Last Call For Our Brand New Idiot

Remember Trey Radel, the former Florida Tea Party darling of a congressman who was such a moron that he demanded SNAP recipients get drug tested before they could get food stamps, and was himself busted for cocaine and resigned in disgrace in January?

Meet Radel's equally stupid replacement, GOP Rep. Curt Clawson.

Rookie Florida Rep. Curt Clawson appears to have made a major faux pas at a Foreign Affairs hearing, mistaking two U.S. government officials for Indian government representatives.

Foreign Policy called it "intensely awkward." From the FP blog:

The two officials, Nisha Biswal and Arun Kumar, are Americans who hold senior positions at the State Department and Commerce Department, respectively. Although both Biswal and Kumar were introduced as U.S. officials by the chairman of the Asia and Pacific subcommittee, Clawson repeatedly asked them questions about "your country" and "your government," in reference to the state of India.

"I'm familiar with your country; I love your country," the Florida Republican said. "Anything I can do to make the relationship with India better, I'm willing and enthusiastic about doing so."

Apparently confused by their Indian surnames and skin color, Clawson also asked if "their" government could loosen restrictions on U.S. capital investments in India.

He thought they were officials from India.  Because of course, they couldn't possibly be Americans.  Nor would Rep. Clawson give enough of a damn about his job to know who he was actually dealing with, because after all, he's a Congressman, dammit.

This, by the way, is what a real "out-of-touch politician", "arrogant princeling", and "empty suit neophyte" looks like.  Notice his name is not Barack Obama.

Yes, The White House Sees It Coming

Here's a clever play by White House staffer Dan Pfieffer, who fully expects Orange Julius to play the impeachment card after the 2014 midterms and lets everyone know it.

Dan Pfeiffer, a senior aide who has been with the administration since Obama first took office, told reporters that he anticipated that a lawsuit filed by House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) over executive actions taken by the president on health care would ultimately not be enough to satisfy some of the more vocal conservatives in Congress. 

Pfeiffer added that coming executive actions surrounding immigration reform would only stoke the impeachment flames. 

"I think a lot of people in this town laugh that off," said Pfeiffer. "I would not discount that possibility. I think that Speaker Boehner, by going down this path of this lawsuit, has opened the door to Republicans possibly considering impeachment at some point in the future."

Pfeiffer wouldn't bother responding to such speculation unless the goal was to egg the wackos in the GOP on to try to force Boehner to pull the trigger, and one loudmouth wacko is playing right into it:
 

Speaking at the Christian Science Monitor breakfast, Pfeiffer based his prediction on several factors. The first was former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) calling for articles of impeachment to be drawn over the president's executive action allowing certain young undocumented immigrants to stay in the country. The second was a CNN poll released Friday morning showing that while just 33 percent of the country supported impeachment, a full 57 percent of Republicans were in favor of it. 

"I think impeachment is a very serious thing that has been bandied about by the recent Republican vice presidential nominee and others in a very unserious way," said Pfeiffer. "And no one has even made any allegation of anything that would be within six universes from what is generally considered in that space."

Looks like somebody's found an actual use for Moose Lady after all. Who knew, right?

We'll see if the "unserious" charge sticks.  Villagers do love that imaginary word and if they start piling on, the anger factor in the GOP will certainly ignite something stupid, dangerous, and detrimental.

Maybe even before the midterms.  Wouldn't that be something...

Ford, The Border, And The Turtle

Last night was the annual Kentucky Democratic Party's Wendell Ford dinner, honoring the legendary 89-year old former senator and governor who is battling lung cancer.  Wendell's grandson Clay was in attendance, along with Gov. Dinosaur Steve and Senate candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes, and the main course was fried turtle with a side of crow.

After the event, Grimes took a few questions from the press and was asked again if she supported President Barack Obama's request for $3.7 billion in emergency supplemental funds to deal with the influx of Central American children across the nation's border with Mexico.

When asked earlier this month, Grimes four times declined to take a position, referring instead to the immigration bill that passed the U.S. Senate in 2013. On Thursday night, Grimes said, "My response remains the same."

