100th Post Extravaganza (Sponsored by Grover Norquist)

Liberals are on a bender right now. There panties are thoroughly bunched at the conservative politicians and Tea Party Republicans who really, genuinely, truly, super-dooper-times-a-gazillion meant it when they signed a pledge not to vote for new taxes or tax increases. They’re absolutely gorging themselves on hating Grover Norquist, who runs Americans for Tax Reform.  

Here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-high-price-of-the-taxpayer-protection-pledge/2011/06/08/AGAFaqNH_story.html)

And Here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dangerous-dealings-with-the-default-caucus/2011/07/21/gIQAktWMTI_story.html)

And in cartoon form here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-norquist-anti-tax-pledge/2011/07/21/gIQARqzjSI_video.html)

And snarkily here (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/opinion/sunday/bruni-norquist-taxes-and-a-dangerous-purity.html?scp=3&sq=Grover%20Norquist&st=cse)

And government sponsored here (http://www.npr.org/2011/07/14/137800715/the-man-behind-the-gops-tax-pledge)

It actually beats the “hostage-taking GOP” meme that reminds us all of fonder days when liberals were still wringing their hands over crosshairs on political ads and the “rhetoric of violence.” As a result, Norquist has been summarily elevated to niche celebrity as the right-wing boogeyman. Previously, this post has been ably held by Karl Rove (who had the gall to get Republicans elected), Donald Rumsfeld (who had the gall to believe that the world was better off without Saddam Hussein), and Ken Starr (who had the gall to believe that perjury was a felony)…among others.

As an intellectual force, Norquist regularly mops the floor all the most popular people at all the most fabulous DC parties:

Chris Matthews doesn’t seem to understand politics (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DncElYQmAF0)

Client #9 doesn’t seem to understand economics (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENbQ2StXKRY&feature=related)

And an entire smattering of know-nothings get woodshed’d on just about everything: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbvQjYUd_L8&feature=related)

I’ll cut short the tour of YouTube. Norquist isn’t the point of this whole thing; he’s in the hand that the magician is waving around while the other hand is fishing for the rabbit. Liberals are absolutely aghast that Republicans want to govern in absolutes. The entire narrative is set up around lauding flexibility, promoting compromise, praising capitulation. John McCain has made a thoroughly underwhelming career out of being the least-hated mortal enemy of the liberal media. This isn’t new either, but it’s been in exile since the Gang of Something or Other (probably led by a certain Senator from a certain state of Arizona) struck a deal to coerce Democrats to allow Bush’s judicial nominees through in 2005 (conspicuously, this media reflex seemed absent circa 2006-10). The media noise is the Pavlovian reinforcement mechanism that forced us to sit through 5 decades of limited government as a pipe dream. It’s why despite Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, and two decades of conservative ascendancy, the government continues to grow to an unprecedented girth.

Forget for a moment that if Republicans are being recalcitrant on resisting tax increases, Democrats must therefore have been equally obstinate on insisting on tax increases in the first place. Yes, it’s the Law of the Conservation of Political Priorities in action, but there’s more going on here. This isn’t about the debt ceiling, or revenue, or class warfare or even maintaining tax increases as a theoretical construct for deficit reduction (despite it being economic hogwash). This is about fearing the absolute no matter the irrationality. Civics 101: the point of government is the establishment of an absolute set of rules so that affairs aren’t settled by the biggest club. Those existence of absolute rules is what keeps civilization afloat and

That’s why we have the Constitution. It’s why we have written laws. The Constitution is our nation’s one sacred, inviolate text. It is the law. Hundreds of thousands of intelligent men and women have spent 224 years parsing every word. There is no reason that our politicians should be compelled to be flimsy and arbitrary in writing laws that are, by definition, hard and fast. When liberals’ bender of flexibility and compromise wears off, the American people are left with the hangover of rigidity and the absolute. We live in a republic—not a democracy--for good reasons. The voters can’t dictate what a representative will do when he gets to Washington. However they can, and should, pin a note to their elected officials’ lapels that says “Good luck in Washington. Remember why we sent you. We’ll be watching.”

Obviously the denunciation of pledges and the politics of absolutism is wildly irrational for ordinary citizens. For the media, the rationale may simply be the result of intellectual laziness, faulty logic, and poorly-drawn conclusions. More likely, however, is the precarious position of the career Washingtonians facing a shrinking government who resent having their influence on political affairs supplanted or diluted by the influence of the voters. Those posturing about the virtue of compromise have directed their entire argument towards preserving a less democratic republic.

Tip of the cap to the House Republicans. I know your seat is hot right now. Thanks for remembering that your constituents can light a fire that President Obama can’t.

Comprehensive is Bullshit

Any conservative that has ever argued with a liberal about immigration has been foiled by one word: “comprehensive.” Liberals use it as a convenient deflection; it only really makes sense to conservatives. After all, why do a half-assed job when the whole ass is required? The problem is that instead of fixing portions of the problem, we end up holding out for the whole shebang. After all, why on earth would building a border fence be contingent upon clarifying a path to citizenship for existing illegals?  If that logical framework makes sense to you, you’re either a liberal or have never been taught the meaning of “non sequitur.”

               

To astute readers, this is starting to sound familiar in the context of current events. Indeed, compromise on the debt limit is more and more implausible the larger the framework of the deal. Both Obama and Boehner are looking for something that they can call “comprehensive” because each has an eye towards his legacy. Yet the deal’s size pits dearly held programs against staunch conservative principles. That’s not a coincidence or a problem; conservatives and liberals have a substantive gulf in ideologies and disagree about boatloads. The actual problem is that by agreeing that a deal has to be broad in scope, conservatives have vastly underplayed their hand. Indeed, precisely the opposite is the most effective legislative structure of a debt deal. Here’s how it should go down:

Speaker Boehner should call the House to session tomorrow morning with no fewer than 100 legislative proposals. Each should mention a specific spending cut and a specific monetary increase to the debt ceiling. For example:

• Cut funding to the State Department by 5%; increase debt ceiling by $75B.
• Cut all funding to the United Nations; increase debt ceiling by $100B.
• Cut funding to the Department of Education by 15%; increase debt ceiling by $50B.
• Reform baseline budgeting procedures; increase debt ceiling by $1.5T.

(Please note, these numbers are completely arbitrary. I’m not a congressman and I don’t have research staffers. Also, the specifics also aren’t that important for an essay on legislative tactics.

Indeed, these collective cuts should increase the debt ceiling by vastly more than the President requested. The result is that Democrats in the Senate and the President will have the opportunity to select from a veritable buffet of spending cuts. Republicans will be given the cover of increasing the debt ceiling many, many times over. If the President rejects all of the bills, Republicans can argue that the government is shutting down because the President is recalcitrant in protecting exorbitant research grants for the NEA or subsidies to peanut farmers in Georgia.

