Q: Bush deficit bad, Obama deficit good? A: Elder column terrible.

The self-proclaimed Sage of South Central needs to matriculate.

Or he could control his urge to lie by omission.

In "Bush deficit bad, Obama deficit good?" Larry Elder accuses New York Times columnist Paul Krugman of hypocrisy. That is, an hypocrisy that I'm confident exists only in Elder's simple-minded conservative fantasyland.

The World Nut Daily columnist claims that it is hypocritical of Krugman, a Nobel prize-winning economist, to attack the Bush II deficits and yet defend the Obama deficits:

Questions: Didn't Krugman, less than six years ago, call the deficit "enormous"? Wouldn't he, therefore, consider a $1.5 trillion deficit at 10 percent of GDP mega-normous? Didn't he describe the economy with 5.5 percent unemployment as "weak"? Isn't the current economy, at 9.7 percent unemployment, even weaker? If the 2004 deficit was "comparable to the worst we've ever seen in this country," wouldn't today's much bigger deficit cause even more heartburn?

Nope. Now a huge deficit is actually a good thing: "The point is that running big deficits in the face of the worst economic slump since the 1930s is actually the right thing to do. If anything, deficits should be bigger than they are because the government should be doing more than it is to create jobs." The deficit "should be bigger"?!

Therein lies the answer to your questions, O Sagely One. No one, except those with a partisan axe to grind, will claim that the economic troubles during the first Bush II administration were anywhere near as serious as our current economic crisis. This is obviously a relevant difference.

If government has any role in managing the economy, it should run surpluses when the economy is growing and deficits when the economy is contracting. This would make it easier for government to stimulate the economy when necessary. Bush II and the Republican Congress chose to run up huge deficits at the wrong time by starting an unnecessary war of choice and making unnecessary cuts in taxes. (It might be argued that the economic effect of the 9/11 attacks required stimulus in the form of tax cuts. But this would not show that Krugman is a hypocrite, again because the threat of the economic impact of the 9/11 attacks was nowhere near the economic threat we faced in 2008.)

It is easy to believe that their real agenda is to force the government to shrink: cutting government services is less unpopular than raising taxes, thanks to the GOP's incessant call to cut taxes in response to virtually every problem. Their current complaints about deficit spending—which many of them failed to make during the previous administration, by the way—represents the next phase of this plan.

I'm not sure that I'm comfortable with the enormous debt we're racking up. But I don't believe that Republicans are being entirely forthcoming about their motivations. And I don't believe that Krugman is being a hypocrite. Rather, the so-called Sage of South Central has, intentionally or otherwise, oversimplified the discussion in order to score political points. This is a common strategy in our civic debate, unfortunately, and our civic debate suffers for it.

Captain America Nails It

According to a Yahoo! News Blog entry, Tea Partiers are taking umbrage to a comic book and have won an apology from Marvel. Brett Michael Dykes describes the content of the comic book in question:

Issue 602 of the comic features Captain America investigating a right-wing anti-government militia group called "the Watchdogs". Hoping to infiltrate the group, Captain America and his African-American sidekick The Falcon observe an anti-tax protest from a rooftop. The protestors depicted are all white and carry signs adorned with slogans almost identical to those seen today in Tea Party rallies like "tea bag libs before they tea bag you" and "stop the socialists."

The Falcon mentions that the gathering appears to be "some kind of anti-tax protest" and notes that "this whole 'hate the government' vibe isn't limited to the Watchdogs." He then tells Captain America that he doesn't think their plan will work because "I don't exactly see a black man from Harlem fitting in with a bunch of angry white folks." Captain America then explains that his plan entails sending The Falcon in among the group posing as an IRS agent under the thinking that a black government official will most certainly spark their anger.

Unfortunately, the Tea Partiers were asking for it.

Tom Tancredo recently spoke at the Tea Party convention in Nashville. And he claimed that Obama was elected because voters did not have to pass a literacy test to vote. Literacy tests were, you'll recall, one tool racists used in the South to violate African Americans' right to vote.