"It's an example of Washington not working right now," Grimes said. "A year ago, we had the opportunity to pass comprehensive immigration reform, and Mitch McConnell stood in the way.

McConnell voted against the proposal, but it did pass the U.S Senate.

"Had we passed comprehensive immigration reform, we might not be here today," Grimes said. "My hope is that we can make sure to return these children safely and make sure we are securing our borders. Comprehensive immigration reform is a way to do that."

Grimes did say she was not in favor of "giving the president a blank check."

It's a good answer on immigration reform, but the non-answer on the current proposal to help the Border Patrol seems like another unforced error on Grimes's part.  At some point you're going to have to take a stand on this bill, Alison. 

On the other hand, Mitch McConnell's non-response on the issue is saving Grimes from having to really come up with one right now, so there's that.  Republicans seems to be backing a plan from Rep. Kay Granger of Texas.

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2014/07/24/3350863/democrats-gather-to-cheer-ford.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter#storylink=cpy

The House plan would treat Central American children the same as Mexican children - which means Border Patrol agents could decide to send them back right away. Republican House Speaker John Boehner told reporters that the president needs to come out publicly in favor of changes to the law.

“Without trying to fix the problem, I don’t know how we are actually in a position to give the president any more money,” said Boehner.

There's room here for Grimes to make a statement along the lines of "Republicans are trying to force us to do what they want before they'll lift a finger to help" if she is so inclined.

StupidiNews!

• The remains of Air Algerie Flight 5017 have been found in northern Mali, carrying 116 people when it crashed, according to French President Francoise Hollande.
• The president of the Navajo Nation is calling the beating deaths of two homeless Navajo men in New Mexico a hate crime, and wants federal investigators on the case.
• The Russian response to increasing US and EU sanctions appears to involve going after Russian McDonald's food as "inappropriate".
• Israel and Hamas are looking at a US-backed cease fire as the death toll in Gaza has now exceeded 700.
• Russia's space agency, Roscosmos, has apparently lost control of a research satellite containing among other things, five live geckos doing microgravity sex experiments.

Last Call For The Ryan Plan 3.0

Not content with his goal to turn Medicare and Medicaid into block grants that states will then use for purposes other than healthcare, Rep. Paul Ryan now turns his austerity machine upon those awful poor people in an attempt to block grant them out of existence.

Ryan, known as the Republican Party’s budget guru and a former vice presidential nominee, argued that disparate federal aid programs should be consolidated into “Opportunity Grants” to states, which would have the freedom to experiment with more flexible programs administered by certified providers like non-profit or community groups. No state would be required to participate in the program, which Ryan says would be budget neutral. The Wisconsin lawmaker and possible 2016 presidential hopeful, laid out the plan in a USA Today op-ed Thursday. 

Ryan, whose previous budget plans have been excoriated by Democrats in national ad campaigns as heartless slashes to crucial safety net programs, tried to strike a compassionate tone in his remarks Thursday, saying that he’s visited poor communities during the last year seeking solutions. “When I went to Milwaukee or Denver or Indianapolis, nobody asked me what party I belonged to,” he said. “They welcomed anybody who was willing to listen and learn. That should be our approach in Washington.”

Let's take a look at Operation Opportunity Grants, shall we?

Here's how the program would work: Each state that wanted to participate would submit a plan to the federal government. That plan would lay out in detail the state's proposed alternative. If everything passed muster, the federal government would give the green light. And the state would get more flexibility to combine things such as food stamps, housing subsidies, child care assistance and cash welfare. This simpler Opportunity Grant would include the same money as current law. 

Plans would be approved on four conditions: The state would have to spend all funding on people in need. Second, the state would have to hold people accountable through work requirements and time limits for every able-bodied recipient just as there are for cash welfare today. 

Third, the state would have to offer at least two service providers. The state welfare agency couldn't be the only game in town. And fourth, the state would have to measure progress through a neutral third party to keep track of key metrics.