Politically it’s a Bacon Explosion for Republicans: it gets conservatives exactly where they want while still allowing Senate Democrats the leeway to select the programs that they can do without. Certainly they won’t be happy about it, but I think just about everyone in Washington wants an escape rope from the debt ceiling debate. This is precisely when astute negotiators win the dispute.

Bruce Willis Will Save Us From the Debt Limit!

The Great Evil

By CHARLES M. BLOW

Published: July 22, 2011

The current political environment and the debt-crisis debate remind me of the 1997 science-fiction film “The Fifth Element.”

You’re fucking kidding me. No, you absolutely have to be shitting me.

Stick with me. It’s complicated.

It’s a Bruce Willis movie; it’s really not.

In the film, the Great Evil, a giant ball of fire, hurtles toward Earth, intent on destroying it. This thing shows up every so often. It’s annoying.

Annoying? Yeah, that’s how I’d describe murder and destruction barreling across the galaxy straight…hey wait a minute, am I actually going along with this bullshti premise? Damn it.

Anyway, a group of gentle aliens have a weapon that can stop it.

Whew! That’s a relief!

Thoroughly believably Supreme Being. I mean damn.

It has been used before, and it’s really simple: It uses four stones that represent the four classical elements but a fifth element, the Supreme Being, must activate them.

And after all, what’s more apropos than neo-alchemical pseudoscience from the 9th highest grossing film of 1997?

The gentle aliens promise to return to Earth with their weapon the next time the Great Evil threatens. Sounds good. But on their way back, another group of aliens — simple-minded, warriors called Mangalores

Yes, because the name of the fictional alien race of simpletons is important to whatever the fucking point of all this nonsense might be.

who work for an evil, wealthy industrialist

Technically they’re mercenaries, but I agree that it’s not the point: capitalism is destructive. Nevermind the centuries of evidence to the contrary.

 — shoot down their ship.

I just hate industrialists! They all really just want to shoot down gentle aliens and blow up the world! It’s not like this is a work of fiction or anything.

Not Gary Oldman's best effort.

(The industrialist is a vile, twisted character.

They always are. This is a product of Hollywood, after all.

He sees destruction as a jobs program,

Since this is absolutely guaranteed to come back around to a political message, which party is known more for advocating destructive jobs programs? (Hint: think “Cash for Clunkers”)

and, as it turns out, he doesn’t even like the Mangalores. He says as much: “I don’t like warriors. Too

narrow-minded, no subtlety. And worse, they fight for hopeless causes.”

And which party is known more for disliking and distrusting the military as narrow-minded, blunt, and barbarous? (Hint: think John Kerry)

He’s just using them. And what does he give them for risking their lives? A box of guns.)

I just hate guns! Wait, is all this still in a single parenthetical?

All seems lost. But wait!

Is this supposed to build suspense? This is redefining a new low for the Op-Ed pages.

The stones were not onboard the destroyed ship but were in the care of an opera diva.

And why wouldn't you want to
trust the fate of the world to  singer?

Really, it was the only logical next point for the plot. Anyways, who’s the diva in this allegory?

And the military finds the hand of the fifth element, which scientists use to regenerate a Supreme Being humanoid.

This is seriously an Opinion column in the New York Times. It’s not a film review or in the Style section. This is the apex of serious political commentary. I’ll wait while you ponder on that for a moment.

It’s a girl!

Shock of shocks! A girl?!? I like my women in the kitchen, not doin' any fancy world-savin'!

After “birth,” she jumps off a ledge and lands in the flying taxi of an ex-special forces guy whom the government conscripts to get the stones from the diva.

I’m guessing that at some point, Charles Blow is going to advocate for Hilary Clinton (she is, after all, the Great Ovarian Hope) jump off the roof of the White House and hope a taxi is down there somewhere.

Well yeah, but first Bruce Willis has to
do some requisite ass-kicking.

The cabby retrieves the stones, readies the weapon, kisses the girl and she releases the Divine Light.

Thanks for the spoiler alert, asshole.

This stops the Great Evil just minutes before it destroys the world.

Which party is known for embracing the existence of good and evil exists only on a relative scale?

Whew! So much drama. And it didn’t have to be.

France of the alien world.

Yeah. Those “gentle aliens” probably should have been well-funded enough to fend an attack by two mere fighter spacecraft. Also, maybe they should have been less gentle.

I see two parallels.

That’s all? I see about fifty.

First, there is no reason that we should be in this pickle.

I’m going to cheat and read ahead to know that he’s talking about the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling legislation was enacted precisely so that we would have to confront this “pickle.” Left unchecked, the United States public debt is slated to pass 100% of GDP very soon. That’s a dangerous benchmark for ratings agencies. This didn’t happen because we’ve been taxing citizens too lightly since the seventies. It happened because George W.  Bush spent too much, and Barack Obama decided to differentiate himself by spending far, far more. That giant ball of pure evil barreling towards us? It’s not some abstract idea that we might not increase the debt ceiling or the prospect of default. It is a failure of leadership that leads to a future of American dependency.

 The debt ceiling has been raised numerous times with a simple vote.

And it could be raised this time with a simple vote; it just wouldn’t pass. And as we all know from Harry Reid’s summary dismissal of Cut, Cap and Balance legislation, the inability of legislation to pass makes it crazy, dangerous, and worthy of derision.

But Grover Norquist’s Tea Party pledglings shot that down.

It still amazes me that libeals are trying to make Grover Norquist the villain. (In this case, he’s literally being fit as the villain from the Fifth Element (a subpar performance by Gary Oldman), a particularly interesting choice, as the villain is both comically inept and displays a myriad of liberal affectations, including irrational, impotent rage and anxiety. He also looks like a weird emo kid, which just reminds me that the next generation of liberals isn‘t far away.

And now they can’t agree to a “grand bargain” because of their Faustian pact with big money.

Considering the source and magnitude of Obama’s 2012 fundraising, it would take a colossal ignorance or supreme naivity to argue that conservatives are beholden to “big money.”

We shouldn’t have to wait till the last minute to see the light and prevent cataclysm.

This is what Charles Blow thinks of you.

Second, and more broadly, is the degree to which some people, like the Mangalores,

They weren’t people; they were aliens that looked like pigs.

allow themselves to be used by those who don’t have their best interest at heart.

We have said the same about liberal Jews, supporting a party that despises Israel.

We have said the same about liberal blacks, supporting a party that created the modern ghetto and cultivated a culture of dependency in the black community with a myriad of ill-conceived and ill-executed social programs.

We have said the same about liberal youths, supporting a party that is responsible for skyrocketing unemployment among the young.

We have said the same about liberal women, who have seen women’s advocacy groups promote liberal policies that are bad for women and their children.

We have said all along that everyone’s best interests are served when freedom is expanded. And we have been vilified for it. Yet today more than ever, the fundamental power of liberty is on display. And Americans want it.

