Obama Outlines Budget 2013
Posted: November 14, 2012 Filed under: Accommodation and Compromise, Congress | Tags: budget, fiscal cliff, sequestration 15 Comments
WAPO has gotten a copy of the what the Obama administration is offering for its 2013 budget. There are several points that I think you’ll find interesting. There’s a peace dividend, there’s no planned cuts to social security or medicare, and there’s plans for higher taxes. It appears Obama will not repeat the conciliatory tone of his first 4 years which we characterized as a series of cave-ins.
Democrats said Obama is likely to maintain a tough stance Friday, when Boehner and other congressional leaders are due to gather at the White House for their first face-to-face discussions about how to avoid the fiscal cliff. Fresh off a resounding electoral victory in which they kept the White House and picked up seats in the House and Senate, Democrats said there is no reason to compromise now on a central plank of the president’s platform.
“It was an intrinsic part of his campaign, and the public supports it. So what more do you want?” said Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.), the senior Democrat on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.
Obama’s stance on not extending the Bush tax cuts was stated in meetings with liberals yesterday and in a presser today. This is consistent with the WAPO budget outline.
Obama’s 2013 budget sought to reduce borrowing over the next 10 years by about $4 trillion, counting $1.1 trillion in agency cuts already in force. In addition to raising taxes, Obama proposed to slice $340 billion from health-care programs and to count about $1 trillion in savings from ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
His budget request did not include reductions to health and retirement benefits, but Obama did consider such changes in his 2011 talks with Boehner, including raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 and applying a stingier measure of inflation to Social Security.
Senior Democrats, meanwhile, threw cold water on a competing proposal to scale back deductions that disproportionately benefit upper-income taxpayers while keeping the top tax rates at their present level.
On Tuesday, former Clinton administration Treasury secretary Robert Rubin wrote in the New York Times that closing loopholes and deductions would not be an acceptable solution to the nation’s fiscal challenges. And Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), who is set to become chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said she “has not seen how the math works to let you come up with the additional revenue.”
In a meeting Tuesday, Obama offered no specific assurances to liberal leaders about what a final deal might look like and what entitlement programs might face cuts. But Dennis Van Roekel, president of the National Education Association and a participant in the session, said Obama did not have to make such assurances.
“He hasn’t wavered through the whole campaign,” Van Roekel said. “He’s been consistent on [his] message, and I don’t think he’ll change it now.”
Obama’s presser was focused mostly on the Bush Tax Cuts.
But despite his softer rhetoric, Obama made no concessions on his demand for higher taxes on the top 2 percent. He argued that the majority of the American voters supported his position on taxes, which he campaigned strongly on. “I’m concerned about not finding us in a situation where the wealthy aren’t paying more or aren’t paying as much as they should,” he said.
He added, moreover, it would be “very difficult to see how we make up that trillion dollars” of revenue that would be lost if the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy were extended. Outside economists have confirmed as much: It’s not easy to use deductions and exemptions for the wealthy to generate much tax revenue without hitting the middle class or going after tax breaks like the employer deduction for health care that many lawmakers believe are off-limits.
1:55 pm: Obama said that dealing with the Bush tax cuts by making sure that middle-class taxes don’t rise would make major headway in dealing with the threat of the fiscal cliff. “Half of the danger to our economy is removed by that single step,” he said.
Obama met on Tuesday with allies from labor and liberal groups, and invited a group of CEOs to the White House for a mid-afternoon session, also to focus on the threat posed to the economic recovery by the combination of tax increases and spending cuts.
At the news conference, he laid out a two-step process for an overall compromise — immediate extension of all the expiring tax cuts except the top rate, followed by a comprehensive agreement in 2013 to overhaul the tax code and the government’s big benefits programs, which include Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
Obama signed legislation two years ago extending the Bush tax cuts in their entirety after saying he wouldn’t.
Asked why this time will be different, he said, “what I said at the time was what I meant, which is that this was a one-time proposition.”
Now, he said, legislation that keeps most of the cuts in place but not those for the upper-income earners would be “actually removing half the fiscal cliff.”
