The GOP Gets That Poll-Asked Look, Yet Again

Both the latest Public Policy Polling and Pew Research polls contain some very interesting data to pore over.  First, both polls show Santorum now ahead of Romney. PPP has him up BIG in Michigan's primary at the end of the month, 39-24%, while Pew has a much narrower 30-28% lead for Frothmaster General nationally.  Either one is very, very bad news for Mittens.

PPP's poll concentrates on the upcoming Michigan primary, which is open.  Among Democrats and Independents polled, Santorum is doing very well (which makes me think more than a few Michigan Dems want to stick it to Mitt "Let Detroit Die" Romney and prolong the pain, if you're a Michigan Dem, make sure you ruin Mittens' day, will you?)

Nationally, Santorum's lead in the polls is majorly helped by Christian evangelicals and Tea Party voters, both of whom are for Santorum nationally at 40%+ and rising.  The conservatives are beginning to lock on to Ricky here, and that can't be good for Mitt at all.

If Mitt can't close the gap in Michigan especially, where his own father was governor, then Super Tuesday may just be the event that breaks this open into a brokered convention.

And I can't wait.  Chaos reigns supreme.

StupidiNews, Valentine's Day Edition!

• Snipers, shelling and fear grip the streets of Homs, Syria as the al-Assad regime's deadly crackdown has residents wondering if open war is already here.
• McDonald's says it will work with pork suppliers to phase out constrictive crates for sows.
• The Pentagon will cut troops and limit pay raises in order to save billions by 2017.
• Moody's has cut the credit ratings of Spain, Italy, and Portugal another notch, warning that France and the UK could lose their AAA ratings as well.
• Google has gotten the green light to buy Motorola's mobile division, but regulators are warning the company not to abuse patents.

Last Call

It's worth noting that the big takeaway from the President's budget at Bloomberg News today was this article:  "Obama Proposes Higher Dividend Taxes in Focus on Wealthiest".

The proposal, in the president’s fiscal 2013 budget released today, would reverse his previous policy that called for taxing dividends more lightly than wage income. The plan would treat dividends as ordinary income for married couples making more than $250,000 a year and individuals making more than $200,000. The dividend tax proposal would raise $206.4 billion over 10 years.

“We simply can’t afford to devote $206 billion for lower tax rates for the highest-income Americans,” Gene Sperling, White House director of the National Economic Council, told reporters today. “Our system for taxing investment income for the most well-off Americans is clearly broken.”

Obama is proposing a top individual income tax rate of 39.6 percent in 2013, up from 35 percent. His budget would tax capital gains at a top rate of 20 percent, up from 15 percent. The top dividend tax rate is now 15 percent.

An additional 3.8 percent tax on the unearned income of couples earning $250,000 and individuals making at least $200,000 will take effect in 2013 as part of the 2010 health- care law. As a result, some taxpayers would pay 43.4 percent in federal taxes on their dividends next year, almost triple what they now pay. 

Yeah, the super-rich paying 15% and getting away with it like Mitt Romney?  That would come to an end, except as Jon Bernstein reminds us, Republicans would rather raise the deficit than ever, ever, ever make anybody earning more than $250,000 a year pay a dime more in taxes.

Sure, Republicans talk tough about balanced budgets. But when it comes to real budget deficits — you know, federal spending vs. federal revenues — Republicans lose interest real fast. Under closer scrutiny, their plans dissolve into gimmicks and magic asterisks. When Obama and Speaker John Boehner started serious negotiations into larger deficit reductions last year, the House GOP conference revolted. Their big structural reforms, from “CutGo” to the line item veto to their “balanced” budget amendment, virtually always turn out to be perhaps effective tools for keeping taxes low for rich folks, but do nothing at all for getting spending and revenues to match. And now, the same thing has happened on the payroll tax cut. Republicans simply don’t rank fiscal balance very high in their list of priorities. They’re always willing to cut spending on those things they don’t want to spend money on anyway, but if it comes to compromising, what gives way is their supposed commitment to budget discipline.

