Presidential elections in America are strange: the one element that the president has the least control over, and yet looms largest in the minds of the electorate, is the economy. A staggering economy in 2008 helped then-candidate Obama win the White House; President Bush was blamed for the financial crisis, and McCain’s clear lack of economic know-how undercut his campaign. Obama likely would’ve won anyway, but these factors certainly made his task easier and increased his margin of victory.

But today, after three years in office, continued high unemployment and the still-sputtering economy are the biggest threats to Obama’s re-election. The European debt crisis—which could be the biggest single influence on the U.S. economic recovery—is completely out of Obama’s hands. A collapse of the Eurozone, coupled with defaults in one or more EU countries, could spiral out of control, create another global crisis, and throw the U.S. into yet another recession. The chances of this happening have diminished in the last couple of months (largely due to aggressive monetary policy by the European Central Bank), but they are still significant.

This is why every week that goes by with the Eurozone intact is a big victory for the President. The closer we get to November, the less likely that events in Europe could negatively impact the U.S. economy enough to influence the election this fall. Nine months is still lots of time, and European leaders have demonstrated a high capacity for poor policymaking, but at least the situation seems stable for now.

Another event that could derail both the U.S. and the global economic recovery would be a major increase in the price of oil. With global demand easing the price actually fell over the past week, but Iran has become the “elephant in the room”. The Iranians have threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz if the U.S. takes additional steps to restrict Iranian oil exports (steps America began to take in response to Iran’s efforts to develop a nuclear bomb). Closing the Strait would approach an act of war and would certainly draw a massive U.S. response. The price of oil could skyrocket to $200 a barrel, a shock that could rattle investors around the world and set off a global economic contraction.

Given that closing the Strait would be a form of economic suicide for the Iranians—they export most of their products through Hormuz—the chances of their following through are low. Even so, the threat itself could be enough to send prices higher. Along with the EU’s woes, this is one more issue that could significantly impact the U.S. economy and imperil a second term for Obama. Every week that goes by with calm in the oil markets is a boost to the President and his team.

As the clock runs down towards November, the election should be about the issues and the candidates’ positions. Obama has a record to run on and his Republican challengers have policies that can be evaluated. As Andrew Sullivan pointed out this week in Newsweek, Obama’s record looks remarkably impressive, especially when matched against his campaign promises. In addition, as Ezra Klein pointed out, politicians hold to their campaign promises to a surprising degree (despite the conventional wisdom that says they don’t).

If voters were more rational and reasonable, candidates would be judged more on the things they can control—their policy agendas—and less on things beyond their control, like the economy. Sadly this isn’t the case.

Given this reality, every week that goes by without an economic calamity outside the U.S. gives America’s economy another week to chug along and gain momentum. Nothing could be better for Obama’s re-election prospects.

Jason Scorse

Since the economy in 2012 will likely continue to be weak, and the presidential contest will revolve almost exclusively around it, Mitt Romney’s record as a successful businessman should be his greatest asset (although, as Paul Krugman has noted, there is little similarity between running a business and running the federal government). After three+ years of a crushing recession and its aftermath, a man who built a fortune restructuring failing companies is supposedly well-equipped to come to America’s rescue.

Sadly for Mitt and the Republican Party, it hasn’t turned out that way. Romney’s record at Bain Capital, which he helped found, has become his Achilles heel because of the massive lay-offs that came along with Bain’s “accomplishments”. And layoffs weren’t the only pain. While Romney and Bain were making millions, many employees at the restructured companies lost their pensions along with their jobs. The fact that Romney helped Bain receive millions of dollars in bailouts is also problematic at a time when people are (rightfully) disgusted with the Wall Street bailouts.

If you listened to Romney’s GOP opponents this week, you might have imagined you were in the middle of an Occupy Wall Street protest. I have never heard such populist rhetoric from Republicans; it reached the point where many on the Right had to come to Romney’s defense—characterizing the attacks on Romney as attacks on free enterprise that would ultimately damage the party. But the genie is out of the bottle: if Romney becomes the nominee, look for Democratic ads in which Republicans take turns lambasting Romney for “vulture capitalism”; it’s a Democratic operative’s dream come true.

What might prove even more troubling is the issue of Romney’s tax returns; he is in a no-win situation. He has refused to release his returns out of fear that they will show exactly what everyone suspects: he pays an extremely low effective tax rate since most of his income comes in the form of tax-advantaged capital gains. Romney almost certainly pays taxes at a lower effective than many middle class workers, and his tax proposals would keep it that way. If Romney doesn’t release his tax forms, it will reinforce the belief that he has something to hide and make a mockery of his commitment to transparency (which has already been mocked by the revelation that, as governor of Massachusetts, he spent tens of thousands in taxpayer money to destroy government records). If he does release his returns, the truth will be there for everyone to see. I see no way for Romney to escape.