Asked if he viewed it as a deal-breaker if Republicans refused to allow the top tax rate to revert to 39.6 percent from the current 35 percent, he said, “I just want to emphasize I am open to new ideas if the Republican counterparts or some Democrats have a great idea for us to raise revenue, maintain progressivity, make sure the middle class isn’t getting hit, reduces our deficit.'”
White House press secretary Jay Carney said the president would bring to the table a proposal for $1.6 trillion in new taxes on business and the wealthy when he begins discussions with congressional Republicans, a figure that Obama outlined in his most recent budget plan. The targeted revenue is twice the amount Obama discussed with Republican leaders during debt talks during the summer of 2011.
All of these articles indicate that Obama has walked away from his 2011 offers as leaked earlier this week. The obvious fight will come as the so-called fiscal cliff issues begin to appear at the beginning of the year. Most of these issues come into play if the sequestration deal kicks in. This time the President has not lead with a compromise deal. We’ll see what happens as the lame duck congress winds down and the beginning of the year approaches.
Angry White Men-istan
Posted: November 14, 2012 Filed under: 2012 elections | Tags: I see angry white people 65 Comments
I hesitate to write this post since we already had a visitation from one set of angry white sucessionists but it appears to be the latest in a series of things that really makes me ask :”How many crazy, angry white people can one country harbor?” The last election has shown us a group of extremists that have moved from ‘taking back’ their country to basically leaving it. How on earth do these people still exist given the results of the civil war over 150 years ago? How long can you hold on to the idea that freedom means the freedom to be a tyrant to other people and to hate on them for not being like you? Have they ever heard of the stereotype of bitter, angry losers?
As the dust settles in the wake of President Obama’s decisive reelection last Tuesday, the White House petition website has been flooded by a series of secession requests, with malcontents from New Jersey to North Dakota submitting petitions to allow their states to withdraw from the union.
Most of the petitions submitted thus far have come from solidly conservative states, including most of the Deep South and reliably separatist Texas. But a handful come from the heart of blue America – relatively progressive enclaves like Oregon and New York.
All told, petitions have been filed on behalf of 20 states: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.
Many of the petitions invoke the Declaration of Independence’s dramatic assertion that “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and institute new Government.”
The petitions have been submitted through the White House’s “We the People” website, which aims to give “all Americans a way to engage their government on the issues that matter to them.” The White House promises that “If a petition meets the signature threshold, it will be reviewed by the Administration and we will issue a response.” The threshold is 25,000 signatures in 30 days and, at the time of this article’s publication, none of the secession petitions have reached the threshold (the Texas petition has received over 22,000 and needs to hit 25,000 by Dec. 9; Louisiana, with just under 15,000 signatures, needs to hit the threshold by Dec. 7.)
For some of the states represented, the secession requests are nothing novel: South Carolina, the state whose 1860 secession sparked the civil war, is hardly an unlikely locus of conservative angst in response to Mr. Obama’s victory.
And in Texas, which still conceives of itself as a “republic,” not a mere “state,” politicians seem to make an almost annual show of flirting with secession, periodically dropping dark hints that Washington’s chicanery may force the Lone Star state to flee the Union.
What kills me is the number of states that seem to have a huge number of these creepy people are states that basically couldn’t survive a day without help from the Federal
Government. They’d be Somalia over night. Texas is about the only state that could actually survive on its own. But, the weird thing about Texas is that it is likely to turn into a swing state within about 5 -10 years and should go blue beyond that because of its growing Hispanic demographics. It appears that the last stand of white, land-grabbing men in Texas will not be the Alamo in the long run.
In the aftermath of President Barack Obama‘s re-election victory – fueled by massive turnout among Latinos, African-Americans and other minorities – Texas Democrats began to dream that the nation’s demographic tidal wave would eventually hit Texas.
San Antonio Mayor Julián Castro predicted that the reliably “red” Lone Star State is well on its way to “purple” swing state status.
