More Than You Can Handle: An Ode To Murkowski (and Others)

Observers are rightfully hammering Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski for admitting she didn't like Trump's catastrophic budget bill right after her decisive vote in favor of passing it.

Murkowski's actions, as has been noted by others, symbolize all that's wrong in American politics. But it did inspire me to write a little missive about people like her, in situations like this.

* * *

They say "God doesn't give you more than you can handle."

But we know that's not true.

Sometimes, the weave of fate thrusts people into situations where to do the right, necessary, and crucial thing demands great moral courage, or great physical courage -- a fortitude that some people simply do not have.

They're tragic figures, in a sense (not quite as tragic as the millions of lives they destroy, of course). For they might be perfectly adept in other domains: kind parents, skillful administrators, prudent negotiators, incisive analysts. And these are virtues too! Nobody is great at everything, and most of us should be so lucky to not have to demonstrate great moral or physical courage in order to fulfill our most basic civic duties.

Unfortunately, for some, fate demands of them this specific virtue, and they do not have it.

But the tragedy, to be clear, is not an apologia. To the contrary, the tragedy is that this will be their sole legacy, and rightly so. The same person who, in a different role or in a different time, might be memorialized as a kind parent, skillful administrator, prudent negotiator, or incisive analyst, will instead be remembered for their terrible failure to rise to the moment. They may deserve pity, but they don't deserve forgiveness; understanding, but not salvation.

(Feel free to apply this John Roberts as well).

The Joy of Being a Mad, Ignorant Citizen

 

I'm still learning about the fault lines of local Portland politics. Everyone is a Democrat here, so that's no help. We just completely revamped our city governmental structure, abandoning the "commission" model (where elected city commissioners were responsible for particular bureaus of city governance) in favor of city council featuring three elected members each from four geographic districts. I think that's an improvement, though the last election was a bit of a free-for-all.

Anyway, Portland is in a time of budget cuts, and the city council is deciding what to slash. One proposed cut is to permanently close the Multnomah Arts Center (MAC), where I happen to be currently taking an introductory drawing class (if you want a charcoal self-portrait that will haunt your nightmares, hit me up). Since I'm enjoying my class (and am anticipating taking my son to family art classes when he's a bit older), I was horrified at the prospect that the center might close -- it's got a lot of great programming and it's five minutes from my house. So I wrote to my city councilors urging they keep the MAC open and find other places to make budget cuts (I apparently wasn't the only one).

Congratulate me on being an engaged public citizen? Maybe. But the thing is, here's the relevant information I was bringing to the table in forming this opinion and deciding to yell at my councilors about it:

1. I like the MAC.

End of list. 

Obviously, in the abstract the MAC is a nice thing and worthy of support. But in times of scarcity, the question is about relative priorities -- the money has to come from somewhere. And for my part, I have no idea what other things might be cut instead of the MAC is kept open, nor do I have any insight in how to weigh potential competing priorities even if I was told of potential alternatives. And moreover, I don't really have any interest in learning more. "There must be another way", I say, while having no idea what those alternatives might be and no interest in finding out.

To be clear, I'm not saying it's likely that the MAC is actually a good place to cut. The hue and cry to save it makes me feel more confident that there really are better places to trim from. And the proposal to close the MAC came from one councilor -- it's not a situation where all the experts agree this needs to be done while I stubbornly refuse to accept it. 

But the point is that I'm getting to be an uninformed voter (for real this time!) and it is glorious. I just get to see something I don't like and be mad about it! Do you know how much more relaxing that is compared to when you do know the difficulties and complexities of an issue? I can also decide that the reason we're facing the need for such cuts is Donald Trump. Do I know that? No, but I can't imagine his slash and burn attack on effective governance is doing Portland any favors, and that's good enough for me!

This could get addictive. I have to be careful.

The Most Important Voter is the Uninformed Voter

For the first time in awhile, my representative in Congress is a Republican -- Lori Chavez-Deremer.

