Obama capitulates on tax cuts and the media creates a predictably false narrative about it

Apparently, support of 67% of the American public doesn’t get you what it used to.

Today I watched Barack Obama’s quasi-impromptu press conference where he made a few canned remarks about his compromise in principle with Republicans on extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone for two years. Before I get into the media’s reaction, I want to highlight a CBS poll conducted a week ago. A whopping 67% of Americans say that the Bush tax cuts should either be allowed to expire for everyone, or expire just for those making more than $250,000 a year. Below is the exact breakdown. I have added the data in the bottom row which shows what percentage of Republicans, Democrats, and independents want (at the very least) the tax cuts for the $250,000-plus crowd to expire. This is done simply by adding rows three and four:

CBS Poll conducted 11/29-12/01	All	REPS	DEMS	INDS
Continue for all	26%	46	10	25
Continue for households <$250K	53	41	70	47
Expire for all	14	11	14	17
Expire for >$250K (at very least)	67	52	84	64

Most amazing of all, notice how a majority (52%) of self-identified Republicans think the tax cuts for those making over $250,000 should expire.

Watching the news, you would never know that two-thirds of Americans are in favor of not extending the tax cuts for these wealthier Americans. Meanwhile, a straight 53% say the tax cuts should be extended just for those making under $250,000. And you wouldn’t know this because every media outlet I have seen report on this tax cut compromise—whether CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and so on—has presented this as an instance of Obama defying his “liberal base” and nothing more. See for yourself:

But it’s just the newest chapter of an old fight, and despite the liberal base’s fury, it’s evidence that Obama is trying to re-center himself before the 2012 elections.

CNN

He made clear he was willing to alienate his liberal base in the interest of compromise, more interested in crafting measures that can pass to the benefit of the middle class than waging battle to the end over principle.

New York Times

Even as liberals complain, White House officials believe independent voters will reward him if he’s seen as leading Washington to results.

Wall Street Journal

By cutting the deal they have, the White House has likely concluded that it is more important to cozy up to the middle than it is to keep it’s left-leaning base happy, probably believing that it has no where else to go and will, therefore, stick with Obama through 2012.

US News & World Report

As we just saw in the CBS poll, which merely confirmed similar results in previous polling on this issue (see here and here), two-thirds of Americans do not want tax cuts extended for anyone making over $250,000. And yet the American media would have us believe that in striking this deal, Obama dealt a cold serving of mainstream political reality to his überliberal critics. Except that unless Obama’s “liberal base” is that aforementioned two-thirds of the American population who are against extending the tax cuts for the wealthy, this analysis makes no sense whatsoever.

What this sorry episode shows is that our media is incapable of or unwilling to present serious political and economic issues in a way that goes beyond a convenient, narrow, and usually false left-right dichotomy. This narrative reminds me of the health care debate—based on the media coverage of which, you’d never know that 60% of Americans wanted a government health insurance option to compete with private coverage. Now once again, we are being told that the political realities being what they are, there’s just no possible way to extend tax cuts for the middle class while allowing them to lapse for the wealthy because only a majority of the American population favors it.

Perhaps this really does mean that a majority of Americans are in that “liberal base” the media keeps talking about.

- Max Canning

Long Overdue, Semi-Coherent, Profane-Laden Rant About How Fucked Up Our Politics Are Right Now

Get it off me!

Nowhere is insanity on fuller display than in the debate on whether to extend the Bush tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 and set to expire on December 31. On one side is the Republicans, who come January, will control one out of the three institutions (House, Senate, White House) needed to pass any extensions. They have indicated that they will not vote for any tax cut extensions that do not include cuts for those making over $250,000 a year—a group that accounts for two percent of the fucking population! Excuse me, but where in the holy fuck do the Republicans get off saying they won’t compromise on tax cuts? With what leverage are they making these crazy statements? Memo to John Boehner: you can’t do shit without the Senate and White House, neither of which you control. The tax cuts can expire with our without your regressive-ass governing philosophy. On the other side is the Democrats, and I will get to those fuckers momentarily.

If the GOP is so serious about reining in our massive budget deficits, why the fuck do they want the government to eat $700 billion over the next ten years, which is what extending the tax cuts for the upper 2% would cost? Standard bullshit answer: Because that 2% does the investing and job creating. Well suck my ass. I don’t know if any of these GOP empty suits have noticed, but America is having a bit of a capital flight problem at the moment. I know we don’t want to admit it, but the dollar is getting royally crushed on the Forex and our exports are still getting their asses kicked. The Fed’s second round of quantitative easing is underway and, woops, bond yields are rising. That’s ok though, at least those struggling bankers at Goldman Sachs are front-running on these asset purchases and selling the taxpayers bonds whose prices are unnecessarily jacked up. Way to monetize the debt you fucking FOMC assholes.

But back to these Republican douchebags. They don’t give a flaming fuck about deficits or the national debt. If anything, they want our situation to be even more fucked than it is so they can eliminate every social program there is, and spend all tax dollars on corporate subsidies, military Keynesianism, and expanding the police/surveillance state, which are the cornerstones of what passes for American conservatism these days. So they want to give back $700 billion to a bunch of people making over $250K and therefore by definition, don’t really need the money. And don’t tell me they’re going to invest their tax cuts in America or some such horseshit. Those rich people don’t earn that much money because they’re fucking stupid, and because they’re not fucking stupid that money is going to go overseas and in precious metals and commodities. The dollar is dead. Paper money is fucking dead. Might as well buy some hard assets with your worthless fiat toilet paper. Either that or equities so we can blow another bubble and watch it pop. That would be truly awesome.

While Europe undergoes austerity, we here in the US cling to the belief that no matter how indebted we are, we can never be expected to lower our standard of living or rein in our global empire whose costs are at unspeakably obscene levels. Thank god the Republicans have retaken the House so we can start cutting costs, downsize the military and slash pentagon spending, and implement sensible tax policy.

Wait, what’s that? The Republicans want to do none of these things? What’s that? Their recipe for fiscal responsibility in a nation with a $14 trillion debt and a $14.5 trillion GDP is lots of tax cuts with a sprinkle of fucking earmark reform? Is this for serious? Who voted for these buffoons? Way to go teabaggers, fuck you very much.

