“Elections Don’t Have Consequences”: In His Warped Mind, Jim DeMint Is Essentially Declaring A Mistrial
Remember the 2012 elections? The one in which Republicans ran on a platform of repealing the Affordable Care Act, and then lost?
If you’re Heritage Foundation President Jim DeMint, helping lead the anti-healthcare crusade, the apparent answer is no.
DeMint thinks the election results don’t accurately reflect national sentiment and therefore can’t be used to argue against his desire to move the party to the right. True conservatism never got a hearing — particularly not in regard to Obamacare, which was, after all, modeled after a Massachusetts law signed by Romney. “Because of Romney and Romneycare, we did not litigate the Obamacare issue,” he says. Essentially, DeMint is declaring a mistrial.
So while John McCain and I — there’s a pairing I didn’t expect to write about — agree that elections have consequences, we nevertheless have Jim DeMint sticking up for the “these elections don’t really count” contingent.
And they don’t count, he argues, because that darned Republican presidential candidate just didn’t push the health care issue. Sure, if you have the memory of a fruit fly, you might not recall Romney promising in every speech for a year and a half to repeal the health care law, the ads promising to destroy the law on Romney’s first day in office, or the central role the anti-Obamacare message played in the Republican pitch in 2012.
But for the rest of us, it’s getting increasingly difficult not to just laugh out loud when Jim DeMint starts talking.
In fact, the closer one looks at this, the more hilarious DeMint appears.
I suspect he’d prefer that we forget, but in 2007, DeMint, then a U.S. senator, endorsed Mitt Romney’s presidential candidacy, citing — you guessed it — Romney’s successful health care reform law in Massachusetts.
And yet, at this point, DeMint no longer remembers his affinity for Romney, his support for Romney’s health care plan, or Romney’s platform from last year’s campaign.
This guy’s the head of a once-relevant think tank?
On a related note, Molly Ball has a great new piece in The Atlantic on Heritage’s dwindling credibility under DeMint’s leadership.
[T]here is more at stake in Heritage’s transformation from august policy shop to political hit squad than the reputation of a D.C. think tank or even the careers of a few squishy GOP politicians. It is the intellectual project of the conservative movement itself. Without Heritage, the GOP’s intellectual backbone is severely weakened, and the party’s chance to retake its place as a substantive voice in American policy is in jeopardy.
As the right embraces a post-policy role in American politics, Republicans can thank DeMint for helping lead the way.
By: Steve Benen, The Maddow Blog, September 26, 2013
“Boom Times For The NRA”: The United Nations Is Coming After Your Guns, Send Us Money!
There’s a lot happening at the moment—government shutdown, war in Syria, Iranian president sort of maybe not denying the Holocaust—so there was very little attention given to the fact that yesterday, the United States government signed the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), commonly known as the small-arms treaty. It’s meant to prevent the arming of human-rights abusers—potential perpetrators of genocide, and the like—by obligating states not to sell conventional weapons, from small arms up to tanks and helicopters, to foreign governments or entities that are going to use them to commit war crimes and massacre civilians. When it was voted on by the UN, the only countries that voted against it were Syria, Iran, and North Korea.
And today, the National Rifle Association is celebrating. That might strike you as odd, but the ATT is political gold for them. It’s the international equivalent of a failed gun control effort in Congress, which is far, far better than no gun control effort at all. It gives them the opportunity to scream, “They’re coming for your guns!”, raise money, keep their congressional allies asking “How high?” when they say jump, acquire new members, and reinvigorate their existing members. And it all happens without even the tiniest threat to anyone’s actual gun rights. Who could ask for anything more?
The last year has been just fantastic for the NRA. You might have thought that the Newtown massacre and all the other mass shootings we had would have been a threat to the organization and its insane views. Au contraire. Yes, there may be more Americans who’ve now been exposed to what those views are, and who now think less highly of the NRA. But on just about every other measure you could come up with, nothing’s better for them than having a bunch of kids get mowed down, or having the United States sign a treaty that touches on the international arms trade.