One of the very few bright spots of that fact is that I can call my congressperson to complain about Republican shenanigans without it feeling moot or preaching to the choir. Telling Barbara Lee that I oppose this or that GOP abuse felt a little pointless. But Lori Chavez-Deremer is a Republican in a swing district -- I can help put a bit of well-earned fear of god into her.

Anyway, today I decided to ring up her office to talk about raising the debt ceiling. But before I did, I had a thought: would it be better to play a little dumb?

Maybe I'm overthinking this. But my logic was that if I came out loaded for bear with facts and talking points and analysis, it'd be pretty clear I'm a high-information voter with strong views on the subject. And if I were the representative's staff (and the person I spoke to, for what it's worth, was perfectly polite and seemed quite intelligent), I'd correctly deduce that I'm probably not talking to an actually-persuadable voter. Even in swing districts, Rep. Chavez-Deremer is no doubt aware that there are plenty of voters who didn't vote for her before and are never going to vote for her in the future, and so their existence and their votes for her 2024 opponent are already baked into the cake. That someone like that is unhappy with her isn't really germane information.

By contrast, if somebody who doesn't seem to know a lot about the issue calls with concerns, that suggests that there's a problem seeping into the soft mushy center of low-information independents. And those voters absolutely are persuadable, which means if they get it in their head that the Congresswoman is causing a problem, that absolutely can make difference in 2024. If I was Chavez-Deremer's staff, I'd be far more concerned if uninformed voters who sound like they just read a couple of Facebook memes started complaining about her conduct than if informed voters did.

So I decided to go with that. I spoke in general terms about things I had "heard", I fretted about how "reckless" it seemed to be to just decide not to pay our bills, I worried about the effect this chaos would have on my retirement accounts, I insisted that the issue seemed simple (just raise the debt ceiling! Why is she making this more complicated than it is?), and I finally said that if we do drive over this cliff I won't blame Biden for it, I'll blame Chavez-Deremer.

I don't know if I make the most convincing uninformed voter. But it was a kind of fun, getting to be ignorant and obstinate and just go down the "I am constituent and I'm mad and you need to fix this" road. Life's little pleasures.

"Like Giving Zizek To a First-Year" Roundup

Next week is the first substantive meeting of the "Intro to Political Theory" class I'm GSIing. It's mostly made up of first- and second-year students. The professor's initial reading assignment includes excerpts from Zizek and Gramsci. I'm prepared to be absolutely despised.

* * *

An LSU professor fired (against the advice of a faculty committee who reviewed her case) for using profanity in the classroom has lost a First Amendment suit against the university. I can't comment on the legal issues involved, but I can say that I fully agree with the AAUP's decision to censure LSU (in part) over the termination (the ruling does not effect the AAUP censuring decision).

The best piece I've read on liberal opposition to Ken Marcus taking up a civil rights position at the Department of Education. Tl;dr: It's not about BDS, it's about him being a conservative who isn't trusted to enforce the priorities of the civil rights community.

Why do Republicans need 60 votes to pass a budget? Because they used reconciliation to slam through a giant tax cut for the rich. Priorities, priorities.

RIP, Julius Lester.

Jewish convert discovers that her conversion means her old leftist buddies assume she's now all-in for apartheid. Welcome to the club!

A bank executive actually will go to prison for fraud (relating to the collapse of Nebraska bank TierOne).

Pieces of the Pie

The latest Republican gambit to extract themselves out of their own self-destructive shutdown technique (other than blaming federal employees for the GOP's own decision to refuse to pass a clean budget bill) is to pass piecemeal bills that fund certain high profile federal programs, like national parks and cancer research on sick kids. It is of course breathtakingly cynical, and Democrats are right not to take the bait.