Obviously, we can't assume that Tea Partiers are racist because they invited Tancredo to speak at their little convention.

But I'm not crying into my beer about this kerfuffle either.

"I pledge allegiance to the G.O.P. . . ."

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Rachel Maddow calls out Republicans for voting against policies they support simply because President Obama has also expressed support for them. And Maddow has the evidence just in case you need to be convinced. Here's a partial transcript:

Republicans proposed a deficit commission. President Obama endorsed the idea so then Republicans decided they‘re against it.

Republicans proposed pay-as-you-go rules for budgeting. President Obama endorsed the idea. Then Republicans decided they were against it too. Republicans who voted for the bank bailout are now criticizing President Obama for that same bank bailout.

Republicans supported President Bush‘s policy of trying terrorism suspects in U.S. courts. Now that President Obama is implementing that same policy, they decided they‘re against that now, too.

Republicans supported a cap-and-trade policy against global warming. Now that President Obama is trying to pass that same policy, Republicans have decided - say it with me now - they‘re against that, too.

See the pattern here? What Republicans are doing on policy is no longer interesting. It is so thoroughly unrelentingly, consistently predictable that anyone who thinks it‘s an open question as to what Republicans are going to do about the next legislation that‘s proposed just is not paying attention.

Maddow documents at great length Republicans voting against the stimulus and yet defending the use of stimulus money in their home districts as good policy. Lisa Lerer of Politico has also documented this example of Republican hypocrisy.

Why would Republicans do this?

They are loyal to the Republican Party first. Remember McCain's "Country First" campaign slogan? A complete crock.

Maddow's advice to Democrats?

Charging [Republicans] with hypocrisy, appealing to their better, more practical, more what‘s-best-for-the-country patriotic angels is like trying to teach your dog to drive.

It wastes a lot of time. It won‘t work. And ultimately the dog comes out of the exercise less embarrassed for failing than you do for trying. Grow up, Democrats. Face the music. Do it alone. You‘re the majority. Kill the filibuster if they won‘t let you use that majority. The country needs you to.

I couldn't agree more.

Show transcript: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35331019/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/

The Retard's Teleprompter

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Sarah Palin Uses a Hand-O-Prompter
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Economy

Sarah Palin and her running mate

Sarah Palin with her 2008 and 2012 running mate, Trig Palin. Source: http://www.salon.com/news/environment/feature/2008/09/05/sarah_palin_down_syndrome/story.jpg

In "Sarah Palin Is a Genius at Taking Umbrage," Emily Bazelton writes that Palin, because she is the mother of a child with Down Syndrome, can get decent political mileage out of over-the-top umbrage in certain situations. Further, Palin (or her handlers) know this and take advantage of it. "It's another genius shot from her motherhood arsenal—an arsenal she's figured out how to deploy like no other woman in politics," writes Bazelton.

Which situations? Recently, Obama said that he bowls like he's in the Special Olympics. And Rahm Emanuel recently criticized some liberals as being "fucking retarded."

What's kind of funny about all of this is that I have often thought that Palin is fucking retarded. And I have thought that she campaigns for national office as if she were in the Special Olympics.

I still find it hard to believe that she wants to be President, now that she is producing so much video for Fox News that might be used against her down the road. But, as Bazelton points out, she appears to be positioning herself to do just that.

One of the many things that bothers me about Palin is her running mate, Trig Palin. The Palins must have thought that they had hit the jackpot when she found herself pregnant with a Down Syndrome baby. Trig is now a living, breathing, token special needs child that Palin can use to appeal to voters and disarm their rational faculties. The strategy is so transparent, I don't know why more people don't complain about it. To use some Kantian language, Trig is being used as a means to Palin's political ends. And since Trig cannot consent to Palin's scheme, he is being used as a mere means. This is morally wrong. Her base—or that part of it that realizes what she is doing—is giving her a pass because it is politically expedient to do so.

Or so they think.

Last weekend, as Palin was pandering to the Tea Party in Nashville, she asked everyone, "How's that hopey-changey stuff workin' out for you?"