Why? Because what the NRA needs to keep its internal momentum going is a threat. Not a real threat, mind you, but a threat that sounds just plausible enough to gun owners (when presented with the NRA’s particular zealous interpretation) to sound like it might someday impinge on their ability to buy all the killing machines they want, yet in reality poses no threat at all.
Throughout Barack Obama’s first term, the NRA was constantly crying, “Obama and Pelosi are coming for your guns!” But after a while, it wasn’t all that persuasive. For a gun-grabber, Obama was remarkably passive. In his whole first term, he signed only two laws dealing with guns, both of which expanded gun rights (you’re now allowed to take your guns to national parks and on Amtrak trains, so congrats on that). But then Newtown happened, and Obama finally proposed some gun control legislation. It didn’t matter that the legislation was almost absurdly modest; what mattered was that the NRA could say, “See! See! We told you he was coming for your guns! Send us more money!” The NRA got its boost in membership and fundraising, and the congressional effort came to nothing. They won on both ends.
And the same thing will happen with the Arms Trade Treaty. Ever since it was proposed, the NRA has been saying that if we signed on, blue-helmeted UN troops would be coming to your door to confiscate your guns. That this is false and ridiculous never mattered. All that mattered was that there is, in fact, a UN treaty, and it says something about small arms. And that’s enough. None of their members are going to bother to read it (here it is, if you’re so inclined). When they hear what it does and doesn’t do, they’ll assume that’s just liberal lies. And so the treaty gives the NRA another chance to say “They’re coming for your guns! Send us money!”
For the sake of accuracy, we should note that just about every single thing the NRA says about the ATT is false. The NRA claims the treaty “covers firearms owned by law-abiding citizens,” meaning the UN might try to take your guns. That’s false. In reality, the treaty covers only cross-border trade; it explicitly states that it has nothing to do with the domestic policies of any country. What it says is that nations agree not to sell arms to other nations when they know they’re going to be used in war crimes. So for instance, if we sold a bunch of rocket launchers to the Syrian government right now, knowing that the launchers would be used to target civilians, we’d be in violation of the treaty. The NRA claims the treaty mandates a “registry of law-abiding firearms owners.” That’s false. In reality, the treaty requires record-keeping of transnational arms sales, something the United States already does.
Which brings us to perhaps the most important thing to understand about this treaty: the United States already has export controls that do exactly the same thing for our own arms sales. It doesn’t impose any new obligations on us. By joining the treaty, we’re trying to get other countries to hold to the same standards we do. But because of the opposition of Republicans, the treaty will never pass the Senate.
Speaking of which, those Republican politicians use the nonexistent threat of gun confiscation for the same purposes as the NRA does. A few months back, Rand Paul sent out a fundraising letter saying this: “Will you join me by taking a public stand against the UN “Small Arms Treaty” and sign the Official Firearms Sovereignty Survey right away? Ultimately, UN bureaucrats will stop at nothing to register, ban and CONFISCATE firearms owned by private citizens like YOU.” And how can you prevent such a terrible thing? By sending Rand Paul money, of course. For the gun-rights gang, these are the best of times.
By: Paul Waldman, Contributing Editor, The American Prospect, September 26, 2013
“The New Ransom Note”: Republicans Ready To Trade One Hostage For Another
There are just five days remaining for Congress to pass legislation to prevent a government shutdown, and overnight, the odds of some modicum of success appear to have improved. In the Senate, where a spending measure was on track to pass Sunday night, a bipartisan agreement was reached that will “accelerate” the process — the chamber should now wrap up its work on Saturday.
In theory, this could give House Republicans time to reject the Senate bill, push another far-right alternative, and practically guarantee a shutdown, but all evidence suggests that’s unlikely. As National Journal reported, “Conservative Republicans in the House appear ready to back off their demands that the short-term funding resolution Congress must pass to avoid a government shutdown also defund or delay Obamacare.”
So, for those hoping congressional Republicans don’t shut down the government, this is good news, right? On the surface, yes. Based on overnight developments, a shutdown appears less likely than it did a few days ago.
The problem is, as the Washington Post and others are reporting, GOP lawmakers appear eager to trade one hostage for another — and the next hostage crisis will be far more serious.
With federal agencies set to close their doors in five days, House Republicans began exploring a potential detour on the path to a shutdown: shifting the fight over President Obama’s health-care law to a separate bill that would raise the nation’s debt limit.
