My Time to Waste

This from a post at fivethirtyeight.com:

Republicans were crowing about socialism and government takeovers way back in the summer of 2008, and opposing virtually every policy that the Democrats put forth from the first meeting of the 111th Congress last January — a time when Obama’s approval had been in the high 60s. At first, those messages weren’t working for them — they were particularly ineffectual, for instance, for the McCain campaign, and there were lots of stories in the spring about the number of people who identified as Republican slipping to all-time lows. But the GOP stuck by their messaging strategy, and it has allowed them to frame everything that has come thereafter in ways that are more resonant with the public.

This reminds me of the NFC Championship football game between the Saints and the Vikings.  The Saints defensive game plan included an emphasis on hitting Bret Favre.  They got several hits on him but failed to sack him.  Still, they did not change the plan.  Favre threw for 310 yards, but still the Saints worked to hit Favre.  Sure enough, before the game was over, Favre rewarded them by throwing three interceptions (the stats say two because the Saints did not catch one of the balls thrown right to them).

And the Saint won.

Senator Kennedy has requested that the Massachusetts legislature and governor move to change the law regarding how a vacant Senate seat is filled.  Kennedy’s interest is due to his own serious health issue and the precarious nature of health reform legislation in the US Senate.  Health reform has been one of Kennedy’s top concerns his entire career.

Noam Scheiber over at The New Republic thinks it would be a bad idea for Massachusetts to change the law.

Scheiber thinks that Kennedy’s vacant seat after his death would increase the likelihood that health reform legislation would pass.

… it would be suicidal for the GOP to filibuster the culmination of the last Kennedy brother’s lifelong crusade.

I see two problems here.  I’m not convinced it would be suicidal for the GOP to do that (though possibly).  More importantly, I doubt the GOP would see it that way.

Further, I don’t see what difference it would make if Kennedy’s seat was filled by the governor’s appointment or not.  If the GOP did believe it suicidal to “filibuster the culmination of the last Kennedy brother’s lifelong crusade” why would the seat being filled change that calculation?

Scheiber goes on to say:

I suspect the coverage of Kennedy’s death would silence healthcare reform critics and boost proponents in a way that netted at least a couple of wavering moderates–so clearing the 51-vote threshold wouldn’t be a problem. Heck, you might even see Utah Republican (and longtime Kennedy friend) Orrin Hatch back in the reformist camp.

This may very well be true, but again, I don’t see how the governor naming someone to fill the vacant seat disrupts this all that much.  An addition of a couple of moderate votes would be helpful to get to 60.

Finally, Scheiber is assuming that Kennedy is concerned about what will happen after his death.  It could be that Kennedy is prepared to resign the moment Massachusetts makes the appropriate change in the law.  Kennedy might be at the point where he now knows he will never be on the floor of the Senate again, but also knowing his vote (read:  his replacement’s vote) will be needed.

I can see an argument that Massachusetts should not change the law based on the idea that laws should not be altered for political expediency.  The Massachusetts law used to allow the governor to appoint someone to a vacant Senate seat but the legislature changed it when there was a faint hope that Kerry would vacate the seat to become President and the Massachusetts governor at the time was a Republican.  Not that I would be persuaded in this particular case by such an argument, but it is a good one (and should have been heeded the first time around).

Kris Kristofferson sings

Well, they finally came and told me they was a gonna set me free
And Id be leavin town if I knew what was good for me
I said, its nice to learn that evrybodys so concerned about my health.

The Republican’s concern over health care reform reminds me of that song.  To be clear, the Republicans primary goal here is to have nothing done.  One need look no further than the years 2003 through 2007.  In those years the Republicans had majorities in both houses of congress and the presidency.  Did they do anything about health care?  No. It is not like the health care problems that we have just appeared in the last two years.

Any Republican discussion about “doing it right” and “going slow” really just means preventing anything from happening.

I had the impression several days ago that momentum for health care reform slowed down some while President Obama was overseas.  A lot of the news in the past couple of days has been that reform will only get done if the President is actively working to push it through congress.

