Fascinating links. Too good not to publish.

Real power in Congress-problem solvers. Hell is a narrow majority. 

Rare common ground in SCOTUS. How the theory that state legislatures could decide electors got busted. 

Brazil: Bannon tactics/riots. Code words used to set it up. 

Great video showing global temperature rise. 

Russia planning for offensive---mince meat. Specifically, Russian troops will be mince meat in their Feb '23 offensive

Qualified immunity

Lessons of the anthrax scare.

Detransitioners. Study on hormones for teens isn't conclusive. To read? Is this the one were no measure was that good? Check on depression. Critique of Dr. Turban, pro-transition psychiatrist. Jordan Peterson talking with detransitioner Chloe Cole. Great video of trans vs detrans discussions----watch and list the questions discussed. Reuters series on trans issues: long wait times for Tavistock. US teens and top surgery. 

Uvalde. He has a battle rifle. Report on the response from officers on the ground. 

Revisiting the stimulus negotiations

I wrote long ago about the breakdown of bipartisanship in 2008/2009 even in the midst of the economic crisis. I was reminded of it today while reading an interview with Obama:

"When I came into office, my working assumption was that because we were in crisis, and the crisis had begun on the Republicans’ watch, that there would be a window in which they would feel obliged to cooperate on a common effort to dig us out of this massive hole. ...I vividly remember having prepared a basic proposal that had a variety of components. We had tax cuts; we had funding for the states so that teachers wouldn’t be laid off and firefighters and so forth; we had an infrastructure component. We felt... we would begin negotiations with the Republicans and they would show us things that they thought also needed to happen. On the drive up to Capitol Hill to meet with the House Republican Caucus, John Boehner released a press statement saying that they were opposed to the stimulus. ...And I think we realized at that point ... was a calculation based on what turned out to be pretty smart politics but really bad for the country: If they cooperated with me, then that would validate our efforts. If they were able to maintain uniform opposition to whatever I proposed, that would send a signal to the public of gridlock, dysfunction, and that would help them win seats in the midterms."

Many conservative commenters have harped on a large meeting Obama had with most of Congress, where he said "I won." They have claimed those two words were enough to ruin the budding relationship, and therefore it was Obama's fault that Republicans didn't work with him. This is such bullshit--that two words would have been enough. But I wanted to look at the contemporaneous reports of this meeting.

From HotAir on 1/23/09, the same day as the meeting:

"Vintage O: Always willing to hear the other side out, never willing to actually vote with them. ... The GOP’s simply not going to obstruct Hopenchange this early, when he has this much goodwill from the public, when the economic circumstances are this dire, and when even conservative economists are endorsing some sort of stimulus."

Fascinating. That conservative author had already decided that Obama was the problem because he wouldn't listen to them. That's such a contrast to Obama's memory of it. I have to support the notion that the GOP already planned to oppose rather than negotiate, and had their talking points prepared, as in this one from Boehner:

"How can you spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives? How does that stimulate the economy?"

The GOP version of the stimulus was to have only permanent tax cuts--no money for states to maintain teachers and police in their jobs, no money for working poor in the form of rebates. The GOP wanted only their version, or there would be no GOP votes for the stimulus.

A few GOP senators defied this solid opposition, or there would have been no stimulus, with the GOP reaping the well-deserved blame. The GOP avoided that big mistake because there were enough Dems to vote for the stimulus, but that only allowed them to continue the strategy of heavy obstruction and almost no negotiation.

That remains their strategy through the present, and probably into the future. That strategy started right at the beginning of 2009, and it wasn't due to intransigence from Obama, no matter what they claim.

...because they didn't win.

Image: pinterest.com

Extras. More talking points from the GOP from January 2009. Tight cooperation between the GOP and Fox News. NY Times report from late January 2009.

Update 10/5/16. A different viewpoint on the incidents discussed here.

Big/small deal: Political analysis

In my last post I discussed some of the fiscal aspects of the deal--the simple math, walking back part of the sequester, some fees--mostly small stuff.