If it works, the strategy could clear the way for the House to approve a simple measure to keep the government open into the new fiscal year, which will begin Tuesday, without hotly contested provisions to defund the Affordable Care Act.
But it would set the stage for an even more nerve-racking deadline on Oct. 17, with conservatives using the threat of the nation’s first default on its debt to force the president to accept a one-year delay of the health-care law’s mandates, taxes and benefits.
This is nothing short of madness, but it’s nevertheless quickly become the preferred Republican plan — the GOP is prepared to let one hostage go (they won’t shut down the government), while putting a gun to a new hostage (Republicans will trash the economy on purpose unless their demands are met). All of this will play out over the next 22 days.
The next task, aside from preventing a shutdown, is filling out the details of the ransom note.
According to the plan that GOP leaders will present to members today, Republicans will present a debt-ceiling plan “loaded with dozens” of right-wing goodies, including:
* A delay in the implementation of the Affordable Care Act;
* Approval of the Keystone XL oil pipeline;
* The elimination of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau;
* A tax-reform blueprint Republicans consider acceptable;
* A block on combating the climate crisis;
* The elimination of Net Neutrality;
* An extension on destructive sequestration spending cuts;
* Scrapping elements of the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory reform law;
* Medicare cuts;
* Tort reform;
* Maybe a ban on late-term abortions.
In exchange, Democrats would get … literally nothing. And if their demands are not met, Republicans will crash the economy, push the nation into default, and trash the full faith and credit of the United States for the first time in American history.
Republicans could try to achieve these goals through the normal legislative process, but they probably realize those bills would fail to become law. So, as they abandon American governing and adopt policymaking-by-extortion, these unhinged lawmakers figure they’ll just load up a must-pass bill with goodies, and threaten deliberate harm to Americans unless they get their way.
This is evidence of a political party that’s gone stark raving mad. If you hear a politician or a pundit suggest this is somehow normal, or consistent with the American tradition, please know how very wrong they are.
By: Steve Benen, The Maddow Blog, September 26, 2013
“Being Crazy Isn’t Enough”: The Greedy Once-Ler Gets All The Way To The End Of “Green Eggs And Ham”
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who’s still talking to hear himself talk, raised a few eyebrows last night by reading, among other things, from Dr. Seuss. Watch on YouTube
For those who can’t watch clips online, the far-right Texan read “Green Eggs and Ham” with great earnestness from the Senate floor. (He can’t hold a candle to the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s version, but let’s put that aside for now.) Cruz continued to reference the book after having put it down, insisting it “has some applicability, as curious as it may sound, to the Obamacare debate.”
He added, “The difference with green eggs and ham — when Americans tried it, they discovered they did not like green eggs and ham, and they did not like Obamacare, either. They did not like Obamacare in a box, with a fox, in a house, or with a mouse.”
There is, however, a small problem with Cruz’s choice of literary references: he apparently didn’t understand the story.
In “Green Eggs and Ham,” our protagonist thinks he dislikes food he hasn’t tried. By the end, the character discovers green eggs and ham really aren’t so bad after all. Indeed, he comes to regret criticizing something he didn’t fully understand, and ends up celebrating the very thing he’d complained about so bitterly.
Cruz thinks this “has some applicability, as curious as it may sound, to the Obamacare debate”? What a coincidence; I think it has some applicability, too.
Indeed, the larger point helps underscore why the right is fighting so furiously to defund, delay, sabotage, impair, malign, and otherwise undermine the federal health care law right now, before it’s too late. Unhinged Republicans aren’t worried Obamacare will fail; they’re worried it will work and Americans will discover they quite like green eggs and ham after all.
Eugene Robinson had a good piece on this yesterday, published well ahead of the theatrics on the Senate floor.
Republicans scream that Obamacare is sure to fail. But what they really fear is that it will succeed.
That’s the reason for all the desperation. Republicans are afraid that Obamacare will not prove to be a bureaucratic nightmare — that Americans, in fact, will find they actually like it.
