The Party of Fiscal Responsibility

It’s Not The Size Of The Man In The Fight…

by Zandar| October 3, 20119:05 am| 130 Comments

This post is in: The Party of Fiscal Responsibility, DC Press Corpse, Our Failed Media Experiment

I honestly don’t understand the media obsession with Chris Christie’s weight. Yeah, he’s a big guy, so what? If you’re going to go after Christie, he’s got a long record of wingnuttery and semi-ethical New Jersey political nonsense to shine the spotlight on.

One of the most persistent stories that dogged Christie in his 2009 campaign was his unusual financial relationship with a top aide at his federal prosecutor office, Michele Brown. Christie lent Brown some $46,000, which he says was to help a family friend through a rough patch. But critics argued that the move was an improper conflict of interest heading into a gubernatorial campaign since Brown was in a position to help Christie in a variety of ways. Her job included handling FOIA requests, including those from Governor Corzine’s campaign, for example. And in one instance, she argued to colleagues in favor of wrapping up a major corruption probe before July 1, when Christie’s successor took over the US Attorney position, a move that ensured credit for the case would clearly flow to Christie. Brown resigned shortly after news of the loan broke and, according to the New York Times, she paid off Christie’s loan in October 2010.

It wasn’t the only allegation of conflict of interest that Christie fought off. The then-US Attorney testified before Congress on a series of no-bid monitoring contracts worth millions that he awarded to various law firms. One contract, worth up to $52 million, went to former Attorney General John Ashcroft, Christie’s old mentor. Another former US Attorney chosen for a monitoring contract, David Kelley, had previously investigated Christie’s brother in a stock fraud case in 2005 — he was not indicted while fifteen others were. Top lawyers at another firm he awarded a major contract to later donated about $24,000 to his campaign. Christie said the contracts were awarded on merit and accused Corzine of “character assassination” for raising the issue.

He was also accused of mishandling his office’s budget as US Attorney. In a 2010 report by the DOJ’s Inspector General, he was identified as one of the most profligate federal prosecutors in the country from 2007 to 2009, spending taxpayer cash on luxury hotels that exceeded government rates by as much as $242 a night. Christie said during the 2009 campaign that his office overspent only when there were no alternatives.

There are a number of serious ethical and corruption issues surrounding the New Jersey governor and they have nothing to do with his weight. The more I see serious news organizations like Reuters engage the ridiculous “debate” over Christie’s size, the greater disservice to what should be the actual debate is done. Pretty soon we’re going to be at the point where people will only talk about his size and not his record or corruption issues, and people will tune out “another story about Christie’s waistline or whatever” even when the actual reasons as to why he shouldn’t be in charge of anything are finally discussed.

No, I don’t think Christie has anything close to a real shot at the White House because of his issues as a blue state governor in a blood-red primary season and his record is pretty repugnant, but honestly I find the constant stories about the “challenges” Christie faces because of his size about as ridiculous as the stories about the “challenges” women or minority candidates face in politics (not to belittle issues that do exist, but silly me, I believe a candidate should be judged on policy and record.) What I mean by that is whatever actual issues that may arise from stories about Christie’s weight are used for their “HA HA shock factor,” not to actually have a debate. It’s been done to death with Hillary Clinton’s gender and President Obama’s race, Keith Ellison, Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman’s religion, etc. It’s obnoxious:

Speculation that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie will enter the U.S. presidential race has led to a feverish debate about the possibility of having the fattest man in the White House since the corpulent William Howard Taft squeezed behind the big desk in the Oval Office.

Replace that “fattest man in the White House” language with any other description of race, creed, gender, sexual orientation, religion and you see what the problem is. Why is this acceptable? And this is Reuters, folks. Why not just call him President Truffle Shuffle and be done with it, Reuters. Criminy.

So yeah, lay off the size stuff and check the guy’s record. Not only does this guy not deserve to be President, his crony capitalism adventures mean he shouldn’t be in politics at all. The size issue is a smokescreen but it’s the latest shiny object to chase this week for our Awesome Media Guys.

