Tag Archives: McConnell

Posted on by

Rhetoric – Clearing Up Where I Stand

I had an interesting debate with someone over the weekend regarding rhetoric. It started from a completely different topic, that of some Republicans in Congress creating “watch lists” of citizens who ask them tough questions at town hall meetings. One person said that it was about time they used the same tactic as Democrats – his belief, not mine – and used as examples Maxine Waters telling the Tea Party to “go to Hell”, VP Biden’s calling the Tea Party “terrorists”, and the media’s outing of Joe the Plumber. And he accused me of not calling out these people for their actions.

I have posted many times about the rhetoric and how it is not helping the climate, and is why many Americans just don’t want to think about politics. I even pointed to my most recent post where I called out Biden for his use of “terrorists”. He read the post, and didn’t think I did, and to be fair, when I re-read the post, I could see it from his side. I wasn’t clear.

So this is me, making it clear: Cut the crap – the rhetoric is stupid and serves no purpose.

Let’s go with some examples:

First off, VP Biden should not have used “terrorists”. Period. Tea Party followers and politicians are not “terrorists”. I may believe they are misguided and have a goal of opposition rather than working toward a common goal of improving the state of the nation. But this does not make them “terrorists”. Calling them “terrorists” does not elevate the conversation nor improve the situation.

Also note, I do not and will not call Tea Party believers “teabaggers”. Yes, I know they were the first to use the term, before someone pointed out that it has a much different and less complimentary definition. But again, continuing to use the term doesn’t elevate the conversation. It’s childish and unnecessary. If you truly want to demonstrate the folly of their beliefs, point to their beliefs, not an ill-advised sound bite.

I did not, will not, and don’t condone calling former President Bush a chimp, the “Chimperor”, or any other reference to a simian. I didn’t like him as President – I disagreed with the vast majority of his policies and believe firmly that his policies are what got this country into the sorry state of economy in which we find ourselves. But that does not excuse the sophomoric attempt to paint him into the image of an ape. Again, it’s unnecessary.

The President is not a socialist (look it up in any unbiased reference book). He’s not from Kenya, he was born in the US, he’s not trying to gut Social Security, and he did not “pal around with terrorists”. See, when Biden used it, he wasn’t even original. The ‘terrorist” theme was used on the campaign trail by good ol’ Sarah Palin to smear then-candidate Obama. But all of these smears are used to do one thing – paint the President as an outsider, a “danger” to the American Way. And none of them are based in fact. Calling the President by his full name, emphasizing that his middle name is “Hussein” is simply an effort to demonize him and perpetuate the myths.

The “Tea Party” is not a racist organization. There are individuals within the Tea Party organization that have shown themselves to be racist, some in positions of leadership. Rallies regularly feature speech and signs that are decidedly racist, and are tolerated. If the Tea Party wants to eliminate the racist label, they need to loudly denounce those views. They haven’t to date, and that earns them the label. However, calling the “Tea Party” racist doesn’t make them so.

None of the rhetoric above is designed to move the conversation forward. Instead, it is designed to paint the people it focuses on in an unflattering light, to question their motives, without ever addressing the realities of their actions.

But there is a corresponding behavior that is more infuriating than the rhetoric: Faux outrage.

This is the the way it works: Someone says something less than “artfully”, and people get “offended” by it. I’m not talking about political correctness, nor about taking offense to truly offensive statements. No, I’m talking about outrage directed at simple speech.

For example, Maxine Waters told the “Tea Party” to go to Hell. She didn’t point out individuals, she wasn’t directing it at anyone person in particular. She used a phrase that many of us would not think twice about, directing it toward a political movement. She doesn’t actually have the power to send people to Hell. But sure enough, it was “news”.

Go back a few years, and then-VP Dick Cheney famously dropped the F-bomb on the floor of the House or President Bush calling a reporter an a-hole over an open mic (with Cheney’s “big time” agreement”), and there was plenty of outrage then too.

My response to all of these? Get over it kiddies. Adults often speak in “adult” language. If the best you can do is complain about salty language, then you have a much bigger problem. But no, plenty of folks got all up in arms about “offensive” language. Was the language appropriate or necessary? Nope. But it also has nothing to do with political discourse.

The real problem with this faux outrage, on both sides, is that it blurs the line between what’s important, what’s truly offensive and unacceptable, and what is simply posturing. It creates equivalencies where there are none. There is absolutely no equivalence between telling a group to go to hell and distributing personal information on private citizens to the media because they asked you a tough question. No correlation whatsoever. But in this atmosphere of  ”insult then cover”, they’re given the same weight.

Then comes the second stage of faux outrage – when the “offended” individual or group then adopts the very analogy they complain about. Republicans got up in arms about Biden’s “terrorist” statement. Yet, within 24 hours, Mitch McConnell referred to the debt ceiling negotiations as a “hostage taking” situation, where they weren’t sure if it would be better to shoot the hostage. This is just dishonest, disingenuous blathering. If you’re going to complain about someone calling you a “terrorist”, don’t come right back and speak about doing things like a terrorist. It doesn’t make what Biden said right in any way. It’s just highly hypocritical.