A report released Friday by the Pew Research Center found that the Republican Party has made tremendous gains in party affiliation among whites since President Obama took office.

In other words, Obama’s popularity (and the popularity of the Democratic Party) is plummeting because people are stupid, boorish, and have an irrational affinity for firearms.

This would be understandable if the largest gains were among the wealthy, but they weren’t. They were among the poor, the young and less educated — many of the same people who would be adversely affected by G.O.P. policies. (Blacks held relatively steady, and Hispanics fell.)

They understand what you, with all your haughty arrogance and dripping elitism, do not. Class warfare is a vehicle for cowards. It is masturbatory in that it serves no productive purpose aside from self-gratification. Liberal policies are not capable of growing the economy, only of hindering it. These welcome converts understand that the policies of conservatives that steer us away from government dependency are the most powerful tools for goodness and prosperity that the world has ever known. The giant ball of evil? That is the government leviathan. The divine light? It is freedom.

I guess if people with the money can convince you that destruction is a jobs program, anything is possible.

Of course, this is why Americans agreed, against their better judgment, to the failed Stimulus program. Deep down, we know that government can’t solve our problems. Indeed, it creates more problems. The solution is now, as it was 235 years ago, liberty. It is our birthright, and our divine light. It protects us from these regular incursions of government hyperactivity. The elements have aligned against this evil. We are simply waiting for someone, a Fifth Element, to stand in the center, and activate its latent power.

Turns out I got on board with this movie analogy more than I thought I would…

Comma Abuse

They, Too, Sing America

By CHARLES M. BLOW

Published: July 15, 2011

Last week I spent a few days in the Deep South —

New Jersey?

a thousand miles from the moneyed canyons of Manhattan and the prattle of Washington politics —

A thousand miles equidistant from Washington and New York? That’s Canada.

 talking to everyday people,

A term so condescending that Blow probably doesn’t realize just how douchy he sounds. It’s like the Peace Corps for pretentious urbanites.

blue-collar workers, people not trying to win the future so much as survive the present.

In other words, people a step above welfare, but who still don’t have any discernable skills. Please note, most “blue-collar workers” are considerably above this social stratum. Blow just wants to pimp out the impoverished because he’s super-classy.

They do hard jobs and odd jobs — any work they can find to keep the lights on and the children fed.

It’d be interesting if your brain only allowed you to write in clichés. I wonder what that must be like.

No one mentioned the asinine argument about the debt ceiling.

I know. These people are Democrats. They don’t know anything.

No one. Life is pressing down on them so hard that they can barely breathe.

Life is doing this to them. I get it. That way, they’re absolved of any responsibility for poor choices that landed them there. In reality it’s almost impossible to be truly poor in America unless a) you have a child out of wedlock, b) you are convicted of a crime, or c) you develop a drug addiction.

They just want Washington to work, the way they do.

I thought they didn’t mention the debt ceiling. Clearly they’re not paying attention to the political goings-on.

Rugged individualism, however, is dead in the lower class. The Democrats have choked it from them and replaced it with a mentality of entitlement. More likely, these poor folks want a dues ex machina to skirt the financial restraints of economic reality to give them more money. They can’t be bothered to care about the particulars; Dancing with the Stars is on.  Blow and his cohorts use this lack of awareness to imbue sound bites and bumper sticker slogans as a smokescreen for the perpetual lurch towards statism.

They are honest people who do honest work —

Use the word “folk.” It sells the down-home platitudes better. Also, stating that the entirety of the lower class is honest is just an outright lie.

crack-the-bones work; lift-it, chop-it, empty-it, glide-it-in-smooth work; feel-the-flames-up-close work; crawl-down-in-there work — things that no one wants to do but that someone must.

Check the table attaching this article and you’ll see that he’s talking about home health aides, customer service representatives, food preparers, personal home care aides, retail salespersons, office clerks, and the like. Indeed, the only intense manual labor comes towards the bottom of the list with “construction laborers” and “landscaping and groundskeeping workers,” both of which have (intentionally vague) “low” salaries—as opposed to the “very low” salaries of food preparation workers and retail salespersons. Indeed, when you have valuable skills, even within these “salt of the earth professions,” like a licence to operate heavy machinery, you are highly valued. Kind of amazing how that works.

I’m pretty sure no one’s sticking anything into a fire or crawling into a hulking industrial machine. This isn’t a Dickens novel.

They are women whose skin glistens from steam and sweat,

 I hope she’s not in food preparation.

whose hands stay damp from being dipped in buckets and dried on aprons.

Aprons sounds an awful lot like food preparation. Now I’m nervous.

They are men who work in boots with steel toes, the kind that don’t take shining,

Who shines any steel-toed boots? What is wrong with this guy?

the kind that lean over and tell stories when you take them off.

This is starting to feel like a high school lit project. He can’t possibly be serious.

They are people whose bodies melt every night in a hot bath,

Man, I’ve never understood baths. Who actually takes baths other than bored housewives with a surplus of bath salts? I’m sorry, I’m so bored with this article that I’m getting off track. What the hell is the point of this printed handjob to the poor?

then stiffen by sunrise, so much so that it takes pills for them to get out of bed without pain.

I think I said something earlier about drug addiction. Just saying.

They, too, sing America.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

NO! Just no. You don’t get to use commas anymore, Charles Blow.

But they’re the ones less talked about — either not glamorous enough or rancorous enough.

They are talked about. Incessantly. And glamorized. There are television shows and movies about these people and their lives. Deadliest Catch. Ice Road Truckers. Swamp Loggers. Ax Men. Dirty Jobs. Ren and Stimpy. As opposed to the wealthy, who get portrayals like The Young and the Restless and Arrested Development.

They are the ones without champions,

Seriously? Is he actually serious here? They have the entire apparatus of the federal government bleeding the economy dry to provide a safety net, thousands of charities across the United States—the most charitable country in the world. There is virtually nothing that a poor family has to provide for itself. Education for the kids? State-provided. Job training? There’s a charity for it. Food? They’ve got their own stamps. Taxes weighing you down? Don’t pay them; the poor simply aren’t asked to.

You know who doesn't have a champion? Those who refuse to defer to the moral superiority of poverty like the rest of these genuflecting left-wing social cultists. 

waiting for Democrats to gather the gumption to defend the working poor with the same ferocity with which Republicans protect the filthy rich,

HEY! You don’t get to use commas anymore! This is especially poignant, since you should have used a semicolon here, you colossally incompetent asshole.

waiting for a tomorrow that never comes.

I can’t imagine writing this little gem without having given up all claim to original thought and writing talent.

People think of them as somehow part of America’s past.

The poor? We’ve moved from stupid platitudes to demonstrably false accusations against “people.” No worries, I’m kind of phoning this one in too.

But not so. No, most aren’t STEM workers (science, technology, engineering and mathematics workers),

Um…I never said they were, Charles. Neither did anyone else.

 who grow up high where all can see.

