Short: The death of talk radio

I blame conservative talk radio for the rabid, know-nothing streak in the hard right. So any news about the end of conservative talk radio greatly interests me. This article tells how elderly talk radio is. It should be shuffling off the air soon as its audience ages, shrinks, and becomes less desirable to advertisers. The younger generation never listens to the same stuff as their parents, so conservative talk radio is doomed. This is great news!

But not so fast. This commenter explains how his co-workers (soldiers, so presumably fairly young) listen to Rush every day during their commutes. It sounds like there are lots of these younger listeners. Damn, there goes my hope.

Image: wbobradio.com

Update 10/27/13. Did I really write that I blame radio for "the rabid, know-nothing streak in the hard right"?? What was I thinking? If a political faction has a know-nothing streak, it's not due to an outside force--it's because they choose to be that way.

Short: Let go of that fetish

I talked about political fetishes earlier, and labeled Obamacare as a fetish to the Tea Party. Making the GOP vote for higher taxes is a fetish for the left. Ezra Klein at the Washington Post doesn't use the same term, but he's on the same page. His advice to the Dems: don't push for tax increases and you will get so much more from the GOP:

"...they should see their leverage clearly: Republicans badly want entitlement cuts, but they don’t want them enough to trade for taxes. They badly want to replace sequestration, but not enough to trade for taxes. And they badly want tax reform -- but, again, not enough to trade for higher taxes."

I saw this with the sequester too. Now I'm not a partisan who wants the Dems to extract more concessions through wily negotiations, but I'm happy to see someone else being practical and clear-headed in their view of the negotiation process. 

Image: tribalartasian.com

Extra. You could also think of these fetishes as 'taking a trophy' or capturing your opponents' flag. It is the sweet victory of humiliating your opponent. It's not a smart goal, but sometimes we really want to do it.

Will the GOP finally stand up to the Tea Party?

I don't know. This was a big debacle for the GOP because they followed the Tea Party's preferred strategy. However, it's going to be hard to prove the Tea Party was wrong to the Tea Party adherents. They've set up a test that works like this:

• We will win if we try hard enough. 
• If we didn't win, it shows we didn't try hard enough.

That's not an argument you can disprove without getting theoretical and talking about the necessity of falsifiable hypotheses, and the theory of proof, and ... DO YOU THINK THE TEA PARTY CARES ABOUT THAT INTELLECTUAL STUFF? NO, THEY JUST GOT THEIR NEW TALKING POINTS FROM HERITAGE. (Ok, not Heritage, but one of those other Tea Partyish groups.)

So the Tea Party will never concede that its strategy was wrong or that its policy goals are wrong. But now, as I write this post, the GOP establishment is in the very process of folding. The Senate will vote on the Reid-McConnell short term compromise to raise the debt ceiling and end the government shutdown.

What will the relationship between the GOP and the Tea Party be after this vote? Tea Party and very conservative pressure groups like RedState, Club for Growth, Heritage, and FreedomWorks have warned Republicans not to support the CR/debt ceiling increase. The Tea Party isn't relenting.

That leaves the decision of how to respond to the GOP establishment. The votes may tell us something. If many GOP senators and representatives support the bill, they will show that they're rebuking the TP strategy. Furthermore, if these Republicans actively engage in the negotiations scheduled for the next two months, that is completely counter the TP game plan. That is what I'd like to see--the mainstream GOP following a different strategy from the Tea Party, a strategy that is pragmatic and based on what can be accomplished and what the majority of the electorate supports.

As I wrote above, I don't know if the GOP is going to stand up to the Tea Party, but I certainly hope they do. It will be good for the country... and fun to watch!

Image: whatsupyasieve.wordpress.com

What, me worry?

Well, yes, but only a tiny bit. The twitter feed from Robert Costa today is about both the Dems and the Senate GOP hardening their positions, so there's plenty to feed the jitters. But I'm not jittery because:

• The positions of the Senate negotiators are close. The Collins proposal is about 3 degrees from the Dem position. This opportunity isn't going to be spoiled since most of the Senate doesn't want to default on Oct. 17.
• When the Senate makes its deal, the House will grumble but have no choice but to sign on. The same with Obama. The same as with every choke point since August 2011.
• The Tea Party's big push is to protest closure of veterans' memorials. In other words, they're playing with a shiny object.

I won't belabor my case. Most likely a continuing resolution and debt limit increase will pass on or before Oct. 18. It's about the same likelihood as me being around to see it, which is very high unless a meteorite has my name on it. No worries.

Image: 123rf.com

The Greek tragedy of the GOP in tweets

I'm not gloating over the disarray for the Republicans. Hardly, since I value them as a counterweight to the excesses of the Dems. So I'm deeply saddened by how the GOP have tripped themselves up, and made poor choices one after another. Well, to be honest, I've had moments of schadenfruede watching stupid posturing crash and burn, but the lesson overall is a sad one.

