“Meet The GOP’s New Black Friend”: What Exactly Does Mia Love Represent For The Republican Party?
When Allen West was defeated in the 2012 election and Tim Scott was appointed to serve out the term of retiring South Carolina senator Jim DeMint, that left Republicans back where they had usually been in the past, with not a single black Republican in the House of Representatives. This is something they aren’t particularly pleased about, which is why in the coming year you’re going to be hearing a lot about Mia Love, a candidate from Utah’s 4th district. Barring some shocking scandal, come November she’ll be bringing that number from zero up to one, and she’s going to become a right-wing celebrity. Mia Love is the Republicans’ New Black Friend.
You may remember Love from the 2012 Republican convention, where she gave a not-particularly-memorable speech. She couldn’t beat Jim Matheson, the conservative Democrat who represented the district, despite the fact that Mitt Romney won there by a 37-point margin. But now Matheson has just announced that he’s retiring, which makes Love’s election in what was supposed to be a rematch all but certain. So get ready: Mia Love is going to be the most famous Republican House candidate in the country. She’ll be on Fox News more often than Sean Hannity. She’ll be touted by all the conservative radio hosts. I’m betting they’ll put her on the cover of National Review. Because that’ll show those liberals.
I guess the question conservatives might ask is, “What’s wrong with that?” Lots of politicians are elevated by their party because of something that their personal story is supposed to represent. But the question is, what exactly does Mia Love represent for the Republican party? It’s not like she’s the first of a coming wave of black Republican leaders, and certainly not female black Republican leaders. That isn’t going to happen. It’s not like she is a harbinger of a change in the Republican approach toward African-Americans and other minority groups. Maybe she’ll turn out to be some spectacular talent who will rise to untold heights, but she hasn’t yet shown that she’s that, either.
Conservatives might also say, “Didn’t liberals love Barack Obama because he was black?” It’s true that Obama’s race was part of his appeal to the left. The difference is, first, that it was only part of it, while you could probably ask a hundred Republicans what they know about Mia Love and 99 of them would only be able to tell you one thing. But more importantly, in 2008 the elevation of an African-American presidential candidate was a genuine reflection of liberal values and history. Liberals are the ones who have always advocated for civil rights and continue to do so. Their party is the multicultural, multi-ethnic, multiracial one. They did want Obama’s nomination to say something about themselves, but it was something true. What do conservatives want Love’s election to say about them?
I suppose it’s possible that blacks (and members of other minority groups, too) will see all the attention Love will get and say, “Hmm, maybe those Republicans are changing.” Or they might think just the opposite, that they’re trying way too hard with her, and its a kind of tokenism that only reinforces their basic problem. That being said, there isn’t necessarily anything wrong with the GOP making Mia Love a star. There are black female conservatives out there—not many, but some. It’s only questionable if they try to use her election as evidence for an assertion that is otherwise without support, like “We’re not just the party of white people.” When nearly nine in ten of your voters are white, you are. Even if you elect one black Republican from Utah.
By: Paul Waldman, Contributing Editor, The American Prospect, December 20, 2013
“Welfare Queens? Welfare Kings Rule The Land”: For Corporations, Giving Is Giving And Taking Is Pure And Simply Taking It All
Since “welfare queens” and the idea of “givers versus takers” are the topic is “du jour” again, let’s look at the forgotten takers: the “welfare kings” on the corporate side.
Section 5010 of the U.S. tax code is a very interesting piece of federal law. Not to pick on my friends in the liquor industry, but we the taxpayers subsidize “flavored” liquors to the tune of $1.1 billion every 10 years. Think about it: when I turned 18 (yes I’m that old), I’d walk into a bar and there would be plain vodka, plain rum, plain gin, etc. Today, walk into a bar and there are thousands of flavors to be had. Why? Well because Section 5010 of the Internal Revenue Code gives distillers a “discount” for adding flavor. Makes sense right? Don’t get me wrong. I love my citrus flavored vodka with club soda. It’s refreshing but I’m not sure if it’s $1.1 billion worth of refreshment in these tight times.
