Since there are liberals don’t like football, no liberal should be allowed to make a football metaphor.

Jonathan Gardner has finally written a post that makes sense. It gets a touch ridiculous at the end, but he appears to have finally figured out that outright bans on recreational drugs don’t work. That’s a pretty big milestone for someone who has long claimed to have a “live and let live” philosophy.

We support repealing many loopholes in the tax code, but we’ll ignore the ones we got for this paper over the years.

When I heard this on NPR about one of the local teabaggers we make fun of from time to time, I thought I’d have to make a post out of it. But fortunately, Blue Texan did that post, so I’ll just link to it.

Over at Red County, Bryan Myrick has decided to get all upset over something obviously true in the State of the Union.

Last week’s State of the Union was one to remember, although surely not for the reasons that its drafters intended.

Nah. Other than the 4 freedoms speech, State of the Union speeches are mostly forgotten affairs. And even the first half of that one isn’t so great.

It began as an inspiring little story about The Little Country That Could. In its positive reminder that central to the American spirit is the character of its citizens, President Obama’s address to the Congress last Wednesday had was brilliant in terms both of his style of delivery. Viewers must have felt reunited with values from which this period of economic woe has estranged them.

The Little Country That Could? Really?

President Obama eloquently reminded us that our maturation as a nation although tempting to chalk up to destiny, was achieved through a process of overcoming obstacles and learning from our mistakes. We really do rise to challenges and are resilient in responding to setbacks and in being reminded of this power there is hope for the future.

Yes, it’s true. Democracy is difficult. And there have been problems and setbacks, and things that will break you heart that happened in this country. Wrenching poverty, slavery, Jim Crow. European colonialism, Fascism, Communism, and other foreign problems also threatened us.

Built on messages of empowerment and hope, the initial five minutes were one of the great fragments in the history of State of the Union speeches. Had Obama transitioned from that superb entrée only into a lukewarm and uninspired main course of targeted tax cuts and a commitment to producing bipartisan measures to release the frustrated engine of American business, he would have had me at “my fellow Americans.”

If only he’d said he agrees with me on everything, I would agree with him on everything! Actually, the speech was far too conciliatory for my taste, but so are most of his speeches.

Instead, President Obama demonstrated why he is still focused primarily on being the leader of the left-wing of the Democrat Party and not the entire nation, in being a hatchet man and not a healer. He attempted to label the Republicans as blind obstructionists despite the fact that their minority status does not avail them of power to obstruct anything. He lashed out at businesses audacious enough to achieve miraculous profitability when others fail, and restated his belief that success should be taxed to help pay the bills of failing enterprises such as government-run General Motors and AIG.

Well there are tools, especially in the Senate, that allow the minority party to obstruct action. And the Republicans have availed themselves of those tools. Although, yes, the Democrats should have just passed these without considering Republican feelings. Sort of contradicts what you’d said in the previous paragraph, and at the beginning of this one, but whatever. Also, he lashed out at businesses that took taxpayer money (both in the form of bailouts and artificially low interest rates) and then paid themselves huge bonuses.

The invitation for Americans to wish away the severity of our national economic condition by embracing a warm hatred for those who might be better off was still only a prelude to the main event; the listing of enemies was not complete. Why stop at corporations and Republicans? Why let the great moment of this crisis go to waste?

Huh?

Pivoting further to the left, President Obama slid one foot forward across the sacrosanct line that has traditionally separated the executive and judiciary, and leaned into a solid punch to the collective jaw of the Supreme Court seated only yards away.

At the end of this post, he mentions that he knows Reagan attacked the Supreme Court for Roe. But that doesn’t count because shut up that’s why.

Railing against the Supreme Court’s ruling that corporations have the same right to free speech as individuals, President Obama chastised the six justices in attendance suggesting that they “reversed a century of law” in a way that would “open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations.”

It was a 5-4 decision, so I’m not sure he chastened 6 justices. But it’s undeniable that they reversed a century of law and opened the floodgates for special interests. So apparently the president saying obviously true things is unconscionable speech, but gigantic corporations influencing elections is neat speech.

Amid sporadic applause from the Democrats in the chamber, Justice Samuel Alito let forth a restrained but emotional retort; the emphatic words “not true” appeared to come forth as a rapid and indignant reaction to Kid Chicago’s interbranch sucker punch and the malicious distortion of the Court’s intent. His response was measured and justified. To have held back in the situation would have created the impression that the Court was deferential to the President. In that sense, Alito’s comeback was not sparring but important.

First Wilson then this, what is it with bad behavior from media whore corporate apologists listening to the President, anyway? Democrats sat respectfully through lies about war, but Obama says things that are true, and these right wingers can’t control themselves? Please! Oh, also, “Kid Chicago”? You are a bad writer.