Some commentators have suggested that the negative scrutiny Romney is now receiving will allow him to get the issues out of the way before the election season heats up. I don’t buy it. It would be one thing if Romney had good answers to the criticisms; so far, he and has advisors have only made matters worse—for one thing, by lying about how many jobs he supposedly created while at Bain. In addition, the fact that his economic policies would further favor the wealthy and hurt the middle class will become even clearer as time goes on.

This is all to the good. Mitt Romney is a small man in almost every sense of the word. He enjoyed tremendous success as a cutthroat capitalist, but he has no moral compass and no vision, and would be a terrible person to replace President Obama.

Here’s hoping the attacks on him intensify. He deserves it.

Jason Scorse

Over the past decade executive power has (rightly) gotten a lot of negative scrutiny, due mostly to the Bush Administration pushing the boundaries to prosecute the “war on terror”. Although Obama banned the use of torture immediately upon entering office, he too has been accused of using his presidential powers in extra-constitutional ways—much to the chagrin of the Left. (I tend not to agree on this point; although the President has pursued an aggressive campaign against terrorists, including against some American citizens, his actions seem to me both measured and Constitutional.)

But executive authority extends beyond national security interests, and the Obama Administration has adeptly used this power to promote civil rights and Obama’s larger domestic agenda. Given a Republican Congress unwilling to compromise on almost anything, exercising this power has been critical.

Some of the best examples: extending federal benefits to same-sex domestic partners, enacting new fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks, enacting new mercury standards that promise to save thousands of lives and improve infant health, tying foreign aid to respect for gay rights, and using its judicial powers to invalidate Republican efforts to limit voting rights.

And just this week the Administration announced a new immigration policy meant to improve the lives of potentially hundreds of thousands of immigrant families. Before the change, legal immigrants married to illegal immigrants or with children that were illegal faced an immigration process that often involved years of forced separation. Under the changed rules, illegal family members will still have return to their home countries and reapply for U.S. entry—but they’ll get waivers that will greatly reduce their time away. The new rules are also an incentive for more people to come out of the shadows and apply for U.S. citizenship.

This change comes while Republicans adamantly oppose any easing of the rules for illegal immigrants currently in the country. They even filibustered the DREAM Act at the end of 2010, which would’ve done nothing more than allow the children of illegal immigrants who have spent their lives in the U.S. to attend U.S. public universities (and not even be eligible for financial aid).

Also just a few days ago, President Obama used his executive authority to recess-appoint Richard Cordray as the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Republicans were refusing to confirm Cordray, or any nominee, in a blatant attempt to nullify a key part of the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory reform (which passed by a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate). Obama timed Cordray’s appointment to allow him to remain in his post until the end of 2013. While the timing raises legal issues that will likely be challenged in court, Obama deserves credit for pushing the boundaries. Using procedural tactics never meant for that purpose, the GOP was trying to block a Congressionally-passed law from ever going into effect.

It would be much better if we lived at a time when Congress was committed to promoting the public interest and doing its job, but we are not; the House and Senate are filled with extremist Republicans who put politics before country.

But controlling the presidency does matter, and President Obama should be applauded for using his executive authority in several ways to improve the lives of millions of Americans.

Jason Scorse

Every four years we elect a president and every four years we hear that “this is the most consequential election of a generation” (or some variant thereof). Since it’s impossible to know counterfactuals, we can never really know which elections turned out to be most significant. Would Al Gore have bankrupted the country and mired America in a war in Iraq? Would John McCain have rallied the GOP around some form of climate change policy? We’ll never know.

The 2012 election will be different than recent others in a substantive way: a series of major policies are set to go into effect in 2013 and 2014 that will define the nation for decades to come, and President Obama’s positions are diametrically opposed to those of the Republicans.

All the Bush tax cuts are set to expire on December 31, 2012. If Congress takes no action to extend any of the cuts, taxes will increase on everyone (including the middle class) and the deficit be reduced by more than $3 trillion per decade.

Obama wants to continue the cuts for those making less than $250,000 a year but allow marginal rates on the rich to rise, saving approximately $700 billion per decade. The Republicans want all the cuts extended; if a Republican wins in November, this is likely to happen.