The bigger impact of the deal is that it's a two-year budget. There won't be a government shutdown for two years. This is an even longer period than that covered by the August 2011 deal, which laid out the budget until after the next big election. Why is this for a longer period, instead of until after the next election? A good question to ponder.

The deal doesn't include debt ceiling increases. Why? To allow the Tea Party congressional members to do a bit of grandstanding and vote against the debt ceiling several times. The debt ceiling increases will pass with enough votes from Republicans and amid charges of RINOism and treason. Yawn.

The Tea Partyers and their organizations are trying to raise a ruckus over this deal, but John Boehner told them to shut up. Besides, it's a done deal because THE HOUSE ALREADY PASSED IT!!!!! Wow, that was fast, and was planned to be that way. The House gets to adjourn and soon the Senate will rubberstamp the deal too. And everyone goes home for Christmas unlike last year. If you're taking a Christmas trip to a national park or monument, they'll be open and staffed. [House vote: GOP 169-62, Dem 162 -32.]

The Tea Party is a clear loser in this. The only leverage they'll have is the very dangerous debt-default-no-debt-ceiling-increase gambit. Their numbers aren't high enough to carry out that dynamite trick, but they can still make noise about it. This article points out that Paul Ryan gains stature as an adult politician when you need one. No one is writing the same about Patty Murray (I just checked). She's still a hack in my book, but she can be a good little sock puppet for Harry Reid when he needs her.

So, what will the two parties do in the next two years? They could start the really tough negotiations on Medicare, Medicaid, and, to a lesser extent, Social Security. They could lob mudballs at each other for the next 11 months until the 2014 midterm elections. The GOP could continue its Cold Civil War, and it could completely explode. Since it doesn't take that many people to negotiate, we could have all this possibilities playing out at the same time. Any negotiations that occur will be only exploratory because each side will want to wait for the outcome of the midterm elections in hope for an improvement in their position. (I should clarify who might negotiate: the establishment GOP, the establishment Dems, certainly not the Tea Party GOP.)

This is a better outcome than I was expecting. They compromised without kicking and screaming, and actually changed the terms from the previous testy agreement. That shows a modicum of flexibility where I hadn't expected any. Wow. Merry Christmas, everyone. Peace on Earth, goodwill to men.

Image: itmakessenseblog.com

Romney as a bipartisan?

This is what Romney is saying now in his stump speeches as he campaigns in Florida:

"[We] are going to have to do what we’ve done before, which is reach across the aisle. We have to build bridges to people in the other party. We have to recognize this is not a time in America for us to pull back, and to divide and to demonize. It’s a time in America for us to come together, to look for common ground, for places where we have agreement."

He also said this in the third and last debate:

"America’s going to come back, and for that we need a president who knows how to work across the aisle."

Hey, it sounds great. I'm all for bipartisanship. I even foolishly thought the super committee would work. But excuse me if I have some doubts about how strongly Romney supports bipartisanship. It didn't seem to be a talking point for him when he was running for the nomination. He also doesn't seem to be pushing the idea among his fellow Republicans. Marco Rubio says the Senate must be in GOP hands:

"Voters understand that electing Mitt Romney but allowing the Senate to remain in the hands of a Democratic majority means many of the things our country desperately needs aren’t going to happen." 

What are the chances that Romney and/or the other Republican leaders are going to work with the Dems if they don't need their votes to pass legislation? I don't actually want to find out. I'd prefer that divided power forced the two parties to work together, despite Romney's proclamations. After all, the last bipartisan era in this country was dead before the president was even inaugurated. Romney doesn't strike me as more capable of delivering on that illusive promise.

Image: newsrealblog.com

Extra. I found one Republican who did actually sound bipartisan--Charlie Bass of New Hampshire. I guess it'll just be him, Romney, and Ryan reaching across that aisle.

Bipartisans in the Race

Hunstsman is a bipartisan, or at least was when he worked in the Obama administration as ambassador to China. Ron Paul doesn't seem to believe in partisan politics, his ideals put him above all that. Obama tried to be bipartisan, but we have to forgive him if he believes it was a vain attempt. Republicans have not only spurned his bipartisanship, they have accused him of being a socialist, Marxist, anti-American, a Muslim terrorist, the most polarizing politician in America. He hasn't gotten any love or respect for his real efforts.