As for the Democrats, holy fucking shit do you guys suck buffalo cock. What a clusterfuck your reign has been. Nice fucking health care bill that will necessitate a massive transferal of wealth from taxpayers to the criminialistic, anti-trust exempt, premium-jacking, coverage-denying, cocksucking HMOs for the indefinite future. Nice non-legislation allowing the government to negotiate bulk prices of pharmaceuticals under Medicare. Nice non-legislation allowing the reimportation of said pharmaceuticals. Nice fucking mandate that makes Americans purchase health coverage from private tyrannies.

Also, good job on reconfirming Ben Bernanke Fed Chair. Whereas sane societies would see him, Greenspan, Blankfein, Dimon, Cassano, and thousands of others in jail or motherfucking decapitated, the Democratic President and Congress bring him on board for another four years even though he couldn’t see a giant fucking real estate bubble stuck right in his goddamned beard. Homer Simpson once said that people with facial hair have something to hide, well, what the fuck is Bernanke hiding?

By the way Dems, what a bunch of legislative pussies you are. How many times is Obama going to cave? I think Obama—far from being a progressive—is actually a fucking Caucasian Reaganite supply-sider in blackface. How else do you explain an “extended period” ZIRP and multiple rounds of QE? Obama doesn’t fight for anything. He says he wants one thing and then settles for far less, and by the time its over the legislation looks like something that GHW Bush or Ford would’ve signed into law. Why the fuck are you letting Orangeman Bohner and Turtle McConnell lead you around by your balls? This isn’t fucking change I can believe in.

Oh well, Obama. At least you can always bomb Iran to boost your popularity with the warmongering faction of the American populace. Lindsey Graham, David Broder, and others inside the beltway are already calling for it, and as things continue to be shitty at home, the American people will need a distraction because American Idol and Biggest Loser can only keep the rabble amused for only so fucking long. I’ve already got the fucking name ready for the next bullshit American military intervention: Operation Persian Carpet Bombing. That oughta keep those ignorant American serfs busy for a few months. “Oh, you’re unemployed? Well at least the fucking mullahs won’t be slitting your throat as you sleep! We’re over there so we don’t have to fight them over here. Now sit down, shut up, and be scared shitless!”

Yes, it’s quite a fucking operation we’ve got going over here. The sane need not apply because the fucking nutbags are already running the asylum.

- Max

A Midterm Election Autopsy

Ever since election day, grossly overpaid media pundits who contribute little to intelligent discussion have been offering all kinds of reasons for why the Democrats got their asses kicked. The theories range from, “The Obama Democratic agenda is just too far Left” to “The Obama Democratic agenda is just too moderate,” and everything in between. But they all have the same theme: Democrats have done X, but the American people wanted Y. So Democrats were defeated on Tuesday because they spent the last two years doing one thing, while the American people wanted them to do another, and perhaps in a different way.

One great thing about these kinds of analyses, for pundits anyway, is that they lend themselves to endless possibilities in argumentation which amount to little more than quasi-educated spit-balling. The postmortem of the 2010 midterm elections, like all others, is a vague and subjective hazarding of guesses and proffering of pseudo-insight. It relies on this ambiguity in rendering a seemingly plausible but ultimately untestable and therefore useless explanation as to why one party won more seats than the other. Such analyses require amalgamating millions of voters from across the country into a singular entity with a coherent political ideology, or at least giving the American people a mathematically mean ideology which can be placed on somewhere on the Left/Right political spectrum. But this assumes that The American People have a coherent political philosophy, and care enough about it to vote their ideology regardless of whether they think the country is on the right track. This assumption is wrong. Salon’s Glenn Greenwald puts it well:

[W]hat voters care about are not cable-news labels, but results. Democrats didn’t lose because voters think they’re too “liberal.” If that were true, how would one explain massive Democratic wins in 2006 and 2008, including by liberals in conservative districts (such as Alan Grayson); were American voters liberal in 2006 and 2008 only to manically switch to being conservative this year? Was Wisconsin super-liberal for the last 18 years when it thrice elected Russ Feingold to the Senate, and then suddenly turned hostile to liberals this year? Such an explanation is absurd.

The answer is that voters make choices based on their assessment of the outcomes from the political class. They revolted against the Republican Party in the prior two elections because they hated the Iraq War and GOP corruption (not because they thought the GOP was “too conservative”), and they revolted against Democrats this year because they have no jobs, are having their homes foreclosed by the millions, are suffering severe economic anxiety, and see no plan or promise for that to change (not because they think Democrats are “too liberal”).

To Greenwald’s assessment, I would add that because we only have two parties that really matter, election results often furnish us with a skewed version of reality. In 2006, Republicans were voted out because their war in Iraq had turned sour. In 2008 Republicans were voted out because the economy was in the tank. In 2010 Democrats were voted out because the economy is still in the tank and they were replaced by the Republicans who were just recently thoroughly repudiated in the previous two elections. Notice that Americans don’t vote parties in; they vote parties out. Republicans took control of the House and made gains in the Senate last week not because Americans think they’ll do a good job, but because they’re still nervous about the economy and they don’t have any legitimate choices left at the ballot box.

- Max

What Newt Gingrich Really Meant By "Kenyan, Anti-Colonial Behavior"

Don’t be fooled. Gingrich is a master rhetorican.

For the past week or so, the American media has been discussing some seemingly strange remarks Newt Gingrich recently made about President Obama to the conservative National Review:

“What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?” Gingrich asks. “That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior.”

A thorough parsing of these words is in order, not because they ring true, but rather because of the insight we can gain into how conservative rhetoric and message framing often work.

Before proceeding, recall that in 1996 Gingrich wrote what is now an infamous memorandum for GOPAC titled, “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control.” In that memo, the then Speaker of the House listed one set of emotionally charged words that Republicans could associate with themselves (“Optimistic Positive Governing Words”) and another set they could associate with their opponents (“Contrasting Words”). Here Gingrich acknowledged an unfortunate fact about the American people: they are far too responsive to rhetoric and are less concerned with substantive policy matters. Ironically, Gingrich features “cynicism” in his list of words to heap upon one’s opponents. After all, few things are more cynical than preparing a list of buzzwords to which you think your compatriots would respond in knee-jerk fashion. As far as Newt is concerned, Americans are not people; they are Pavlovian dogs to be conditioned.

Turning again to the present, let us examine Gingrich’s remarks about President Obama to see what’s behind these prima facie idiotic comments.