So the progressivity of the tax code is at stake in the upcoming election, and that means major fiscal choices. Extending tax cuts for the rich would likely mean cuts in other parts of the Federal budget—cuts to the social services that lower and middle income Americans rely on.

Also set to take effect beginning in 2013 are the cuts in defense and discretionary spending that were set in motion by the failure of the “Super Committee”. The defense cuts total approximately $500 billion over the next decade, and would be the first major reductions in defense spending since the beginning of the “war on terror” in 2001. Obama has pledged to veto any changes to this deal, saying that the defense cuts must occur. It is extremely unlikely that a Republican president would do the same; Romney or Gingrich would almost certainly use the failure of the Super Committee to push for even deeper cuts in social programs.

The fate of healthcare in America could well be decided by the Supreme Court early this summer, in advance of the election. The Court’s decision aside, healthcare faces sharply different futures depending on who wins the White House (and the Congress) in November.

All the GOP presidential hopefuls have pledged to repeal “Obamacare”. If this occurs, benefits that millions are now enjoying could be ended (e.g., older children on their parents’ plans, seniors no longer subject to the “donut hole”, patients with pre-existing conditions who were finally able to secure coverage). The Affordable Care Act also includes dozens of innovative measures aimed at improving the overall quality of care and lowering Medicare’s long-term cost trajectory; these too would be lost.

The nation will also be choosing between hugely different positions on immigration policy and gay rights. Obama signifies inclusion and tolerance, while most Republicans come down hard in favor of fences, marriage amendments, and thinly-veiled bigotry.

And don’t forget: it’s likely that two of the most progressive Supreme Court justices—Ginsburg and Breyer—will retire during the next presidential term. A Republican president would try to turn a 5-4 right-wing majority into a 7-2 majority, pushing back progressive causes for generations. With the Roberts Court clearly favoring business interests over the public good, any upcoming Supreme Court nominations could well turn out to be the most consequential outcome of the 2012 election.

All things considered, I hope that everyone dedicated to reason, justice, and equality will realize what’s at stake in 2012 and rally around President Obama. I have been a harsh critic at times, but given the crises he inherited, the obstacles constantly in his way, and the immense difficulty of actually governing, he has done a very good job and deserves re-election. His vision for the country is the right one, and the alternative is simply horrible.

Happy New Year!

Jason Scorse

A strong case can be made that apart from President Obama’s election and long list of accomplishments (to which the end of the Iraq War can now be added), the biggest political story of the past few years is how the Republican Party has essentially gone mad. I use that language not as hyperbole but as an accurate description; while Republicans call Obama a radical and an extremist, they’re actually doing a better job of describing themselves than the centrist in the White House.

I remember periods when the GOP became unhinged—during Clinton’s impeachment for example—but I’ve never before seen rightwing lunacy infect every aspect of the Republican Party. Once considered “the party of ideas,” current GOP positions now read like a list of what not to do if you want a sound economy, equal opportunity, and believe in equal treatment for men and women, and for all races and creeds.

Even though many Republicans are more reasonable than party leaders—for example, a majority favor tax increases on the wealthy—people who self-identify as Republicans hold increasingly extremist and often reactionary views on everything from immigration to climate change to healthcare. Many even refuse to believe that Obama is a U.S. citizen and a practicing Christian.

The fact is that classic conservatism and the Republican Party are increasingly at odds. The word “conservative” is now lazily used to describe almost anything right-leaning; historically, however, liberalism and conservatism were two sides of the same coin: each promoted a view of limited but effective government that relied on well-functioning markets to determine societal outcomes.

True conservatives are not averse to government. They believe in a set of principles, many of which come from microeconomic analysis, to determine when markets work well and when they do not. This methodology is used to identify the spheres where government can help improve outcomes (e.g., environmental policy) and where it will likely lead to worse outcomes (e.g., the housing market). Ironically, the Obama White House is known for using conservative economic logic to determine its policy responses; Lawrence Summers was famous in the Administration for asking the question “where is the market failure?” whenever anyone suggested government intervention to solve a problem.

People are sometimes surprised to learn that conservatives have also traditionally paid attention to issues of equality and income distribution. Milton Freidman famously suggested a minimum income for all U.S. citizens, an idea which made its way into then-candidate Richard Nixon’s economic platform. Today’s Republican Party would deride as socialism an idea that came from one of conservatism’s greatest heroes.

While conservatives have traditionally underestimated the benefits of many environmental policies, they were early champions of market solutions to many environmental problems. They helped establish a cap and trade system for sulfur dioxide, which has since been used by the EU to reduce greenhouse gases. Using environmental taxes to shift government revenue from labor income to consumption is largely a conservative idea, and it’s been adopted by the same European governments that most Republicans consider socialist.