Ah, we’re all one big tree, now. Gotcha.

 But they are the root, underfoot and out of sight, growing just the same.

So, now that our economy is somewhat shaky, shouldn’t we all be blaming the roots? You might want to rethink that metaphor.

The Economics and Statistics Administration of the Department of Commerce issued a report this week that touted STEM jobs as “driving our nation’s innovation and competitiveness,” having higher wages, and projected to grow “by 17 percent from 2008 to 2018, compared to 9.8 percent growth for non-STEM occupations.”

Excellent. Let’s teach kids math!

But there’s another side to that story.

There really isn’t.

As the Bureau of Labor Statistics points out, half of the top 30 occupations expected to see the largest job growth over the same period, and seven of the top 10, are low-wage or very low-wage jobs.

That doesn’t surprise anyone. This isn’t at all related to the statistics presented about STEM workers. That was about wage growth. This is about job growth. Charles, buddy, this is bush league.

Only eight even require a degree. Most simply require on-the-job training.

Why do people still go to college? The jobs simply aren’t there for college graduates, whereas many moderately intelligent people would be better off financially if they went to vocational schools to learn trades like welding and carpentry. Is it the lack of awareness to acknowledge moderate intelligence?  East Bemidji State can still find students to fill the classrooms, even if those same students can’t find employers that respect their degree.

And yet, in the irony of all ironies, postsecondary teachers and teacher assistants are both on Blow’s list of growing professions. Stop going to college, America!

The people who work these jobs are the backbone of this country,

I thought they were the roots.

and will continue to be. In fact, Washington could learn a lot about backbone from listening to them.

I’m pretty sure your objection to Washington is the existence of a Republican backbone, not the absence of one.

We would all be better served by politicians who work as they do — willing to do the things that no one wants to do but that someone must.

…out of desperation and a complete dearth of better options available. Dream big, America.

Can I stop yet? This was just depressingly stupid.

Harold Meyerson: Black People Love Taxes

Debt talks reveal the Republicans’ apocalyptic war on government

By Harold Meyerson, Published: July 12

As Default-on-Our-Debt Day

We’re not going to default on the debt. Hitting the debt ceiling will force some very uncomfortable budgetary prioritization, but the country easily has enough cash inflow to service existing debt.

creeps ever closer,

And if default does happen, it will happen months after the August 2 deadline, after the President and the Treasury have prioritized payments to only the most urgent needs, not on August 2.

America’s two major political parties have embarked on a round of ideological redefinition.

You know how I knew this was going to be a dumb article? Harold Meyerson wrote it. You know what proved it? That last sentence.

Republicans have subordinated even the appearance of concern

And after all, this is what we want politicians to focus on: appearance. Is it too late to bring John Edwards back? That hair is exquisite!

for many of their historic priorities — reducing deficits and the debt,

That’s kind of what this whole thing is about.

maintaining a passable system of roads,

Does anyone really believe that the interstate highway system is in jeopardy?

even reducing Medicare and Social Security payouts

Those dastardly Republicans want Grandma’s money! I might as well grow a pencil-thin mustache, buy a top hat and monocle, and start tying young women to train tracks. Also drop-kicking puppies and shouting at babies to “get a job,” but that’s taking things a step further than even the esteemed Snidely Whiplash.

— to the single goal of blocking any tax increase on anyone ever again.

This assumes that the deal that Republicans are getting is a good one. It’s not. The tax increases would take effect immediately whereas the spending cuts would be deferred by years—in many cases until the end of the decade. At that time future Congresses would forget all about these negotiations and ignore the cuts, instead opting for the path of least resistance, which is always more spending.

The fight over taxes is really about the concept of taxation as a viable option to reducing deficits. Democrats say yes. Republicans say no.

Taking the adage that “that government is best that governs least” to an extreme,

The extreme where “least” actually means “slightly less than planned baseline increases.”

at least some seem to view a government shutdown as a consummation devoutly to be wished. GOP presidential candidate and former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty is running ads hailing the shutdown of his state’s government,

Where, again, the Democratic governor showed slavish devotion to raising taxes while the Republican legislature told him to kindly blow it out his ass. Sadly, since the shutdown, has the state of Minnesota faces a postmodern apocalypse in which leather-clad gangsters roam the highways of a desert wasteland with mounted machine guns and armored vehicles in search of scarce gasoline. That’s not happening, you say? That’s the Mel Gibson classic ‘Mad Max?’ My apologies. I haven’t had time to check the news.

the result of the same kind of political impasse that threatens to shutter the feds’ doors.

That’s not even close to true. This is a debate about the government’s ability to borrow more money, not about keeping the government open for business as it was during the budget battles.

If it was possible to give libertarianism a bad name,

It’s not? Then you must love Ron Paul.

today’s Republicans would be doing just that.

Republicans are conservative, not libertarian. I get the point that you’re trying to make, that the entire political spectrum is shifting right. (Which would be awesome, if it were true.) The positions stated above are not in any way, shape, matter, or form contradictory or inconsistent with conservatism, nor are they particularly libertarian. Indeed, it is not the positions or policies that have changed, only their priority and urgency, as determined by external events (like the national debt equaling GDP).

On the Democratic side, President Obama has moved so far to the right that

…he can now see the political center?

he has picked up many of the ideals the Republicans have jettisoned and embraced them as his own. It’s Obama who’s now the deficit-and-debt hawk and who has proposed cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

In abstract. Keep in mind that we still don’t know what the President proposed.

Congressional Democrats oppose the president’s proposed entitlement cuts, but in fact they’ve already voted to reduce Medicare spending (though not benefits) by passing health-care reform,

An excellent point that brings us to another horrifying truth: Holy Shit! There’s ANOTHER new money-sucking entitlement program just around the corner!!!

and, as part of the current budget negotiations, have agreed to major cuts in domestic as well as military spending.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with entitlement cuts, you colossal jackass.

In Obama’s defense,

Now comes the requisite verbal fellatio.

the Republicans he has to deal with have moved so far right that they make even the Gingrich-era GOP with which Bill Clinton grappled look like the Berkeley City Council.

ROTFLMAOLOLOLOL! Berkeley City Council! It’s funny because they’re liberal. A most enjoyable knee-slapper, Harold. Goodness, it’s good to laugh again.

The fiscal constraints on his presidency far exceed those Clinton confronted, too. But if the factors that have pushed Obama rightward are at least intelligible, those that have prompted the Republicans to winnow their agenda to one-note opposition to taxes and spending are nowhere so obvious.

Probably because you’re confusing an agenda with a priority. Not raising taxes is not an agenda. It’s not even a plan. The question is why liberals have insisted on an agenda that demands tax increases that they admit are token panderings.

For one thing, federal tax revenue as a percentage of the gross domestic product is at its lowest level since 1950.