In the end, Grover Norquist and his Club For Growth goons are the biggest threat to our economy, period.  Because of them, we can never raise taxes on the rich.  Ever.  And because we can never raise taxes, the only alternative is massive, brutal Greek-style austerity, which is what every single GOP candidate for President is promising.

Zandardad and the Mustache Of Freedom are right:  screw a third party, America needs a responsible second party.

Number Crunchers And Green Eyeshades

The President unveiled his 2013 budget plan today, and the details and priorities are very interesting, to say the least.

President Barack Obama would almost double spending on the U.S. infrastructure over the next six years and would pour $350 billion into a jobs plan while shrinking the budgets of most other domestic agencies.

The blueprint for the fiscal 2013 budget released today would spend $476 billion through 2018 on highway, bridge and mass transit projects, funded in part by winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It cuts some energy programs, farm subsidies and federal workers’ retirement plans, while bulking up the Securities and Exchange Commission and creating a new panel to investigate unfair foreign trade practices.

Investing in the nation’s transportation grid is a fresh attempt to create jobs for a president facing re-election this year amid voter concern about the economy and unemployment at 8.3 percent in January. In addition to gasoline tax revenue, transportation spending would come from a $38.5 billion-a-year transfer from the fund that now goes to war spending.

“Most Americans understand that a crumbling infrastructure is not the way to build an economy that can last,” White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew said on CNN’s “State of the Union” program. “We need to make sure we have a manufacturing base in this country” and workers with appropriate skills, said Lew, the former White House budget director.

Obama’s proposals for discretionary spending must adhere to August’s Budget Control Act, which imposed spending caps that the administration estimates will generate about $1 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade.

Less bombs, more bridges.  Makes sense to me.

With a Republican-controlled House of Representatives, the document has little chance of becoming law. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said “no,” when asked yesterday on CBS’s “Face the Nation” if Obama’s budget had any change of passage in that chamber.

Please note that this was technically saying no the day before the plan came out.   We need MOAR CRAZY HOSTAGE TAKING if we're going to have a real budget.  But things are so bad for the GOP right now that what I thought was the obvious plan, attaching legislation to exempt all employers from having to provide coverage if they reject it on religious grounds, to the payroll tax cut extension?

Orange Julius folded his cards and now wants a clean extension for the rest of the year.  What the Blount Amendment will now get attached to, I don't know.  It can't possibly pass a stand-alone vote.

Don't Haiti The Players...

After two years of at best benign neglect and at worst, damaging and deadly neglect, representatives of the UN Security Council are visiting Haiti first hand to take stock of the country's situation after the devastation of the January 2010 earthquake.  They'll find that Hatians on the streets of Port-au-Prince aren't terribly inclined to give them a warm welcome, either.

A new allegation of rape involving Pakistani soldiers and three young Haitian boys in the city of Gonaives has triggered renewed protests and demands from Haitian senators that U.N. soldiers lose immunity and be tried in a Haitian court.

Efforts to replace the 10,581-strong U.N. force with a new Haitian army also persist. And anger over a deadly cholera epidemic, which originated near a U.N. camp and has sickened more than a half-million people and killed about 7,000 people, continues.

"The image of their forces has deteriorated," said Daly Valet, a political analyst and editor of Le Matin newspaper in Port-au-Prince.

At the same time, the delegation led by the United States will find a post-quake nation whose huge problems continue to exceed the limits of the U.N.'s mandate.

Political infighting and deepening polarization and debate have paralyzed the country in recent months, making for a potentially volatile situation.

"The recent two-year anniversary of the tragic earthquake makes this a good time for the council to go there and assess progress and encourage Haitian leaders and U.N. officials to take further positive steps," said Kurtis Cooper, a spokesman for the U.S. mission. "Clearly many challenges lay ahead, especially how to create economic opportunities for the Haitian people. And it is now time for President Michel Martelly and the Haitian government to convert their good ideas into actions."

Haiti continues to face absolute misery, and there's little that either Haiti's new Martelly administration nor the UN seem to be able to do about the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere.  While Europe is certainly falling apart and we have problems here in the US, Haiti has largely been ignored.  Hopefully the UN will start to take real action in Haiti and soon.

