What we need to be clear about is that this big, highly publicized "High Midnight" showdown was only about the next six months of spending.
We now will have the same fight on a much larger scale as they negotiate the budget for the next fiscal year that begins in October.
Repubs are framing it in terms of the deficit and blaming the Dems for "runaway" spending. But they deliberately got us into this mess IN ORDER THAT they could justify cutting programs that violate their philosophy of government -- which is of the wealthy, by the wealthy, for the wealthy.
Our current economic mess has three main causes: (1) Bush's trillion dollar tax cut for the wealthy; (2) Bush's near-trillion dollar wars; and (3) economic meltdown, which was initiated by zealous de-regulation in the financial industry, instigated by Reagen but aided and abetted by Clinton in his time.
So we can say that something like 80% of the blame goes to the Repubs. But they're hard at working selling the American people on the idea that it's all because of Dems' excess spending. Add to it their goal of "shrinking the size of government so that it's small enough to drown in a bathtub" -- and you can make the case that it was all planned to turn out this way.
Like: "Let's ruin the economy; then they'll HAVE to agree to our spending cuts; then we'll finally have gutted FDR's New Deal and LBJ's War on Poverty -- and returned the US to the 1920's wide income gap and unprecedented wealth -- for a few.
Ralph
Saturday, April 9, 2011
I was wrong about the Tea Party
My understanding over the past year was that the Tea Party crowd came together primarily in the interests of shrinking government, cutting taxes, and reducing federal control over their lives.
It seemed to be more a protest about taxes and "big" government than about the social issues the Repubs have rallied around in the past. More libertarian than religious conservatives.
This now seems to be wrong. When it came down to the final few fighting issues in the 11th hour budget showdown, it was all about political ideology: abortion, global warming, school vouchers, and health care reform.
None of these has much effect on the budget deficit. The amounts were miniscule and would have had minimal effect on the deficit -- except for defunding health care reform, which would have increased both the deficit and the number of uninsured people.
What voters need to keep in mind is that the Repubs were ready to shut down our governmental services in a fight, literally, over Planned Parenthood. They need to decide in 2012 whether these are the people they want running our government.
Ralph
It seemed to be more a protest about taxes and "big" government than about the social issues the Repubs have rallied around in the past. More libertarian than religious conservatives.
This now seems to be wrong. When it came down to the final few fighting issues in the 11th hour budget showdown, it was all about political ideology: abortion, global warming, school vouchers, and health care reform.
None of these has much effect on the budget deficit. The amounts were miniscule and would have had minimal effect on the deficit -- except for defunding health care reform, which would have increased both the deficit and the number of uninsured people.
What voters need to keep in mind is that the Repubs were ready to shut down our governmental services in a fight, literally, over Planned Parenthood. They need to decide in 2012 whether these are the people they want running our government.
Ralph
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
What's the message, again?
In 2009, Bristol Palin was appointed teen ambassador for the Candie's Foundation, and her task was to raise awareness of teen pregnancy prevention. See, it's not a good idea to get p/g when you haven't even finished high school, and walking the floor with a screaming baby at 3am is not fun.
But it's making Bristol rich. So . . . what's that message, again?
Silly me. I thought maybe this advocacy was something she did to contribute to a good cause and to help other girls benefit from her carelessness.
Wrong.
The Foundation's report posted online reveals that they paid Bristol $262,500 for 2009 alone.
Seems like the Palins of Alaska have done pretty well for themselves by losing an election. If Mama Grizzly had made it to the White House, this would all be too unseemly.
Ralph
But it's making Bristol rich. So . . . what's that message, again?
Silly me. I thought maybe this advocacy was something she did to contribute to a good cause and to help other girls benefit from her carelessness.
Wrong.
The Foundation's report posted online reveals that they paid Bristol $262,500 for 2009 alone.
Seems like the Palins of Alaska have done pretty well for themselves by losing an election. If Mama Grizzly had made it to the White House, this would all be too unseemly.
Ralph
Monday, April 4, 2011
Clarence, the meanest Supreme Court Justice
I think it's possible to separate sharp disagreements on interpretation of the law and major differences in conceptions of the role of government from just plain meanness, scorn, and lack of empathy for other human beings.
Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas embody the latter half of that sentence, while John Roberts and Sam Alito embody the first half.
But the majority opinion that Thomas wrote in Connick v. Thompson gives him the prize: Just Plain Old Meanest Supreme of All.
Here's what the case is about: in 1985 John Thompson was convicted of armed robbery and then later murder of the same man; he spent 18 years in jail in Louisiana, 14 of them isolated on death row. Several weeks before he was scheduled for execution in 1999, his private investigators discovered that the prosecutor in the original case had failed to turn over evidence that would have cleared him of the armed robbery -- which he was (falsely) convicted of and which was used to help convict him of the later murder of the victim.