“What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension…”

Quick. Think of some things that are or are said to be “outside our comprehension.” Here’s what I came up with:

God

Satan

Demons

Ghosts

Aliens/UFOs

The common theme here is the unknown. And how do humans feel about that which is unknown to them? They fear it, whatever it happens to be. So really this first part of Gingrich’s question is constructed so as to suggest that Obama is unknowable, and therefore people ought to be frightened of him. While the saying, “People fear what they do not understand” is certainly cliché, it is very often true. Obama is particularly susceptible to this line of attack because he’s African-American, has a unique (and foreign) name, spent much time abroad as a child, and had a father born in Kenya, which is not a country typically associated with the melting pot of America. Hence the frequent suggestions by some conservatives that Obama is secretly a Muslim or at the very least sympathizes with Sharia Law, that Obama is an adherent of Black Liberation theology, or that he was born in Kenya and therefore should be disqualified from the Presidency. Newt’s message here is clear: Obama is unknowable and untrustworthy. Therefore he should be feared.

Continuing on,

“What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior…”

This phrase about “Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior” seems to be everyone’s (Left and Right) favorite part. Here Gingrich is reinforcing the image of Obama as a foreign and unknowable entity, unless of course “you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior.” And what American understands that? In fact, what do these words even mean?

For Gingrich, associating the word “Kenyan” with Obama while criticizing him is just another way of calling him an unknown, or a foreigner, or the Other, if you will. But insertion of the term “anti-colonial” really left me scratching my head. The extent of my knowledge about “Kenyan, anti-colonial” behavior is the Mau Mau Rebellion in 1950s, when native Kenyans fought an ongoing insurrection against British colonial soldiers who were occupying their land. If this story sounds familiar, that’s because it has played out many times literally the world over, including here in the 1770s when Americans took up arms against their British colonial oppressors, who were far nicer to the Americans than they were to the Kenyans. Furthermore, as an ideology, “colonialism” has a notoriously bad reputation and rightfully so. Conquering foreign peoples, pillaging their resources, and taking their land forcibly for one’s own use is frowned upon by virtually everyone across the political spectrum. It is one thing to advocate an interventionist foreign policy (à la George W. Bush), but it’s quite another to imply that being “anti-colonial” is somehow wrongheaded (à la King George III).

Of course, I haven’t heard anyone in the media besides AlterNet point this out—that not only should Barack Obama have an “anti-colonial” worldview, but so should everyone on the planet.

Continuing on,

“What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?”

Quick. What are things people “piece together”?

Puzzles

Crime scenes

IKEA furniture

Ouija board sessions

The common theme here is frustration. When one “pieces together” something such as one of the above, it can be a very rewarding experience. But like cracking a code the process of getting there can be a very painstaking experience fraught with aggravation and angst. Here Gingrich wishes to convey the message that Obama is a puzzle to be solved, but only by those few who understand “Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior.” Unfortunately, the vast majority of people never will, and thus Obama will remain “outside our comprehension.”

While it is true that Gingrich is not making an outright claim but rather asking a question about Obama, the mere musing is suggestive enough to accomplish the rhetorical goal of painting the President as an outsider who is hopelessly inaccessible to most Americans. Furthermore, in the very next sentence Gingrich immediately transforms his “question” into a “fact” by stating,

“That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior.”

Thus we see that Newt’s question was a rhetorical one, a statement of “fact” designed to strike upon the key themes of foreignness, mysteriousness, and uncertainty.

The phrase, “predictive model for his behavior” is not one that is heard in everyday conversation. If it is heard at all such a statement is most likely to be uttered by a naturalist studying an elusive species of animal, or perhaps by a psychologist attempting to understand the behavior of a manic depressive or a schizophrenic. Either way, the phrase “predictive model for his behavior” is crafted so as to dehumanize Obama, to make him into an object of study rather than a fellow human being or a fellow American. “Predictive modeling” is not something in which most people engage, and certainly not in regards to their fellow humans. Thus, Gingrich is again reinforcing the idea that Obama is unknowable, and also that attempts to understand him or indeed, connect with him as a human being, is sure to be a futile endeavor.

The above analysis of a mere two sentences is admittedly lengthy. However, these statements typify modern conservative rhetoric. It is a rhetoric that requires enemies to tear down. American conservatism today is bereft of any real ideas or actual solutions, and so it must constantly be attacking something in order to be effective. Conservatives have seemingly cornered the market on patriotism, not because they are truly great patriots, but because they are constantly railing against both real and imagined boogeymen who seek to do America harm. Hence the frequent use of the phrase “anti-American” by conservative pundits and politicians to describe everything from war protesters to secularism to a health care bill. Conservatives understand that the best defense is a good offense. If conservatives weren’t constantly on the offensive, they would have to spend more time articulating and defending their policy prescriptions, which are often quite unpalatable.

Key to political rhetoric—especially conservative political rhetoric—in contemporary America is the ability to convey deep emotional messages using a few hollow words. What came out of Newt Gingrich’s mouth recently was not an accident, and it would be a grave mistake for liberals to assume that his comments were merely off-the-cuff and said in an unthinking manner. Gingrich knows precisely what he is doing. He’s not alone.

- Max Canning

GOP Wants Tax Cuts Only If Wealthy Are Included

Senator Smurf explains why he’s holding out for the oppressed 2% of Americans who are fucking loaded.

As you know I follow politics very closely. In fact, it’s part of my job. So over 99% of the news coming out of Washington doesn’t surprise me in the least. But every once in awhile something will cross my radar that makes even a cynical bastard like me take a deep breath and pinch myself to see if I’m dreaming.

The strategy of the Senate Republicans vis-à-vis the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts at the end of this year is truly a jaw-dropping development. Not because we should be surprised at their line of thinking, but because they feel completely free to articulate it six weeks before a crucial midterm election.

In case you’ve been living under a boulder for the past few weeks, the Obama administration wants to let the Bush tax cuts expire for those making over $250,000 a year, while extending them for those bringing in less than that. If the Republicans had their way, the cuts would be extended for everyone across the board because as we all know, as far as the GOP is concerned, simply cutting taxes constitutes a comprehensive economic policy. But the Rethuglicans won’t have their way because they control shit in the government. The best they can do is block a move in the Senate by Democrats to extend the cuts for the under $250,000 crowd, and that’s exactly what they’ve announced they’re doing.