It would be nice if the rest of the planet did too.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/02/12/138662/un-security-council-heads-to-haiti.html#storylink=cpy

Nerdy Stuff Regular People Can Do

For less than $200, a man took a regular small closet, not really used for much of anything, and turned it into a hidey hole disguised as a recessed shelf.  It has two way glass so he can look out, and a shade he can pull so the light inside won't ruin the effect of the glass.  It also has a brilliant way to prevent being locked in by accident, and allowing the crown molding to seamlessly block light and conceal the entrance.

All of it was done with pieces you can get from your local Lowe's, and doesn't rely on the $300 special hinges that are famous for this project.  A little creativity can go a long way, but simplicity is what makes this so darned cool.

In a world of war, disease and crime this is a pretty cool time to check out a project like this.

Happy Birthday To Blume!

I guess you can read if you want, but most male readers will want to skip this one.  Sorry, fellas.

Yesterday, Judy Blume turned 74.  I believe every girl in my age range read at least one of her books, but I hadn't thought about Tiger Eyes for at least two decades.  It made me read a little about who she was and how she managed to reach a nearly universal appeal with girls twelve through fifteen.  Then I remembered how funny and realistic the characters were.  Parents said stupid things sometimes, and the kids were just as mean and unfiltered as they are in real life.  At a time when most fiction was shallow and safe (Sweet Valley High, anyone?), Blume challenged the market by giving us a story that had warts and tears and those argh moments only a teenage girl can know.  She was unflinching when it came to the difficult parts of life, and that gritty sort of storytelling was magical in its liberation.  We could be cranky, we could make mistakes, we would survive no matter what life hurled at us.  We were introduced to compassion and morals at the time we were forming ideas about the world.

I do vaguely remember some discussions about whether Blume crossed the lines of being appropriate.  My general memories say that parents were offended by the material, but couldn't quote an example or specific reason.  My parents let me read anything I wanted and always had, so I watched the debate from the outside.  Blubber was just what I needed to read at that age in life, however.  I really did feel for both Jill and Linda in different parts of the story, and going to small school full of cliques had left me feeling unsure of school friendships.  This totally accurate portrayal of how fast popularity can turn in on itself was as much of a warning as the realization that the teasing eventually moves on is a balm for the victims.  It also touched on racism, and was an introduction on why it was wrong and how to react when confronted with racism.  Her books really did prepare me for some of life's ugliness and gave us a chance to work out those ideas in our head before life blindsided us with the scariest beast in the world: the sixteen-year-old she-bitch.

Tiger Eyes is going to be released as a movie soon, with Blume's son directing.  A story that teaches kids about grief and loss, it will likely be updated but contain the same message that it's okay to be sad and life goes on (as it should).  For kids who have lost a loved one or have just felt a strong fear of death, Tiger Eyes is the perfect introduction to the grief process as well as starting a discussion with kids just now realizing that parents are human and therefore can die.

Happy birthday, madam.  I think I'll head to Amazon now and order a copy of Are You There, God?  It's Me, Margaret for my youngest niece.  I still have my copy, but there is something special about having your own.

Greek Fire, Part 52

And this time, Greek Fire is literal.

Lawmakers in Greece voted early Monday to approve another round of austerity measures, sought in return for a new eurozone bailout of the debt-stricken country.


As lawmakers debated, police turned tear gas and stun grenades on protesters outside Greece's Parliament. Several buildings, including a bank, cafes and a movie theater, in Athens were set ablaze.

Twenty-five protesters and 40 officers were injured in the clashes, which occurred throughout the city, police said. Authorities detained at least 30 people.

The package, which includes deep cuts in government spending, wages and pensions, will help pave the way for eurozone finance ministers to sign off on the new €130 billion ($172.6 billion) bailout deal. It passed Parliament in a 199-74 vote.

Greece needs the funds in order to meet €14.5 billion in debt repayments due next month.

The riots in Athens are ugly.  Not as bad as the ones that gripped Britain last year, but then again if they tried in Britain what they are doing in Greece right now, you'd better believe people would be in the streets.