An intellectually curious person would ask why. An intellectually adept person would immediately see that tax revenue as a percentage of GDP dips considerably in recessions and spikes in expansions regardless of tax policy. Harold Meyerson will, with Krugmanesque adroitness, glide right past this very basic and obvious truth.

The correlation between low federal taxes and job creation looks more inverse than direct.

Keep in mind, the invocation of trend analysis—regardless of how idiotic the analysis is—shows that he has looked at a table or graph showing federal tax receipts.

The economy generated far more net new jobs during the ’90s (approximately 22 million during Clinton’s presidency alone), before the Bush tax cuts, than it has since (approximately zero).

Well goodness, this seems like an appropriate time to point out that tax rates were even higher in the 70s, when the economy produced fewer net jobs and lower revenues than in the 90s. This tells us a few things. First, Harold Meyerson was handed a graph that began in 1992 by an intellectually disingenuous think tank (alternately, he himself is intellectually disingenuous.). Second, that the period he’s measuring for Clinton’s presidency measured trough of the 1992 recession to the peak of the 2000 expansion (just before the dot-com bust), whereas the Bush numbers were peak-to-trough. Third, is he seriously implying that tax increases improve the economy, or simply that tax cuts don’t hurt the economy as much as others assume?  

Yet in opposing any tax increases on the rich as part of a debt-reduction deal, House Speaker John Boehner vowed Monday that “the House cannot pass a bill that raises taxes on job creators.”

Job creators? What job creators?

Corporations, Small Businesses, and Individuals.

Over the past two months, according to employment statistics, we seem to have completely run out of job creators,

Great point. We shouldn’t worry about who actually has created jobs in this country for the past two hundred years. We should just give up.

though American multinational corporations are having no trouble creating jobs in the cheap-labor nations of Asia.

The wage gap has shrunk considerably in the last ten years. Asia’s not so labor-cheap anymore. But it is tax-cheap.

Small businesses, however, cannot expand until American consumers start buying more, and American consumers can’t start buying more until they work their way out of the debt they incurred during the recent decades of pervasive income stagnation.

Trivia question: which political party, in the late 90s and early 00s advocated giving low-income Americans access to credit that they wouldn’t otherwise have qualified for?

The Republicans, that is,

What is?

have embraced market libertarianism at the very moment that America’s market capitalism is functioning worse than at any time since the Great Depression.

Which gives us an exceptional opportunity to point out that we don’t actually have market capitalism. Because liberalism is incompatible with capitalism.

Their timing is so perverse that we have to seek explanations for their radicalism that go beyond those of economic philosophy.

Explanations such as: common sense?

Republicans, to be sure, have long waged a war on government, but only now has it become an apocalyptic and total war.

That might have something to do with the level of deficits, the impending defaults across Europe, and the refusal of the Democratic Party to deal with the issue.

Then again, it may also be a reflection of a conservative electorate that demands that their politicians collectively grow a pair.

At its root,

Careful, he’s getting into “root causes.” I suspct that this is where the column will veer from dumb to crazy. Wait for it. Wait for iiiiitttttt….

I suspect, is the fear and loathing that rank-and-file right-wingers feel toward what their government, and their nation, is inexorably becoming:

A neo-Socialist dystopia in which freedom is sacrificed at the altar of liberal political correctness?

multiracial,

Read: “Republicans hate taxes because they’re racist.”

multicultural,

Read: “Republicans hate taxes because they’re xenophobic.”

cosmopolitan

Read: “Republicans are hicks and hayseeds that play banjos and smell funny and say things like ‘folks’…but we’re not elitist. I promise.”

and now headed by a president who personifies those qualities.

Read: “Isn’t he dreamy? If only he were single…”

I'm sure that no one cares that Meyerson just basically said that black people love taxes. 

That America is also downwardly mobile

Downward mobility is a function of upward mobility, and is a byproduct of allowing capitalism to work without interference. It is the polar opposite of Too Big To Fail, which liberals have so staunchly embraced. In other words, Republicans support downward mobility because the absence of class barriers makes capitalism work better.

is a challenge for us all, but for the right, the anxiety our economy understandably evokes is augmented by the politics of racial resentment

This would be an exceptional time to provide a modicum of evidence for a patently outlandish claim. Seriously, even for the professional left this one is shockingly craven.

and the fury that the country is no longer only theirs.

If anything, Republicans proved in 2010 that the country still was theirs. They did this by pummeling Democrats with the message of “Vote Republican: We’re Not Democrats.” That is how profoundly “the country” fears and despises the Democratic Keynesian lunacy. But more importantly, what on earth compelled this article to allegations of Republican racism? Why is it relevant? What is it based on?

That’s not a country whose government they want to pay for

Is the implication that Republicans would be have liberal spending priorities if the country were exclusively white?

—    and if the apocalypse befalls us, they seem to have concluded, so much the better.

When all of the Republican negotiators on the debt ceiling acknowledge the need for a deal that raises the debt limit, it kind of feels like Harold isn’t qualified to be writing about this.

Most Americans, thankfully, don’t share the right’s romance with cataclysm —

If you’re going to make something up, at least use a turn of phrase that doesn’t sound like you’re brainstorming titles for a trashy romance novel.

 something then-Senate Republican leader Bob Dole realized when he called off the shutdown of 1996, something that current Senate GOP chief Mitch McConnell realized Tuesday when he unveiled a cynical and circuitous plan to back off from the impending smash-up. Dole persuaded his fellow Republicans to stand down. It’s not clear, given the furies that possess today’s Republicans, that McConnell can do the same.

He can’t, because you’re going to vilify him anyways. On the margins, being called cynical and circuitious is only slightly less venomous than being called racist and xenophobic. Not to mention that it’s bad for the country. Well done, Mitch. Score another one for the entrenched Republican establishment.

Winning? Harold Meyerson Needs a Consult From Charlie Sheen

Republican zeal runs amok

By Harold Meyerson, Published: July 5

To watch Republicans in action today, in Washington and in legislatures around the country,

It’s not a damn petting zoo.

is to be reminded of Casey Stengel’s amazed query to the 1962 Mets, whom he had the cosmic misfortune to manage: “Can’t anybody here play this game?”

I’m starting to develop some theories about liberal opinion pieces. There are two facets of their writing that are vitally important to them: outrage, and a rhetorical softness to draw away from the harshness and ugliness of the outrage. This is an excellent example. Meyerson swaddles his contempt over the perception of Republican incompetence in the blanket of old-time baseball Americana. Of course, it’s pure bullshit.

Forget, for a moment, that it’s sloppy writing to transpose your own reactions and interpretations universally onto the reader. (I mean really, who the hell is a Mets fan anyways?) It is telling that Meyerson’s first thought is to compare this political showdown to a game. After all, to the commentators and politicians who are intimately involved in it, I could see how it would feel like a game. That’s because they don’t bear the consequences. They argue over tax rates which they don’t pay. They don’t feel the pain of recession or the annoyance of government meddling. When was the last time you heard an elected official describe himself as a fiduciary? It’s easy to feel like you’re playing a game when you’re insulated from the consequences. We bear the consequences of that game. We, the nonplussed reader—onto whom this sloppy hack has transposed his reactions and interpretations—bear the costs.