As you can read here, Senate Republicans from Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to centrist-right Scott Brown are loudly and proudly declaring that they will not vote for any tax cut extension unless the measure includes people making over $250,000, which at least check was about 2% of the population.

Two percent of Americans. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the base of the modern Republican Party.

Again, it’s not their position that’s surprising; it’s their total lack of concern for any repercussions from this whatsoever. I mean what does it say about the American people when one of the two major parties can stand up and announce that they would rather let all the Bush tax cuts for everyone expire rather than extend them just for the middle/working class, and not become completely fucked and irrelevant within 24 hours? And they’re doing this six weeks shy of a goddamned election no less!

But no matter, the Republicans will gain seats in the House and Senate in November. My advice to America at this point is to elect only Republicans from now until they reach their hearts’ content by imposing a debt-ridden, neofeudal, imperial state run by a banking oligarchy. (It should be noted that this is also what the Democrats want, but they’d probably let us keep Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, etc.) That way this whole great big project we call America will totally implode. The sooner that happens, the quicker we’ll be able to start all over, preferably by lopping off some of these people’s fucking heads in front of the Lincoln Memorial.

- Max

Meet the Press Is Terrible

And David Gregory is a massive tool.

I have never been a fan of NBC’s Meet the Press. Very few novel or insightful statements have ever been made on that program because of the nature of the guests. When Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner or Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen appear (as the latter did today) one can pretty much anticipate every canned-sounding response to come out of their mouths. Such is the business of interviewing members of presidential administrations who are essentially cogs in a well-oiled public relations machine. Even when opponents of the administration or ruling party are featured, their criticisms are also frustratingly platitudinous. You see it in the back-and-forth between Democratic and Republican politicians and liberal and conservative pundits which are fraught with shallow exchanges that reflect the impoverished nature of the political discourse. And it’s even worse when the moderator is in on it.

During the latter half of today’s show, there was former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell. David Gregory was hosting. (I’m not one of those people who believes in a global Zionist banking and media conspiracy, but when you have four Jews and only four Jews talking about the economy on the major American Sunday news talk show, you can’t act surprised when those people come out of the woodwork.)

At one point Gregory quoted David Brooks’ most recent column in the New York Times:

The psychological war between business and the Obama administration also is taking a toll. Business types think the administration is stuffed with clueless professors. Some administration officials think corporate honchos are free-market hypocrites prowling for corporate welfare.

Gregory then added his own bullshit:

How did things get so bad? Because a lot of people in the business community say a big part of the problem is there's nobody who works in the administration that’s actually run anything, that's actually run a business, and that's contributing to their attitude and their policies.

The idea that’s circulating in the press these days is that the Obama administration is anti-business. It’s a crazy idea, but it’s out there. And not only is it out there, but here’s David Gregory repeating this garbage with an assist from David Brooks. Who but the American media or a deranged conservative could look at Obama’s multi-trillion dollar giveaway of taxpayer money to the private sector in the form of loans with 0% interest, loan guarantees, straight subsidies, stimulus spending, and a health care reform act that will necessitate a massive of transferal of wealth from the public to private HMOs, and conclude that this is anti-business activity? I suppose it could be said that the recently enacted financial reform legislation qualifies as “anti-business,” but when one considers the watered down nature of that pathetic bill, it is immediately realized that overcoming its constraints will be no great trial for the criminal bankster assholes who run this country by proxy. That’s the problem with the media: they are easily manipulated into false narratives that corrupt the public debate, so that when something or crazy is alleged by enough politicians or government officials (e.g., “death panels”), it suddenly becomes a serious claim dutifully repeated by media puppets pundits.

Let’s see what Alan Greenspeen had to say in response:

I can’t answer that question, and the reason I can’t is I've never seen anything like this. I’ve been in and out of Wall Street since 1949, and I’ve never seen the type of animosity between government and Wall Street. And I’m not sure where it comes from, but I suspect it’s got to do with a general schism in this society which is really becoming ever more destructive. We’ve got to change it.

Is Greenspan for real? So the animosity people have toward Wall Street has nothing to do with the financial crisis, but “a general schism” between Americans? How does that even make sense? If there’s anything that unites people on the left and right, it’s blaming the fucking banks and Greenspan himself who are the ones actually responsible for this mess. What’s that? Mayor Bloomberg wants to correct me?

The public is upset. If they haven’t lost their job, they know somebody that has. If they haven't lost their house, they know somebody that has. What do you do? When something’s wrong, it’s government’s job to fix it, it must be government that’s responsible for causing it. Government wants to stay in office, they look for somebody else to blame. And it's much too simplistic to say the banks did everything wrong. We all wanted to expand the economy, we all wanted to expand home ownership. We all wanted Wall Street to create the money so we could have all these mortgages. And then invariably that leads to excess, and then invariably that leads to a correction, more violent with time. And then we have to look for villains. And we’ve got to stop all this. One of government’s jobs is to promote the economy and to promote American commerce and finance and the arts around the world. And this constant tearing each other apart—we can sit down and we can say, “What did we do wrong?” and “How are we going to fix it?” But always pointing fingers and finding fault with everybody, we need to find solutions.

You have to give Michael Bloomberg some major credit here. The man has balls. Balls he should be strung up by for even making these remarks, but balls nonetheless. Here’s the eighth richest guy in America whose net worth as of 2008 was $20 billion, who founded a news organization that caters to big business essentially saying that we have to stop pointing fingers at the big banks because there’s plenty of blame to go around. And David Gregory just sat there like the douche he is, when he could’ve turned to Alan Greenspan and asked, “What about lowering interest rates to less than two percent for a prolonged period of time after 9/11, Mr. Chairman? How much responsibility do you personally bear for the creation of the housing (debt) bubble and its subsequent bursting?” That would’ve been the greatest question in the history of the show and David Gregory had a prime opportunity to ask it. But he didn’t, because he’s a big pussy and isn’t interested in catching the purveyors of conventional wisdom off-guard.