It’s Not The Size Of The Man In The Fight…Post + Comments (130)

A grifter is gonna grift

by Dennis G.| September 24, 201112:57 am| 55 Comments

This post is in: Election 2012, The Party of Fiscal Responsibility, Good News For Conservatives

Earlier this week the Des Moines Register reported that Sarah PAC has sent out a fund raising letter to supporters asking them to “..send your best, one-time gift to … show her that we support her if she decides to run.” They even included a link to the letter.

I think the Quitta from Wasilla is earning a place in the Grifter Hall of Fame. Of course she will never seriously run, but she will do what she can to keep the grift alive. She may even jump into the GOP primary and threaten a Third Party run when she loses to Mittens. That will keep the grift going for at least another year. And after that there is that whole whiny victimy thingy to con the rubes.

This latest effort to keep the flim-flam going has been mocked by many (and treated seriously by a few). One of the best bits of mockery came from Gawker, especially the comments. This one, from ManchuCandidate, was worth sharing:

Hello important person

Many apologies that I had to send you this email without a prior
relationship between us; my name is Mr.Chase Tim, A member of
the supervisory board of SarahPAC and a Former member
Board of ING Bank Netherlands and also the former Chairman Board of
Post Bank Netherlands.

I bore in mind your personality and reputation of which the same apply
to me, on this light I then deemed it fit to assure you that the Funds
will be cleared in accordance with the firm’s operational procedures
to ensure the transaction success without a breach of the law.

One thing is certain, with the relevant legal documents that I will
get to back you up the funds release will be approved for onward
release to you.

If this is okay with you then get back to me so that I give you more details.

Let it be known to you that this 14,700,000.00 US America bucks will be split
equally that is 50% for you and 50% for me.

I will want you to get back to me as soon as possible if you are
willing to assist in getting these funds, or you can give me a call on
my Alaska line below which I acquired mainly for this purpose as I am
presently based in the US America.

Regards,

Mr Chase Tin
Sarah PAC
Juneau, Alaska, US America

Funny thing is that the offer is not all that different than what every GOP candidate is offering their Galtian overloads–the only thing off is the split. It would never be 50/50. The typical split offered by Republican candidates is more like 90/10.

All of this isn’t a surprise. The modern Conservative movement is rooted in the “con”. The better you are as a liar, scam artist, bamboozeler and grifter–the higher you will rise and the more you’ll be paid. Palin is good at this game and I can’t think of any reason why she wouldn’t milk the rubes for all their worth and for as long as she can.

A grifter is gonna grift.

A grifter is gonna griftPost + Comments (55)

RINO Patrol

by Four Seasons Total Landscaping mistermix| September 10, 20119:26 am| 70 Comments

This post is in: The Party of Fiscal Responsibility

The almost-party-line vote in the Senate that killed off the stern resolution of disapproval for the $500 ~~million~~ billion increase in the debt ceiling is kind of interesting. I know that Scott Brown is running for his life and has to play Democrat when he thinks he can get away with it, but Bob Corker? What’s his angle voting against this nothingburger?

Also, too: there’s no more consistent blue dog than President Ben Nelson, the sole Democrat who voted for this turd.

RINO PatrolPost + Comments (70)

Won’t Get Fooled Again…and Again.

by Tom Levenson| August 3, 201111:07 pm| 148 Comments

This post is in: C.R.E.A.M., The Party of Fiscal Responsibility, Fools! Overton Window!, Our Failed Political Establishment

As readers of this blog know all too well, the debt ceiling “cuts” just passed are, for the most part, much less than meets the eye, particularly in the immediate future. But, of course, the debt isn’t the issue and never was.*

No. Not even in a little bit.

Rather, all of the last month or so was a set up for this:

Thousands of Tea Party movement activists are expected to descend this month on town hall meetings across key battleground states as part of an intensifying campaign ahead of the 2012 presidential and congressional elections.

Their priority is a plan to slash Medicare costs proposed by House of Representatives Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, which could gain momentum now that a debt-limit deal between President Barack Obama and Congress has made potential Medicare cuts a centerpiece of the deficit debate.

A new congressional committee charged with finding $1.5 trillion in spending cuts by November 23 is expected to focus on Medicare, and the program would see automatic cuts if the committee failed to reach agreement, or if Congress did not approve its recommendations by December 23. Market values of companies that depend on Medicare spending fell more than 10 percent in a sell-off on Wall Street after the agreement.