So privatize the system first of all, giving billions in dollars meant to help the needy to corporations whose goal is to wring as much profit out of this as possible.  And of course we would need to have multiple corporations doing this to encourage competition.  You know, just like your cable company.  And then we'd have to of course hire more corporations to make sure the other corporations are doing their jobs. Yeah, that'll solve the problem with inefficiency and fraud.

Second, let's make getting poverty programs even harder to get into than getting good-paying jobs that don't exist, and then slap arbitrary limits on these programs so that people will magically find jobs or face starvation, eviction, or worse.  Because misery and shame creates good workers and magically produces jobs, or something.

If approved, the state could use that money to expand state programs and to partner with local service providers. Families in need would have a choice. There wouldn't just be a state agency. Instead, they could choose from approved non-profits, for-profits or even community groups unique to their neighborhood. These groups could provide a more personalized form of aid through case management.

It's cute that Ryan thinks that state leaders, particularly in red states, will give block grant cash to non-profits instead of lining their pockets the same way they have by privatizing schools and prisons.

In short, we would re-conceive the federal government's role in the fight against poverty. Instead of trying to supplant local communities, the federal government would support them. Communities have to lead this effort, and Washington should follow.

In short, Republicans are going to raid and profitize welfare at the expense of taxpayers and the needy, won't it?  And the best part is red state governments will be able to throw as many ridiculous requirements as possible.  Nobody will meet the criteria to actually benefit from the programs, and the corporations will pocket the difference.

If you think about it, there's no other possible "poverty program reforms" that Ryan could have arrived at. The three basic tenets of Republicanism in 2014 are:

1. The only person keeping you from being a millionaire is you.
2. Taxation is theft, but shame costs nothing.
3. If it will piss liberals off, we'll do it. 

Put those three together and poof!  Classic Paul Ryanism.

Oh, but it gets even more awesome with the integrated shame component:

The "discussion draft" submitted by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) to the House Budget Committee on potential solutions to poverty in America includes the proposal that low-income Americans would have to sign "contracts" in order to remain eligible for social safety net benefits, such as food stamps, or SNAP. The contract would include: benchmarks, such as finding a job, enrolling in employment training, or even meeting "new acquaintances outside circle of poverty"; a "timeline" in which individuals are contractually-obligated to meet those benchmarks; bonuses for meeting benchmarks early; and "sanctions for breaking the terms of the contract"

We're subjecting the poor to contracts and sanctions now.  That's compassionate conservatism from today's GOP!

Walsh-ed Out Of The Service

That loud sucking sound you're hearing coming from the direction of Montana is actually not Brian Schweitzer's career going down the tubes, but that of his former Lt. Governor and appointed senator replacing Max Baucus, John Walsh.  Walsh it seems is a military man, only his 2007 master's thesis for the US Army War College appears to be massively plagiarized.

Democrats were thrilled when John Walsh of Montana was appointed to the United States Senate in February. A decorated veteran of the Iraq war and former adjutant general of his state’s National Guard, Mr. Walsh offered the Democratic Party something it frequently lacks: a seasoned military man. 

On the campaign trail this year, Mr. Walsh, 53, has made his military service a main selling point. Still wearing his hair close-cropped, he notes he was targeted for killing by Iraqi militants and says his time in uniform informs his views on a range of issues. 

But one of the highest-profile credentials of Mr. Walsh’s 33-year military career appears to have been improperly attained. An examination of the final paper required for Mr. Walsh’s master’s degree from the United States Army War College indicates the senator appropriated at least a quarter of his thesis on American Middle East policy from other authors’ works, with no attribution.

Oh, it gets worse.

Mr. Walsh completed the paper, what the War College calls a “strategy research project,” to earn his degree in 2007, when he was 46. The sources of the material he presents as his own include academic papers, policy journal essays and books that are almost all available online. 

Most strikingly, each of the six recommendations Mr. Walsh laid out at the conclusion of his 14-page paper, titled “The Case for Democracy as a Long Term National Strategy,” is taken nearly word-for-word without attribution from a Carnegie Endowment for International Peace document on the same topic. 