"Not great," I thought, "since you and the Party of No have, with your extreme partisan maneuvering and propagandizing, made change so difficult, bitch."

Obama won the last election by fifty-two percent. How does Palin expect to win an election by mocking potentially all of the people who voted for him? I don't understand the strategy. In fact, one might even call the strategy "retarded."

A Few Climate Denial Crocks of the Week

Here are two videos from the series Climate Denial Crock of the Week with Peter Sinclair.

You have probably heard someone justify skepticism about the reality of climate change by pointing at the snow outside their window—as if a colder-than-usual winter was proof that all of the scientists who are convinced that climate change is real somehow made a mistake. In this video, Sinclair explains what is wrong with this argument.



Some global climate change deniers justify their skepticism by claiming that large numbers of scientists actually deny the reality of global climate change. It is often said that 32,000 scientists have signed a petition denying its reality. But it's a crock. Sinclair explains why in this video.

An Overview of the Same-Sex Marriage Debate v1.3

Source: http://www.queeried.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/same-sex-marriage-flow-chart.png

The Smug and the Dead

Two especially interesting blog entries concerning the Tebow Super Bowl ad produced by Focus on the Family have appeared on Slate recently. Those of you who haven't seen the ad may see it below.



In "The Invisible Dead: The grisly truth about the Super Bowl abortion ad," William Saletan discusses the facts about Pam Tebow's medical condition when she declined to abort the being who would become Tim Tebow. Saletan writes:

Pam's story certainly is moving. But as a guide to making abortion decisions, it's misleading. Doctors are right to worry about continuing pregnancies like hers. Placental abruption has killed thousands of women and fetuses. No doubt some of these women trusted in God and said no to abortion, as she did. But they didn't end up with Heisman-winning sons. They ended up dead.

Read the entire entry here.

In "Tebow Ad All Smiles, Cruelty," Amanda Marcotte discusses the perhaps unintended suggestions of the ad. Marcotte writes:

When you argue that you survived a harrowing pregnancy because you're "tough," you imply that other women who die under similar circumstances were too weak to deserve to survive. It's already bad enough that the religious right shames women who choose abortion for choosing their education, careers, relationships, already existing children, or their own lives over the obligation to have another baby. But shaming women for being weak who die trying to fill the mandate (or who are deprived of the choice) to bear children at all costs? That's dark indeed, no matter how glowingly white the background of the ad is.

Read the entire entry here.

Marcotte's blog entry resonated with me. As I recall saying elsewhere in this blog, a loathing of human beings is an essential part of Christianity, no matter how vociferously any particular Christian might deny it. Some Christians, however, reserve a special loathing for those of us who dare not to conform to their Christian worldview. The Tebow ad is an insult to anyone who is not irrational enough to roll the dice with their own lives like Pam Tebow. The smiling faces delivering the underlying "misogynist ideology," as Marcotte puts it, aren't nearly as kind as they are smug. And if there's one thing I hate, it's smugness. How they hope this ad will appeal to the very people the ad insults is a mystery.

Paul Krugman: America Is Not Yet Lost

Published: February 7, 2010

A version of this article appeared in print on February 8, 2010, on page A21 of the New York edition of the New York Times

We’ve always known that America’s reign as the world’s greatest nation would eventually end. But most of us imagined that our downfall, when it came, would be something grand and tragic.

What we’re getting instead is less a tragedy than a deadly farce. Instead of fraying under the strain of imperial overstretch, we’re paralyzed by procedure. Instead of re-enacting the decline and fall of Rome, we’re re-enacting the dissolution of 18th-century Poland.

A brief history lesson: In the 17th and 18th centuries, the Polish legislature, the Sejm, operated on the unanimity principle: any member could nullify legislation by shouting “I do not allow!” This made the nation largely ungovernable, and neighboring regimes began hacking off pieces of its territory. By 1795 Poland had disappeared, not to re-emerge for more than a century.

Today, the U.S. Senate seems determined to make the Sejm look good by comparison.