Another example of the “insult and cover” is Sarah Palin’s “defense” of the crosshairs maps that were heavily covered after the Gabrielle Giffords shooting. The crosshairs were a stupid thing to defend, brutally stupid. Putting a “target” on an individual and then acting surprised that a nutjob actually opened fire in one of those locations. The appropriate move would have been to say that although the crosshairs were not intended to conjure images of shooting, perhaps another symbol would have been a better choice. Instead, she doubled down and called the complaints a “blood libel”. Blood libel has its own offensive meaning to those in the Jewish community, and so Palin’s defense in the face of scrutiny was to insult another group – and to make herself the victim. And yet, Republicans did not call her out on either of these issues. Instead, they came to her support.

One last thing to address is the “they do it” mentality. That is a key element to this false equivalency routine. Somehow, these folks who want to make this argument have forgotten the lesson that my 8-year-old has learned: Two wrongs don’t make a right. Doing something that you know is wrong just because you think the other side did it first isn’t just wrong – it’s worse than the first offense. You knew it was wrong, complained about the other guy, then did the very same thing. It’s something we all know is wrong, and yet, it seems more and more people are finding it acceptable.

So, in here’s where I stand on these things:

- Rhetoric that is based on falsehoods, lies and myths – designed to paint a picture of a person or group by assoicating them with something heinous or scary – is unacceptable.

- Name-calling is pointless and serves no real purpose. There’s plenty of things to be snarky about without having to act like a third-grader.

- Be offended by things that are truly offensive. Adults speak with rougher language than we’d like sometimes, but if the language on network TV is worse, you probably are overdoing it.

- Can the faux outrage. When everything causes an uproar, then nothing does. Be angry about what’s important, and quit crying wolf.

- Quit adopting the very things you were outraged about. Don’t complain about being branded with an image then proceed to reinforce that image.

- Stop giving things the same level of importance. See above for faux outrage.

- “They did it first” isn’t an acceptable excuse for my 8-year-old. It really isn’t for adults, either.

Note: this isn’t about limiting free speech. I’m not advocating action against individuals to stop them from doing all of the above. They are free to do so. But I won’t partake in it. And those that do weaken their positions, not strengthen them. If we all held these people to those standards, we might actually see things getting done in Washington instead of the endless posturing and the chase for the next sound bite.

Posted on by

But Don’t Call Them Terrorists…

People who like to have things both ways annoy me. Like the folks who complain about the rhetoric in Washington, then go ahead and indulge in it themselves. You can’t be on the correct side of an argument by using the same tactics as the folks who are on the wrong side.

This is why it chaps my hide to see folks on the left use hateful speech to try to make their point. I won’t drop to that level. They are TeaParty members, no on deserves to die (like some wished for NJ Governor Christie), and while you may have not liked anything the previous President did, calling him the Chimperor doesn’t demean him, it demeans the office, and you.

The folks on the right have no problem spewing their crap. Look at the Tea Party stuff from the last few days. Stooping to that is pointless – it only annoys the folks who couldn’t give a rat’s ass about politics, and frankly, they’re better at it. I want no part of that behavior.

And then, you get stuff like Mitch McConnell said after the debt ceiling deal:

“I think some of our members may have thought the default issue was a hostage you might take a chance at shooting. Most of us didn’t think that. What we did learn is this — it’s a hostage that’s worth ransoming. And it focuses the Congress on something that must be done.”

I don’t like the “hostage” messaging – it doesn’t get anywhere. Especially when the side that it is supposed to shame ends up embracing it.

And that’s where I get really, really annoyed. Because if folks do call them “hostage takers”, they’ll be incensed. VP Biden called them terrorists and the right got all bent out of shape, demanding apologies. And then they go back and announce that not only DID they take the debt ceiling vote “hostage”, but that they’d do it again.

It’s really hard to stay on the sane, civil side of the road when the other side tells you point blank that they won’t.

Posted on by

Debt Ceiling Deal: The Devil Is In The Details

Congress finally has a deal on the table that may pass. The House passed it Monday evening with a vote expected to be held in the Senate mid-day on Tuesday. And that vote is also expected to be successful in passing the debt ceiling deal. So, who won? Who lost? Is it a massive cave by the President and Democrats? Or is there something more to it?

In looking at the deal, folks on the left are acting outraged. Medicare takes some cuts, there’s no revenue component, it looks like the Republicans got everything they wanted. Indeed, Speaker of the House John Boehner says he “got 98 percent of what I wanted”. But did he?

Here’s some of the details that say he might have some ‘splaining to do later:

Revenues

Democrats are upset that the deal does not include increasing revenues. But that’s not accurate. In fact, it virtually guarantees a revenue increase by the end of 2012. And Boehner knows it.