Sadly, when they try that austerity crap here, it's called Very Serious Centrist Economic Policy.

Losing The Battle They Lost 22 Years Ago

Thinking to myself this weekend about President Obama's brilliant move on birth control coverage , it's occurred to me that the Supreme Court absolutely must have dealt with the question of religious liberties versus federal law before now, otherwise we would have heard this argument sooner.

On Twitter, Matt Yglesias was one step ahead of me and noted this 1990 Supreme Court decision on just how far a person's First Amendment religious liberties go when it comes to resisting laws they don't agree with morally.  The case was Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, where two Oregon men were fired and denied unemployment benefits for using peyote.

The two men claimed that the law against peyote use violated their religious liberties because they consumed it as part of a Native American religious ceremony.  The lower court in Oregon agreed and reversed the decision that denied them unemployment benefits.  The State of Oregon appealed the case up to the Supreme Court.  The 6-3 decision by the Supreme Court held the following (emphasis mine):

Respondents in the present case, however, seek to carry the meaning of "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" one large step further. They contend that their religious motivation for using peyote places them beyond the reach of a criminal law that is not specifically directed at their religious practice, and that is concededly constitutional as applied to those who use the drug for other reasons. They assert, in other words, that "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" includes requiring any individual to observe a generally applicable law that requires (or forbids) the performance of an act that his religious belief forbids (or requires). As a textual matter, we do not think the words must be given that meaning. It is no more necessary to regard the collection of a general tax, for example, as "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" by those citizens who believe support of organized government to be sinful than it is to regard the same tax as "abridging the freedom . . . of the press" of those publishing companies that must pay the tax as a condition of staying in business. It is a permissible reading of the text, in the one case as in the other, to say that, if prohibiting the exercise of religion (or burdening the activity of printing) is not the object of the tax, but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended. 

Now, that's a huge thing right there.  In 1990, the Supreme Court created precedent by saying that unless the express purpose of a law is to curtail religious freedoms, that the law does not violate the First Amendment.  If you feel it does, too bad.  The decision continues:

Our decisions reveal that the latter reading is the correct one. We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U. S. 586, 310 U. S. 594-595 (1940):

"Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities."

Pretty straightforward if you ask me.  For the Catholic Church to be right about the President's rules on birth control coverage violating the First Amendment, all they have to do is prove that the law was specifically designed to violate the Catholic Church's prohibition on birth control.   Good luck with that, guys.

Oh and I know what the next argument will be:  "That decision is irrelevant, it was obviously written by a secular, Christian-hating liberal!"

It was written by Justice Antonin Scalia.

Game, set, match, America's women and President Obama.  Thanks for playing.  TPM puts up this article:

Not satisfied with President Obama’s new religious accommodation, Republicans will move forward with legislation that permits any employer to deny contraception coverage in their health insurance plans, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said Sunday.

“If we end up having to try to overcome the President’s opposition by legislation, of course I’d be happy to support it, and intend to support it,” McConnell said. “We’ll be voting on that in the Senate and you can anticipate that that would happen as soon as possible.”

For the record, I called the GOP using this Blount Amendment as part of the payroll tax hostage package on Saturday.  Just sayin'.

StupidiNews!

• President Obama is expected to unveil his FY 2013 budget today, and Republicans are already criticizing it as too much spending.
• After rejecting the Arab League's peacekeeping force plan, the Syrian al-Assad regime resumed shelling of the city of Homms on Monday.
• Chinese Vice-President and likely future President Xi Jinping arrives in Washington today for meetings with President Obama and trade officials.
• Announced European Union job cuts by multinational companies could lead to the beginning of an official descent into recession in 2012.
• Google could be testing an IP video service in Kansas City soon as part of its expansion of the Google Fiber project there.

Last Call

Meanwhile, the people putting their money where their political prognostications are seem to be betting big on the President getting re-elected.  TPM has the Chart of the Day:

The most recent numbers are still around 58%-59% from this weekend: a far cry from the sub 50% numbers in October.  The President hadn't seen the north side of 60% on Intrade since last June, and was at 70% when Osama Bin Laden's death was announced last May.