Time was when people who considered themselves conservative would find the Republican Party more hospitable than the Democratic Party; that time is long past. If Friedman were alive today, he would be aghast at what passes for conservatism in the GOP. He wouldn’t be thrilled by the Democratic Party, but he would have the intellectual honesty to recognize that current Democratic ideas are actually closer to conservatism’s roots. And as Paul Krugman consistently points out, what passes for economic analysis in right-leaning circles these days is little more than ideological extremism masquerading as social science, with no regard to evidence or facts.

It’s time for people to stop referring to anything rightwing as conservative. It’s not only wildly inaccurate but disrespectful to a serious intellectual tradition that still has much to offer for American public policy.

P.S. Coincidentally, on Monday E.J. Dionne made the case that Obama is the conservative in the race by any reasonable use of the term.

Jason Scorse

If we had a serious media establishment in America, it would be full of stories about how the Republican Party has lost touch with reality. Analysts would ponder how a party whose policies are opposed by the overwhelming majority of Americans continues to exercise outsized influence; detailed examinations of the dysfunctional Senate would be standard front-page news; and GOP politicians who have been wrong on virtually every major issue of the past decade would be lambasted and their ideas discredited.

Instead, we have a media in which theater has replaced substance, fact-checking is rare, and reporters spend their time parroting talking points rather than doing analysis. Nevertheless, when the people get a chance to vote on specific rightwing ideas, they fail miserably. It turns out that the ideas might make good sound bites, but even in deep red states they cannot stand up to reason.

Case in point is the recent defeat of the Personhood Amendment in Mississippi, one of the reddest states in America and one of the most opposed to abortion rights. Faced with taking the anti-abortion rationale to its logical extreme—that from the moment of conception a fertilized egg is morally equivalent to a human being—the voters of Mississippi balked. The amendment lost by almost 20 points, a stunning defeat for the anti-choice movement.

The strength of the anti-abortion position has always been its moral absolutism. Pro-choicers are derided as moral relativists whose logic heads down a slippery slope on which human life is devalued. Some anti-abortionists do allow for exceptions when it comes to the health of the mother, and some are willing to do likewise in cases of rape and incest; but purists have never countenanced abortion under any circumstances.

The problem with moral certainty is that it leads to unreasonable and intolerable conclusions, even by the standards of one of America’s most conservative states. If a fertilized egg is a human being, what about fertility clinics which typically destroy hundreds or thousands of fertilized eggs? What about a woman who isn’t aware she’s pregnant, but has a miscarriage? Will exceptions for the mother’s health, rape, and incest no longer be allowed? Perhaps even more damming, millions of fertilized eggs are miscarried every year due to natural causes. Does this make God the world’s biggest abortionist?

As Gary Gutting opined in a recent New York Times piece, the practical implications of saying that human life begins at conception make people realize that there are grey areas, and what seems like a black and white issue really isn’t. Once this is acknowledged, the logic of the extreme rightwing position on abortion disintegrates and a window for morally acceptable abortions is opened.

Another rightwing extremity—the effort to strip public employees of their bargaining rights—was similarly defeated in Ohio, another traditional GOP stronghold. With states paying generous benefit packages to public employees, while private employees are seeing their benefits shrink, the GOP thought that attacking union rights would be a winning strategy.

But again, provocative sound bites don’t necessarily translate into sound policy. Ohio voters realized that workers without collective bargaining rights are at a disadvantage, and that unions have played a critical role in the creation of America’s middle class.

The 2012 presidential race is heating up, and the GOP primary is generating any number of extreme positions on taxes, Medicare, environmental protection, and other issues. The facts will ultimately undermine these positions, just as they undermined the Personhood Amendment and Ohio’s anti-union legislation. The truth is that just about every major Republican idea these days can’t stand up to reason, and would be rejected if it were put to an individual vote.

Whether voters will realize that Obama is not to blame for the economy, and that he presents a sensible alternative to rightwing extremism, is yet to be seen. I think they will. But if they don’t, any Republican president will soon find out that nearly all the positions they ran on are unpopular and ineffective, and pursuing them will only weaken the party in the long-run. Only by returning to more centrist, rational policies can the GOP reclaim its position as a serious political party.