“The August town halls are going to be, potentially, a referendum on Democrats who don’t care and Republicans who’ve dared to offer real policy solutions, particularly on things like entitlements,” said Matt Kibbe, president of FreedomWorks, the small-government advocacy group organizing the initiative.

Freedom (sic) Works is, of course, this grass-roots organization.

Which means that one can readily translate the phrase, “real policy solutions” as “transfer payments from most of America to the richest few.”

But of course, these are the serious people in this discussion. Just ask them:

“The Ryan plan is the only one out there so far, and what we need is an adult conversation with all politicians talking about the real issues,” [said Kibbe]

Yeah: like those adult conversations that attended the discussion of health care last time around.

Also, note the big lie at the heart of this claim: (a) that the Ryan is a “policy solution” despite the fact that it neither saves any real money on either the budget nor in health care spending society-wide (as opposed to federal spending on health care); (b) that it is the only plan out there; and (c) that it has anything to do with fiscal prudence.

Not exactly, as Jon Chait writes at the link above:

show full post on front page

…this more modest deficit reduction would mask a very large redistribution of wealth–and not the kind Republicans always accuse Democrats of trying. The tax cuts, which include reductions in the top rate, would overwhelmingly benefit the rich. The spending cuts, which include a huge reduction in Medicaid spending, would primarily affect the poor.

So calling the House Republican plan a deficit reduction scheme is a very misleading description of its likely effect for the first decade. You’re better off calling it a regressive redistribution plan that happens, as a side effect, to reduce deficits by a small amount. Or you can just call it “flimflam,” like Paul Krugman did.

And, of course, that’s what has always been the goal: to repeal the New Deal, and transfer to the kind of folks funding ~~Greedhead~~ Freedom Works all the wealth thus no longer wasted on the undeserving poor, the middle class, and, hell, just about everybody.

So: our job is to show up, and shout — in person, in letters to the editor, and in communication to our representatives, relevant committee chairs and the White House: no tax cuts in any deal. Tax reform as a 1-1 or better fix for the deficit reduction to which we are now, sadly and prematurely, committee; and touch neither Medicare/Medicaid nor Social Security.

We need to say it over and over again: cost controls as part of a Medicare reform package are fine (as Krugman himself argued for in the first round of Ryan nonsense). Amazingly, that’s just what happens to be one of the major ideas within the one truly serious policy plan out there on this subject, the health care reform package already passed. It’s why IPAB exists, for one thing, and it’s why, as David Leonhardt pointed out, President Obama and his allies constructed a health care approach that turns on taxation of the rich to cover the cost of a program vital to the middle class and the poor.**

I urge everyone who has raced to conclude that Obama is no better than the GOP alternatives to go back to that Leonhardt piece and remember why that’s simply bullsh*t.

Obama, for all his errors and his damnably frustrating inability to make the bully pulpit ring, believes in the New Deal. He grasps the importance of economic equity not simply as a matter of justice, but as a hard pragmatic necessity if we are to create a sustainably wealthy society. He has defended the importance of government and governance in the maintenance of truly civil society. Your modern GOP does not accept any of that.

I remember trying and failing to talk Naderite friends out of their “the two parties are the same” nonsense in 2000. We cannot survive doing that to ourselves in 2012. And, just to get started, this summer we’ve got to shout down those who shout to sell out our parents, our children, our communities and ourselves to fund the mansions of the rootless rich.

*except for the truly credulous.

**BTW — one of the best pieces of media news of the last several years is that Leonhardt will take over the Washington bureau of The New York Times as of this fall. He’s in the Village but not of it, and if he leads the Washington coverage of the Times as well as he’s performed on his own economic beat, that’s a very good thing.

Image Ernst Ludwig Kirchner, Schlemihls [A Loser] in the loneliness of the room, before 1938

Won’t Get Fooled Again…and Again.Post + Comments (148)

Who’s Taxing Whom?

by Tom Levenson| July 18, 20117:07 pm| 61 Comments

This post is in: Tax Policy, The Party of Fiscal Responsibility

Fair warning: what follows is a bit of a rant and contains nothing particularly new. But the fiscal follies of our overlords are unhinging me, and as misery loves company, I hope to share my derangement.