In his third recommendation, for example, Mr. Walsh writes: “Democracy promoters need to engage as much as possible in a dialogue with a wide cross section of influential elites: mainstream academics, journalists, moderate Islamists, and members of the professional associations who play a political role in some Arab countries, rather than only the narrow world of westernized democracy and human rights advocates.” 

The same exact sentence appears on the sixth page of a 2002 Carnegie paper written by four scholars at the research institute. In all, Mr. Walsh’s recommendations section runs to more than 800 words, nearly all of it taken verbatim from the Carnegie paper, without any footnote or reference to it. In addition, significant portions of the language in Mr. Walsh’s paper can be found in a 1998 essay by a scholar at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, a research institute at Harvard.

So, yeah.  Walsh was in trouble, trailing Republican Steve Daines for Baucus's seat by around 12 points, he had even narrowed it to 7 points in the latest PPP poll out Monday, and as Talking Points Memo reminds us:

Senator Walsh released every single evaluation that he received during his 33-year military career, which shows an honorable and stellar record of service to protecting Montana and serving this country in Iraq.

Where this goes now is up to the people of Montana.

GOP Minority Outreach, Con't

Republicans keep happily reminding people exactly how they feel about "illegal immigrants" and by that term I mean "anybody darker than Orange Julius".

Anti-immigrant activist William Gheen this month said that the increase of undocumented immigrants crossing the border into the U.S. is more dangerous than an al Qaeda attack. 

In an interview on the Tea Party News Network, host Larry Altman asked Gheen how many undocumented immigrants might be "affiliated with Al Qaeda."

Gheen, president of the Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, which has been designated ahate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, launched into an answer about how immigrants will destroy America. 

"Well, what the illegals that are coming — and especially the ones that are coming from China — are going to do to America are much more powerful and lasting impacts than anything Al Qaeda could blow up, short of a nuclear detonation," he began.

Hello, my Asian friends.  You're the new Latino, which is apparently like being the new black folks, only that people resent you for being smarter than them rather than the other way around.

"And how do you put a price tag on a family, let’s say that’s been in the United States for 300 years, and four or five different members of that family have gone off to World War II and Korea and maybe World War I to fight for the American way of life, and then finally they get to their grandson that’s alive in the year 2020 who doesn’t get to go to the college of their choice because invaders have been brought in the country and put in those seats ahead of him," Gheen said. 

"That child’s life, that negatively impacts that child’s ability to self-actualize, to be all they can be, impacted because the future has been stolen by this usurpation, this treason, this treachery from the highest levels of our own government right here in the United States of America," he continued.

Some of our families have been "in this country" for more than 300 years.  Some of them were here already when your peeps showed up, man.  Some of them were brought here in chains.

You ever notice that with these guys it's always "You should hate group X that's different from you because they took your Y"?  I mean, there's a long an ugly history of that here in America and around the world for that matter, but apparently the classics never go out of style.

StupidiNews!

• Witnesses at the execution of Arizona death row inmate Joseph Wood believe that the state's new combination of lethal injection drugs took nearly 2 hours to kill.
• Colorado is the latest state to have its ban on same-sex marriage overturned as unconstitutional by a federal judge, the ruling stayed pending appeal by the state.
• The FAA has lifted its temporary measure banning US flights into Tel Aviv, Israel as the death toll in Gaza has now exceeded 700.
• Norway's $890 billion sovereign wealth fund, the world's largest, is reconsidering its $8 billion in holdings in Russia in light of EU sanctions from last week's downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17.
• Apple has filed patents for a smartwatch, raising speculation that the company will release a competitor to the Google Gear this fall amid slumping tablet sales.

Last Call For More Help Less Republicans

Like myself, Steve M is somewhat uneasy about the blase' attitude of liberal pundits towards the Halbig decision earlier this week.  Somehow it's going to end up at the Supreme Court, and there's no guarantee that the government would prevail.