But my question is this: why can't Democrats volley this back the same way they've done to the House "defund Obamacare" packages? Take the House bill which funds just parks and research and veterans programs, amend it to add back every other program, pass that, and then send it right back to the House? It seems like that would neutralize the gambit pretty effectively. Hell, add back in some money to food stamps and leave out farm subsidies. If we're going to fund the government "piecemeal", well, an entire pie is technically a "piece"; especially if you shave off a few crumbs of corporate welfare.

I'm a Bad Man

I believe it was PG who complained that characterizing the Republican gambits regarding the debt ceiling and government shutdown as "hostage taking" was unfair and hyperbolic -- akin to the famed "Bushitler" extremism we'd all do better without. In rebuttal, here's former Bush speechwriter Marc Theissen, embracing the label:

Obama has accused Republicans of hostage taking. Let’s be clear: I’m all for taking hostages. Both sides do it all the time. But one of the first things they teach you in Hostage Taking 101 is that you have to choose a hostage the other side cares about saving.

Hence, Theissen argues for swapping the government shutdown hostage for the debt ceiling hostage. The former doesn't hurt the country enough, and people are blaming Republicans for it anyway. Not raising the debt ceiling, by contrast, now that will do some damage!

There's this weird trend whereby the media seems intent on characterizing Republican tactics in language far milder than do the Republicans themselves. So while the media is intent on "can't we all just get along" whines, Republicans are gleefully characterizing themselves a curled-mustached villains demanding we reverse the 2012 election lest they put two in the head of that pretty little economy of ours.

A Not So New Dawn

Digby looks on with alarm as the Neo-Nazi Golden Dawn party continues to swell in strength. "These," she tells us "are the wages of austerity."

Well ... look. I'm not fan of austerity politics. But let's not be too quick to cast Golden Dawn or the Greeks who voted for them as victims. There's nothing inherent in austerity politics that makes people think "you know who I hate? Jews! And everyone else who isn't me!" That comes from a pre-existing cultural frame wherein hostility to Jews and other others is already built in. Deprivation brought on by austerity politics may bring that to the surface, but it was always present and remains a problem even when not living in austere times. The moral of the rise of Golden Dawn isn't "if you enact austerity politics, anti-Semitism will return in Europe." It's "anti-Semitism still is a serious problem in Europe, and the right trigger can bring back to the surface with all the violence and fury that attached to it in the mid-20th century."

The Populace of No

McClatchey polls America on the fiscal cliff. And it turns out, we're quite worried about it. 70% say it matters if we make a deal. 74% say that the parties should compromise rather than stay steadfast on principle.

And then voters are asked whether they support various plans for reducing the deficit.

Democrats oppose every option except raising taxes on the rich. Republicans oppose every option, period.

I Can't Look

I can't even bring myself to look at the details of the debt ceiling "compromise". It infuriates me that we had to give into a bunch of immature thugs who decided holding the country's economy hostage was the best way to secure draconian cuts to government while the working class continues to struggle.

And it could have been avoided if we simply were willing to realize that one major political party is not comprised of members fit to govern. As Paul Krugman points out, the reason the President didn't get a debt ceiling extension in December was because he was convinced Republicans would act responsibly. Hind-sight may be 20-20, but it is rapidly becoming apparent that that's always the wrong answer.

The debt ceiling scandal (and frankly, that's what this is -- a scandal) has revealed a Republican Party split into three branches:

(1) Those who knew that refusing to raise the debt ceiling would be a catastrophe but were too spineless to stand up to the rest of their party. Exemplified by Rep. John Boehner (R-OH).

(2) Those who knew that refusing to raise the debt ceiling would be a catastrophe and who relished the idea of exploiting that fact for their own political gain. Exemplified by Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA).

(3) Those who really didn't grasp that voluntarily defaulting on our debt would be the economic equivalent of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head. Exemplified by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN).

The cowardly, the avaricious, and the delusional. Ladies and gentlemen, your modern GOP.

Boehner is bragging at the massive success Republicans reaped for these tactics -- and he's right. When one party cares about the economic future of the country, and one party made it abundantly clear they're willing to shoot the hostage if it comes to that, what can you do? How do you stop yourself from getting rolled again?