Evidence withheld included: a blood sample that was shown not to be the defendent's; an eyewitness description that obviously did not match the defendent (6' and close-cropped hair vs 5'8" and a big Afro); the fact that the main witness had been paid by the victim's family for his testimony; and -- most important of all -- on his death bed a junior assistant DA had confessed to one of the prosecutors that he had withheld the evidence, and the fact of his confession had then been withheld for several years.
If it had not been for his private investigator unearthing these facts, Thompson would have been executed for a crime he did not commit. Another in the growing number of exonerations of those awaiting execution on death row.
When all this came to light, he had a new trial and was found innocent of both crimes after only 35 minutes of jury deliberations. That has not been challenged, and Thompson is a free man.
However, he was awarded $14 million compensation for this violation of his civil rights by unjust incarceration under death sentence, and that amount was upheld in the appeal court. But now the U. S. Supreme Court has overturned the right to compensation by the usual 5/4 conservative margin; and it is Thomas' majority opinion and his scornful tone that are so egregious and mean.
The case is based on the fact that the prosecutor had not followed the 1963 Brady v Maryland decision that requires prosecutors to turn over evidence that would tend to prove a defendent's innocence. This is established legal precedent and has not been challenged. However, the prosecutor in the case had died, so the District Attorney was sued for having failed to train his prosecutors about this legal obligation, which would have allowed Thompson to have been compensated by the government for which the DA worked.
Thomas wrote that the the district attorney (and the municipality that employs him) can't be held responsible for the single act of a lone prosecutor -- never mind the fact that four other cases from this same office had been overturned for just this same reason and that it was far more than a lone prosecutor who covered up evidence of prosecutorial misconduct; and the fact that the DA himself has admitted to being ignorant of the Brady requirement and admitted that he stopped reading law books and opinions when he was elected in 1974.
Scalia wrote a concurring opinion that is equally lacking in human feeling. These two seem determined to prove something -- I'm not sure what. It has little to do with the law or with jurisprudence. It's about contempt for fellow human beings, I think.
Slate writes that "Their disregard for the facts of Thompson's trashed life and near-death emerges as a moral flat line. Scalia . . . states that "the question presented for our review is whether a municipality is liable for a single Brady violation by one of its prosecutors." But only by willfully ignoring that entire trial record can he and Thomas reduce the entire constitutional question to a single misdeed by a single bad actor."
Slate concludes:
Ralph
Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas embody the latter half of that sentence, while John Roberts and Sam Alito embody the first half.
But the majority opinion that Thomas wrote in Connick v. Thompson gives him the prize: Just Plain Old Meanest Supreme of All.
Here's what the case is about: in 1985 John Thompson was convicted of armed robbery and then later murder of the same man; he spent 18 years in jail in Louisiana, 14 of them isolated on death row. Several weeks before he was scheduled for execution in 1999, his private investigators discovered that the prosecutor in the original case had failed to turn over evidence that would have cleared him of the armed robbery -- which he was (falsely) convicted of and which was used to help convict him of the later murder of the victim.
Evidence withheld included: a blood sample that was shown not to be the defendent's; an eyewitness description that obviously did not match the defendent (6' and close-cropped hair vs 5'8" and a big Afro); the fact that the main witness had been paid by the victim's family for his testimony; and -- most important of all -- on his death bed a junior assistant DA had confessed to one of the prosecutors that he had withheld the evidence, and the fact of his confession had then been withheld for several years.
If it had not been for his private investigator unearthing these facts, Thompson would have been executed for a crime he did not commit. Another in the growing number of exonerations of those awaiting execution on death row.
When all this came to light, he had a new trial and was found innocent of both crimes after only 35 minutes of jury deliberations. That has not been challenged, and Thompson is a free man.
However, he was awarded $14 million compensation for this violation of his civil rights by unjust incarceration under death sentence, and that amount was upheld in the appeal court. But now the U. S. Supreme Court has overturned the right to compensation by the usual 5/4 conservative margin; and it is Thomas' majority opinion and his scornful tone that are so egregious and mean.
The case is based on the fact that the prosecutor had not followed the 1963 Brady v Maryland decision that requires prosecutors to turn over evidence that would tend to prove a defendent's innocence. This is established legal precedent and has not been challenged. However, the prosecutor in the case had died, so the District Attorney was sued for having failed to train his prosecutors about this legal obligation, which would have allowed Thompson to have been compensated by the government for which the DA worked.
Thomas wrote that the the district attorney (and the municipality that employs him) can't be held responsible for the single act of a lone prosecutor -- never mind the fact that four other cases from this same office had been overturned for just this same reason and that it was far more than a lone prosecutor who covered up evidence of prosecutorial misconduct; and the fact that the DA himself has admitted to being ignorant of the Brady requirement and admitted that he stopped reading law books and opinions when he was elected in 1974.
Scalia wrote a concurring opinion that is equally lacking in human feeling. These two seem determined to prove something -- I'm not sure what. It has little to do with the law or with jurisprudence. It's about contempt for fellow human beings, I think.