But Republican governors, especially from the tea party class of 2010, have been harming large numbers of people quite openly -- depriving unionized workers of collective bargaining rights, curtailing voting rights, dismantling democratically elected local governments in Michigan, curbing reproductive rights ... and, apart from Pennsylvania's Tom Corbett, they all have a shot at reelection. Voters who aren't specifically targeted by these governors sure don't seem to be displaying much empathy for those who are.

The prevailing sentiment is that somehow, there's a bridge too far that the GOP will cross, and when that happens, voters will punish them resoundingly.

Empirical evidence so far doesn't show that we've reached that point.

A lot of the people harmed by a Supreme Court evisceration of Obamacare will be Democratic voters who wouldn't have voted GOP anyway. Others will be the same people who were subjects of the early Obamacare scare stories -- people who had pre-Obamacare insurance and didn't have their policies renewed. If they replaced those old policies with subsidized Obamacare policies and now can't afford those policies, who are they going to blame, over and over and over again in the right-wing media? They're going to blame Obama, accusing him of tyrannically taking away their old policies in the first place and thus being the guy who left them uninsured.

You can count on this happening, followed by "both sides are responsible" and then "It's President Obama's job to fix this" when it would be Congress's job to fix it, and they won't.  Voters have completely forgotten the fact that the GOP shut down the government, remember?  Of course it'll be Obama's fault.  It always is.

Maybe the Court's Republicans are going to game this out and conclude that a ruling against the law will be too much for the GOP and conservative movement to handle. But I wouldn't bet the rent money on that.

But a lot of Americans are betting the rent money on that, about six million of them, in fact.  There will not be "tremendous pressure for Congress to fix it" any more than there was Congress to fix anything in the last six years.  The result is the GOP now controls the House for the foreseeable future and has a clear shot at getting the Senate in November.

At some point voters may punish the GOP.  Will that number exceed the voters who want to punish Obama in November?

We'll see shortly.  If you haven't noticed, the voters haven't exactly been punishing the GOP so far.

Somebody Else's Problem Field In Action

People going without health care because red states rejected funding for Medicaid expansion is a perfect example of the "Somebody Else's Problem" effect.  But the ugly truth underneath the GOP's efforts to make sure Obamacare doesn't work in their states is that without that funding, hospitals are closing, putting the population of those states at risk.

Reports out in the last week indicate the gap between those with health care coverage is widening between states that agreed to go along with the health law’s Medicaid expansion and those generally led by Republican legislatures and GOP governors that are balking at the expansion. 

The moves against expansion are “beginning to hurt hospitals in states that opted out,” a report last week from Fitch Ratings said. The U.S. Department of Health and Human services has said Medicaid enrollment in the 26 states and the District of Columbia that agreed to go along with and implemented the expansion by the end of May “rose by 17 percent, while states that have not expanded reported only a 3 percent increase,” HHS said in an enrollment update for the Medicaid program. 

“We expect providers in states that have chosen not to participate in expanded Medicaid eligibility to face increasing financial challenges in 2014 and beyond,”Fitch said in its July 16 report. “Nonprofit hospitals and healthcare systems in states that have expanded their Medicaid coverage under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act have begun to realize the benefit from increased insurance coverage.” 

Already, the financial ratings agency said it has downgraded 10 health care entities so far this year and five of those were in states that have not gone along with the Medicaid expansion. Fitch didn’t specify the entities that have been hurt financially. 

“Several of those downgrades were driven by operating performance declines related to funding and reimbursement pressures, which may have been lessened by Medicaid expansion,” the Fitch report said. “Conversely, of the nine upgrades since Jan. 1, eight were hospitals in states that have expanded Medicaid.”

So yes, this is starting to affect the bottom lines of many hospital systems. That in turn affects availability of health care, and of course the economic well being of hospital employees.  If it seems like Republican governors are doing billions of dollars in damage to their own economies in order to get red state voters to blame Obama for the resulting mess, that's because this is exactly what's going on.

A report last week from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Urban Institute described the coverage difference as a “gulf in percentage of people without health insurance” that is growing larger between states that expanded Medicaid and those that did not. 