In California, in Minnesota and here on Capitol Hill,

ROAD TRIP! I’ll bring the Funyuns and Slim Jims.

Republican legislators in divided governments seem incapable of taking half or even three-fourths of a loaf — of recognizing when they’ve won.

Wait a minute. Your premise was that Republicans are the 1962 Mets—the same Mets that won a mere 40 games, whose dismal .250 winning percentage was the worst in the history of the modern game. Now you’re saying that they’ve already won what essentially amounts to a the World Series? This metaphor fell apart before it got started.

By holding out for more when they’ve already attained plenty,

Ah. Not only have Republicans won, (in spite of being compared—for some unfathomable reason—to the 1962 Mets) but they have so badly trounced the Democrats that their victory borders on political avarice. This isn’t about pushing the best interests of the country; this is about Republicans showing poor sportsmanship by continuing to play the starters in the 4^th quarter of a blowout (or stealing second with a 12 run lead in the 8^th, if you want to stick to baseball metaphors.) Remember: it’s just a game.

they run the risk of coming away with nothing for themselves or inflicting avoidable calamity on everyone else.

Theory #2 about liberal opinions: They will always frame the debate by portraying Republicans in a negative light before introducing a single shred of factual evidence. Right now, this article could literally be about anything. Ethanol subsidies, education reform, abortion…what are we even talking about?

As Daniel Bell once said of American socialists, they act as if they’re in but not of the world.

Considering that Bell wrote a book titled The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism, it’s not hard to see why his primary objection to socialists was their lack of pragmatism.

But yes, socialists are crazy.

In California, for instance, where Republicans hold just over a third of the seats in each legislative house —

A feat only Charlie Sheen could describe as “winning.”

enough to block any tax increase, which requires two-thirds support — Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown told reporters on June 16 that he was willing to submit to voters proposals to reduce both state pensions and business regulations if Republican lawmakers agreed to let voters also decide whether to extend some tax increases.

Keep in mind that this is California, where people are flat-out insane and even the Republicans are liberal. A woefully underfunded state Republican Party of California, would be fighting a losing battle on two fronts. The vote to reduce pensions and business resolutions would inevitably fail, and the vote to increase taxes would undoubtedly succeed. In Meyerson’s “Republicans win” scenario, Democrats end up getting everything that they asked for, which sounds to me like Republicans not winning.

Brown’s goal was to avoid having to cut more deeply into spending on schools, universities and medical care.

These are not conservative priorities. Indeed we believe that schools, universities, and the medical care system are rife with fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. Budget cuts necessitate the realignment of priorities that is necessary to begin ferreting out this fraud, abuse, and mismanagement.

California businesses, which have complained of overregulation for decades,

Rightfully so. Running a business in California requires a touch of insanity.

were hot for the deal, but the Republicans refused to budge. In consequence, in the state budget passed last week, without the tax extensions, the state’s public universities will have to raise tuition roughly 10 percent (on top of another 10 percent increase that will take effect in September); and the poor will pay more for medical care. Pensions and regulations will remain unrevised.

And yet, there are no new taxes. So Republicans’ intractable bargaining position resulted in a win for everyone. Tax-payers shift the burden of the cost of education to the students, where it belongs. The poor rely on one of ten thousand other government programs to provide healthcare, and the rest of the state avoids a tax hike. And there was much rejoicing!

What makes the California Republicans’ intransigence so loony — “idiotic” is, I think, not too strong a term —

See how he couches a clumsy insult in cutesy language? Fuck off, Herold.

is that they are likely to lose legislative seats as soon as next year as a result of redistricting,

Que sera, sera. Most Republicans—even those that live there—see California as a lost cause anyways. At least they staved off financial ruin for another couple years.

and they are sure to lose legislative seats over the next decade because of their ongoing estrangement of the state’s Latino voters.

Is it just me, or is the demography argument for Hispanics voting Democrat just a little bit racist? At very least it’s presumptive.

When Republicans drop beneath one-third representation in the statehouse, Democrats will be able to raise taxes without their support.

And they’ll be able to raise taxes regardless of a voter referendum to the contrary. And they’ll be able to reverse all the rules regarding business regulation (which wouldn’t require a supermajority anyways.) One legislature can not bind the next. Short of an amendment to the state constitution, there’s nothing the Republicans can do to avoid whatever the Democrats will do when (/if) the gain a 2/3 majority of the House.

In other words, this may well have been Republicans’ last chance to extract concessions they considered vital. And they blew it off.

In other words, if electoral losses are a fait accompli, as you insist that it is, then it doesn’t matter what Republicans do now, because Democrats will simply reverse it later.

What we have here is an extreme world view — let’s call it Norquistism —

Let’s not. Ever since last week’s little guest spot from Deval Patrick,  (http://www.washingtonpost.com/how-grover-norquist-hypnotized-the-gop/2011/06/30/AGYOUlsH_story.html) Grover Norquist has somehow become the focus of liberal ire. It’s like he’s the new Karl Rove. Stop trying to create a boogeyman and actually refute his arguments that tax hikes cripple innovation and stifle growth.

that ensures impasse, paralysis or perverse outcomes whenever control of government is divided.

It’s called principled governance. The reason that this is an issue is that it’s new for Republicans.

It’s the doctrine preached by GOP activist and lobbyist Grover Norquist,

I don’t know Grover Norquist, but somehow I doubt that he’s out on the road “preaching” that we should have perverse outcomes in government.

who trots around the country

Again, he’s a conservative thinker, not a show pony.

collecting pledges from GOP candidates and elected officials that commit them to never, ever raise taxes, no matter what they may be offered in return.

This isn’t very complicated. Nor is it new. Similar pledges have been collected from the left and right about abortion. The right signs pledges on taxes, the left signs pledges on unionization. Like I said, the novel concept is that Republicans are actually sticking to their guns. Lo and behold, the American electorate agrees with them! And that’s what this is all about, isn’t it. That’s where you’re afraid Republicans are winning.

In Minnesota, a state with a Democratic governor and a Republican legislature, Gov. Mark Dayton sought to raise taxes on only the relative handful of Minnesotans with annual incomes in excess of $1 million.

First they came for the millionaires and I did nothing…

The legislature opposed that, insisting on cuts (including to services for those with disabilities) that Dayton wouldn’t countenance.

In other words, Dayton was stubborn.

Absent a budget, most state services in Minnesota closed down on July 1; it’s not clear when, or how, some compromise can be reached to reopen the state.

So this is the second example where Republicans were neither offered nor received anything that they wanted? Wait, what was the point of this article again? Honestly, probably to bring demagogue Grover Norquist again.