———–

I’ve been a little obsessed with light bulbs lately, as regular readers know. I continue to be dumbfounded at the depth, passion, and naked-mole-rat-stupidity of the GOP drive to ensure Americans waste money on illumination. Following a thought from one commenter, I’m bracing for the claim that bans on whaling are really an unconscionable assault on the liberty of the people to light their homes with oil lanterns.

But as I thought about the implications of the Republican House caucus’ relentless drive to undermine America’s energy security, I started to fixate on a penetrating glimpse of the obvious: the entire GOP approach to the federal government’s fiscal policy is a vast tax hike on most Americans.

That the GOPsters approach to policy will raise the cost of living in America is, I think obvious by this point: when you privatize public goods, by and large those goods cost more for the individual user to access. (There is a lot of detail obscured by that blanket statement, and certainly some instances where it might be otherwise, but the health care system (about which more below) is a familiar example of the basic problem, and there are many more.)

Republicans would say, I think, that cost isn’t the issue. Government shouldn’t pay for much that it does now and that individuals can make better choices about priorities and so on. They’d add that government musn’t pay for that which it can’t; that, to use a cliche repeated over and over again, that the government must behave like any household would, and not spend money it doesn’t have.

That last is nonsense, of course. I’m actually working on a next book that tells a grand story of fraud and deceit at the birth of the idea of government debt — and that tale turns on the ways that governments aren’t like households or small businesses.

For now, though, the point is that if you take the Republicans false metaphor at face value, then you see that despite the brave promises of “no new taxes,” the practical, household consequences of their actions add up to a huge stealth tax increase that differentially falls on to working people, the middle class, and the poor.

And yes, as noted above, I know I’m restating the obvious, but bear with me. Let’s take my lighting fixation for a spin. Recall that the energy efficiency standards that so offend the current Republican caucus* are predicted to save each American household $50 a year.

Now back to that bill-paying session over the kitchen table Republicans are so wont to imagine.

show full post on front page

Maybe liberty is beyond price. Whatever it’s called though, this extra hit of four or five bucks a month would feel exactly the same as if the GOP had voted a $50/home surcharge on each of us to subsidize light bulb makers or power generators: We wouldn’t have that money no more, and it’s by GOP choice that this increase in our burdens would such cash out of our pockets.

A latte a month may in fact be a worthy price to keep the dead hand of statism from our necks. But what about cost of aging? Remember the Paul Ryan plan that virtually the entire GOP congressional caucus has endorsed. That scheme switches the cost of medical care for the elderly to those old, ill people and their families. Now we’re not talking cups of coffee any more, mere Franklins a year; rather, we’re in the realm of beaucoup Benjamins.

Again this is surely familiar to all here, but just as a reminder, the gap between the vouchers Ryan’s plan provides and the projected actual cost of senior’s health care is about $12,500, according to a CBO analysis, $6,000 more than the out-of-pocket charges to be borne were Medicare left unchanged.

And is there any choice here, really, for any household that loves its grandparents (or just folks of an age that in my case is coming up rather sooner than seems plausible)?

No there is not. We could enact the old Jewish mother light bulb joke,** but our only real options were the GOPsters to achieve their long-cherished goal of killing Medicare is to pay the freight or die faster.

Death and taxes — there’s a reason the two are such close kin, after all.

Old news, get over it — I get it.

But the point I want to make, the meme, to use a word I mistrust, or a shove to the Overton window, is that all this talk of the holding the line against taxes and so on is bullsh*t when we’re working at the level of that holy kitchen table. There, the only thing that matters at the level of individual Americans’ bank accounts is that GOP policies raise the cost of being an American in ways that are indistinguishable from brutal, huge tax increases.

If politics is perception then it’s important to do what the Bush clan was brilliant at — take your opponents’ seeming strength and hang an anvil around its neck. And here, as we see every day (and many posts here remind us), the GOPsters using the power of government to impose huge new costs on us all that we have in practical terms no way to avoid. The resulting drain of our dollars is not a tax in law, of course, but the resulting holes in my wallet feel exactly the same as if it were. And, of course, the bitter last jest is that under the Republican approach, we pay more to get less.