As of June, the report said 60 percent of the nation’s uninsured residents live in states that did not expand Medicaid. That figure was up from 49.7 percent in September of last year. 

Analysts expect that gap to only worsen. Unlike private coverage under the health law that is generally purchased during a specified open enrollment period, Americans can sign up for Medicaid at anytime.

“In states that expanded Medicaid, an estimated 71 percent of the uninsured likely qualify for some type of financial assistance for health insurance, compared with 44 percent of the uninsured in the states that did not expand Medicaid,” the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and Urban Institute report said.

So these are the states that are going to have higher taxpayer costs dealing with uninsured Americans, and Republicans, instead of taking responsibility for their direct actions to keep people uninsured,  are just going to blame Obama.

And in most cases, that'll work just fine.

Hope you don't live in a red state.

Republicans Help Less Over Obamacare

Greg Sargent makes this catch on CNN's latest Obamacare poll:

With the political world still pondering what yesterday’s court rulings mean for the future of Obamacare, CNN has published a fascinating new poll that asks a question I haven’t seen before. It asks whether the law has personally helped respondents, but then follows up and asks whether respondents think the law has helped others. 

And guess what: A huge majority of Republicans and conservatives don’t think the law has helped anybody in this country. 

Among all Americans, the poll finds that 18 percent say the law has made them and their families better off. But another 35 percent say the law has made other families better off, for a total of 54 percent who say they or others are being helped. Meanwhile, 44 percent say the law hasn’t helped anybody — a lot, but still a minority. 

Crucially, an astonishing 72 percent of Republicans, and 64 percent of conservatives, say the law hasn’t helped anyone. (Only one percent of Republicans say the law has helped them!) By contrast, 57 percent of moderates say the law has helped them or others. Independents are evenly divided.

This makes complete sense in terms of the pathology of the Republican mind:  if Obamacare has helped Americans in any way, then repealing it would hurt Americans.  Since roughly 3 out of 4 Republicans believe that nobody has been helped by Obamacare, repealing it will only help everyone.  What Republicans really mean when they say that "nobody" has been helped by Obamacare is that no Republicans have been helped by Obamacare.

It's screaming denial that ignores millions, if not tens of millions of Americans seeing a change for the better in affordable health care, but all of those people are probably Democrats anyway, so why not hurt them?  As far as they're concerned, Obamacare is taking fro hard-working, patriotic Republicans to give to awful, parasitic Democrats.  Of course nobody that counts is being helped by it.

So yes, only one percent of Republicans say Obamacare has personally helped them.  That's ludicrous, but then again, we're talking about completely ridiculous Republican voters.  It helps Democrats, and especially those people, so the law has to go.

StupidiNews!

• Former Dollar General and Reebok CEO David Perdue has edged out GOP Rep. Jack Kingston in last night's Georgia Republican Senate primary runoff, 51% to 49%.
• The San Diego suburb of Escondido has rejected a plan to open a temporary shelter to house children caught crossing the US-Mexico border.
• US Secretary of State John Kerry continues his Middle East visit in an attempt to broker a cease fire between Israel and Hamas.
• Fighting continues over the Ukrainian city of Donetsk as clashes between pro-Russian separatists and Ukranian forces have forced 40% of the city's residents to flee.
• Last month's Supreme Court decision that all but killed re-broadcast service Aereo only affected 80,000 subscribers, according to new documents filed by the company.

Last Call For Derp Of The Planet Of The Derps

Professional climate change crap thrower Steven Moore takes to the National Review to compare environmentalists to apes, and figures we'll be in the Stone Age after a couple more Democratic presidents.

This weekend I went to the see the blockbuster movie Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, and an Investor’s Business Daily editorial this week got me thinking about a bleak scenario. Our future won’t have ape rulers, but, IBD points out, a world without energy might well look similar.

So, second graph in, we're straight to "a world without energy" because CLOWARD-PIVEN GREEN FASCISM.  We're approaching zero Kelvin!