Or take the domestic sugar industry. Case in point: I hate Valentine’s day but not for reasons you may think. It’s a made-up holiday so people tell each other they love each other. That’s ridiculous. So I’m forced to tell you I love you on this day or I’m in the doghouse? Um, not so much. If you have to be reminded to tell your loved one on that day you love them, then you pretty much suck anyway. This past V-Day, I was waiting in the green room for an appearance on MSNBC and I struck up a conversation with a representative from the candy industry. We were talking about this very issue of corporate subsidies and he told me this year, the U.S. government will buy back $80 million worth of sugar from the domestic sugar producers and store it in warehouses because prices didn’t meet government targets. I really kind of like being single, independent, carefree but I’ll be damned if I want my federal government propping up the domestic sugar industry so husbands across America can go buy crappy chocolate for their less-than-pleased spouses.
Or take the domestic oil and gas industries. They make the liquor industry look destitute. We the taxpayers subsidize companies like Chevron, Exxon and Shell to the tune of $7 billion a year. This confuses me. This confuses most Americans.
If you want to dive into the weeds on corporate subsidies, read this. It’ll blow your mind.
While we’re at it, let’s look at America’s small businesses. Every small business is allowed certain deductions, from business meals to gas or mileage to depreciation of computers. What is a deduction, really? It’s taxpayer-subsidized welfare. Greedy small business owners!
According to the Cato Institute, we the American people subsidize corporate America to the tune of more than $90 billion annually, while individual people on welfare only pull down around $59 billion. I like simple math. It’s easy for me to understand. Corporations are getting the better end of that bargain but I don’t hear Sen. Mitch McConnell and Reps. Jack Kingston and Bill Cassidy – the latest decriers of welfare – declaring a war on the corporate CEOs (who are actually driving real Cadillacs). The hypocrisy is staggering.
Let me be clear: These provisions may be good policy. You’re welcome to make that decision. My point is, if we are going to keep having a conversation about “welfare queens” then I’m going to wholeheartedly keep talking about the “welfare kings of industry.” After all, giving is giving and taking is pure and simple taking.
Oh, and I almost forgot: Here’s a great interactive map where you can pinpoint current data on “welfare queens” by state and congressional district. And Congressman Kingston, you best be thankful that a majority of the kids in your district can’t vote or you’d lose reelection.
By: Jimmy Williams, U. S. News and World Report, December 20, 2013
“Five Times George W. Bush Extended Unemployment Insurance Benefits”: It’s Just Bad Policy To Refuse To Renew The Extension
In his December 14, 2002 weekly radio address, President George W. Bush reminded Congress that “no final bill was sent to me extending unemployment benefits for about 750,000 Americans whose benefits will expire on December 28th.”
He went on, “These Americans rely on their unemployment benefits to pay for the mortgage or rent, food, and other critical bills. They need our assistance in these difficult times, and we cannot let them down.”
What was the unemployment rate in December 2002?
It had just risen to 6.0 percent.
The unemployment rate today is 7.0 percent and at the end of this year 1.3 million Americans — including 20,000 veterans — who have been out of work for more than six months will have their unemployment insurance benefits cut off. Republicans in Congress have refused to extend these benefits, though the Congressional Budget Office predicts failing to do so will cost the economy 200,000 jobs.
The Republican Congress heeded George W. Bush’s call to extend unemployment insurance as they had the March before. They passed a bill and he signed it.
In 2003, the American economy was still dealing with the residue of the dot-com bust and economic shock of the 9/11 attacks — but it was still considerably stronger than the America that lived through the Great Recession and continues to see its growth hindered by government austerity.
The extended unemployment benefits Congress is about to let expire actually began under George W. Bush, long after his 2003 extension expired as unemployment dipped below 5 percent again. In 2008, as the financial crisis began to rock the economy, President Bush signed an extension of 13 weeks, 39 weeks total in most states, for anyone living in a state with unemployment over 6.0 percent. He also signed unemployment extensions that specifically helped the victims of 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina.