********************************************

I wrote that on November 17th. If anything, it's become more significant and poignant since then. Romney has upped his trashing of Obama, and Gingrich has upped his trashing of everyone. I didn't see any glimmers of bipartisanship during the Christmas recess, even though Congress will have to take up the continuation of the Social Security tax cuts. Oy vey!

Simpson-Bowles economic plan - WIN

I've written about my support of the Simpson-Bowles plan many times, but I'm finally doing a capsule review as I've done of Obama's, Romney's, and Cain's plans. A debt-reduction commission was created by Obama in early 2010 after Congress after the Republicans in the Senate refused to give a mandate for a commission and guarantee a vote on their recommendations.

The commission was bipartisan with members from the House, Senate, business, and economic experts. They worked from April 2010 until December 2010. In the end, 11 of 18 commission supported the report, with the dissenters split nearly equally between Dems and Repubs. (Thanks, Wikipedia, for this background.)

This plan is actually very readable with all major recommendations put into categories and bullet pointed, like this:

RECOMMENDATION 1.1: CAP DISCRETIONARY SPENDING THROUGH 2020. Hold spending in 2012 equal to or lower than spending in 2011, and return spending to pre-crisis 2008 levels in real terms in 2013. Limit future spending growth to half the projected inflation rate through 2020.

Budget Cuts

Roll back discretionary spending to $688 billion for security and $410 billion for non-security spending. Let agency heads recommend the budget reductions for their department; Congress will not be allowed to micromanage and protect a fiefdom.

Cut congressional and white staffing and budgets by 15%. Reduce federal workforce by attrition. Institute pay freezes and much tighter travel budgets.

Tax Reform

Raise gasoline taxes $.15 a gallon for adequate funding for transportation (currently partially funded through borrowing).

Eliminate most deductions. All dividend and capital gains will be taxed as the same rate as earned income. The commission offered three choices to determine which brackets to establish:

• If there are no deduction and no credits, the brackets would be 8, 14, and 23%.
• If there are credits for low-wage workers and their families, the brackets would be 9, 15, and 24%.
• If there are credits for low-wage workers and somewhat limited deductions for mortgage interest, health insurance, charitable giving, and retirement savings, the brackets would be 12, 22, and 28%.
• Exemptions would be maintained as is. The standard deduction would become an exemption. A family of four would exempt $26,000 from taxes.
• Business income tax would be 26 or 28%.

Health Care Spending

• Freeze doctor reimbursement for 2013 and have a 1% reduction in 2014. 
• Reform the payment formula. Repeal the longterm care part of ACA (already done). 
• Institute a simpler, higher deductible higher copay. 
• Require the same drug rebate for some on Medicare as already used in Medicaid. 
• Increase fraud division. 
• Decrease contributions to states for Medicaid administration costs. 
• Reform malpractice law and create specialized courts. 
• Start pilot programs for health insurance vouchers for federal workers (already in ACA and part of Ryan plan for Medicare). 
• Create a board like the IPAB payment board to set reimbursement rates. 
• Once reforms are in place, establish hard caps that allow spending increases that match the percentage growth in GDP plus 1% per year.

Mandatory Spending Reforms

Change federal pension rules to bring them in  line with lower rates in the private sector. Reduce spending on agricultural subsidies. There is also a bunch of smaller savings on student loans, general fees, mines, private pension insurance, energy, post office.

Social Security

Change benefit formulas to provide better support for low-income, very old, and long-term disabled. Provide less generous support at the high end. Raise the retirement age, tax more income, make state and local workers join SS.

Enforcement

Cut spending somewhat gradually. Start tax increases after first year of substantial spending cuts. The CBO will score spending bills and send them  back to committee when they exceed the allotment for their category of spending. OMB can require across the board cuts if Congress passes offending bills.