Things are getting interesting, especially if you note the President's chances have jumped roughly 9-10 points in the month since New Hampshire's primary.

One Moment In Time: RIP Whitney

I don't give much thought to the phrase "rest in peace" but I can't think of a person for whom it is more appropriate.  Whitney Houston was an amazing talent, a voice that was instantly recognizable and loved by just about everyone (rare for pop stars).  She sang a version the national anthem that has been used to measure every performance since.  No offense to those who came after, but all were found lacking compared to the clarity and strength of her voice.  It truly was her song.

She was once also a fresh young girl with big hair and bigger dreams, and fell into a darker world. Her dimples and sweetness were the first things you noticed about her in pictures.  Some of it was hype to move records, but she truly was excited to sing and let you see her shining soul when in the middle of a performance.  When she would hit the note just right and her eyes would give that little roll, a look that said "yeah baby, that's what I'm talking about" that let you join in her celebration.  The lady loved to sing, and she did it well.

The sadness is that her life and career were made unnecessarily difficult by addiction to drugs.  Those bright eyes went dull, and while her voice never wavered the sweet girl was eventually replaced with a jaded woman who had seen too much suffering.  Still, we loved her so much that I truly believe after everything settles, she will be remembered for her successes rather than her failures.  Her life has served as a reminder that even the best can fall prey to addiction.  She had a team of supporters and all the money in the world, and she suffered from a problem that affects millions of people.

Maybe that's the other reason why people of my generation felt so connected to her.  Brilliant, talented, and subject to the same demons that haunt us all.  Didn't all of us want to dance with somebody who loves us?  All the girls my age wanted someone to inspire us to sing like she did in The Bodyguard.    Every single vocalist I knew swooned over One Moment In Time.  Some of us never know that feeling of seizing that one special moment, but Whitney Houston knew.  She did it with style over and over, and I hope that is what she is ultimately remembered for.

And may she truly find the peace that she was denied in this life.

The Return Of The Moose

Over at PoliticusUSA, Leah Burton believes that Sarah Palin's "brokered convention" speech at CPAC indicates she's going to be upsetting an infinite number of apple carts very soon.

I will give it to her, she did a stellar job. Her speech contained the appropriate colloquialisms that she is so known for and she did not disappoint us with her propensity for leaving the ‘g’ off of “ing” words. As much as I disagree with Palin, I am not going to diss the fact that she has an ability to raise the enthusiasm and emotion of a dedicated voting bloc that we would be remiss in ignoring. No other speaker at this convention whipped up the crowd like Sarah and she is well aware of that.


Today was Sarah’s birthday, and the adoration and chants of “Sarah! Sarah!” could not compete with any other gift that she received today.

I have said this for three years, do not count her out. Many have chastised me for taking this position, but today we saw the beginning of her “cat and mouse” game with conservative voters that can make or break the election of a nominee out of the four candidates in the running. She is well aware of this and lapping it up!

Out of the numerous dog whistles in her speech, none resonated more with my “Palin-is-going-to-run radar” than “the door is open”.

I agree completely with everything Leah says here other than the part where Palin actually throws her hat into the ring.  She doesn't have to.  But boy, people are certainly going to give her a lot of money anyway thinking that she will.

Look, this is classic Sarah Palin grifting. She's going to get a lot of attention, she's going to get on TV a lot this week, she's going to get donations to run, she's going to keep the money and she's going to have a good, long laugh about it.

The last thing Sarah Palin will ever do is run for President.  She has a good two decades plus or more of Wingnut welfare to earn from people gullible enough to think she'll run for the White House.  All she has to do to stay relevant is show up at events like this once in a while and she'll rake in millions.  That's all that she cares about.  And it's a brilliant plan.

The Makers And The Takers

Over at Balloon Juice, Mistermix points out this NY Times piece on the fact that government money is going to middle-class government-hating Tea Party types and not the poorest Americans.  It's a fascinating read, but the real issue is that behind the obvious hypocrisy, there's good ol' Puritan Shame.