The only thing I can think of is for Obama to start throwing elbows. The Senate can't do squat with McConnell's auto-filibuster policy, so it has to come from the White House. And I don't mean Oval Office speeches with a slightly raised voice. I mean the force of the executive branch. Recess appointments, new agency regulations designed to piss of the right, and take the leash off the DOJ on politically sensitive topics like corruption and the VRA. The minute this deal is signed -- because, horrible as I'm sure it is (any deal that isn't "a clean increase" is horrible to me), it has to be signed -- it's time to send a message back. You pull a knife on the American economy, we pull a gun on Republican priorities.

No more mister nice President.

The Enforceability of the BBA

I never really thought of this, but how exactly would a Balanced Budget Amendment be enforced?

I can think of three models that make sense. The first would involve judicial enforcement. In other words, if the budget is not balanced under whatever specific language is adopted, someone would have standing to sue and stop money from being spent. The second would be self-enforcing. In other words, the amendment could contain a legislative trigger that would be activated if the budget was unbalanced, saying, for instance, that any additional spending would have to approved by a supermajority of Congress.

The third view would treat the amendment as aspirational. Advocates of including positive rights in the text (the right to housing, the right to education, or the right to a job) often say that the point is not to make these rights judicially enforceable. Instead, the idea is that their codification will change the political culture and exert a strong pull on elected officials. The same could be true for a balanced budget amendment.

I don't think proponents of the BBA anticipate or would be satisfied with options two or three. But with respect to the first, it is worth noting that -- unless the amendment contained specific language privileging spending cuts over all other tactics that could be used to balance a budget -- judicial enforcement could easily include injunctions to raise taxes or sell off government property.

And if they do cut spending, how exactly would they determine which programs to cut? Would it just be the ones the judge disliked the most? Finally, a way for Jack Weinstein to get us out of Iraq!

Debtpocalypse Watch: Day Two

As we move into the second day of Speaker John Boehner's furious negotiations with the far-right fringe to secure the votes needed to pass his debt ceiling plan, which would solve this crisis once and for all is a massive waste of time because it's DOA in the Senate, let's examine what is sticking in the right-wing's craw:

The inclusion of the extra money for Pell Grants could cost Republican votes.

Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) has compared Pell Grants to “welfare”.

"So you can go to college on Pell Grants — maybe I should not be telling anybody this because it’s turning out to be the welfare of the 21st century," Rehberg told Blog Talk Radio in April. "You can go to school, collect your Pell Grants, get food stamps, low-income energy assistance, Section 8 housing, and all of a sudden we find ourselves subsidizing people that don’t have to graduate from college.”

"Hmmm ... I could vote to save the country from economic ruination. But then poor people might go to college. I hate these tough, grueling political choices."

Meanwhile, word is that Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) has flipped to "yes" on the Boehner plan. Flake had called the negotiations over this bill "refreshing" because nobody's children were threatened. Folks think Flake is exaggerating about the bad old days. Tell that to former Rep. Nick Smith (R-MI).

I have to admit, having basically resigned myself to debtpocalypse, I know find this whole charade to be uproariously funny. Boehner is killing himself to crawl across the finish line of a bill which stands no chance of ever becoming law. As Jon Chait points out, Republicans are delusional if they think this will ever pass. It is "like a kidnapper demanding for the release of your child $100,000 and your other child." It's a terrible plan, that will likely be made worse by whatever Boehner will have to do to wrangle those last couple extremist votes, and isn't going anywhere.

All Teed Up

Dear Anderson Cooper,

I know it was an eventful night what with the Republican Party being massive fuck-ups, but you can't interview Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) and not ask him whether he's massively delinquent on child support. I mean that story just broke! Do you think that if the Democrats anointed Rep. David Wu (OR) to speak for them tonight, folks wouldn't ask about his alleged sexual assault? Trick question -- David Wu would never take on the voice of a leading Democrat right now.