In the movie, bands of humans are resisting a global government of super-intelligent monkeys, gorillas and the like. The humans lack access to electricity, making their struggle — let along the normal life we know today — nearly impossible.

Yeah, let the message of that sink in for a bit.  Government of "gorillas and the like".

They are rendered powerless — literally. The simian despots understand that depriving the humans of access to electricity will keep them underfoot. (The climax of the movie, as IBD explains, has humans in San Francisco — of all places — heroically reopening a power plant and bringing electricity back to the whole city.)

You starting to get the picture that maybe Caesar and his monkeys are being equated to President Obama just a bit here?

I wonder how many Americans got the subtle message here: Energy is the master resource. Without it, we return to a Stone Age existence. Life in its absence is nasty, brutish and short.

Your message is about as subtle as the wet splatter of tossed feces on a white silk dress, Steve.  Also, about as relevant.  Look, this guy is openly comparing climate change scientists and the governments that believe those scientists to science fiction monkeys.  This is his argument.  Forget the actual science here, talking monkeys with guns!

Obama will take your guns, your freedom, your electricity, any day now.

Is that where the radical Greens, one of the most influential political forces in America today, would take us? If we continue to follow their advice, electric power and fuel will become more expensive (as President Obama has admitted). TheInvestor’s Business Daily editorial noted, “as the Sierra Club, billionaire Tom Steyer and the Obama administration rage war against coal and other fossil fuel,” we could end up seeing “rolling brownouts and even blackouts in the years ahead.”

Yes, because the massive, massive preponderance of scientific evidence predicting that we're going to screw the ecosystem over with greenhouse gases is actually just the fevered product of "radical greens".  Wanting to not have your grandkids roasting while the world is fighting over potable water is "radical".

If these clowns are right, then power outages.  If the scientists are right, then underwater coastal cities.  The latter just may be worse than power outages.

The greens say, no problem, we will shift to renewable energy. But it’s not so simple, as IBD points out: States with onerous renewable-energy standards such as Colorado and California are still relying heavily on coal to fill in the gaps during bad weather or periods of high demand.

Sure.  We're not at 100% renewable energy sources yet.  But that would be a nuance for people that don't go straight to "a world without energy" in the second paragraph.

Sorry, for the foreseeable future, we aren’t going to get our power for our $18 trillion economy from wind turbines and solar panels. And if we begin to try, prices are going to skyrocket.

Except for the part where solar technology has advanced to the point where new solar plants can turn out energy for less money per kilowatt than coal.

Last summer our suburban home in northern Virginia lost power for two days during a storm. No lights, no computers, no air conditioning, no TV, no iPods or iPhones. To my three sons, this was like hell on earth. How did people live without electricity? They wondered. Very poorly, I told them.

I wonder how many young people will be so excited about “green energy” when such outages are commonplace and they come to the realization that life without those “dirty” sources of power won’t be so wonderful.

You know, Moore seems pretty concerned about the state of our electrical power infrastructure.  Perhaps we should take steps now to make sure America's power transmission lines stay in good shape rather than cutting funding.  Better still, investing in home solar seems like a good idea.

We don’t need apes to destroy our planet. The green humans seems to be doing a fine job of it all on their own.

This coming from the folks that will happily bring you the destruction of the planet's ecosystem in order to "roll coal".  That's an hysterical bit of monkey business.

Exchange Of Fire

Today a pair of Republican-appointed judges on a three judge panel have voted to effectively destroy Obamacare by removing subsidies for federally-run exchanges.  Ian Millhiser:

The two Republicans’ decision rests on a glorified typo in the Affordable Care Act itself. Obamacare gives states a choice. They can either run their own health insurance exchange where their residents may buy health insurance, and receive subsidies to help them pay for that insurance if they qualify, or they can allow the federal government to run that exchange for them. Yet the plaintiffs’ in this case uncovered a drafting error in the statute where it appears to limit the subsidies to individuals who obtain insurance through “an Exchange established by the State.” Randolph and Griffith’s opinion concludes that this drafting error is the only thing that matters. In their words, “a federal Exchange is not an ‘Exchange established by the State,’” and that’s it. The upshot of this opinion is that 6.5 million Americans will lose their ability to afford health insurance, according to one estimate.