Here’s how it works: Part of the deficit reduction estimates used to sell this deal to the Republicans count on Congressional Budget Office estimates. Those estimates set a baseline. All reductions have to come from that baseline and if any additional spending is to be made, offsetting cuts must also be enacted.

Here’s where it gets interesting. The CBO baseline already assumes that the Bush Era tax cuts will expire at the end of 2012. The spending levels for 2013 include the additional revenue from those cuts expiring. If Republicans want to extend those tax cuts (which are considered spending), they will have to make cuts to the budget to offset every penny. They won’t have the political control needed to do that before the end of 2012, even if the President loses his office and they take control of the Senate, as the cuts expire in 2012, and a new administration and Congress would not be seated until January 2013.

So, unless Republicans want to try to pass an extension along with offsetting cuts during an election year, those cuts will expire. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has already said he will not allow the issue to come to a vote, and the President has vowed he will veto it. So if Republicans want to extend those cuts, they will have to come up with $4T in spending cuts to offset the tax cuts. To make it more difficult still, the deal makes it clear that those cuts must come in a 50/50 ratio between defense and non-defense spending, with Social Security, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, civilian and military retirement off the table. Medicare cuts would only come from the provider side, not the individual.

Now, take that in for a minute. If Republicans want to extend the tax cuts, they will need to cut an equal amount out of spending, with half of that coming from defense spending. Half. This is in addition to the $350B that are already being cut as part of this deal. To get their tax cuts, Republicans would have to slash another $2T from defense spending. They would have to justify slashing the defense budget for the benefit of the wealthiest Americans. And with all the social programs off the table, where will they find the other $2T?

The plain fact is, they can’t. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says he won’t let it come to a vote, and the President says he would veto any extension. But the key issue is – they don’t need to. In fact, all they have to do is make sure to speak loudly if/when Republicans try to extend any tax cuts, and frame it as cutting the military. It’s a pretty clear cut distinction and attacks the entire ethos of Republicans as deficit hawks and military backers. In the meantime, if the Republicans can’t find the cuts, the cuts expire, and revenue increases.

Now, Boehner has played this deal as one that does not allow “tax increases”. He had to for it to pass. But the safe bet is that most of the Republicans who voted for this did not realize that the baseline includes the additional revenue from the expiration of the Bush era tax cuts, and that extending them is not counted as raising taxes, but rather, as increasing spending. And that will require hugely Draconian cuts in the areas Republicans are most loathe to touch.

An interesting battle will start next year. It will begin to pit the military industrial complex against the bankers and million/billionaires. If the rich guys want to keep their tax cuts, 50% of it will come from military spending – contractors. That’s a big lobby to fight against. It will be fascinating to see how the spin starts to work there, as Republicans find their corporate benefactors are suddenly pitted against each other, and the American people get to see where the loyalties really lie.

Medicare and Social Programs

There has been a bit of moaning that this deal touches Medicare. But again, the details are important. The area touched here has nothing to do with individuals. It’s all on the provider side.

To be sure, this could have an effect on individuals, as providers may decide they don’t want to deal with Medicare if reimbursements are reduced, and this could reduce choice. But on the subscriber side, nothing changes. More importantly, the subscriber side is sequestered from further cuts, as are Medicaid and Social Security in their entirety.

Again, this is really a trap for the Republicans. With all of those areas off the table, where will they find cuts? And remember, they still need to cut an equal amount from defense as they do for anything else. Social programs are a large part of the budget. When you take them off the table, you remove major sources of budget reduction. Which means that cuts to other areas will have to be massive to have a chance at making a difference. So Republicans will have to sell Draconian slashes to areas such as education to be able to find enough budget to cut.

But here’s a kicker – $1.5T in cuts and additional revenue must be defined and sent to Congress for ratification before the end of 2011. So, while Boehner is claiming no raising of taxes, with this deal he has put Republicans further behind the 8-ball. If they do not pass a package that features all of these cuts, an automatic trigger is reached, and an addition $500B is immediately cut from defense, and additional cuts would be made to infrastructure and other programs. That’s in addition to the $350B already cut as part of the deal.

Why does this leave Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is a tough spot? Because they must pass $1.3T in cuts before the end of the year to avoid the automatic trigger. They don’t want to be seen as cutting military spending (although that is likely where a lot will come from anyway). And because they insisted that the decrease in spending from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan not be counted as spending reduction, they’ve removed that ploy from the table as well. If they are unwilling to compromise, they will be facing massive additional cuts to the military. And all while not touching sacred social programs. That’s a hell of a corner to be painted into.

So, What Did It Accomplish?

A whole bunch. Pell Grants have actually been increased. The default scenario has been averted until at least 2013 with a debt ceiling raise. It did not require the passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment. And the cuts that are included are backloaded, meaning that they come further down the line, when the economy is (hopefully) on a better footing.

Sure the President is taking heat on this now. But the focus can now be on jobs (on which there has not been a single piece of legislation), and Republicans who are gloating now may not be so cheerful when it comes time to make the cuts they demanded.