But I must admit, the words of conventional wisdom do have a relaxing quality about them. Maybe that’s why Americans are so tamed by it. See, the American people are like a fat person’s stomach. A stomach doesn’t like food that’s bad for the body, but very often it’s expected to digest it anyway because the person calling the shots likes three-bean burritos, nachos with a seven-layer dip, jalapenos, and beer (in that order). So the person in charge really does a number on the stomach by eating all this crap and the stomach gets uneasy and angry and rumbles on occasion. Whenever corrective action is needed, the fatty takes a big swig out of a pink bottle to force some conventional wisdom on the restless mass to sooth it temporarily. But rather than learn the lesson that one ought not to force feed the stomach in that way, he figures that as long as he has that pink bottle in his medicine cabinet, he can always calm the rumblings when they arise. Problem is, you can only wail away on your stomach for so long until you shit your guts out.

- Max

Up Next: Financial Services Reform

Financial reform? It’s about time, Dodd.

One of the unstated benefits of the watered-down health care bill signed into law by Barack Obama last week, is that it will deprive conservatives of the ridiculous talking points that have become so dear to them lo these many months. That is not to say that the Republican Party isn’t trying. Indeed, the GOP is desperately attempting to prolong the health care debate—even after the legislation’s passage—in order for their tried-and-true platitudes to remain relevant.

Whether or not the tea party crowd and other conservatives realize it, the proposed repeal of health reform being bandied about—probably disingenuously since they surely know better—by some congressional Republicans is but pure fantasy. President Obama would never sign a repeal. Therefore, Republicans would have to gain enough seats to obtain a two-thirds majority in each chamber to override a veto, which would require an electoral disaster for the Democrats in November that is without historical precedent. It is absurd even to speak about repealing this law now or in the near future. Yet, there was Mitch McConnell (R – Kentucky) on Saturday delivering the weekly Republican radio address mindlessly canting, “Repeal and reform.”

Eventually, Republicans will come to realize that they must move on, lest they be perceived as beating a dead horse when the Democrats have already saddled up a new one to take them on to banking reform. That debate, which may carry us through the November midterm elections, ought to be a very interesting public discussion, if not a crazy one, even more so than health care. Christopher Dodd (D – Connecticut) recently unveiled his plan to reform the financial services behemoths on Wall Street. As usual with Democratic first drafts, the bill falls well short of what is needed. (To point out one glaring omission, the bill contains no capital requirements, which means that banks can continue to leverage themselves to the hilt—20:1, 30:1, 50:1, whatever, just like before—and wait for the next big crisis lay waste to their balance sheets.) However, at the moment it contains some important regulatory provisions which, if banking reform is ultimately passed will probably be watered down as well. This is how Democrats govern: roll out an initial legislative proposal that doesn’t go nearly far enough in the hopes that it will attract bipartisan support, and when it inevitably doesn’t, dilute it even further to garner a few marginally relevant GOP votes if any at all.

While the big banks went long in donating to Democrats in 2008, they cannot reasonably expect that there will be no financial reform. It’s quite amazing that Congress has yet to do anything on this front, as financial regulatory change is equally, if not more important than health care reform given the global magnitude of the stakes involved. It would be even more amazing—almost impossible—to imagine that there will be no changes at all. Given that there ought to be far less opposition to financial reform than health care, the Democrats should have an easier time passing Dodd’s or a similar piece of legislation. After all, can the tea partiers and their ilk really get whipped up into opposing a bill that seeks to impose new regulations on the financial services sector to ward off a future economic crisis?

Upon preliminary consideration, the answer is no. But the Republicans have shown themselves particularly adept at souring seemingly good policy ideas in order to make them less palatable to their ill-informed base. The key to killing or weakening any banking legislation, whether it’s Dodd’s current proposal or something else, will be to convince Americans that regulating banks will end up hurting them personally. Expect a recurrence of some of the main themes of the opposition to health care. Conservatives will almost surely decry the proposed “government takeover” of our financial system. The addition of more regulation will create cumbersome “red tape” that will hinder lending, and thus cripple all-American “small businesses” which are the “real engines of the economy.” A Consumer Financial Protection Agency will create an unnecessary bureaucracy that will inhibit economic growth, etc.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce absurdly presents itself as being a defender of American workers and consumers by virtue of its being rabidly pro-business, as if the interests of all parties involved do not conflict. It should therefore come as no surprise that the Chamber has already released several ads against the would-be agency. Its most prominent ad (which starts automatically when you go to its site) rails against the CFPA without ever mentioning what the acronym actually stands for or what it would attempt to do for obvious reasons. The commercial features a presumably upstanding white small business owner who is kept awake until the wee hours of the morning worried sick about his struggling finances (for which he actually has Wall Street to thank), whereupon around 5am he walks toward his SUV which is parked right in front an American flag quaintly hanging from the porch of his house in Anytown, U.S.A. (I thought the footage more appropriate for a Paxil advertisement, but that’s just me.)

This is the narrative conservatives will have to weave if they want to stop or weaken banking reform: The CFPA, which under Dodd’s bill would exist as an arm of the Federal Reserve, is not designed to crack down on high-risk and predatory lending; it is not designed to consolidate the regulatory functions of several different bureaucracies into one agency. Rather, it is designed to destroy the fabric of American capitalism by imposing undue restrictions on lending institutions by the creation of a vast superbureaucracy within the already all-powerful Federal Reserve.

This last hypothetical objection leaves the Democrats open to some legitimate criticisms about giving the Fed more power. There is a small but very vocal contingent of Americans—particularly in the tea party crowd—who despise the Fed and its opaque way of doing business. While there is need for a CFPA or something akin, placing it under the aegis of the Fed is a dubious proposition.

Nonetheless, fundamental change is desperately in the financial sector.

We will probably get some change, but again, whatever it is will leave much to be desired. Almost as critical as the reform will be this coming debate about it. As I and countless other analysts have observed, many Americans have an alarming penchant for opposing measures that would actually benefit them. The debate will be crucial, not only because it will shape reform’s outcome, but because it will help pinpoint Americans’ tolerance threshold for corporate propaganda. Although it seems nearly unconscionable that anyone could oppose tightening banking regulations in light of the recent financial crisis, this is what’s going to happen very soon. In relatively short order, the Republicans will drop their phantasmagoric rhetoric about repealing the health care bill when they realize that they’re the only ones still talking about it. They will then paradoxically ride the populist wave of anger in a bizarre attempt to prevent these new bank regulations from being enacted into law. To some extent, it will probably work.

