The Republican Congressional party is beginning to lose its nerve. Earlier today (yesterday?), John Boehner stated that the debt ceiling is the President's problem. Not it's all of our problem, not we need to solve this; it's Obama's problem--as though this doesn't affect every single resident of this country! I can't recall a more petulant, childish statement by a major political figure, and I hope the Democrats nail this quote to every single ad they run from now through 2012.
And today, Mitch McConnell proposed a "solution" to the debt ceiling standoff that is so cynical, so obviously gutless and cowardly that it would be laughable if it weren't actually a pretty good idea. His proposal: Congress would pass a law allowing the President to unilaterally increase the debt ceiling, but in stages (thus allowing the GOP to attack him three times between now and the next election), and allowing Congress to vote (no filibuster--because it would only be the Democrats who might conceivably want to take advantage of this tactic here) to oppose any particular increase. Obama could veto this, and Congress could override the veto with a 2/3 vote in each house, but in the event of a veto, Obama would be required to state (on a non-binding basis) what budget cuts he would make to equal to the increase in the debt ceiling (no right to identify tax or other revenue increases!).
All of this proposal is for show, with opportunities for the GOP to try to embarrass the President. It would dump the responsibility for the debt ceiling increase onto the President, since Congress is incapable of achieving a consensus. Transparently, what the McConnell plan would do is: (1) Allow the Republicans in Congress to avoid forcing the country into either a default on its debt (with disastrous consequences) or a cutting off of current funding (including immediate benefit payments suspension), with either result hurting voters and thus ultimately hurting the Republicans; (2) allow the Republicans to vote against the debt ceiling increase, although the vote will have no real world consequences and will thus be meaningless; and (3) force the President to identify proposed spending cuts, thereby angering the "victims", even though this will be a purely academic exercise.
I should add that, in addition to being gutless and cowardly, this proposal is also obviously hyper-partisan and designed purely for political gain. Nevertheless, it would result in an increase in the debt ceiling.
My second thought about this proposal, after thinking it actually could be workable from the Democratic perspective, with some modification, was that the Republicans in the House would never go for this because the net result is that the debt ceiling is increased and the Republicans get nothing substantive in return. That is their worst case scenario, so of course they won't support it. Sure enough, the Tea Party contingent has castigated McConnell.
It's astonishing to me that McConnell would be so out of touch as to think that the true believers in the House would accept this purely political "out". They don't want an escape hatch; they want a real confrontation. Perhaps McConnell realized that this would be the response within his own party, and was simply demonstrating to his corporate funders that he is trying to find a way to do the responsible thing.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Monday, July 11, 2011
Debt Ceiling
If Congress doesn't pass legislation to raise the debt ceiling, we're told that we will be hitting the current legal limit somewhere around August 2. At that point, two apparently conflicting things must happen. First, the Federal government can't incur more debt (at least, it can't incur a greater amount of new debt than the amount of old debt that is retired/paid off). Second, the government is required to incur certain expenditures, the sum total of which is in excess of current revenues. Something has to give, and I assume that the President and the Executive branch of the government has the power and authority--the right--to choose which expenditures to make and which to defer or otherwise refuse to make.
Here are some suggestions:
1. Stop paying the salaries of members of Congress and their staffs. I get no amusement from the thought of anyone being laid off, and realize that for some of these people, this will be a financial hardship. But there's no reason why members of Congress should be immune from the effects of the recession and it would, perhaps, do some of them good to personally experience unemployment.
2. I believe that a significant portion of Federal expenditures are in the form of payments to the states. How about stopping payments to those states whose Congressional delegations voted against an increase in the debt ceiling? (Yes, I'm talking about Republican delegations.) Let the consequences of their vote be visited upon their own states. Similarly, let the Federal Government stop funding projects that are located in these same states.
Is this Constitutional? I have no idea. Offensive as the notion of discriminating among states based on their political leanings seems to be, at least at first blush, I'm not sure what part of the Constitution would be implicated by this. And, if the Administration is forced to pick and choose among its various financial commitments, there certainly seems to be some justice to the notion that the states that voted to put us in this dilemma should suffer more of the consequences of that decision.