Similarly, Josh Marshall referenced one of my favorite health care stories yesterday. Bill Kristol wrote a strategy memo as the Clinton-era health care fight was getting underway, urging Republicans to destroy reform at all costs. The conservative pundit said at the time that if Clinton succeeded, Democrats would be seen as the “protector of middle-class interests,” and it would be politically impossible to take away the health care benefits once they were in place.
What the GOP had to do, Kristol said, was put the party’s interests over the country’s needs, stopping the reform effort before Americans discovered they like it. Republicans, of course, agreed.
Nearly two decades later, the script hasn’t changed much, except now the green eggs and ham are on the plate and the public is poised to discover how much they like the very thing they’ve been told to complain about.
Why Ted Cruz thinks this story is helpful to his cause is a bit of a mystery, but maybe later today, one of his friends from Harvard or Princeton can have a chat with him about literary interpretation and the potency of metaphors.
By: Steve Benen, The Maddow Blog, September 25, 2013
“Making The Law Look Better”: How Not To Argue Against Obamacare
One of the more talked about pieces in conservative media yesterday came by way of Forbes, and it caused quite a stir. If you missed it, the article, based on American Enterprise Institute research, said the typical American family of four should expect $7,450 in additional health care costs, all because of the Affordable Care Act.
If true, that certainly sounds problematic. With a weak economy and stagnant wages, an average household would struggle to afford those increased costs.
The problem, as Igor Volsky explained, is that the Forbes piece is entirely wrong.
To translate that number to a “typical American family,” [the AEI’s Chris Conover] took “the latest year-by-year projections, divided by the projected U.S. population to determine the added amount per person,” multiplied that result by four and voila: Obamacare will add $7,450 to average health spending for a family of four between 2014 and 2022!
One economist interviewed by ThinkProgress, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities’ Paul Van de Water, described this calculation as one of the stupidest things he’s read in a long time and likened it to arguing that college costs will increase for a “typical” family if the federal government adopts policies that help lower-income Americans afford college educations. Yes, the nation will spend more on education if more students enroll in colleges and universities, but the “typical” student already attending college won’t; she or he will continuing paying tuition at more or less the same rate, while the newly-enrolled student will presumably benefit from some sort of subsidized tuition rate.
The same is true here. The so-called “typical” family that Conover describes already receives health care insurance through their employer. The existence of 30 million newly-insured people — many of whom will receive tax credits if they purchase insurance in the law’s exchanges — won’t do much to move their premiums in one way or another.
MIT’s Jonathan Gruber went on to Volsky, “This is a typically misleading use of data by opponents of Obamacare.”
I no longer find myself surprised by developments like these. Conservative opponents of the Affordable Care Act have been pushing easily discredited attacks for quite a while, in some cases because conservative wonks just aren’t very good, and in other cases because the right feels justified in making claims they know to be untrue.
But I’m always left with the same question: if “Obamacare” were really so awful, shouldn’t conservative criticism be a lot easier?
Much to the chagrin of the right (and to Politico), most of the news surrounding the Affordable Care Act has been pretty encouraging of late. That said, if the law’s critics want to focus on areas of concern, there are legitimate criticisms they can point to.
We’re already seeing, for example, some glitches in the Obamacare exchanges. As Jonathan Cohn explained, they’re not worth freaking out over, but if you’re a Republican desperate to shine a light on implementation problems, you can seize on something like this to advance a partisan cause.
There are also legitimate concerns about the law pushing private insurers to restrict provider options for those who get coverage through exchanges. If conservatives wanted to jump up and down about this, too, they’d at least be dealing with reality. Does it mean the law is a fiasco, doomed to failure? No. Is it a real problem worthy of attention? Sure.
But our discourse has become so stunted and unproductive that we’re instead stuck with nonsense such as the Forbes piece, which had been thoroughly debunked before close of business. (Of course, if recent history is any guide, the fact that the claims have been discredited won’t stop Republican members of Congress from repeating them on national television every day for the foreseeable future.)
Note to Obamacare’s detractors: when you cling to evidence that’s wrong, you make the law look better, not worse. If the law was as bad as you claim, you’d have real defects to point to, not made-up stuff.
By: Steve Benen, The Maddow Blog, September 24, 2013
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 