The state’s rising Democratic superstar isn’t the only politician to speculate on the future political impact of the burgeoning Mexican-American, African-American and Asian-American population in Texas, which accounted for 88 percent of the state’s 4.3 million population increase from 2000 to 2010.
“It’s a math question,” Republican former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush told New York magazine this summer. “Four years from now, Texas is going to be a so-called blue state.”
Still, the angry white conservative temper tantrum throwers–visit any ratfucker site and just watch the infantile reactions to the Obama win–seem to be bubbling into something beyond just a political movement like the tea baggers. I’m hoping the FBI turns its eye to this group and quits entrapping a hapless bunch of gangs that can’t shoot straight because most of these angry white people have lots of guns and know how to use them. It seems strange that the loss of Shallow Mitt could drive so many folks over the edge to Crazyland. More of them should follow Chauncey DeVegas’ advice and ‘chill out’.
We know that most conservatives get their news and information exclusively from Fox News and other types of right-wing media. I get the appeal of this habit: it feels really good to be told that your point of view is correct, and that most of the country agrees with you, even when it does not.
You are very trusting people by nature. As conservatives, you are also very deferential to authority. Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and the right-wing media have been saying that good white folks like you are being discriminated against by Barack Obama and his legions of black and brown people. There are supposedly groups of Black radicals who stand around outside polling places, looking all mean and angry, and a Black attorney general who hates white people. According to sites like the Drudge Report, there are roving gangs of Black people who live to waylay and beat up white people. Hispanic immigrants are sneaking into the country by the millions and taking your jobs.
A good many of you white people think things are so bad in the Age of Obama that you actually believe that anti-white “racism” is a huge problem facing the country. White men are supposedly the saddest and most oppressed of all groups , as recent research has revealed that many of them have lost all hope in the country’s future.
The right-wing media failed you. They lied and told you that Mitt Romney would win in a landslide. They cooked up stories about voter fraud and rigged polls that were biased against Republicans. The right-wing media machine betrayed you, its audience.
If I were a white conservative who listened to the right-wing media, I would be scared and upset too. I would feel confused. How could so many people lie to me? It just isn’t fair! It must be some type of conspiracy.
Yes, the actual conspiracy is from Fox News and the conservative entertainment complex that gives air time to Rush Limbaugh who gets very rich off of keeping a bunch of white men angry and in a bubble. These folks are so confused that they actually think they could get a majority of people in their state to leave the US. I can assure you that in every state that wants to leave the union, there is a majority in major economic centers that has no intention of letting that happen. Here in the south, there are not only major urban centers, there’s also all folks like me that live below the I-10 who are culturally southern when it comes to fried chicken but not to the ideas of returning to the Confederacy. Lots of us think the folks in the rural and northern areas of the state are total rubes. What are these anger trolls going to do when they eventually figure out they really, truly are in the minority? Well, they should remember this.
“Whiteness” is an amazing invention that has only been around a few centuries. In the United States, it has been something to die for, protect, and kill for. Historically, whiteness is a type of very lucrative property that is handed down through families, and has been protected by the law.
As the comedian Louis CK smartly observed , being white in America is one hell of a great deal. If offered the choice, he would sign up every year because of all the unearned privileges and advantages that come with it. Whiteness is such a great deal because white folks do not have to actively do anything to benefit from it. However, white people are amazingly protective of this prize—and really careful about whom they let in the club.
For example, the Irish, Italians, Jews, Poles, and other “white ethnics” were once viewed as a type of European “other” at the turn of the 20th century. If history is a guide, racial groups that are now considered non-white will become the new “white” people in the years to come. Whiteness always finds a way to keep on winning and to grow its numbers.
My white conservative friends, these feel like scary times for you. As the country changes, the Republican party is going to have to do some soul searching. You will likely be asked to engage in some difficult conversations about the relationship between your political values and racism. As the Southern Poverty Law Center has documented, white folks are going to be under pressure to surrender to their worse and lesser natures by hate groups, dead enders like the Tea Party, and militia groups who will play on your anxieties about the demographic shifts we are seeing in the United States. If you are smart, patient, and pragmatic, there are voices out there—white conservatives in fact—who are trying to help your movement adapt to the 21st century. Do seek them out. You can get your own house in order, and not live in a state of irrational fear and sadness.