Here are some suggestions:
1. Stop paying the salaries of members of Congress and their staffs. I get no amusement from the thought of anyone being laid off, and realize that for some of these people, this will be a financial hardship. But there's no reason why members of Congress should be immune from the effects of the recession and it would, perhaps, do some of them good to personally experience unemployment.
2. I believe that a significant portion of Federal expenditures are in the form of payments to the states. How about stopping payments to those states whose Congressional delegations voted against an increase in the debt ceiling? (Yes, I'm talking about Republican delegations.) Let the consequences of their vote be visited upon their own states. Similarly, let the Federal Government stop funding projects that are located in these same states.
Is this Constitutional? I have no idea. Offensive as the notion of discriminating among states based on their political leanings seems to be, at least at first blush, I'm not sure what part of the Constitution would be implicated by this. And, if the Administration is forced to pick and choose among its various financial commitments, there certainly seems to be some justice to the notion that the states that voted to put us in this dilemma should suffer more of the consequences of that decision.
Friday, July 8, 2011
The Marriage Vow
A group called The Family Leader has announced "The Marriage Vow: A Declaration of Dependence Upon Marriage and Family" and has asked Republican Presidential Candidates to sign it. Michele Bachmann has already signed up. The Vow constists of a statement of general principles, with 5 bullet points detailing areas of concern, followed by a 14-point "Candidate Vow", along with 20 footnotes giving citations.
A read through this document provides a brief tour through what I assume to be the contemporary state of mind of the Christianist/social conservative right wing. It is obsessed with opposition to gay marriage and what the drafters see as America's acceptance of homosexuality--at least 6 of the 14 points seem to be about homosexuality. Not surprisingly, the document also evidences opposition to abortion, cloning, oppression of women (but not a word about discrimination against women in the workplace), the abuse of women and children (including slavery, etc.),judges who are not "faithful constitutionalists", liberal divorce laws and, more generally, personal infidelity. It also sees the Federal deficit, state and Federal public debt and the large Federal budget as a threat to the American family and family values, calling for "downsizing" government.
(As to this last point, one could certainly argue, with much justification, that a significant "downsizing" of government--at both state/local and Federal levels--would place an even greater burden on families, since inevitably the cuts in government spending would adversely affect social safety net programs such as Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security, as well as programs designed to assist lower income families. But if The Family Leader folks think that there might be some question as to whether this last point really would benefit families, the document certainly doesn't provide any evidence.)
The footnotes to the document provide the veneer of scholarship, although it's worth noting that many of the studies that are cited are published (or about to be published) by an entity called the Institute for American Values, which I assume to be another conservative/right wing/family values group with a specific ideological agenda. Some of the footnotes are borderline incoherent. For example, footnote 8 reads in part:
"No peer-reviewed empirical science or rational demonstration has ever definitively proven, nor even has shown an overwhelming probability, that homosexual preference or behavior is irresistible as a function of genetic determinism or other forms of fatalism."
This is appended to a bullet point that objects to: "anti-scientific bias which holds, in complete absence of empirical proof, that non-heterosexual inclinations are genetically determined, irresistible and akin to innate traits like race, gender and eye color."
All of this is exceedingly clever. The Family Leader doesn't attempt to assert that homosexuality is a matter of choice or represents a changeable sexual preference; instead, it claims that there is no "scientific" evidence that it is not. The "tell" here is the reference in both places to genetics. I confess I have no expertise or more than passing knowledge of the research into homosexuality, but I'm fairly confident of two things: (1) no reputable, objective scientists, researchers or other experts have claimed to have scientific evidence of a genetic link, although there has been speculation to this effect for years; and yet (2) all reputable, objective etc., etc. believe that homosexuality is not a matter of choice but is somehow inherent. So the Family Leader sets up a typical right wing straw man: there is no scientific evidence of a genetic basis for homosexuality and, therefore, we are led to believe that it must be a matter of choice.
The Family Leader is also clever in consistently embedding references to homosexuality and same-sex marriage amid references to bigamy, adultery, polygamy, bestiality and the like, as though they are all of a piece. This may reflect TFL's implicit recognition that the case against homosexuality and same-sex marriage is, on its own, weaker and less persuasive than in the past and therefore needs to be linked to other, more universally abhored practices.
