Motley Moose – Archive

Late Thursday evening, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a two-year budget with bipartisan support.

As would be expected from a bipartisan agreement, there are unhappy people on both sides of the aisle.

But the news, and the important news, is that we have a budget resolution which will fund the government for the next two years. When it passes the Senate, it means that for the first time in three years, we do not have to worry about government shutdowns being used as leverage to extract concessions, usually ones that take whacks at the social safety net.

Last Thursday, Senate Democrats voted to remove the threat of filibuster from most judicial and executive branch confirmations.

Not so scary, really.

Essentially, they said that the majority has the right to govern as a majority. Small-d democracy finally being applied to the Senate which has been in the hands of Big-D Democrats for the last 7 years.

The showdown that led to this rule change was remarkable in it’s blatant disregard for the Constitution of the United States. Senate Republicans were attempting to nullify the law that had established that the DC appeals court would have 11 judges presiding. The Republicans did not put forward and pass a bill to change the number of judges: they blocked the Senate from voting on the confirmation of the three judges needed to fill the court’s vacancies.

The Washington press corps and their sycophants in the punditry were quick to issue warnings about how terrible this would be: for Democrats. The Friday news cycle was filled with scare stories: “Democrats will pay the price”, “Harry Reid’s blunder”, “Democratic overreach will come back to haunt them”, “You did it: more Scalias for you!”, “No filibuster means more rapes!!”.

Of course, as is often the case, the woe-is-you’ers were completely missing the point and 100% wrong.  

There is a big political scandal surrounding the rollout of the latest phase of the Affordable Care Act. It is real and it is encapsulated in this quote:

“Republican hostility toward the poor and unfortunate has now reached such a fever pitch that the party does not stand for anything else …

– Paul Krugman, economist and author

Yes, there are web site glitches at healthcare.gov and cancellations of sub-standard health insurance policies (and in some cases, insurance companies choosing to leave the health care market altogether). Yes, people who the media like to talk to are angry and upset. But who is giving a rats patootie about the people in the states with negligent governors who refuse to expand Medicaid? And a Congress that is so focused on their ideology that they deny their humanity?

Who cares about these people?

In 2009, Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell were the beneficiaries of the tea party anger purchased with corporate money, promoted by Fox News and organized by FreedomWorks and the Dick Armey in the Summer of 2009.

Christie of New Jersey and McDonnell of Virginia in November 2009 … Scott Brown of Massachusetts in March 2010 … and then the tea party wave election in November 2010 that appeared to sweep away our country’s common sense and which set up gerrymandered Republican majorities in statehouses across the country.

Today’s polls seem to indicate that we have a good chance to turn the tide in Virginia but not much hope in New Jersey where Gov. Chris Christie (R) appears to be a shoo-in for re-election.  

The NBC/WSJ post-shutdown poll released yesterday set the blogosphere abuzz. It turns out that a reckless disregard for the well being of those who depend on the federal government, coupled with a casual connection with reality about how the financial markets work, does not instill confidence in your party or your party’s leaders. Who could have anticipated that?

Science challenged House Republicans forget about “gravity”

Oh, just about everyone … in the reality-based world!

There is an old saying, attributed to George Washington, that “the Senate is the saucer that cools the hot tea of the House”:

[Thomas] Jefferson disagreed with Gen. George Washington over the need for a bicameral legislature, and [this was] Washington’s response:

  “You, yourself,” said the General, “have proved the excellence of two houses this very moment.”

  “I,” said Jefferson. “How is that, General?”

  “You have,” replied the heroic sage, “turned your hot tea from the cup into the saucer, to get it cool. It is the same thing we desire of the two houses.”

In 2013, the Senate is setting itself up to be the saucer that holds the Mad Hatter’s teacup.

Yesterday in a speech to the Business Roundtable, President Obama clearly labeled the teaparty Republicans as extortionists. And in doing so, he challenged their grasp of history and the foolishness of their insistence on holding the debt ceiling hostage to their ideology.

Despite pleas from the Chamber of Commerce and Republicans who are not 100% bat-guano crazy (not quite “reasonable” or “sensible” but somewhat left of “stark raving mad” on the crazy continuum), the House gave in to the demands of the Kamikaze Wing of the Republican Party, aka Ted Cruz.

Earlier this week, economist Paul Krugman called the “G.O.P.’s near-complete lack of expertise on anything substantive” the “wonk gap” and pointed to the Republican’s weekly address as evidence:

On Saturday, Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming delivered the weekly Republican address. […] he demanded repeal of the Affordable Care Act. “The health care law,” he declared, “has proven to be unpopular, unworkable and unaffordable,” and he predicted “sticker shock” in the months ahead.

Instead of “wonk gap”, I prefer to call it “the final nail in the coffin of the modern Republican party”.  

People who care deeply about Wisconsin have had every reason to feel despair about what has happened to our great state over the past three years.  But on Thursday, a river won an important battle and that win can lead the way for a return to the values from our past.

This is what a winning river looks like

On August 14, 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Democrat, signed the Social Security Act into law. Since that time, Social Security has been protected by Democratic presidents and Democratic Congresses.

FDR signing Social Security into law

The Social Security Act of 1935:

Before the 1930s, support for the elderly was a matter of local, state and family rather than a Federal concern (except for veterans’ pensions). However, the widespread suffering caused by the Great Depression brought support for numerous proposals for a national old-age insurance system. On January 17, 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt sent a message to Congress asking for “social security” legislation.

The act created a uniquely American solution to the problem of old-age pensions. Unlike many European nations, U.S. social security “insurance” was supported from “contributions” in the form of taxes on individuals’ wages and employers’ payrolls rather than directly from Government funds. The act also provided funds to assist children, the blind, and the unemployed; to institute vocational training programs; and provide family health programs.

Prior to Social Security, the elderly routinely faced the prospect of poverty upon retirement. For the most part, that fear has now dissipated.

Franklin D. Roosevelt, Democratic president, created a long-lasting program to keep our most vulnerable citizens out of poverty.