Of course, the main problem with this effort to reform Wall Street is the same that mars all attempts at financial reform: Congress is always regulating the last crisis. Defense is at its best when guarding against plays and formations it’s seen before. The problem is, Wall Street is always devising new high-powered offensive schemes that no defense could anticipate until it’s far too late.

- Max

Redneck Congressman Loses His Mind, Says Americans Should Have Less Rights

A-hyuck hyuck!

If his floor speeches are any indication, Louie Gohmert (R - Texas) isn’t a very bright man. He may even be crazy. Before I discuss his most recent lunacy, note that last October, Gohmert said this on the floor of the House of Representatives when discussing proposed hate crimes legislation:

If you’re oriented towards animals, bestiality, then, you know, that’s not something that can be used, held against you or any bias be held against you for that. Which means you’d have to strike any laws against bestiality, if you’re oriented toward corpses, toward children, you know, there are all kinds of perversions […] pedophiles or necrophiliacs or what most would say is perverse sexual orientations but the trouble is, we made amendments to eliminate pedophiles from being included in the definition…But people have always been willing to give up their liberties, their freedoms in order to gain economic stability. It happened in the 1920s and 1930s. Germany gave up their liberties to gain economic stability and they got a little guy with a mustache, who was the ultimate hate monger. And this is scary stuff we’re doing here when we take away what has been a traditionally important aspect of moral teaching in America.

Look, I don’t like “hate crimes” laws either. I think when it comes to assaults, you prosecute the crime, not the motive. Punishing people for their motivations is tantamount to punishing people for what they think.

But why is it whenever the issues of gay rights or hate crimes come up, conservative lawmakers always find a way to bring animal-fucking into the conversation? It’s usually lawmakers from rural areas, so it’s not unreasonable to conclude that these guys are speaking from firsthand experience.

Anyway, Congressman Goatfucker has proposed that the Seventeenth Amendment be repealed. What’s the Seventeenth Amendment, you ask? Well, once a upon a time, back before the presidency of Woodrow Wilson, members of the U.S. Senate were chosen by the state legislatures. The Seventeenth Amendment changed this, by providing for the direct election of Senators by the people of their respective states.

You read that correctly. Louie Gohmert doesn’t think Americans should be able to vote for their Senators. His reasoning is that if Senators are accountable to the state legislatures, the Senate would be less likely to pass laws that would infringe on state authority, and therefore conservatives would be more likely to be appointed to the Senate. But this is some seriously flawed reasoning. Does anyone think the New York state legislature would send Republicans to the U.S. Senate? And if it did, how long would it be before New Yorkers get themselves a new state legislature? Ditto for Massachusetts. Granted, Bay Staters voted for Scott Brown, but that is an anomaly. (Sorry, teabaggers.)

Gohmert’s proposal tells us a lot. Here’s a guy who’s a member of the minority party in Congress, and his solution for changing the political landscape is to give the individuals less of a say in government. Genius. It could be argued that preserving states rights gives the people more power, not less, but what’s often overlooked is that state governments are far more susceptible to corporate influence and bullying. Companies routinely lobby state legislatures, and when they don’t get what they want, they sometimes threaten to move their operations to other, more corporate-friendly states. And this happens because states are obviously smaller than say, the federal government, which can’t be threatened so easily. So while the idea of giving more power to the states sounds appealing, we must keep in mind what that means.

But Gohmert’s idea is not even close to being appealing. While the American people can be whipped into opposing their own interests on things like health reform, convincing them to relinquish their right to vote for Senators is an entirely different matter. Americans, no matter how ignorant, are not going to allow their elected representatives to repeal a constitutional amendment so that there will be less elected representatives.

Thankfully, there’s no way to spin this one to convince people that repealing the Seventeenth Amendment is a good idea, so Gohmert’s proposal is DOA.

- Max

Card Check Opponents Advance Completely Nonsensical Arguments

Lobbying for the oppression of American workers since 1912.

The propensity of many Americans to oppose their own economic interests never ceases to amaze me. I find this utterly fascinating, as it is the most interesting and mind-boggling phenomenon in American politics. It’s a topic that I have touched upon in posts about the tea partiers, and I hope to explore it greater depth in the coming weeks. For now, I want to examine one particular issue through which this problem has so clearly manifested. That issue is Card Check.

Card Check, also known as “majority sign-up,” would make it easier for workers in a particular company to unionize. There is a bill currently stalled in Congress—the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA)—that would make Card Check the law of the nation. The idea is very simple. Under Card Check, workers of a potential bargaining unit sign what are called “authorization cards” which state the employees’ desire to be part of a union. If a majority of workers in a unit sign cards, the cards are sent to the National Labor Relations Board for verification and certification. Once this is done, those workers are officially a union, even the ones who did not sign cards. Card Check simply allows the will of the majority to be obliged (either for or against unionizing), while preventing “free riding” in those units that do become unionized. It wouldn’t be fair if some employees didn’t pay any dues, and yet got to reap whatever benefits the union is able to secure. Even the current law dictates that once a union is formed, all employees are in the union regardless of how they voted. So Card Check changes nothing on this score.

Current law does not allow for automatic unionization after a majority of workers sign authorization cards. Under the present statute, if 30% of the employees or more sign authorization cards, which are then sent to the NLRB, the Board authorizes an election using a secret ballot, in which all employees vote on whether to unionize. The EFCA would keep this provision, while also adding the abovementioned majority sign-up rule.

Opponents argue, rather disingenuously, that Card Check would infringe on workers’ rights by eliminating the right to a secret ballot. But if a majority of employees have signed authorization cards expressing their wish to unionize, an election is superfluous. And if only 30% of employees sign cards, an election using the secret ballot is still held. So what’s really going here?

The main argument against majority sign-up is a strange one. Right-wingers do not publicly advocate against Card Check by stating the actual reason they oppose it, which is that it’s not a business-friendly piece of legislation. Any law that makes it easier for workers to negotiate collectively with management is anathema to American conservatism. But conservatives cannot tell the American people they oppose Card Check for this reason—that it has the potential to empower them as workers and to negotiate better compensation for themselves. Instead, the Right has had to cook up a farcical ruse of an excuse that invokes “worker rights” and the right to have a secret ballot.