The document also expresses fear of "Sharia Islam". As has been pointed out elsewhere, this conflates Islamic law--a concept of religious-based laws which exists also in Christianity (see The Family Leader) and Judaism--with certain aspects of fundamentalist Islam which we find objectionable, such as the subjugation of women. More to the point, do we really have cause to fear that Islamic law will somehow be imposed on us here in the United States?
The final point of the Vow is: "Fierce defense of the First Amendment's rights of Religious Liberty and Freedom of Speech, especially against the intolerance of any who would undermine law-abiding American citizens and institutions of faith and conscience for their adherence to, and defense of, faithful heterosexual monogamy." This places TFL firmly in Orwellian territory. The First Amendment freedom of religion and speech somehow requires opposition to same-sex marriage. Of course. It is the proponents of same-sex marriage who are intolerant, because they would "undermine" religious institutions. How this works, exactly, is a mystery. I don't know that logic or rational analysis would be particularly useful here; clearly, the ideology expressed in this statement can be picked apart with relative ease. But the salient point is that TFL, through this document evidences an almost palpable fear of the social and cultural impact of same-sex marriage and more to the point, of the growing social acceptance of homosexuality as a legitimate and acceptable human condition. After all, that's what the opposition to marriage equality is really all about. Opponents don't really believe that the marriage of relatively small numbers of gay people will, in fact, do damage to their heterosexual neighbors' own marriages; the pathetic defense mounted in the California case makes it clear that there is no rational case against same-sex marriage per se. But for opponents, same-sex marriage is just one front in a multi-faceted war. Social conservatives want to push back against the growing social acceptance of homosexuality; they see this as a corruption and weakening of the culture and the society. Thus, any legislation that is supportive of homosexuality--civil union, laws prohibiting discrimination against gays, etc.--is objectionable to them.
There is a lot of material here to expose the current thinking of the Christianist right wing in America, but I want to make one final point. Part of what concerns me when I read documents like this is the emphasis on personal morality issues--in this case, marital infidelity and the high incidence of divorce. I don't mean to dismiss these as legitimate cultural and societal concerns, but it troubles me that "social conservatives" view these as political matters and appropriate subjects for legislation. To my mind, it is inconsistent to treat these as fit for governmental action and at the same time call for religious liberty and the downsizing of government. The demand that candidates conduct their personal, supposedly private, lives in compliance with marital fidelity standards seems to me to be an unacceptable intrusion into the private lives of candidates and, of course, I am also troubled by the notion that one's private, legal conduct must, as a requirement of the office of the President, adhere to a particular moral code. That is the road that led to George W. Bush; it's a road that elevates a candidate's personal history and sexual morality over deeper character issues, policy positions and competence.
A read through this document provides a brief tour through what I assume to be the contemporary state of mind of the Christianist/social conservative right wing. It is obsessed with opposition to gay marriage and what the drafters see as America's acceptance of homosexuality--at least 6 of the 14 points seem to be about homosexuality. Not surprisingly, the document also evidences opposition to abortion, cloning, oppression of women (but not a word about discrimination against women in the workplace), the abuse of women and children (including slavery, etc.),judges who are not "faithful constitutionalists", liberal divorce laws and, more generally, personal infidelity. It also sees the Federal deficit, state and Federal public debt and the large Federal budget as a threat to the American family and family values, calling for "downsizing" government.
(As to this last point, one could certainly argue, with much justification, that a significant "downsizing" of government--at both state/local and Federal levels--would place an even greater burden on families, since inevitably the cuts in government spending would adversely affect social safety net programs such as Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security, as well as programs designed to assist lower income families. But if The Family Leader folks think that there might be some question as to whether this last point really would benefit families, the document certainly doesn't provide any evidence.)
The footnotes to the document provide the veneer of scholarship, although it's worth noting that many of the studies that are cited are published (or about to be published) by an entity called the Institute for American Values, which I assume to be another conservative/right wing/family values group with a specific ideological agenda. Some of the footnotes are borderline incoherent. For example, footnote 8 reads in part:
"No peer-reviewed empirical science or rational demonstration has ever definitively proven, nor even has shown an overwhelming probability, that homosexual preference or behavior is irresistible as a function of genetic determinism or other forms of fatalism."