All five times Bush extended unemployment benefits, he did so with the majority of Republicans in Congress supporting him.
At the peak of the crisis, when unemployment was around 10 percent, Congress and President Obama extended benefits to 99 weeks. The current maximum is 73 weeks.
A requirement of receiving benefits is seeking a new job, but with an estimated three people out of work for every one job opening, cutting off benefits likely won’t encourage jobseekers — as Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) imagines — but instead doom them to permanent unemployment. And the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) estimates that the 1.3 million who will be cut off in 2014 will soon swell to 5 million.
There are two huge reasons why now is not the time to cut off the long-term unemployed, explains the CBPP’s Brad Stone.
While the unemployment rate has declined, the overall employment rate has not grown as it usually would during a recovery.
Secondly, cutting off benefits now for those who need them most is unprecedented.
“At 2.6 percent, the long-term unemployment rate is at least twice as high as when any of the emergency federal UI programs that policymakers enacted in each of the previous seven major recessions expired,” Stone wrote.
Even conservatives recognize that it’s just bad policy to refuse to renew the extension.
Democrats in Congress have vowed to tie the extension to the passage of the farm bill in order to force Republicans to approve it retroactively. They’re expected to be supported by an organized grassroots effort from the left to force vulnerable congressmembers to encourage the GOP leadership to take up the bill.
But it’s safe to assume that if it were President Bush asking for the extension rather than President Obama, the GOP would be happy to just say yes.
By: Jason Sattler, The National Memo, December 20, 2013
“What Obamacare Death Spiral?”: So Sorry Republicans, The Rumors Have Been Greatly Exaggerated
Supporters of the Affordable Care Act have been terrified for months now that a combination of a botched online enrollment system, terrible press, and Republican sabotage could send the individual market part of the new system into the much-discussed “death spiral” where a disproportionately large population of older and sicker enrollees would produce very high premiums, which would in turn repel younger and healthier eligibles even more, creating a self-perpetuating disaster.
At Wonkblog today Sarah Kliff reports some research from the Kaiser Family Foundation indicating that fears of a “death spiral” are significantly overblown:
The rumors of an Obamacare death spiral have been greatly exaggerated. So say Larry Levitt, Gary Claxton and Anthony Damico, experts at the Kaiser Family Foundation who have put together a new brief analyzing what would happen if young adults snubbed the Affordable Care Act. Even if young people sign up at half the rate the administration hopes for, it would nudge premiums up only by a few percentage points, their report says.
“When you do the math, it matters, but not nearly as much as the conventional wisdom suggests,” Levitt says….
If young adults (those under 35) were 25 percent less likely than the rest of the population to sign up for Obamacare, they would represent 33 percent of exchange enrollees — rather than 40 percent. This means there would be fewer young people to subsidize older insurance subscribers. To make up that difference, the experts estimated, insurers would need to increase premiums by a terrifying … 1 percent. Yes, exactly 1 percent.
Levitt, Claxton and Damico also tested a scenario where young adults are half as likely as older shoppers to enroll. In that case, the younger enrollees would make up only a quarter of the exchange market. Premiums would fall 2.5 percent short of covering subscribers.
Wow. If these numbers are accurate, the widespread assumption (particularly among happy Republicans) that there’s nothing ahead for exchange enrollees beyond “sticker shock” forever could give way to the expectation that Obamacare will eventually be self-stabilizing, at least for most enrollees. That in turn would upset GOP calculations that they can perpetually benefit from Obamacare’s problems without coming up with their own credible “replacement” proposal (the ones we’ve seen so far, which rely on destructive gimmicks like interstate insurance sales and state-run high-risk pools, while vastly disrupting employer-based coverage, just aren’t credible once you get beyond the slogans).
A whole lot of GOP strategery for 2014 and 2016 depends on an Obamacare crash. They might want to start seriously considering a Plan B that isn’t even worse than the pre-Obamacare status quo ante.
By: Ed Kilgore, Contributing Writer, Washington Monthly Political Animal, December 18, 2013
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