Never mind that the President ignored two centuries of public observance of the principle of separated powers, and that the constitutional principles on which the decision was made are hardly controversial. The same injustice that drove the Founding Fathers to break away from the British Empire – taxation without representation – underlies the rights of corporations to speak on issues that affect them. The government imposes regulations on corporations, taxes them in ways it does not tax individuals, and makes decisions about the way in which individuals and businesses may make agreements. Does it not make sense then that they should be afforded rights to speak on their own behalf? Any abridgement of the rights of political speech would be unconstitutional.

We broke away for many reasons, most famously, of course for our rights to, “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Corporations, by definition, can have none of these. In fact corporations don’t have the right to exist at all. Hell, if Red County were around then, you can bet some of its writers would be complaining about the Sons of Liberty who are trying to interfere with the East India Company’s attempts to make an honest buck.

To miss the hypocrisy in the President’s foreign donor rationale for limited free corporate speech point requires selective amnesia. Obama’s 2008 campaign was itself accused of opening the “floodgates” to foreign donors when credit card transaction processing procedures were alleged to have been deliberately configured. Millions in untraceable donations were made in the primary and general election periods and his campaign steadfastly refused to work with credit card companies to investigate if any of those donations would have to be returned in accordance with campaign finance laws.

The prepaid credit cards first: all those records have been public for over a year, and nobody has actually found any problems, because it is people giving their own money. But more importantly it’s at the very least an open question if foreign corporations can now dump unlimited money into our elections, and you can bet some foreign corporation is going to try.

From the White House and their defenders in the media, we should brace for a litany of citations of previous presidential commentary about decisions of the Supreme Court. [See editor’s note below.] Any such attempt at equivocation relies on Americans ignoring the difference between a president speaking out about the Court’s work and scolding them directly and publicly.

You mean like when FDR said blasted the court for overturning the National Recovery Act and then tried to explain in much more depth why they were wrong including:

The Judicial branch also is asked by the people to do its part in making democracy successful. We do not ask the Courts to call non-existent powers into being, but we have a right to expect that conceded powers or those legitimately implied shall be made effective instruments for the common good.

The process of our democracy must not be imperiled by the denial of essential powers of free government.

Because holy shit dude, that sounds like attacking the Supreme Court at the State of the Union (although I don’t know if they invited the Supremes to the SOTU back then, I assume they did). In any event, FDR was so hurt by that speech he only won reelection 2 more times. Also, as long as we’re here, I seem to recall Jefferson had a bit of a rocky relationship with the judicial branch.

By using the State of the Union address as a barnstorming platform to highlight wedge issues, drive fundraising with key liberal interest groups, he gave yet another reason to believe that his promise to voters to mellow the partisan tone in Washington was just another hollow campaign promise. But by deciding to trample on basic precepts of divided power, President Obama has caused many to question whether he understands the principles that guide the system of government he leads.

Trample on basic precepts by saying he disagreed with a ruling?

Let us hope that the next time the President assumes that ascending to the bully pulpit gave him the right or responsibility to be the bully, he will remember the shock of having his dominance challenged in such a public way. If not, at least let Justice Alito, Rep. Joe Wilson or some other brave soul be sitting there to set him straight again.

When the president says something that’s obviously true, let’s pray that some attention whore is willing to yell at them.

Oregon passed a hike on corporate income and high personal income. This will probably not embolden Washington State legislators, but it does freak out the Seattle Times.

GOV. Chris Gregoire and top Democrats in the Legislature are all but popping Champagne corks in celebration of two successful Oregon ballot measures to raise taxes. Whoopee. Party!!!

Woooooooooooooooooooo. Moderate tax increases on the highest earners. Show us your tits!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

At risk of interrupting the merriment, slow down. Washington is not Oregon. And the two tax referendums were constructed in a way that does not represent Northwest-wide enthusiasm for the brilliance — or lack of it — of raising taxes in a recession.

I think if anything, they show that the voters in Washington state would like Frank Blethen’s taxes cut even further.

Oregon voters said yes to Measure 66, boosting the income tax on individuals with taxable income above $125,000 or households above $250,000. Voters also blessed Measure 67, raising corporate income taxes and setting higher minimum tax rates for businesses.

Yes they did.

Increasing taxes on businesses in a state with nearly 11 percent unemployment does not make a lot of sense. Higher taxes will not produce more jobs and may limit the ability to add people to payrolls.

Cutting services totally makes sense though.

Even the most avid referendum supporter will admit the limitation of the process is it asks a simple up-or-down question. In the case of the two measures, the questions could be boiled down to: “Would you like to raise taxes on someone other than yourself?”

Yes, yes I would. Especially if that someone else was named Blethen.

No wonder Oregon voters said yes by a margin of roughly 54 percent for both proposals. It was the first time since the 1930s that voters approved a statewide income-tax increase.

So it sounds like when there’s high unemployment, people like to tax the rich. Maybe the Mercer Island Mutt Murderer should rethink their no tax increases in a recession idea.