In the nation’s capital, Republicans also seem to have lost their capacity for compromise — even when that compromise looks to be a GOP victory.

Clearly, Harold, you don’t have a good grasp of what a GOP victory actually looks like.

Senate Republicans, for instance, have been urging President Obama since before he took office to finalize three trade accords — with South Korea, Colombia and Panama — and bring them before Congress.

Which should obviously be a no-brainer.

Obama has now done so, asking in return only that Republicans approve the renewal of Trade Adjustment Assistance, a program that aids workers who lose their jobs as a result of these kinds of trade deals.

In other words, Republicans get something that ought to be part of the regular operation of the government, and Democrats get a poorly defined, infinitely expandable pork boondoggle? (We’ve all seen how poorly the White House tallies job gains and losses.) How exactly is this a Republican win?

But Republicans are balking — boycotting last week’s meeting of the Senate Finance Committee at which these treaties were to be taken up — because they don’t like TAA.

Rightly so. This is like asking to attach an appropriations amendment for dairy subsidies to the confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice.

This is hardly a major program, mind you, but the GOP’s loathing of any program that provides government assistance to workers (who really shouldn’t need any assistance, as free trade is good for us all)

Whoa whoa whoa…in one tiny parenthetical you just undermined the entire justification for the Trade Adjustment Assistance. You’re absolutely right. The TAA is not needed. So the President is wrong for suggesting it. You’re also right that free trade is good for us all. So the President is wrong for holding up free trade deals with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama.

He’s so close to coming to a rational conclusion. Yet Harold thinks the problem is that Republicans are being intractable, despite being right on both issues. Meanwhile, the President, who is wrong on both issues and whose Party has controlled the processes in the Senate, bare none of the blame?

has eclipsed its long-term commitment to American corporate priorities.

No, it’s a commitment to fighting for what’s right as opposed to what’s politically expedient.

When zeal runs amok, the sense of proportion suffers.

Put that in a fucking fortune cookie; it doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously.

Today’s Republicans remind me of some leaders of the American Communist Party

The 1962 Mets were Communists? Scandalous!

whom I got to know decades ago,

Being a socialist and all…

after they’d left the fold. “We believed in the party line, in its infallibility, so completely,” one ex-commie told me, “that we’d forget the larger strategy for the momentary tactic.”

I don’t think you know the larger strategy of the Republican Party. It’s not complicated: lower taxes, smaller government, personal responsibility.  

So it was with Communists of yore; so it is with Republicans today.

It’s a novel tact, I’ll give you that. Base and entire article on faulty logic. Add a healthy dose of disdain. Make wild allegations, and end up comparing one group to its polar opposite. Frankly, it all just makes me wonder how this hack got a job as a professional writer.

Introducing Boehner to the New World Order

Obama calls the GOP’s bluff

By Eugene Robinson, Published: July 4

Here’s how to negotiate, GOP-style:

Oh, are we getting caricatured? How droll! I’ll do you next! This is going to be so much fun!

Begin by making outrageous demands.

Turn the tide on a half century of obviously unsustainable government spending? The horrors!

Bully your opponents

Apparently, to liberals, “bullying” is the equivalent of “refusing to vote for.” I mean, I get that they’re pussies, but that’s in Pee Wee Herman territory. Minus the creepiness.

into giving you almost all of what you want.

Which, keep in mind, hasn’t happened in the history of Republican negotiations with Democrats.

Rather than accept the deal, add a host of radical new demands.

I think you’re missing the point. The “no new taxes” thing wasn’t a new demand. It was a precondition of negotiation. It’s like saying that the Israelis are stubbornly sticking to guns in the negotiations with Palestine over their right to exist as a Jewish state. Why is this, as Eric Cantor said, a “nonstarter?” Because tax increases were never on the bargaining table—and for good reason.

Observe casually that you wouldn’t want anything bad to happen to the hostage

Whoa…suddenly the GOP only negotiates kidnappings? That’s…whatchacallit? Demagoguery? How’s that “new tone” of civility working out for the Post?

you’ve taken — the nation’s well-being.

Polish off some Krugman articles from the government shutdown fight a couple month ago. I’m pretty sure this is out-and-out plagiarism.

To the extent possible, look and sound like Jack Nicholson in “The Shining.”

Cute touch, but liberal op-ed writers have already ruined Jack Nicholson for me. (http://embracethedivide.blogspot.com/2011/03/ruining-jack-nicholson.html)

Now it’s my turn. Here’s how to write a column for mass consumption for a liberal audience: begin by making an outrageous statement. It’s best if it’s accusatory—something along the lines of Republicans are kidnappers or Republicans are a cult (not coincidentally, this one is on the Times’ Opinion Page today) or Republicans have made a macabre sport out of drop-kicking minority children with autism into steaming vats of acid. Don’t let the twirpishness of your accusations dull your outrage a lack of rhetorical decorum because Ann Coulter called liberals whatever Ann Coulter recently called liberals. Bludgeon the reader with asinine comparisons of the legislative process to horrific crimes. And, for good measure, throw in a pop-culture reference to show that you’re actually quite good-natured and relatable. If you’re done in the first paragraph, all the better. You can spend the next couple hundred words just riffing on the same tired theme.

This strategy has worked so well for Republicans

Boehner got his ass kicked last time we went down this road over the budget impasse.

that it’s no surprise they’re using it again,

Y’know, because last time there was a negotiation, the Republicans garnered so many sizeable concessions.

this time in the unnecessary fight over what should be a routine increase in the debt ceiling.

Yes, this ought to just be some trifling little procedural vote. It’s not like the government is plotting to squander trillions of our hard-earned money and trash our future generations’ credit scores.

This time, however, something different is happening: President Obama seems to be channeling Robert De Niro in “Taxi Driver.”

...A murderous psychotic? MSNBC just suspended a guy for saying that the President was “kind of a dick.”

At a news conference last Wednesday, Obama’s response to the GOP was, essentially, “You talkin’ to me?”

The GOP response: Maybe you would have heard us if you’d skipped this week’s round of golf.

Obama’s in-your-face attitude seems to have thrown Republicans off their stride.

Well, it’s totally reasonable to write this entire article based on the apparent perception that Republicans are “off their stride.”

They thought all they had to do was convince everyone they were crazy enough to force an unthinkable default on the nation’s financial obligations.

Seriously…we won’t default. Geithner will be forced to realign federal spending priorities and certain programs will face de facto cuts, but we won’t default. Maybe the pressure of having to make a payroll will force the federal government to sympathize with small businesses.

Now they have to wonder if Obama is crazy enough to let them.

It’s like this is Eugene’s first experience with negotiation. Everyone knows that walking away from the table is a powerful negotiating technique.

He probably isn’t.

I wouldn’t put it past him. Republicans have always had an inkling that Obama’s economic failings couldn’t possibly be the product of mere incompetence. We’ll see.