An appointed ongoing committee will recommend 2% cuts every year by identifying programs that are no longer needed or not working as planned. They will also recommend consolidation of redundant programs.

No off-budget spending for wars.

Congress will define what constitutes "emergency" and "disaster" spending. They will establish a special fund for disaster relief based on 10 year average.

My Critique

It's a  great plan. I think the exemptions are a bit low. It doesn't zero out the deficit in its ten-year projection, which I think should be a goal in any plan because we can't pay down our debt until we have a zero deficit. Those are my two specific criticisms. That doesn't decrease my awe at the achievement of the commission. They were actually able to reach agreement in many areas:

• Cutting the federal workforce
• Discretionary spending limits
• Healthcare spending (where agreement is especially hard to reach)
• Social Security
• Provisions to enforce the budget agreements

The one area where they couldn't reach a final agreement was tax reform, and even then, they agreed on a framework and three workable options within that framework. Whittling tax reform plans down to option A, B, or C, and getting agreement to present just those options is still a solid achievement.

You can compare the Simpson-Bowles plan to mine, but I wish you wouldn't. On the other hand, go ahead and compare it to Romney's plan and Obama's plan. For laughs, compare it to Cain's plan. Remember when he was the frontrunner?

The Payoff

Within the first 4 years of the plan, we reduce our deficit to 2.3% of GDP, then down to 0.8% by 2025. In the meantime, normal growth in GDP will make our debt smaller as a percent of the economy.

Green - current trajectory

Red - Bush tax cuts expire

Blue - Simpson-Bowles WIN!

Edit 12/27/11. Added my second criticism, that the plan didn't zero out the deficit.

History for Amnesiacs: 2009 Bipartisanship FAIL

Obama came into office saying that he wanted to change the atmosphere of partisanship and bring people together. I wanted to look back with see how this vision failed and to apportion blame.

 The Republicans

The campaign was plenty nasty, especially among the activists. It's not surprising that rhetoric like "socialist," "hates America" and such couldn't be turned off in the weeks between the election and when Congress started its new term.

The conservative blogs, or more accurately, the talk-radio online blogs, were saying things like:

So much for a "Centrist" Obama Administration - Punk Emanuel Selected for Obama Chief of Staff -- Macsmind blog 11/4/08

I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work.... I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails." Somebody's gotta say it.--Rush Limbaugh 1/16/09

The respectable conservatives and Republicans were taking a wait-and-see posture. But that evaporated pretty quickly. For some, all it took was two words "I won" spoken at a meeting with Republican leaders in the run-up to the stimulus bill (see below). Others waited until the unveiling of the stimulus bill, which the Wall Street Journal called the "40-year Wish List." That was comparatively polite (see below). [Update 4/11/14. Maybe the respectable Republicans weren't waiting. An author specializing on Republicans reported that on Inauguration Day, Kevin McCarthy said "We've gotta challenge them on every single bill and challenge them on every single campaign." This was at a strategy dinner attended by a dozen congressional leaders and GOP strategists, including Frank Luntz. Update 2/1/15. I don't know how I missed this. The plan was conceived and enforced by GOP leadership, and it was absolute--no cooperation at all. ]

Republican amendments to the bill were voted down. But you should also note that some objectionable provisions were removed by the Democrats before the bill was made public. A third of the stimulus was in the form of tax cuts and rebates. However, no Republican in the House voted for the bill. Any semblance of bipartisanship in the House was over.

A few Republican senators, including Snowe and Grassley, continued to work with Democrats on the Senate version of the stimulus. In the end, only three Republicans votes for the stimulus: Snowe, Collins, and Arlen Specter, soon to be a Democratic, then soon to lose his seat. The stimulus was signed on 2/17/2009. (An overview of the bill and a critique here.)

A tiny bit of bipartisanship lingered on in the Senate during the summer, when Olympia Snowe worked with Democrats on the health reform bill, but it was over by sometime in the fall of 2009. Of course in the meantime, the Tea Party movement started in February 2009. Its founders had already organized in anticipation of some Democratic offense, and they readily felt offended by the stimulus.