A secret ballot is a good thing. But once again, under Card Check, if a majority of workers sign union authorization cards, there is no need—if you are an employee—to have any kind of election, secret or otherwise. However, if you are the employer, then you have every reason to drag out the process as much as possible. Opponents of Card Check argue that a secret ballot is necessary to protect “worker rights” because they say employees will undoubtedly feel pressured into signing a card by their coworkers. Take a look at this advertisement from the Orwellian-named Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, which is financially backed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Retail Industry Leaders Association, among other groups of for-profit organizations:

Not that it would matter, but someone should tell the assholes behind this ad that this isn’t On the Waterfront. Not every union leader is a fucking mob caricature, which apparently is the only role that Vince Curatola can play. As someone who has engaged in a majority sign-up effort, workers don’t try to intimidate their fellow employees because (1) that’s not right; and (2) you’ll end up alienating people. The best way to approach coworkers is to tell them about the organizing effort and encourage them to ask any questions they have (which most of them will). In my experience, hardly anyone was outright against unionizing. It’s just that most of them had never even considered it and weren’t sure how it worked. I was pleasantly surprised to find that many of the employees who said they’d think it over, ended up asking to sign cards later on.

If workers have to worry about coercion from anyone, it’s their employer, who writes their paychecks. The employer, after all, can use the threat of job loss to whip employees against unionizing. (Even though this is illegal, it happens often.) If a majority of workers sign cards, all an election would do is allow the employer time to lobby against unionization through coercion and staff-splitting.

The passage of Card Check is questionable at this point, even with the supposedly worker-friendly Democratic Party in power. As for the American people themselves, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s magazine recently featured an article misleadingly titled, “Poll shows public opposes card check,” and cites a Voter Consumer Research poll indicating that 61% of respondents oppose Card Check. But if we look at the actual poll, we find that this figure represents 61% of the mere 28% of respondents who said they had actually heard of Card Check. It should also be pointed out that as a news topic, Card Check features more prominently in Right Wing media than anywhere else because it makes great fodder—albeit illogically—for screeds against Democrats and organized labor. Hence, it may very well be that politically-minded conservatives are more likely to have heard of Card Check than liberals.

So how is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce defining “public?” For that, we need only do some simple math. Take the 28% of Americans who’ve heard of Card Check, and multiply that number by the 61% of them who oppose Card Check, and we find that when the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says that the “public” opposes Card Check, they mean that 17% of Americans oppose Card Check.

That’s a strange way of defining “the public.”

It remains to be seen whether the EFCA will become unstuck in Congress. As of now its prospects look bleak, and if it fails (which is likely), this will only add to the number of ways that Barack Obama has disappointed the people who elected him. If the EFCA is resurrected, expect a fierce battle involving the kinds of crazy conservative rhetoric we became accustomed to last summer during the health care “debate.” It may be an uphill battle. In 2009, for the first time since Gallup started asking the question, “Do you approve or disapprove of unions?” in 1936, less than a majority said they approved. Now, I’m not going to sit here and claim that every union is great and only has the interests of its members in mind, because that is not the case. But there are a lot of good unions that really protect the well-being of their members because they create bargaining opportunities for workers that would not otherwise exist. Everyone recognizes the truth of the “strength in numbers” maxim. And yet, America’s peasant mentality only seems to be worsening. Idiots like Glenn Beck make millions by incoherently ranting against heretofore uncontroversial ideas, such as social justice and collectivism in a sinister effort to perpetuate a notion of extreme individualism. Sure, he’ll support collectivist activities such as the tea parties in the short term, but only as a means to achieve a culture of isolationism and marginalization.

So it is with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Retail Industry Leaders Association, and other business interests of this nation. These organizations have spent millions of dollars to lobby against Card Check under the guise of lobbying for worker rights, which is laughable. And the only thing more absurd than the notion of big business looking out for us, is the fact that people are actually believing it.

- Max

White House Inexplicably Lets Lieberman Soak Up DADT Repeal Glory

The face of douchebaggery

Independent Senator Joe Lieberman, long the bane of the left, is now taking the lead on a cornerstone Democratic issue: don't ask, don't tell. At the White House's request, Lieberman will sponsor Senate legislation to repeal the policy, which bans gay men and women from openly serving in the military and which Lieberman has long opposed. Liberals, wary of trusting Lieberman with a pet issue, are skeptical of his involvement and are asking why the White House would let him reap the glory.

Atlantic Wire

Boy, Barack Obama sure does have a funny way of dealing with recalcitrant legislators. I mean, Joe Lieberman has been nothing but one big pain in the ass for his administration, (a party he once belonged to but quit after he got his ass kicked in the 2006 primary, and ended up winning the general election as an Independent). He single-handedly killed the public option. He killed the Medicare buy-in. He campaigned for John McCain and Sarah Palin for shit’s sake. And yet, Barack Obama has asked Lieberman to sponsor a bill that would repeal the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy on sexual orientation, whose repeal is a fait accompli at this point. So the White House, advised by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen, just blasted a 320 yard drive that rolled up to within six inches of the cup and said, “Go ahead, Joe. Tap it in.” And to top it off, Lieberman opposes gay marriage. So it’s not even like he’s some great champion of gay rights.

If Obama were an actual progressive, he wouldn’t give Joe Lieberman the time of day. But the fact that the White House asks Lieberman to take the initiative on this shows just how unserious Barack Obama’s request for a public health insurance option was. I mean, think about it. If you’re the president and you truly believe that having a public option available would do millions of Americans a great service and maybe even save lives, and then Senator Droopy Dog who campaigned for your opponent comes out and says that as the potential sixtieth vote for a cloture resolution he couldn’t vote for something he actually once supported, how rip-roaring bullshit would you be?

But Barack Obama is going to let Joe soak up a lot of the glory on the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal. The reason why is beyond me. It may be beyond everyone. Lieberman has walked all over Obama and yet gets to sponsor slam-dunk legislation and keep his committee chairmanship.

Obama has shown himself to be an inept, uninspired, uninspiring, run-of-the-mill, lackluster politician and president. Legislative treason doesn’t always have to be met with punishment, but Jesus Christ, don’t ever reward it. Even George W. Bush knew that much.

- Max

Open Letter To The Democratic Party

Dear Democrats:

My name is Max Canning and I am a registered Independent. Although I usually avoid labeling myself, I can tell you that I’m on the progressive end of the political spectrum, if that helps you understand where I’m coming from.