The tweets of Robert Costa capture this poetically. Start with this one from 10/12/13 at 11:01am and continuing reading:

"GOP sens very worried that the longer this stretches on, hour by hour, and poll #s sink, Schumer & Co will push for more R concessions" [which is happening today 10/13/13]

"Handful of GOP sens + their aides believe Boehner fears losing his power if he brings up Collins-esque package and it gets 30% R support"

"I was surprised to hear how many Senate R power brokers are furious w/ Boehner's posture at conf today, think he's not being frank w/ membrs" 

"another notable convo in Sen this morn: Rs warning Schumer, Ds that if they truly break Boehner here, possibility for any big leg[islation] fades..." 

"So [Boehner]'s stuck. No "out" that can win big House R supprt, pass Sen; if Sen plan comes to H floor, it'd get D maj, but few Rs, break his gavel" 

"As House anger builds, clock ticks, House R ldrshp digs in, rushing a bill to floor. Sen Rs nervous abt contours of emerging Sen deal"

"House makes WH an offer, WH rejects. Priv talks on CR stall. Sen watches, sighs, starts its own talks. House becomes angry w/ WH & Senate" 

"There is a growing acceptance in Hill GOP that regardless of how this ends, it'll end badly, and Rs who back it will be blamed for caving" 

"in short, growing # of Rs could care less about a con$ervative group's threats about not being Cruz-esque/CR warrior when BCA '11 at risk" [BCA = Budget Control Act aka sequester] 

"polls have dipped, House in disarray, Sen Rs on ropes. Now, cries/anger of Right fading, seem minor as hardball of Sen Ds rattles them"

There is no need for me to comment. These tweets say it all.

...Now, cries/anger of Rignt fading...

Image: danielwarner.blog.tdg.ch

Next phase: Rejecting the offers

In late September, all the offers to continue funding government came attached to poison pills for Obamacare. Obama and the Dems unsurprisingly said "no" with a great deal of firmness.

Now there is a flurry of offers minus those poison apples for Obamacare, but Obama and the Dems are still saying "no." The House GOP made an unbelievably generous offer of extending the debt limit for six weeks, keeping the government shut down, not alternating Obamacare yet, and holding negotiations with Obama (still the great enemy, but one who must be negotiated with). Obama said "no," and the House GOP are so hurt and insulted that they won't be trying to be reasonable like that again for a while.

So the playing field shifts to the Senate. The Dems voted on their wishlist, but lost 53-45 because 60 is the new 51 in the Senate. Susan Collins (R-Maine) offered a 3 month debt limit extension, six months of government funding, and a 2-year delay in the medical device tax in Obamacare. Harry Reid rejected that offer--it sounds like he didn't even allow a vote. These Dems are getting so picky about these offers.

It's easy to understand both sides want to maximize what they get, but I hope the Dems don't overdo it. We better not go into default over a $19 billion differential and a delay to one of several funding provisions in Obamacare.

Not that I think we'll reach default. The Senate Dems and GOP are quite close, and they're still talking, so they'll get closer still. They'll hammer out a deal and pass it with probably 65+ votes (had originally predicted 70, but I'm a bit more pessimistic one day later).

Then it will be up to the House to eat crow and sign on, or plunge the country and entire world into financial uncertainty. The majority in the House aren't that stubborn or stupid, so we will have an agreement. Hoorah! Our parks will reopen, cancer research can resume, the House gym will reopen for House idiot and hero alike, hundred of minor or larger annoyances will end, and my furloughed sister can get back to working too hard. We'll also finally have the budget negotiations we should have had five months ago. Sigh. So much sturm und drang.

Image: tundratabloids.com

Extra. What should sidelined Tea Partiers do? Hunt RINOs, throw accusations, beatify Ted Cruz, and send Hail Mary checks to Tea Party groups and candidates.

Edit 10/14/13. Concerning how many votes the deal will get in the Senate: I'm not a voter counter. I don't know all the electoral considerations that will drive individual senators. However, I think that a fair number of GOP senators would like to be able to say that they helped avert a default.

Short: Debt Default 101 ... before it's moot

The talking point on the right is that US doesn't have to default on its bonds, or SS payments, or anything that could bring a shitstorm down on the GOP.

Is this true? How would we know, especially those of us who aren't zipperheads waiting for conservative commentators to tell us what to say?

I did what I always do, some online research. Here's a history of US federal government defaults. There was a brief, accidental default in 1979. The one before that was in 1934, when the US went to a fractional gold standard. These defaults tell us nothing about what would happen in the 21st century if the US was to default.

What does a non-zipperhead business reporter think will happen if we default? It depends how long the default lasts, but it's not good and gets worse from there.

Finally, what about prioritizing US government payments? No can do. No legal framework and no practical framework.

I hope you aren't too tired for one last question. Why aren't the Republicans asking these questions instead of speculating out their asses?

Default party confetti!!!! Bonds, of course

Image: shredinstead.com

Extra. Here's the follow-up post with more details on why prioritizing payments isn't a workable idea.