The Democrats

On the Democratic side, the major mistake was cramming too much stuff into the stimulus and not being more fair-handed in deciding what to cram in. There were a few other mistakes--the biggest being Obama's invitation to Judd Gregg to be Secretary of Commerce, only minus the responsibility for the 2010 census.
Among the activists, or those who announce what is just below the surface, there was a lot of self-congratulations and at least a few threats to follow a non-centrist agenda (see below).

Division of the Blame

In an earlier post, I asked:

• Did conservatives ever give Obama and Congress a chance to be bipartisan? Did the Democrats have a chance but blew it? Or were the compromises never going to be enough, and these conservative networks were poised to attack from the very beginning?

Chances were heavily stacked against this president. Maybe it was impossible for a new president, coming into office during a financial crisis, to get every choice correct. But I have to say no, it wasn't absolutely inevitable. But small and medium-sized mistakes are all too likely to happen. With the other actors on the scene, there wasn't much margin for error. We elected a president who wasn't wise and experienced, and who didn't have a canny team who knew how high the stakes were. So Obama and his team deserve a small share of the blame.

Nancy Pelosi, with her handling of the stimulus bill, deserves somewhat more blame. I can't back this up with more evidence than what I've given (which isn't much), but she was the Speaker, and she was heavily involved. Her hand in the creation process of the stimulus and reviled health reform bills costs the Democratics a great deal of support. She should step down. I think her egotism keeps her from stepping aside and giving the leadership to someone who could help Democrats rather than further blacken them.

The largest portion of blame belongs to the Republicans and conservatives who were so ready to throw aside bipartisanship and become the hyperpartisans they are now. There were only a few in the Senate who demonstrated any commitment to bipartisanship. For the rest, it was just a pantomime.

(Edited 11/24/11)

Extras

Balanced article on this topic by a journalist with more resources than I have. Loads of details.

12/9/08. Before civility fell apart. WSJ article and tame comments:

"The general sense among economists being canvassed by the Obama team is that "every day there's a new bad number," one of the people familiar with the matter said. "And people's sense of what the appropriate stimulus is rises" with the news."

1/18/09: Opposition getting stronger:

"I think we're going to be treated to.hagiography for weeks if not months," Erickson complained. "The first time Obama uses the bathroom, Newsweek will do a five-page spread."

I hope he fails

1/21/09. Incidentally, Rush's pronouncement was inspired by a request from the Wall Street Journal for a piece for Obama's inauguration. Newt Gingrich received the same request, and provided this:

President Barack Obama is one of the smartest leaders ever to occupy the White House. His transition has been centrist and responsible in tone. His appointments have been establishmentarian far more than radical left. His outreach to conservative intellectuals and to Republicans in the Congress has been positive and has had serious impact.

On the other hand, ... Mr. Obama's trillion dollars on top of Mr. Bush's trillion dollars represents the largest orgy of government control and government expenditure since the New Deal...

Conservative Vitriol Nearly Full Force

1/23/09. Here were conservative some reactions to reports that Obama said "I won." It's incredible that the talking points that have become so familiar were already honed back at the beginning of 2009. But that's to be expected from a well-functioning political lie machine:

Bob wrote: BO is of course correct, the D’s won, but that still does not make the concept that 50% of the American public will not be paying Fed Income taxes / some will get a check for breathing, correct.

AP wrote: The Manchurian Candidate certainly does not build confidence in the GOP with his comment. He has clearly set the table for stark debate between the two factions once again. Let’s all remember that he is nothing but a dirty politian anyways.

Richard Ingold wrote: Now as to what the GOP should do…FIGHT LIKE HELL AS CONSERVATIVES, NOT LAY ON THEIR BACKS W THEIR FEET IN THE AIR LIKE DEAD BUGS! RESIST NEVER SUBMITT…..DID THE DEMS STOP RESISTING IN 2001 OR 2005 …CERTAINLY NOT!

Huh? wrote:  after the Dems forced the banks to make those bad loans, what did you think the Dems intended for them to do with them? ‘Spread’ the risk around the rest of the economy or sit on them and go bankrupt? C’mon.