I was also under the impression that most Republicans would prefer that health care not pass.

And yet…

He [former Senator Zell Miller] drew more applause from the mostly Republican legislators …when he said Obama needed to spend more time in Washington and less time traveling abroad.  “Our globe-trotting president needs to stop and take a break and quit gallivanting around,” Miller said, adding that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel needs to put “Gorilla Glue” on his chair to keep him in the Oval Office.

Ignoring the possible racial slur here, I don’t understand the applause.  If the Republicans want health reform to fail, then I would think they would not want the President glued to his chair in the oval office, but would prefer him flying around the globe.

Unless it was the racial slur….

Hat tip to The New Republic

Bart Gragg points me to an article about Noreen Evans, an Assembly Member in California.  California, as I understand it, is in the midst of a serious budget crisis.  Evans is quoted in the article as saying

This mantra out there ‘live within our means,’ while it sounds really nice, while it sounds really simple and it sounds really responsible, it’s meaningless.

My first thought is that Mr. Coupal, of The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, did not give enough context for the quote.  I found a You Tube video of Evans’ comments.  She added to the quote above:

Our means are completely within our control…In good times we routinely give away taxes and in lean times we never replace those tax deductions or close those loopholes. We continuously borrow, which is an enormous cost that we shift on into future years and we find ourselves now with a deficit, an ongoing structural deficit that we simply can’t close.

It is not clear who put the video together, but it is clear it was not done by someone in agreement with Evans.  I give credit to whoever did it for providing a fuller context.

OK.  That appears to be what was said.  In my book, given the context, Evans is correct (but also wrong).  Since the government controls what the means are, to live within one’s means is, at best, a slippery concept.  The problem here is that it is still necessary to live within the means, whether it is by increasing the means or decreasing the living.

My grasp of what is happening in California is slim at best and mostly grounded in Jay Leno jokes (and I have not watched Leno in several months).  So from here on out I am talking in the context of the federal government.

No one in government will use the control of the means so that we live within our means.

No one.  Not the Democrats and not the Republicans.*  I want so much to write:

The Democrats vote to maintain/add programs and raise taxes while the Republicans want to cut programs and cut taxes and somehow this results in lots of programs and low taxes.

But that would not be true.  Republicans say they want to cut programs and cut taxes, but the emphasis is cutting taxes and the reality is cutting taxes.  Cutting programs just gets lip service. It is my understanding that even Reagan managed to eliminate only one program in eight years.

Democrats cannot raise taxes sufficiently to pay for all the programs because Republicans will raise hell and, we the people vote the Democrats out and the Republicans in and the taxes get cut but not the programs.  Generally, the Republicans are happy to run with deficits as long as taxes are low and the deficits are not caused by any new programs.

The Democrats run on the issue of needed new programs and we the people agree and vote them in.  Programs get added, some taxes get raised (but not enough and deficits continue) and Republicans run on cutting taxes…..

Note that the commonality in both sides of the problem is we the people.

We the people like our programs.  We the people would of course rather have lower taxes than higher taxes if given the choice.  What’s a congressman and senator to do?

Two hundred and thirty three years ago, fifty six men, representing the thirteen colonies, signed the Declaration of Independence.  Their signatures appear just below the last sentence:

And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Their lives, fortunes and sacred honor.

Our congressman and senators today are not willing to put their own reelection on the line, let alone their lives, fortunes and sacred honor.  And there you go.  We the people want programs without taxes and our elected officials are not willing to disillusion us for fear we will not reelect them.

Three days ago I posted A Sea of Red Ink.  My hope expressed there is that by running the deficit/debt up to unprecedented levels, our reps will then have no choice but to show some backbone, risk reelection, and fix the problem.

In the meantime, if you complain your taxes are too high, be sure you include in your complaint what program you would also have cut.

My best to California. I hope they figure something out.

*Yes, Ron Paul would probably cut everything, but one man is not enough (and people would want him lynched after their favorite program got cut).