The government safety net was created to keep Americans from abject poverty, but the poorest households no longer receive a majority of government benefits. A secondary mission has gradually become primary: maintaining the middle class from childhood through retirement. The share of benefits flowing to the least affluent households, the bottom fifth, has declined from 54 percent in 1979 to 36 percent in 2007, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis published last year. 

And as more middle-class families like the Gulbransons land in the safety net in Chisago and similar communities, anger at the government has increased alongside. Many people say they are angry because the government is wasting money and giving money to people who do not deserve it. But more than that, they say they want to reduce the role of government in their own lives. They are frustrated that they need help, feel guilty for taking it and resent the government for providing it. They say they want less help for themselves; less help in caring for relatives; less assistance when they reach old age.

That's a load of crocodile tears, of course, as the piece goes on to explain.

But the reality of life here is that Mr. Gulbranson and many of his neighbors continue to take as much help from the government as they can get. When pressed to choose between paying more and taking less, many people interviewed here hemmed and hawed and said they could not decide. Some were reduced to tears. It is much easier to promise future restraint than to deny present needs. 

“How do you tell someone that you deserve to have heart surgery and you can’t?” Mr. Gulbranson said. 

He paused. 

“You have to help and have compassion as a people, because otherwise you have no society, but financially you can’t destroy yourself. And that is what we’re doing.” 

It's interesting to note what the real argument is here, because it's not being said.  And the real issue is there are Tea Party folks like Mr. Gulbranson of Minnesota who believe that what the government gives them is fine.  It's what the government gives all those other people that needs to be cut.   

And the even bigger issue is that the whole point of the GOP austerity movement is to demonize and "other-ize" enough of the American population so that the concept of austerity can be sold to the American public.  "It's not you who will get hurt, it's all those undeserving slobs on the dole who will be."  It exists to transfer wealth upwards to the top.  It seeks to leverage the tyranny of the majority in order to take rights from minority groups and keep them out of power so that people like Gulbranson can maintain their middle-class status.  It's literally class warfare.

Only the reality turns out to be the one percent at the top are going to take it all and leave middle-class America devastated, all over the fact the people at the top have enough money to influence people that millionaires and billionaires are the only minority class worth protecting, and that the notion that the 50%+1 of America is enough to permanently remove the rights of all other minority classes.  There's a logical endpoint to that kind of thinking, of course:

It's working, of course.  And if more folks like Mr. Gulbranson here vote and people like you don't, then they win.

Another Milepost On The Road To Oblivion

The Wall Street Journal's editorial page this morning is reduced to sputtering ad infinitum attacks on the President's health care rule on covering contraception, because it's basically all they have left after losing so completely.

Yesterday's new adventure in damage control and bureaucratic improvisation makes the compliance problem much worse. There is simply no precedent for the government ordering private companies to offer a product for free, even if they recoup the costs indirectly. Why not do that with all health benefits and "bend the cost curve" to zero? The shape of the final rule when the details land in the Federal Register is anyone's guess, including the HHS gnomes who are throwing it together on the fly to meet a political deadline.

Ahh, but a wiser man would notice that down the road, that's the point of the exercise.  That might give heart attacks to the WSJ's corporate readers, but for the 99% it's what the plan was all along.

Consider that the Catholic bishops have moved the goalposts again:  now their objection is that the government is violating the First Amendment rights of any employer or employee who is Catholic with birth control coverage.

The statement released by the Catholic Bishops conference said the proposal requires "careful moral analysis," saying it did not appear to offer clear protection for self-insured religious employers or religious and secular for-profit and non-profit employers.

That's the real thrust of the game here.  The Catholic Church is now saying that the only part of the Constitution that matters is "freedom of religious expression".  And let's keep in mind if it were up to the church, birth control wouldn't exist at all.

If we apply the same WSJ logic to the Bishops' argument, we'd of course get "Why have secular government at all if anyone who is Catholic might object on religious and moral grounds to what the government does?  That violates their religious liberties!"

And there are plenty of folks out there who wouldn't mind that lunatic outcome at all.