The Winners Speak

1/23/09. Liberals were quick to remind Republicans of certain facts:

toadnet wrote: You Rebublicans do remember getting your asses kicked in the last 2 elections – losers need to step aside and let the new team clean up W’s mess.

Big Duke wrote: Dear Republicans and you shills at the WSJ. We tried it your way for 8 long years. With the exception of the select few of you who just got the biggest government handout in the history of history, we are pretty much all worse off for it.

Limbaugh as Co-President

1/29/09. Limbaugh:

Let’s say the vote was 54% to 46%. As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009: 54% of the $900 billion — $486 billion — will be spent on infrastructure and pork as defined by Mr. Obama and the Democrats; 46% — $414 billion — will be directed toward tax cuts, as determined by me.

I remember my reaction to this proposal by Limbaugh. I thought he was quite the egotist: that he was on par with the duly elected president; that he spoke for the "loyal opposition" and could bargain on their behalf; that he should have control over some of the proceeds from national legislation.

Full-Force Opposition

2/6/09. Three weeks after the inauguration:

Poor little rich kid handed everything he wants on a silver platter. Gets the presidency with a lock on Congress and gets upset he doesn't get 100% compliance. Stop looking for cover ZERObama. Pass your Porkulous and garner or suffer the fallout depending on its merits.

BHO is just showing his socialist agenda; America should not be surprised.  He should drop the facade of trying to look to be anything but a socialist.

Harry Reid Prays for PORK and PAYOFF money!

[Alternate view] So come on G.reedy O.bstructionist P.oliticians. You did not obstruct your war criminal President Bush. You gave 700 billion, calling it " bail out money "to your corporate ceo friends for a luxurious lifestyle. Now give some help to hard working Americans, health care and schools and give President Obama a chance.

(Edited 11/24/11 for chronological order, length, and adding titles. Edited 1/5/12 to add short quotes.)

History for Amnesiacs: The Origins of the Tea Party

I started with the question of how Obama's bipartisanship died, but that led very quickly to questions of how the Tea Party started. Were these people who grew tired of Obama's partisanship and organized marches and shout-downs at town halls?

I was surprised at what I found out. The main Tea Party organizers were already in communication with each other in February 2009. Separately, FreedomWorks was organizing grassroots groups against "the Obama agenda" during January 2009 in Virginia and Florida. A woman who attended the FreedomWorks seminar in Tampa organized a protest against Obama's stimulus proposal on February 10 and received national coverage on (wait for it)... Fox News. In Seattle, a local conservative blogger planned an anti-stimulus rally on February 16, and got national attention from Michelle Malkin.

When Rick Santelli yelled on CNBC about subsidizing your neighbor's mortgage when he has a extra bathroom that you don't have, and said he would hold a Chicago tea party in July, the conservatives were ready the next day (Feb. 20) to follow up on his words. Through a large, organized conference call (about 50 activists), they picked a date for multi-city demonstrations one week later on February 27, 2009. They already had their local networks, and turned out an estimated 10,000 protesters that day. Though the protests didn't garner much media attention, the conservative groups remained active and planned even larger protests for April 15, 2009. They also attracted more established conservatives, such as Dick Armey and Newt Gingrich, and, of course, Fox News. That is part of the story of how the Tea Party was born.

So, for my original question: Did the original Tea Party organizers start because they grew tired of Obama's partisanship? No. They were primed to protest even before Obama took office. They didn't even give him a month before they planned actions.

But another question is whether Obama and Congress ever tried to reach out to the GOP and act in a bipartisan way. Did they have a chance but blew it? Or were the compromises never going to be enough? That's a big question. (Answered, more or less, here.)

Nashville TN Tea Party, February 27, 2009

"I wish they would have something like this within driving distance for me here in PA. Generally the Harrisburg (capital) radio station's talk radio guys do a good job of rallying up the troops. Keep shining the spotlight of the truth on these guys. Good job." -- Dave

Extras:  Tea Party timeline, pre-Tea Party conservative response to Obama.