Meanwhile, my dad says that if Boehner can't rustle up the votes for this plan, he's got to resign as Speaker. Not in the "out of shame" sense (though sure), but in the "he clearly doesn't have the ability to control his own caucus anymore" sense.

"Deficit Hawks"

Jon Chait introduces the least effective lobby in Congress.

The "Constitutional" Option

With all due respect to Jack Balkin, who is a fine scholar, the new claim that the debt ceiling might be unconstitutional under Section IV of the 14th Amendment ("The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.") strikes me as akin to the right-wing's novel commerce clause claim against the individual mandate. That is, the debt ceiling, like the individual mandate, was seen as incontestably constitutional right up until the moment that it became politically expedient for it not to be. At which point, suddenly, controversy! Forgive me for being skeptical of the development.

Now, maybe the debt ceiling is different because -- until now -- nobody had been dumb enough to make a credible threat to actually follow through on defaulting the American economy. So it never came up until now. Desperate times call for desperate measures and all that. Still, I'm very dubious.

The Personal Debt Ceiling

A conservative blog dedicated to tossing California Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D) has some harsh words regarding her proposal that we raise the American debt ceiling:

Here is what Americans know. Americans know that when they go into debt, they don’t have the luxury of endlessly raising their own debt ceiling. Only the federal government does that.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I think this clearly, factually wrong. A debt ceiling is a self-imposed limit on the amount of debt one is willing to take on. But one always has the option of taking on more debt, if -- and this is the critical part -- there is a willing lender (charging interest rates you're willing to pay). That's the point behind it being "self-imposed".

Suppose I take out a loan for $10,000. A year later, I haven't finished paying off that $10,000, but I decide I want another $10,000 loan. Can I do that? Yes, of course I can -- if I can find a lender who is willing to make the loan and I'm willing and able to make interest payments.

The United States is in the same boat -- like the average family, we can take on debt so long as we have willing lenders and can make interest payments. Which there are, and we can -- indeed, interest rates on American debt are very low because the market seems to think we're good for it.

In a market-based economy, the real "debt ceiling" is a function of market forces -- you hit your limit when you can't form a transaction where the debtor can pay interest that the lender is willing to accept in exchange for the loan. The statutory debt ceiling is a governmental regulation that substitutes a centralized legislative command for basic market forces.

Sleepyhead Roundup

I have not been getting enough sleep lately. Today, I woke up early to attend a talk with Jack Balkin, whom I discovered is stunningly similar to Richard Epstein in appearance and demeanor.

* * *

The story of a Guinean migrant who was sold into slavery, only to escape and become an IDF officer.

Senator Harry Reid's decision to bring the Paul Ryan budget to a vote continues to look better and better, as it is wrecking wreaking havoc with the Senate GOP caucus.

I, too, am baffled by Jon Hunstman's (former governor of Utah and ambassador to China) decision to run for President next year. I think he'd be quite formidable in 2016, or 2012 if he manages to get through the primary, but ... yeah. He's not getting through the primary.

Expanding college opportunities to inmates would be a good thing.

The CUNY board of trustees has blocked an award to Tony Kushner on account of allegedly anti-Israel statements. Kushner responds here. Jeffrey Goldberg adds his contempt for this decision.

Donniel Hartman calls on AIPAC and J Street to end the beef.

BONUS: "As Mark squirmed into his cocoon, he thought of the many long-haired and bearded men whom he had defeated via fisticuffs over the years. But little did he know that he would soon be facing his greatest nemesis ever: Jesus Christ."

Hello Lucy

I hadn't gotten around to giving my two thumbs up to the Democrat's "Lucy and the football" trick the other day, apparently concocted by my home state's Rep. (and Minority Whip) Steny Hoyer (D-MD). For those of you who don't know, Republicans brought to the floor a far-right budget proposed by the Republican Study Conference -- one that goes way beyond the radical cuts proposed by the Paul Ryan budget. The plan was for it to fail thanks to a coalition of Democrats and moderate Republicans.