So much Republican party effort has been spent the weaving the modern definition with racism and xenophobia. It’s interesting the James Earl Carter IV has unearthed Lee Atwater’s speech on the Southern Strategy which brought form to Angry White Men-istan. You should definitely listen to the full 42 minute tape. Many Republicans have apologized for this but many more sent the strategy on steroids for four years.
It has become, for liberals and leftists enraged by the way Republicans never suffer the consequences for turning electoral politics into a cesspool, a kind of smoking gun. The late, legendarily brutal campaign consultant Lee Atwater explains how Republicans can win the vote of racists without sounding racist themselves:
You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”
This entire strategy has led us to re-heating the civil war and re-igniting the arguments that led to leaving the Articles of Confederation in the dust for the Constitution.
Republicans bristled with indignation during the 2012 campaign any time someone suggested that there might be a racial undertone (or overtone, or just a tone) to attacks on President Obama. You know, that he was a Kenya–born socialist Muslim just passing himself off as an American. There was no racial intent there, no “dog whistle.”
But manipulating the racial fears, ethnic resentments and xenophobia of some American voters is in the warp and woof of the modern Republican Party. That bitter fact was vividly driven home yesterday by The Nation, which published a tape recording of a 41-minute, 1981 interview with Lee Atwater, the political operative who led the Republican Party’s “southern strategy” and formulated the politics of division and cultural warfare in the 1980s.
We’ve had these periods of xenophobia before, but usually it’s not so obviously included as a strategy of a major political party. It’s good to remember the themes that actually were real at the founding of our country. What was printed on our coins and was our motto were things like “we are one”, “unite or die”, e pluribus unum.
Just in case these so-called patriots forget, e pluribus unum means “out of many one”.
Generals Gone Wild Open Thread
Posted: November 13, 2012 Filed under: open thread | Tags: David Petraeus, Jill Kelley, John Allen, Paula Broadwell 28 CommentsThese two generals should become the poster boys for cutting defense spending. This story is getting stranger by the minute too. I thought I’d put up a few late breaking updates for your late night enjoyment.
So far President Obama is standing behind General John Allen, who is being investigated for sending masive numbers of “inappropriate” e-mails to Jill Kelley, a married socialite in Tampa, Florida who enjoys entertaining military brass at lavish parties. But Fox News reports that the general’s e-mails to Kelley were “like phone sex.”
The investigation focuses on emails between Allen and Jill Kelley, a close friend of the Petraeus family. Kelley was the woman who originally notified the FBI when she received threatening emails from Petraeus’ mistress Paula Broadwell — and that investigation later uncovered the affair.
One senior defense official initially described the nature of the communications between Allen and Kelley as “flirtatious.” However, two U.S. officials later told Fox News that Allen’s contact with Kelley was more than just general flirting. One official described some of the emails as sexually explicit and the “equivalent of phone sex over email.”
Another official said Panetta would not have referred this matter to an internal investigator without knowing the devastating impact this would have on war efforts and on Allen and his family.
“This was a serious enough matter that those who examined the emails thought it should be referred to the secretary of defense, and the secretary made the decision to turn it over to the inspector general,” the official said. “He would not have thrust this into the limelight without good cause.”
Allen’s friends are shocked by the revelations about Allen, who was previously known as a “warrior monk.”
The four-star general, who succeeded General David Petraeus last year as head of the International Security Assistance Force, is known for his ability to work with tribal sheikhs, a skill that helped him turn the tide against al Qaeda in Anbar Province in Iraq five years ago and has served him well in Afghanistan.
So the news that Allen, a 36-year veteran of the Marine Corps, had been snared in the same investigation that prompted the resignation of Petraeus as CIA director last week was greeted with surprise at the Pentagon and elsewhere in Washington.
John Ullyot, who served under Allen at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina in 1993, said he was all about “setting the example” for those under him and it was “hard for anyone who ever served under Allen” to believe he had been pulled into the probe.