On January 20, 2009, I was one of the two million people standing in the cold on the Mall in Washington D.C. for Barack Obama’s inauguration. On that day, my rank cynicism about American politics was tempered somewhat by the site of a black man from a modest background saying encouraging things about where he wanted to take the country after eight years of national misery and disgrace. And for one of the few times in my life, I was optimistic—albeit cautiously—about an elected official.

But now almost thirteen months later, my cynicism has returned tenfold. I don’t know how it happened, but you have managed to squander a clear mandate from the American people who gave you the White House and huge majorities in the House and the Senate, which, to remind you, are all you need in order to pass laws. For some reason, the Republicans continue to thoroughly kick your asses up and down the aisles and halls of the Capitol Building, in the media, in public forums, and any other place where it’s possible to get your asses kicked. Your performances in the policy and rhetorical arenas have been so weak, so unimpassioned, so mind-bogglingly pathetic, that I am ashamed to think I once believed that the Democratic Party could possibly bring about some real, positive changes for the majority of Americans who have been smashed by thirty years of deregulatory neoliberal economic policies.

Speaking of which, where is your banking reform legislation? I seem to remember Obama blowing a lot of hot air on the campaign trail and even in the early days of his presidency about how we needed serious banking reform:

When you see more and more of the financial sector basically churning transactions and engaging in reckless speculation and obscuring underlying risks in a way that makes a few people obscene amounts of money but doesn't add value to the economy—and in fact puts the entire economy at enormous risk—then something’s got to change.

President Obama

January 21, 2009

When the Democrats took the White House and expanded their majorities in Congress last year, the country was in the midst of economic nosedive brought on by the unbridled recklessness and greed of tunnel-visioned Wall Street oligarchs. Not surprisingly, most Americans were calling for their heads, especially after the banks received what is at this point, trillions of dollars in taxpayer money. Not since Franklin Roosevelt did a president have such a golden opportunity to pass serious economic reforms. The “too big to fail” problem had (and still needs) to be remedied. Over-the-counter derivates were (and still are) in desperate need of regulation. I imagine that if you really, truly wanted to, you could have rammed through all kinds of reforms designed to rectify these and other glaring problems with the gargantuan financial services sector. And yet over one year later, the Senate is still bickering about the details, including the “controversial” proposal to regulate the $450 trillion OTC derivates market. Republicans are leery of the idea, and representatives from the financial services industry are lobbying members of congress on both sides to keep the legislation as toothless as possible. For some strange reason I think they might succeed.

Then there is your effort to reform health care. What an unbelievable train-wreck that has been. Up until 2009, polls regularly showed that a majority of Americans wanted a single-payer, European-style, Medicare-for-all, national health insurance system. But not anymore. You have been on the defensive on this issue since day one. You have been getting your clocks cleaned as usual in the public debate by people advancing some of the craziest talking points ever to be offered in a policy discussion. Inexplicably, the issue of single-payer was never on the table. You never even considered it. If you had, you could’ve started with single-payer in the negotiations—even if you didn’t actually want that—in order to strike an eventual compromise at a public option. Instead, you started with a public option, and surprise, surprise, that’s been purged from the legislation thanks in part to your allowing Joe Lieberman and his spiteful ego to hold the entire party hostage. Pardon me for asking, but why is this man still the chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee? After all, this is the person most responsible for the death of the public option and the Medicare buy-in extension to people fifty-five and older. He also campaigned for John McCain against Barack Obama. What does this man have to do to get stripped of his chairmanship? Or are you just going to let him continue to run your party through the ringer whenever he feels like it without any repercussions whatsoever?

By the way, why is there no provision in any of the bills currently under consideration that allows the government to negotiate Medicare drug prices with pharmaceutical companies? Also, why is there is no provision that allows Americans to re-import cheaper drugs from other countries? Oh that’s right. Because the White House made a backroom deal with the pharmaceutical industry to oppose those measures in exchange for Big Pharma’s support and lobbying resources to pass health care reform. I’m so glad that worked out.

In case you couldn’t tell, I’m absolutely disgusted by your abysmal showing to this point. George W. Bush never had the majorities that the Democrats currently enjoy, and yet he managed to get even unpopular pieces of legislation passed. There was no concern about bipartisanship. No stopping to make sure that Democrats felt their ideas were being heard too. Just straight, cold, calculated political maneuvering in the White House and in both chambers of Congress—Democrats and the American people be damned.

All of this has reaffirmed my long-held belief that your party is simply a centrist party unwilling to go to bat for the very people who put you into office. People don’t vote for Democrats because your party has great candidates. People vote for them so they’ll stand up to the Republicans who started but could not finish two wars, spit on the Constitution of the United States, and racked up an unfathomable amount of debt during the last decade alone. Yet you haven’t delivered. While no one expected everything to reverse course in just one year, the Obama administration and congressional Democrats have been virtually invisible, which is strange considering the horrid state the country was in when Obama assumed office armed with a heavily Democratic Congress. Historically, in times of national crisis, the executive branch has taken charge with Congress to ensure that the necessary measures are enacted to deal with said crisis. But not this president and not this Congress. And it appears that your window of opportunity has closed. Not that that matters. Because in order to take advantage of an opportunity, you have to want to, and I just do not get that impression from this sorry excuse you call a political party.

You may have sensed that this was coming, but unless your party grows a set I will be staying home for the 2010 November midterm elections. You have given me no reason to vote for you whatsoever. If the best you can come up with in your defense is that you’re better than the Republicans, then that is not good enough. Not anymore. Not even close. I refuse to be a participant in this charade any longer, and I encourage my fellow progressives to do likewise. Maybe what this country really needs is the Republicans to regain control of all three branches so they can finally succeed in destroying the bottom 95% of this country by dismantling Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and implementing wonderful market-based reforms that will give this country’s corporatists even more power. That way there will be no doubt about what kinds of reforms need to take place in this country.

So even though I admit that you had me thinking that 2009 could be the start of good things to come, I can’t say I’m really surprised by any of this. I know how cozy you are with the soulless lobbyists who lurk around the capitol brandishing fistfuls of dollars to donate to your campaigns and PACs. Yes, you’re not as bad as the GOP, but that says virtually nothing about whatever real merits you may have. If this past year is any indication, I’d say you have none.

With sincerity and regret,

Max Canning