Slate writes that "Their disregard for the facts of Thompson's trashed life and near-death emerges as a moral flat line. Scalia . . . states that "the question presented for our review is whether a municipality is liable for a single Brady violation by one of its prosecutors." But only by willfully ignoring that entire trial record can he and Thomas reduce the entire constitutional question to a single misdeed by a single bad actor."
Slate concludes:
I don't think that the failure at the court is one of empathy. I don't ask that Thomas or Scalia shed a tear for an innocent man who almost went to his death because of deceptive prosecutors. . . . But this case is of a piece with prior decisions in which Thomas and Scalia have staked out positions that revel in the hyper-technical and deliberately callous. It was, after all, Scalia who wrote in 2009 that "this court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." It was Thomas who wrote that a prisoner who was slammed to a concrete floor and punched and kicked by a guard after asking for a grievance form had no constitutional claim [to cruel an unusual treatment].The law awards no extra points for being pitiless and scornful. There is rarely a reason to be pitiless and scornful, certainly in a case of an innocent man who was nearly executed. It leads one to wonder whether Thomas and Scalia sometimes are [pitiless and scornful] just because they can be.
Anyone who want to read the scornful and dismissive details of the Thomas opinion and the Scalia concurrence can do so at http://www.slate.com/id/2290036/
Ralph
Sunday, April 3, 2011
DADT is dead #20
Last December, the repeal of DADT passed the Senate by a vote of 63-31 -- better than 2:1. That vote far exceeded expectations for such a momentous correction of a controversial wrong.
Although we might have wished it to go into effect immediately, Obama wisely gave the military the time it felt it needed to plan for an orderly transition and to prepare officers and troops for the change. They are nearing completion of that task.
The House Republicans, however, newly giddy with control of its committees and hoping to prove it was a huge mistake, held a hearing by the House Armed Services Committee into how it's going. The hearing was led by Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) -- the same Joe Wilson who yelled "You lie !!" at Obama during his State of the Union address.
They are desperately trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The Pentagon officials who had been called to testify reported that the transition is going very well. But our Rep. Austin Scott (R-GA) demanded to know how much this was costing. The answer: $10,000 for training materials.
Scott was incredulous: "If something was done at D.O.D. for $10,000, I would like to know what it was." He then said that a soldier in his district was choosing not to reenlist because of this "social policy" -- and what a loss this was to the government because "hundreds of thousands of dollars" had been spent training this soldier to disarm I.E.D.'s.
This cost argument was effectively countered by Democratic Rep. Charlie Pingree (D-ME) with this fact: Between 2004 and 2009 alone, the cost of purging gays from the military amounted to $193,000,000. Multiply that times 2 1/2 (for the full 17 years DADT was in effect), and you get about $650,000,000.
So $10,000 for training materials is a pretty good bargain to stop the hemorrhaging of hundreds of millions -- to say nothing of the human and personal costs which can't be counted in dollars.
A member of the Log Cabin Republicans (gay caucus) commented:
Ralph
Although we might have wished it to go into effect immediately, Obama wisely gave the military the time it felt it needed to plan for an orderly transition and to prepare officers and troops for the change. They are nearing completion of that task.
The House Republicans, however, newly giddy with control of its committees and hoping to prove it was a huge mistake, held a hearing by the House Armed Services Committee into how it's going. The hearing was led by Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) -- the same Joe Wilson who yelled "You lie !!" at Obama during his State of the Union address.
They are desperately trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The Pentagon officials who had been called to testify reported that the transition is going very well. But our Rep. Austin Scott (R-GA) demanded to know how much this was costing. The answer: $10,000 for training materials.
Scott was incredulous: "If something was done at D.O.D. for $10,000, I would like to know what it was." He then said that a soldier in his district was choosing not to reenlist because of this "social policy" -- and what a loss this was to the government because "hundreds of thousands of dollars" had been spent training this soldier to disarm I.E.D.'s.
This cost argument was effectively countered by Democratic Rep. Charlie Pingree (D-ME) with this fact: Between 2004 and 2009 alone, the cost of purging gays from the military amounted to $193,000,000. Multiply that times 2 1/2 (for the full 17 years DADT was in effect), and you get about $650,000,000.
So $10,000 for training materials is a pretty good bargain to stop the hemorrhaging of hundreds of millions -- to say nothing of the human and personal costs which can't be counted in dollars.
A member of the Log Cabin Republicans (gay caucus) commented:
Despite the April Fool's Day schedule of the hearings, they were real; and despite conservatives' attempt to find fault, it looks like this is a done deal.As expected, the repeal process is moving forward smoothly, with deliberation and purpose, and Log Cabin Republicans are pleased to hear that the Department of Defense considers midsummer to be an achievable timeline for certification. The message from today’s House Armed Services Committee hearing is that military leadership is confident about the progress being made toward repeal implementation, that open service will not impact our ability to fight and win wars, and with leadership, professionalism, discipline and respect, ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ will end.”
DADT IS TRULY, FINALLY, DEAD !!!
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