But the White House has kept up the pressure, asserting that the real deadline for action by Congress to avoid a default isn’t Aug. 2, as the Treasury Department said, but July 22; it takes time to write the needed legislation, officials explained. Tick, tick, tick . . .

It takes 11 days to write legislation that, ostensibly, every think-tank in DC is already writing? Do we need any more proof that the bureaucrats aren’t nimble enough to manage our economy?

“Malia and Sasha generally finish their homework a day ahead of time,” Obama said, gratuitously — but effectively — comparing his daughters’ industry with congressional sloth.

Aw…he used his daughters as political props…is it too late to get that World’s Greatest Daddy mug for the spot on the mantle next to the Nobel Peace Prize?

“It is impressive. They don’t wait until the night before. They’re not pulling all-nighters. They’re 13 and 10.

Being 13 and 10 might have something to do with why they’re not pulling all-nighters. That and a lack of access to Red Bull and/or mild amphetamines.

Congress can do the same thing. If you know you’ve got to do something, just do it.”

Adorable. He’s right, after all. Deciding the economic priorities of the last best hope for mankind by getting some 300 ego-driven politicians on-board in the start of an election cycle is roughly the equivalent of completing a page-long essay on Johnny Tremain or filling out our times tables for the number eight.

Obama’s pushing and poking are aimed at Republicans who control the House, and what he wants them to “just do” is abandon the uncompromising position that any debt-ceiling deal has to include big, painful budget cuts but not a single cent of new tax revenue.

Excellent negotiating tactic: forget your principles, forget your constituency, forget the country’s long-term viability and just do what the President tell you to. Nike’s iconic slogan of proactive freedom is usurped with the jingle-friendly twang of authoritarian propaganda.

The president demands that Congress also eliminate “tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires . . . oil companies and hedge fund managers and corporate jet owners.” Without these modest increases in revenue, he says, the government will have to cut funding for medical research, food inspection and the National Weather Service.

Much has been made of how essential these services are, but I’m alright with cutting literally all of these functions of the federal government. The pharmaceutical industry, private non-profits and local universities’ meteorology programs would probably pick up their respective slack almost instantaneously.

Also, presumably, whatever federal support goes to puppies and apple pie.

In other words, the whole argument is clearly, demonstrably bullshit. Democrats simply want to maintain the principle that raising taxes increases revenue—which it doesn’t.

In truth, some non-millionaires who never fly on corporate jets would also lose tax breaks under the president’s proposal.

So he bullshitted us.

And it’s hard to believe that the first thing the government would do, if Congress provides no new revenue, is stop testing ground beef for bacteria.

So he’s continuing to bullshit us. Was any part of this steaming pile not bullshit?

But Obama is right that the cuts would be draconian —

Ah. So he’s right that it would be bad, so he’s justified in his deceit because of rhetorical license.

and he’s right to insist that House Republicans face reality.

His imposed view of reality. Why is it any less absurd for the President to demand token tax increases to satisfy his base than it is for Republicans to demand no tax increases to satisfy their base?

My view, for what it’s worth, is that now is the wrong time for spending cuts or tax increases —

And yet you’re supporting a President that advocates both. Brilliant.

that it’s ridiculous to do anything that might slow the lumbering economic recovery,

Lumbering makes it sound forceful and slow. That’s not what’s going on at all. Meandering, lazy, tepid, demure, snoozing, timid, and flat would all be better descriptors. For that matter, so would fluffy, yellow, and turduckin. That’s right. That choice of adjective was so attrocious, that a better word would have been a nonexistent noun pupularized by John Madden to describe what happens when you decide that your Thanksgiving meats would be a lot better if they were cooked like a Russian Doll.

even marginally. But if there have to be cuts, then Republicans must be forced to move off the no-new-revenue line they have drawn in the sand.

I have yet to see a compelling argument for should. The only thing I’ve seen is a meager argument that Republicans are winning the negotiation.

Even if they move just an inch, the nation’s prospects become much brighter. This fight is that important.

Christ. Are tax increases really that important to these people?

Every independent,

Doesn’t exist.

bipartisan,

Definitely doesn’t exist, and if it does, it’s not worth a damn anyways.

blue-ribbon panel

Read: “the smartest people in the room.”

that has looked at the deficit problem has reached the same conclusion: The gap between spending and revenue is much too big to be closed by budget cuts alone.

Which means that they looked at it practically—that is to say, they looked at what is politically plausible. Either that or they didn’t actually look at historical revenues as a percentage of GDP.

With fervent conviction but zero evidence, Tea Party Republicans believe otherwise — and Establishment Republicans, who know better, are afraid to contradict them.

This is asinine. There’s plenty of evidence that the gap between spending and revenue can be closed by budget cuts alone. Here’s a hint: you start by cutting the budget and you don’t stop until it equals revenue. Ta da!!!

Magic!

The difficult work of putting the federal government on sound fiscal footing can’t begin as long as a majority in the House rejects simple arithmetic on ideological grounds.

Might want to join Sasha and Malia for a couple days, Eugene. Clearly they’ll be able to straighten you out on your arithmetic.

“I’ve met with the leaders multiple times,” Obama said, referring to House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. “At a certain point, they need to do their job.” The job he means is welcoming fantasy-loving Republicans to the real world, and it has to be done.

Now, I understand why—given historical precedent—one would assume that the Republican Party’s leadership would be expected to bring the right side of the base in line to court the independents.

Look no further than John McCain and Ron Paul. Both are barometers of the political atmosphere of the American political right. John McCain, once the antithesis of mainstream, is now seen as a curmudgeonly fool who never got over the desire to be liked by the “right sorts of people.” Ron Paul, on the other hand, once the crazy uncle living in the attic, has seen all of his core issues (except perhaps the Federal Reserve) come to the fore of the American right’s resurgence. The world has moved towards Ron Paul in the last three years. (Disclosure: I did not and will not vote for Ron Paul in a Republican primary or general election.)

Indeed, it is our duty to inculcate a sense of this new world order into old-timers like Boehner. We will welcome them from their disoriented fantasies of grandeur to the limitless promise of limited government. That is the real world.

The stakes are perilously high, but Obama does have a doomsday option: If all else fails, he can assert that a section of the 14th Amendment — “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law . . . shall not be questioned” — makes the debt limit unconstitutional and instructs him to take any measures necessary to avoid default.

Clearly, the President’s got enough problems with the courts. They keep overriding the drilling moratorium. Obamacare will be ruled unconstitutional. The assertion that our military incursion into Libya somehow doesn’t qualify as “hostility” is simply laughable. Does he really want to add to that the argument that the Executive has the authority to issue debt in direct contradiction to laws as they are passed when the 14^th Amendment specifically cedes power to the Legislature? Maybe, but he’ll have a hard time running as the Constitutional scholar.

Maybe that’s why, in this stare-down, the president doesn’t seem inclined to blink.

Or maybe he’s a zombie. Wait, do zombies blink?