Last week, after nine months, the Senate finally approved Martha Johnson to head the General Services Administration, which runs government buildings and purchases supplies. It’s an essentially nonpolitical position, and nobody questioned Ms. Johnson’s qualifications: she was approved by a vote of 94 to 2. But Senator Christopher Bond, Republican of Missouri, had put a “hold” on her appointment to pressure the government into approving a building project in Kansas City.

This dubious achievement may have inspired Senator Richard Shelby, Republican of Alabama. In any case, Mr. Shelby has now placed a hold on all outstanding Obama administration nominations — about 70 high-level government positions — until his state gets a tanker contract and a counterterrorism center.

What gives individual senators this kind of power? Much of the Senate’s business relies on unanimous consent: it’s difficult to get anything done unless everyone agrees on procedure. And a tradition has grown up under which senators, in return for not gumming up everything, get the right to block nominees they don’t like.

In the past, holds were used sparingly. That’s because, as a Congressional Research Service report on the practice says, the Senate used to be ruled by “traditions of comity, courtesy, reciprocity, and accommodation.” But that was then. Rules that used to be workable have become crippling now that one of the nation’s major political parties has descended into nihilism, seeing no harm — in fact, political dividends — in making the nation ungovernable.

How bad is it? It’s so bad that I miss Newt Gingrich.

Readers may recall that in 1995 Mr. Gingrich, then speaker of the House, cut off the federal government’s funding and forced a temporary government shutdown. It was ugly and extreme, but at least Mr. Gingrich had specific demands: he wanted Bill Clinton to agree to sharp cuts in Medicare.

Today, by contrast, the Republican leaders refuse to offer any specific proposals. They inveigh against the deficit — and last month their senators voted in lockstep against any increase in the federal debt limit, a move that would have precipitated another government shutdown if Democrats hadn’t had 60 votes. But they also denounce anything that might actually reduce the deficit, including, ironically, any effort to spend Medicare funds more wisely.

And with the national G.O.P. having abdicated any responsibility for making things work, it’s only natural that individual senators should feel free to take the nation hostage until they get their pet projects funded.

The truth is that given the state of American politics, the way the Senate works is no longer consistent with a functioning government. Senators themselves should recognize this fact and push through changes in those rules, including eliminating or at least limiting the filibuster. This is something they could and should do, by majority vote, on the first day of the next Senate session.

Don’t hold your breath. As it is, Democrats don’t even seem able to score political points by highlighting their opponents’ obstructionism.

It should be a simple message (and it should have been the central message in Massachusetts): a vote for a Republican, no matter what you think of him as a person, is a vote for paralysis. But by now, we know how the Obama administration deals with those who would destroy it: it goes straight for the capillaries. Sure enough, Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, accused Mr. Shelby of “silliness.” Yep, that will really resonate with voters.

After the dissolution of Poland, a Polish officer serving under Napoleon penned a song that eventually — after the country’s post-World War I resurrection — became the country’s national anthem. It begins, “Poland is not yet lost.”

Well, America is not yet lost. But the Senate is working on it.

URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/opinion/08krugman.html

The Pot and the Kettle

The following passages appear in an Associated Press story.

Questioning the Supreme Court and other government branches needs to stay within the range of fair criticism or "run the risk in our society of undermining institutions that we need to preserve our liberties," Justice Clarence Thomas said Thursday.
Thomas also told an audience at the University of Florida law school that some comments he hears about the court "border on being irresponsible. . . ."

Thomas supported the 5-4 ruling that allows companies and unions to spend freely on ads that promote or target candidates by name.
Thomas said the court should be questioned but is bothered by some rhetoric with "the idea of assigning ulterior motives to opinions that people don't agree with, rather than saying simply that the court doesn't agree with my argument. . . ."
Thomas brushed off a question about campaign finance, wasn't asked specifically about adding more minorities to the court or who he expects will be the next justice to leave the court. He did, however, address campaign financing Tuesday at an event at Stetson University.
"I found it fascinating that the people who were editorializing against it were The New York Times Company and The Washington Post Company," Thomas said at Stetson, according to a report in The New York Times. "These are corporations."