This is appended to a bullet point that objects to: "anti-scientific bias which holds, in complete absence of empirical proof, that non-heterosexual inclinations are genetically determined, irresistible and akin to innate traits like race, gender and eye color."
All of this is exceedingly clever. The Family Leader doesn't attempt to assert that homosexuality is a matter of choice or represents a changeable sexual preference; instead, it claims that there is no "scientific" evidence that it is not. The "tell" here is the reference in both places to genetics. I confess I have no expertise or more than passing knowledge of the research into homosexuality, but I'm fairly confident of two things: (1) no reputable, objective scientists, researchers or other experts have claimed to have scientific evidence of a genetic link, although there has been speculation to this effect for years; and yet (2) all reputable, objective etc., etc. believe that homosexuality is not a matter of choice but is somehow inherent. So the Family Leader sets up a typical right wing straw man: there is no scientific evidence of a genetic basis for homosexuality and, therefore, we are led to believe that it must be a matter of choice.
The Family Leader is also clever in consistently embedding references to homosexuality and same-sex marriage amid references to bigamy, adultery, polygamy, bestiality and the like, as though they are all of a piece. This may reflect TFL's implicit recognition that the case against homosexuality and same-sex marriage is, on its own, weaker and less persuasive than in the past and therefore needs to be linked to other, more universally abhored practices.
The document also expresses fear of "Sharia Islam". As has been pointed out elsewhere, this conflates Islamic law--a concept of religious-based laws which exists also in Christianity (see The Family Leader) and Judaism--with certain aspects of fundamentalist Islam which we find objectionable, such as the subjugation of women. More to the point, do we really have cause to fear that Islamic law will somehow be imposed on us here in the United States?
The final point of the Vow is: "Fierce defense of the First Amendment's rights of Religious Liberty and Freedom of Speech, especially against the intolerance of any who would undermine law-abiding American citizens and institutions of faith and conscience for their adherence to, and defense of, faithful heterosexual monogamy." This places TFL firmly in Orwellian territory. The First Amendment freedom of religion and speech somehow requires opposition to same-sex marriage. Of course. It is the proponents of same-sex marriage who are intolerant, because they would "undermine" religious institutions. How this works, exactly, is a mystery. I don't know that logic or rational analysis would be particularly useful here; clearly, the ideology expressed in this statement can be picked apart with relative ease. But the salient point is that TFL, through this document evidences an almost palpable fear of the social and cultural impact of same-sex marriage and more to the point, of the growing social acceptance of homosexuality as a legitimate and acceptable human condition. After all, that's what the opposition to marriage equality is really all about. Opponents don't really believe that the marriage of relatively small numbers of gay people will, in fact, do damage to their heterosexual neighbors' own marriages; the pathetic defense mounted in the California case makes it clear that there is no rational case against same-sex marriage per se. But for opponents, same-sex marriage is just one front in a multi-faceted war. Social conservatives want to push back against the growing social acceptance of homosexuality; they see this as a corruption and weakening of the culture and the society. Thus, any legislation that is supportive of homosexuality--civil union, laws prohibiting discrimination against gays, etc.--is objectionable to them.
There is a lot of material here to expose the current thinking of the Christianist right wing in America, but I want to make one final point. Part of what concerns me when I read documents like this is the emphasis on personal morality issues--in this case, marital infidelity and the high incidence of divorce. I don't mean to dismiss these as legitimate cultural and societal concerns, but it troubles me that "social conservatives" view these as political matters and appropriate subjects for legislation. To my mind, it is inconsistent to treat these as fit for governmental action and at the same time call for religious liberty and the downsizing of government. The demand that candidates conduct their personal, supposedly private, lives in compliance with marital fidelity standards seems to me to be an unacceptable intrusion into the private lives of candidates and, of course, I am also troubled by the notion that one's private, legal conduct must, as a requirement of the office of the President, adhere to a particular moral code. That is the road that led to George W. Bush; it's a road that elevates a candidate's personal history and sexual morality over deeper character issues, policy positions and competence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)