a piping plover. The amazement one feels watching an Olympic diver execute a forward four-and-a-half-somersault with a degree of difficulty of 3.5. Or a graceful backhand winner hit by Roger Federer at a full run. Such moments inspire awe.

These “thrilling” moments couldn’t be any gayer if he tried. I can’t even mock these with quips about Lady Gaga.

So maybe I shouldn’t say Republicans have taken us to a new low when it comes to the debt limit. Maybe, when it comes to the political arts, it’s a new high.

Considering that you still haven’t actually explained what you’re talking about, the general thrust of this article is “Republicans are hypocrites; trust me.”

After all, when Bob Kerrey said of Bill Clinton, “He’s an unusually good liar — unusually good,” Kerrey meant it as a professional compliment.

To Matt Miller, giving a backhanded compliment to a talented liar shows a far greater comfort with lying than being the man that actually does the lying.

I’ll pause to allow you to do a doubletake on that one.

This convoluted logic passes for analysis on the Post’s editorial board. It’s still better than Gail Collins, I suppose.

The new GOP mantra is to define what the president must agree to in spending cuts to get the debt-limit increase “he has asked for.”

Wait, so the advocate for the party that reflexively demands that Republicans compromise is now upset that Republicans want to compromise?

You see the sly innuendo?

Not at all, but go on.

It’s apparently just the president who wants to add more debt. Republicans were just sitting there, minding their own business, and the guy just comes up and asks if he can borrow trillions more!

Actually, we call that the 2008 election.

“As you know,” John Boehner told the Economic Club of New York Monday night, “the president has asked Congress to increase the debt limit.”

Did he not?

“If Mr. Obama wants a big increase in the debt limit,”

He does.

the Wall Street Journal editorial page echoed Tuesday, “he’ll just have to engage on reforming the big entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and perhaps even Social Security.”

And he will.

Where to begin?

You’ve been yammering on about nothing for nine paragraphs, and now you ask that question?

The Republican-controlled House of Representatives has just passed Paul Ryan’s fiscal plan, which would add between $5 trillion and $6 trillion to the national debt in the next decade.

Considering that it hasn’t come to a vote in the Senate—nor will it—and the President would veto it, the vote was almost purely symbolic. Miller, of course, knows this.

That’s more debt than has ever been incurred in any 10-year period in our history.

Which is completely meaningless for two reasons: First, you didn’t index it as a percentage. As we supply-siders know, a lower percentage of a higher number can provide a higher nominal value. Secondly, there is absolutely no relevance to comparing the debt projections to actual debt growth from 1937 to 1947? (For the record, on a percentage basis, yes this blows the Ryan plan’s debt growth out of the water.)

The House GOP budget does not touch Social Security.

Of course, every budget in history has an obligation to intellectual honesty to address the third rail of American politics.

Oh wait. That’s right. No budget does that. Bush’s attempts at Social Security reform during his second term are still being trotted out as evidence that Republicans hate old people when even the senile can see through the argument.

And though it may surprise some people, given all the shouting, the House budget — for which John Boehner voted — also does little on Medicare in the next 10 years.

Yes, but Medicare isn’t a major problem in the next 10 years. It’s the 50 after that where Medicare can cripple the economy and bring down the country’s finances.

According to Ryan, it increases spending on Medicare from $563 billion in 2011 to $953 billion in 2021, a boost of 69 percent.

Ryan’s controversial changes to the program wouldn’t begin until after 2021.

Again, this is for two very good reasons:

1. Entitlements are obligations of the Federal government. Adjusting the short-term rules of entitlement programs without giving recipients the opportunity to adjust their finances is morally equivalent to a partial default.
2. The big problems in Medicare don’t hit for another ten years.

(The House GOP does make real cuts to Medicaid, however, a program that funds health care mostly for poor people who don’t vote Republican.)

Ah, the “Republicans hate poor people” narrative. Right on cue.

How can a party that just passed a budget blueprint with historic new levels of debt and virtually no middle-class entitlement reform in the next decade try, with a straight face, to pin the blame for a debt-limit increase on the president?

1)      It only passed in one house of Congress, and is therefore not law.

2)      The Ryan budget is for the next fiscal year anyways, and wouldn’t be law until next year, even if it passed.

3)      The Democrats plans are worse by a multitude of thousands, both in terms of fiscal responsibility and in terms of not turning the United States into a quasi-communist state.

4)      Budgets aren’t the place to enact significant entitlement reform. That should be passed as stand-alone legislation after Republicans win back the White House and Senate in 2012. That Social Security is not addressed to anyone’s satisfaction in the Ryan budget is not an indictment of the Ryan budget, but an opportunity to strengthen the country’s finances outside of the budget’s framework in coming years.

5)      The Ryan budget does enact significant entitlement reform outside of 10 years. We know that because Democrats were howling about it just a couple weeks ago.