But the Democratic leadership had a light bulb: "Why do your dirty work for you?" If the majority of the GOP majority wants the RSC budget, the country needs to know that. So late in the vote, the vast majority of the Democratic caucus switched its vote to "present". Suddenly, the RSC bill had a majority among those voting (i.e., among Republicans), and the House leadership was faced with the terrifying possibility that the damn thing might actually pass. Chaos ensued.

Eventually, the GOP whipped enough of its members into switching sides so the bill failed. But it was a great piece of political theater that showed both the willingness of many Republicans to embrace radical, retrograde budget ideas, as well as many of their members' utter hollowness when it comes to putting their money where their mouths are.

Incidentally, with respect to the Representatives who switched under pressure, I say "no mercy". Slap an ad up saying they "were willing to vote for [insert insanely scary cuts]", and hammer them on it all the way to election day.

Apple of My Eye Roundup

In NYC for my cousin's wedding. Big weekend for her, and decently large one for me -- this is Jill's roll out to my dad's side of the family. Wish us luck!

* * *

I don't care whether they're actually happy or not, if I were the Tea Party, I would have declared victory on the budget battle.

Former top NOMer comes out in favor of full marriage equality.

The first Democrat officially jumps into the recall race, taking on highly endangered state Sen. Dan Kapanke (R-La Crosse).

I don't know whether anyone was thinking of reading Schools for Misrule based on David Bernstein's recommendation, but allow me to say: don't. It joins a Michael Moore volume as tied for the worst (and most nakedly hackish) non-fiction book I've ever read. And I'm someone who supports increased conservative representation in legal academia.

Can someone tell me what race-selective abortion even is? "Evidence shows that minorities are targeted for abortion" -- what, do they think African-American couples are getting pregnant, find out their baby will be Black, and are hoping for better luck next time? I find this utterly baffling.

Black student group condemns Israel-as-apartheid analogies. It's a group I haven't heard of -- it appears to be a grassroots organization centered on HBCUs, and has been strongly supported by AIPAC.

How a Bill Becomes a Law

It's been awhile since I took high school civics, but I think I recall the basics: The House and the Senate both have to pass it, and then the President signs it. There are some wrinkles involving vetoes and conference negotiations and whatnot, but the basics aren't too difficult.

Unless, apparently, you're the GOP Majority Leader in the House. Then a bill becomes a law solely upon action by the House, regardless of whether the Senate and President like it or not:

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said at a press conference that Republicans would consider the Government Shutdown Prevention Act on Friday. The bill would make H.R. 1 law if the Senate fails to pass a measure “before April 6” to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year. H.R. 1, which passed the House but has gone nowhere in the Senate, would fund the government through the end of September and seeks to cut $61 billion in spending.

Despite GOP claims to the contrary, the Government Shutdown Prevention Act would not become law unless the Senate also approves it and the president signs it into law, neither of which is expected to occur.

In other basic checks-and-balances news, the Wisconsin Assistant Attorney General says that the state's new anti-union law is "absolutely" still in effect despite a state judge's restraining order blocking the law from going into effect (a temporary measure while the judge determines whether the passage of the law violated the state's open meetings requirement).

Belt-Tightening

One of the ongoing challenges for the House Republican majority has been finding programs to cut. It turns out, "waste, fraud, and abuse" actually doesn't cover a substantial portion of the federal budget, which means our adorable "small-government" crusaders need to start hacking away at programs that people like. Like Medicare. Or Social Security. Or defense.

Not willing to do any of those things, Republicans have been left scrambling a little bit. But they've apparently found one program whose beneficiaries may need to resign themselves to a bit of, er, "belt-tightening": Food stamps!

Poor people -- what lucky duckies. It's time to get them off the government hog, so we don't have to make cuts in areas that might really hurt. Like farm subsidies.