Allen, who is married and has two daughters, “was known as a kind of warrior monk,” said Ullyot, who was a spokesman for former U.S. Senator John Warner, a Republican who chaired the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Apparently the attraction to Kelley wasn’t based on her brainpower. My Fox in Tampa reports that
Media from around the world have convened on the two-story Bayshore Boulevard home of Scott and Jill Kelley. Jill is the socialite mother of three whose FBI complaint about harassing emails eventually led investigators to uncover the CIA director’s affair with his biographer and is now linked to the name of a second top general.
The Kelleys have kept a low profile since news of the scandal broke, and had to request police help to chase people from their yard.
Two 911 calls were made from the Kelleys’ home on Sunday. In the first recording, a man whose name was redacted says there is someone at the door who won’t leave his property. The second caller, who identifies herself as Jill, says there’s someone lurking in their yard.
As the call ends, she makes an apparent reference to her role at MacDill Air Force Base, which the Associated Press has described as an “unpaid social liaison.”
“You know, I don’t know if by any chance, because I’m an honorary consul general, so I have inviolability, so they should not be able to cross my property. I don’t know if you want to get diplomatic protection involved as well,” she told the 911 dispatcher, who agreed to pass the information along to police.
Meanwhile the media is dealing with their intense grief and disillusionment following the resignation of General David Petraeus because of his extramarital affair with his biographer Paula Broadwell. At New York Magazine, Joe Coscarelli describes The Media’s Five Stages of David Petraeus Grief
Beneath the mess of sexy messages and shirtless FBI agents in the David Petraeus affair sits another fractured relationship: the one between the retired four-star general and the fawning press. For years, Petraeus represented an ideal American form, both brains and brawn, winning over not just Paula Broadwell, but many of the reporters and pundits charged with covering him, using his go-to moves like frequent e-mails and five-mile runs. Since the myth of his character was shattered on Friday, journalists have squirmed their way through incomplete, intertwined answers to the questions “How could he do this?” and “How could we not have known?” Their grief has followed a predictable pattern.
Read all about it at the link.
You may have hear that Paula Broadwell’s 40th birthday last Friday. She and her husband celebrated with a romantic weekend at an inn in Virginia. They were eating dinner when the news broke that Paul was the mystery girlfriend of General David Petraeus.
The most amazing detail about the Petraeus affair, which continues to serve up bizarre amazing details by the hour. According to Washingtonian magazine, Paula Broadwell and her husband Scott did in fact enjoy their romantic Friday night dinner at the Inn at Little Washington, following a romantic weekend out of an ad for the Virginia tourist association: hikes, bike rides, and a room at the romantic Middleton Inn. Have I used the “romantic” enough times? Having gotten engaged there myself, I can assure you that the Inn at Little Washington is a factory of “romantic,” with its intimate booths and lovely herb garden and paths outside and very personal treatment. (In fact, if I recall correctly, my husband and I had menus which listed our places of employment up top, which is maybe only a Washingtonian’s idea of what might turn a couple on.)
Just to get the timeline straight, Slate broke the name of Petraues’ mistress on Friday evening, just around the time when the couple would have been sitting down to dinner. It’s possible that they made a rule to keep their phones back in the room of another inn where they were staying, and had no idea her name had become public. If not, how could they possibly have made it through dinner without someone emailing Broadwell and telling her what was up? Its possible she did see a text or email and yet somehow made it through dinner. (Fellow diners who’d seen her at breakfast that Friday morning described her as texting throughout.)
It’s possible, and maybe probable, given these details that her husband found out along with the rest of the world. The Washingtonian also reports that when they checked into the inn, her husband had a bottle of Champagne and a bouquet of pink roses and white lilies waiting to mark her 40th birthday. And then they checked out “earlier than expected” on Saturday morning and Scott Broadwell was described as “not talkative.”
Perhaps it was after leaving the Inn that Paula lost her driver’s license. Or perhaps she lost it while running with her husband. What will happen next in this endlessly fascinating unfolding scandal?
What have you heard?











Recent Comments