6)      The Ryan budget is not a “wish list” of Republican cuts; it is a thoughtful path towards fiscal responsibility that attempts to address reforms in a way that is politically plausible. Therefore, it is necessarily not as severe as would be necessary to address the issue immediately.

7)      Democrats absolutely have to deal to continue the spending; Republicans have a mandate from their base to hold the line. Quite simply, the Democrats want the legislation passed more than Republicans do, and Republicans have leverage.

The only plausible answer is that they think it will “work” politically.

I literally just came up with about six other reasons.

That means they think the press is too docile and stenographic to expose the con.

We do think the press is docile and stenographic, but not towards Republicans. Arguing otherwise is just obnoxious. It’s like LeBron James arguing that referees are too loose with their interpretation of traveling for other players.

And that the public is too dumb or tuned out to care, even if the press does its duty.

True story, my original slogan during the 2008 campaign was: “Obama: Either He’s an Idiot, or He Thinks You Are.” That’s still my bumper sticker for 2012.

One of the saddest commentaries on the quality of our civic culture today is that political operatives know these are both fairly good assumptions.

Says the political operative.

This explains why Boehner can say things such as “with the exception of tax hikes . . . everything is on the table” and not be laughed out of town.

I fail to see anything even approaching a cogent point here. Let me take a stab in the dark and try to extrapolate:

Boehner claims to want to reduce the debt. Democrats, in their haste to criticize any spending cut, simultaneously complain that the cuts are draconian and severe, and complain that the cuts don’t do enough to make the budget instantaneously balanced. The resulting noise is because Democrats are shameless opportunists and because they’re too lazy to get their messaging straight.  After the fact, their schizophrenic messaging means that Republicans are being hypocritical on the debt.

Then, to address the shortfall in revenue, the Democrats’ solution, naturally, is to build revenue. Nevermind that revenues as a percentage of GDP are tax-rate independent. Nevermind that high tax rates slow the economy. Increasing tax rates, to a Democrat, is the only responsible answer to the budget deficit.

Foiled at every turn by their own cognitive dissonance, they project a nonexistent inconsistency onto Boehner.

Even when he adds, “This is the moment to address these problems as adults.”

I know there are plenty of Democratic budget frauds afoot (the biggest being the president’s pretense that we can get our fiscal house in order by raising taxes only on folks with incomes above $250,000).

Honestly, even though this is a canard to further criticize Republicans, I should frame this. This type of honesty is…hey look, blue skies!

In fact, I had a whole Democratic health-care charade I was planning to discuss this very week.

That’s some damn shoddy writing, but I’m still kind of distracted by the birds chirping and all that.

Honest! But then John Boehner went to the Economic Club, the Wall Street Journal piled on and my blood boiled.

There’s no question that both parties are failing us.

Vote Democrat: We fail a lot, but at least we don’t kick puppies. Much.

But for connoisseurs of hypocrisy, the GOP’s debt-limit gambit deserves a primal scream all its own.

This joker still hasn’t provided any evidence of hypocrisy, let alone the vaunted “Super-Duper Hypocrisy So Brazen They Must Really Think We’re Idiots” variety he so tactfully (*eye roll*) articulated earlier.

Here are the facts:

-Republicans say that the President asked for an increase in the debt limit.

-The best budget plans the Republicans have offered still require an increase in the debt limit.

There’s no contradiction there. Democrats need spending more than Republicans. In fact, Republicans need spending cuts more than Democrats need spending increases. This shift in the political mood of the country has changed the Republicans’ political calculus. That’s why they’re willing to leverage the debt ceiling to gain political concessions. Beyond not being remotely hypocritical, it’s completely logical and almost certain to succeed, so long as the voting block holds firm.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. When the president sits down with senators of both parties this week in separate White House powwows on the debt, his position should be this: “Let’s just increase the debt limit by the amount of debt it would take to accommodate Paul Ryan’s budget in the next decade. We can fight about the details later. No spooking the markets over this insanity.”

And I said at the time that Republicans would have jumped on that immediately—given the stipulation that the debt ceiling would not be raised again for a decade.

But that’s not what Matt Miller wants. Like all liberals, this is a shell game for him. He’s going to cram 10 years of spending into 4 or 5, then claim that the deal 4 or 5 years ago—which no one can do anything about anymore—was a mistake, and we’ll be in the same boat down the line.

Hypocrisy is knowingly advocating a plan that kicks the can down the road while berating the seriousness of politicians who are actually addressing the problems.

Even a debauched democracy like the United States

Firstly, go fuck yourself, that’s my country you’re talking about.

Secondly, that phrase has absolutely no meaning other than to insult the country.

can aim for minimal standards of rationality in public debate. It’s the adult thing to do.

I suppose, but then what would you do for a living?