It's effectively a miswording, and for that, millions of Americans stand to lose affordable health care.   Republicans are of course really happy this, which is all you really need to know.

The unsuccessful legal argument claiming that the individual mandate was unconstitutional was a major prong of the Republican attack on the law as early as 2009. Yet, even after the GOP decided that defeating Obamacare in court was their number one policy priority, after Republican officials in numerous states brought a high-profile lawsuit seeking to kill this law, and after they hired one of the best lawyers in the country to drive this litigation, no one noticed the alleged flaw in the statute that Randolph and Griffith rely upon today. The reason why is obvious. Not even the many Republican officials who filed briefs seeking to kill this law the first time around actually believed that the law was intended to deny subsidies to people who buy insurance in federal exchanges. 

To get around this fact, Randolph and Griffith spin an alternative history of the Affordable Care Act’s passage. A major prong of this alternative history claims that Congress wanted to deny subsidies to people in states with federally-run exchanges because that that would provide states with an incentive to start their own exchange — in Randolph and Griffith’s words, Congress “us[ed] subsidies as an incentive to gain states’ cooperation.” Thus, in this narrative, Congress viewed getting states to run exchanges as an all-encompassing goal, trumping even the law’s stated goals of providing “Affordable Coverage Choices for All Americans” and achieving “near-universal coverage.” Needless to say, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Congress actually viewed the administrative question of which set of government bureaucrats would run a particular state’s exchange as a question of such superseding importance that they were willing to deny health coverage to millions of people in order to ensure that the right set of bureaucrats run the exchanges in each state.

Selective mindreading, 101.  That's what this ludicrous case boils down to, but for now, Republicans have managed to hurt millions of American families over what's effectively a typo.

But that's what Republicans do, after all.  So please, Republican pundits, go on TV and tell everyone how awesome it is for 6 or 7 million people to lose affordable health insurance because of the Chewbacca Defense.

Let me know how that works out for you in November, with the whole "rooting for America to fail" thing.

Meanwhile, considering the full DC Circuit Court would be 7-4 Democrats, I'm thinking this will get overturned on a full en banc hearing rather quickly.  Oh, and to top it all off, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals also issued its ruling on the law, and it upheld the subsidies.  Stay tuned.

Turnout For What?

If primary voting turnout in 2014 is any indication of election turnout, then Democrats are going to get absolutely stomped because we're going to stay home and pout rather than vote.

A new study shows that Americans are on-track to set a new low for turnout in a midterm election, and a record number of states could set their own new records for lowest percentage of eligible citizens casting ballots. 

The study, from the Center for the Study of the American Electorate, shows turnout in the 25 states that have held statewide primaries for both parties is down by nearly one-fifth from the last midterm, in 2010. While 18.3 percent of eligible voters cast ballots back then, it has been just 14.8 percent so far this year. Similarly, 15 of the 25 states that have held statewide primaries so far have recorded record-low turnout. 

Ouch. 

This is all the more depressing when you realize that, less than 50 years ago, primary turnout was twice as high.

And we're going to let the Republicans win, because we don't give enough of a damn to go vote them out.

What's perhaps most notable, though, is the partisan difference. Republican primary turnout overtook Democratic turnout for the first time in 2010, and that difference is even bigger this primary season. 

 

Courtesy: Center for the Study of the American Electorate

In fact, GOP primary turnout has been pretty steady over the past four decades, but Democratic turnout has dropped consistently -- including by about 30 percent this year, from 8.7 percent to 6.1 percent. That's the biggest decline on-record. 

This is hardly the first warning sign when it comes to Democrats' turnout problem (see here, here, here and here). But if it portends anything close to what's coming in the 2014 election, that's really, really troubling for Democrats.

 So, it's up to us.   If we stay home, then we're going to get smashed.  Not voting only helps the GOP, folks.  You'd though we'd have learned that by now.