All of which led our governor to exult: “It is gratifying to see that the public understands the importance of preserving services to the most needy and providing education to the next generation — especially now when those efforts are most needed.”

What a monster, am I right?

Oregon voters were presented with a difficult choice: tax increases or further erosion of education and other state services. These are daunting times for legislatures across the country.

Yes. And daunting times call for creative solutions. Also, fuck the people who got us into this mess.

Washington’s political leaders may think they see a trend, that voters here will also be willing to pay higher taxes to preserve services.

Or an even better trend, that people here might be willing to tax the wealthy to preserve services.

But the Legislature’s first task, and it is unpleasant, is to make sensible, long-term cuts to programs so the budget becomes sustainable year to year. This is no time for a tax party.

Go fuck yourself. Seriously, what else is there to say? Sure cut education. Cut basic health. Whatever you do, just don’t tax wealthy people.

*Sometimes even I’m amazed at the nonsense I write.

January 27, 2009

I still think ending alcohol prohibition was a mistake, but if we’re going to allow legal alcohol sales, it’s vitally important that the prices be as low as possible.

Warren Peterson at the Clown Car makes some predictions:

By a 54% “yes” vote, Oregon voters approved one measure to raise taxes on the wealthy (defined as income of $125,000 for singles, $250,000 for couples) and another to increase business taxes.

Predictions:

1. Oregon’s unemployment rate will increase
2. Oregon will have a net outflow of businesses
3. Oregon will have a net outflow of “wealthy” people
4. The income from the tax increases will fall short of projections
5. The tax cancer will spread to other Democrat led states

If he’s lucky, 3 out of those 5 will be true (#4 is always a good possibility). We’ll have to check back on this one in a year from now.

When I read this piece on Majority Rules about Pam Roach yelling at Steve Zemke (HT Shaun), I naturally had to find some Roach to make fun of. Unfortunately, looking at her blog, it seems at least in writing she hasn’t been too too coo coo. But this piece - about a bill whose intentions I agree with - did amuse me.

Senate Bill 6529 places a pro-active responsibility on government agencies to provide information that is not exempt from disclosure on computer terminals that can be accessed by the public during normal business hours. If an agency does not have the capability to provide such a computer terminal they may partner with other agencies to provide the information.

As an advocate for open government, I certainly agree that we need sunshine, and we need to keep up with technology. However, it might be easier to put the information on the Internet, rather than on computer terminals in Olympia, or wherever the agencies are based. This would have been very forward thinking in 1985 though.

The Seattle Times has obsessed with Obama killing health care reform so that he can focus on the economy, as if health care has nothing to do with the economy. Now that it’ll be tougher to do either thanks to a bunch of Massholes, what’s the Times idea? Exactly the same thing. You really have to give Ryan Blethen a lot of credit: Instead of the countless editorials about the estate tax that basically say the same thing, now we have countless editorials about health care that basically say the same thing. I think this is progress:

THE capture of Edward Kennedy’s Senate seat by a Republican, Scott Brown, is more than “one of the biggest upsets in Massachusetts political history,” which is what The Boston Globe called it. It is as if the voters of Massachusetts pulled an emergency brake on a train, breaking the momentum of the health-reform bills chugging through Congress.

Perhaps one day someone will pull the emergency brake on the Times’ Editorial writers’ bad metaphors.

That momentum had been slowing already. Many people thought a bill would pass last August, as a tribute to Sen. Kennedy. Instead, separate House and Senate bills made it over the top only in December. Out of 435 votes, the House had three to spare. In the Senate, Democrats had to offer Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska, political boodle in order to get the bare 60 votes needed.

Yeah. We should eliminate the 60 vote threshold in the Senate. Or eliminate the Senate altogether.

With Brown’s election, the Democrats lost their 60th vote.

Only 59%. What a bunch of losers. Why does anyone give a damn what 59% think?

Meanwhile, poll after poll had shown that the American people had become worried about how reform would affect them. By late last year, more Americans opposed the effort than supported it. They wanted their leaders to worry about the economy, and jobs.

Well, I agree we should have had a stronger health care bill. But that’s hardly reason for inaction now. If we move forward a bit, we can move further a bit later and a bit after that.

The reply by supporters was that reform is complicated, that people didn’t understand it, and that once they had a taste of it, they would like it. It hasn’t turned out that way in Massachusetts. Of the 50 states, that is the one with its own health-care reform, including an individual mandate to buy insurance.

So the least relevant to the discussion.

Congress should set the botched health-insurance proposals aside and get on with issues that touch directly on economic recovery, starting with financial reform. When Congress takes up health care again — and it will — it should do it in a manner that is less partisan. Future health-care reform should also be focused more on the problem of rising costs, which is what contributed to Tuesday’s upset in Massachusetts.

Argh. Congress should set aside the bipartisanship for bipartisanship’s sake that delayed, weakened, now threatens to kill health care reform. They should try to make the best laws for the American people.