So I’d like to see every Democrat running, and the chattering classes as well, all raging about the GOP stealth tax on the American way of life. I’d like to see the ads that make that connection with couples in their kitchens talking about this GOP tax assault, how cleverly it’s been disguised, how hard it bites. I’d like to see sneering and rage and bitter remorse at the thought that any all-American family of voters was taken in by all that no-tax deceit. I want to make it impossible for any GOP thug to hide behind Grover’s tissue of a pledge when next the polls open.

No new taxes? Hell and death (and taxes)! No GOPster should be allowed to say that unchallenged.

*Recall also that the standards were approved with bipartisan support in 2007 (including sponsorship by GOPster Fred Upton, currently chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, who now fights the good fight against light bulb efficiency), and signed into law by that notorious state-socialist, George W. Bush.

**Q: How many Jewish mothers does it take to change a light bulb?

A: “None! I’ll just sit here in the dark.”

Images: Vincent van Gogh, The Potato Eaters, 1885

Rembrandt van Rijn, Portrait of an Old Jew, 1654

Who’s Taxing Whom?Post + Comments (61)

Obama is not going to slash Medicare or Social Security, so CTFD already

by Imani Gandy (ABL)| July 11, 201112:02 pm| 261 Comments

This post is in: The Party of Fiscal Responsibility, OBAMA IS WORSE THAN BUSH HE SOLD US OUT!!, Our Failed Media Experiment, Our Failed Political Establishment

He’s got this.

Check out this interview Obama did with Jean Enersen in Seattle.

[via The Obama Diary]

[cross-posted]

Obama is not going to slash Medicare or Social Security, so CTFD alreadyPost + Comments (261)

Boehner Blinked.

by Imani Gandy (ABL)| July 9, 201110:52 pm| 228 Comments

This post is in: Open Threads, Republican Stupidity, Republican Venality, The Party of Fiscal Responsibility, Schadenfreude, Teabagger Stupidity

Well, what do we have here:

House Speaker John Boehner is abandoning discussions with the White House on a large-scale debt deal slated to achieve $4 trillion in deficit reduction. The bone of contention is Boehner’s insistence on no tax increases in the deal. Instead, Boehner said the talks should focus on reaching a smaller debt-reduction deal.

“Despite good-faith efforts to find common ground, the White House will not pursue a bigger debt reduction agreement without tax hikes,” Boehner said in the statement.

The Administration knew what Boehner’s pressure point was. How? Because Grover Norquist hasn’t shut the hell up about it for a month now. The sacred tax pledge! You must obey the sacred tax pledge! All the howling from the left may turn out to have been a good thing.***

Meanwhile, the Tea Party is about to lose its collective mind (to the extent it has one, which is unlikely).

The hits: They just keep on comin’.

I reckon this is your evening flame war thread.

Cheers!

***I know I know, he’s worse than Bush.

Boehner Blinked.Post + Comments (228)

Jager on Love Will Tear Us Apart (Jan 25, 2021 @ 3:09pm)

trollhattan on Love Will Tear Us Apart (Jan 25, 2021 @ 3:08pm)

Catherine D. on Love Will Tear Us Apart (Jan 25, 2021 @ 3:07pm)

sab on Love Will Tear Us Apart (Jan 25, 2021 @ 3:07pm)

trollhattan on Love Will Tear Us Apart (Jan 25, 2021 @ 3:06pm)

The house always wins.

Naturally gregarious and alpha

We still have time to mess this up!

Make the republican party small enough to drown in a bathtub.

The revolution will be supervised.

Not all heroes wear capes.

What fresh hell is this?

It’s not even safe to go out and pick up 2 days worth of poop anymore.

Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to.

Reality always lies in wait for … Democrats.

Let me eat cake. The rest of you could stand to lose some weight, frankly.

No offense, but this thread hasn’t been about you for quite a while.

… down to kool-aid drinkers and next of kin at the trump White House

We can agree to disagree, but i’m right.

Saul Alinsky is my co-pilot.

An almost top 10,000 blog!

Today in our ongoing national embarrassment…

How do you get liars to care about the truth?

Where tasty lettuce and good mustard aren’t elitist.

Hot air and ill-informed banter

… riddled with inexplicable and elementary errors of law and fact

Lighten up, Francis.

This is how realignments happen…

JFC, are there no editors left at that goddamn rag?