Jason Scorse

To really appreciate how inefficient, ineffective, and ultimately cruel the U.S. healthcare system is, you have to experience its deficiencies firsthand. Unfortunately, someone close to me has been suffering mysterious and debilitating ailments for the past couple of months. The person is in the prime of life, but has been forced to quit working and life has lost much of its normal enjoyment.

I had my first hint of how bad the system is when we went to a gastroenterologist who joked during the visit how hard some ailments are to diagnose, and suggested seeing a psychiatrist since Western medicine had little to offer. This came in response to complaints of severe nausea and stomach pains, and the doctor was the head of this particular clinic.

As I accompanied my friend from doctor to doctor, I noticed the lack of coordination and the requirement for the same paper forms with each visit. The doctors all had their pet theories and ordered redundant tests, including the head of the GI clinic at one of the most prestigious hospitals in the country. They recommended all sorts of expensive tests, including an endoscopy and abdominal and head CAT scans, before anything else. All came back negative.

It wasn’t until visiting a naturopathic doctor that my friend finally starting getting information that seemed more reasonable and hopeful. The doctor ordered detailed allergen tests and blood and stool work to try to get to the root cause of the problem. These showed an intolerance to gluten, dairy, and pecans (of all things), as well as some adrenal issues and imbalances in intestinal flora. The naturopath recommended a regimen of supplements, avoiding all intolerant foods, and meditation to decrease stress. It’s only been two weeks since these changes have been made, but the signs are promising and my friend is starting to feel better. We can only hope that a full recovery is underway.

The lessons from this experience have big implications for healthcare policy (and more importantly, people’s health). For starters, our system is entirely backwards. People are given the most invasive and expensive tests first. And sadly, even doctors from the top medical schools lack any training in diet and nutrition, which are the root cause of so many ailments.

I can’t tell you how many stories I have heard from friends in the “alternative” medical community (including dieticians, naturopaths, acupuncturists, and physical therapists) whose patients had been suffering for years (or even decades) with easily treatable conditions that dozens of Western-trained doctors were unable to identify. The resulting human misery, as well as the costs, are staggering; no wonder Americans spend nearly twice as much per capita on healthcare as other developed nations, and obtain worse outcomes. I can only imagine how many millions of Americans are out there, unaware of the alternatives, continuing to suffer and wasting untold thousands of dollars.

My friend was lucky enough to have excellent health insurance. Ten of millions of Americans have none, and find themselves adrift in a world of even more suffering, anxiety, and financial hardship. It is simply unacceptable, especially for a country as great as the United States.

Fortunately, things are changing for the better. Once it’s fully implemented in 2014 Obama’s healthcare law covers more than 30 millions of those currently uninsured (even though tying health insurance to employment, as the system currently is constructed, makes little sense in the 21st Century workforce). In addition, major headway is being made on creating electronic medical records and expanding the role of technology to both decrease inefficiencies and empower individuals to take control of their own health. And as more and more people seek and find relief with alternative medical techniques (most of which are cheaper, safer, and have myriad co-benefits), mainstream Western medicine will be forced to change. Assisted by the internet and social media, Americans will no longer be forced into a system that focuses on disease management instead of on health and wellness promotion. There are many brilliant, caring, and dedicated students, enrolled in the top schools, who deserve an education (and ultimately a healthcare system) that allows them to devote their talents to far better things than simply prescribing expensive tests and working for a system that ultimately puts profit over people.

Those who claim that the American healthcare system is the best in the world are either blindingly ignorant or shills for the insurance and drug industries and medical providers. Our system is broken, and fixing it is the greatest challenge we face. Failure will lead to deficits that dwarf any we have ever experienced, and the moral consequences are even worse; needless suffering that simply unconscionable.

Jason Scorse

Terrorism is a charged word with no “official” definition. The most straight-forward and simplest is at Dictionary.com: terrorism is the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

Congressional Republicans are at it once again. In the midst of the debt-ceiling debacle they used the threat of defaulting on U.S. bonds in order to enact sharp cuts in domestic programs that don’t fit their ideological agenda. Now that the so-called “Super Committee” has failed to come up with a bipartisan plan to reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years, they’re back to the same old tricks.

President Obama wants to extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits, which are due to expire at the end of 2011. Republicans are already indicating that they will oppose these measures, just as they have opposed everything in Obama’s jobs bill (excluding two relatively minor provisions on hiring veterans, which passed recently).

Let me be clear. If Republican opposition were based on principle, consistently applied over the years, one could conclude that Republicans simply disagree with Democrats on the issues. But (like the individual mandate in the healthcare bill) the policies Obama and the Democrats are proposing right now are things Republicans have recently championed. Unemployment benefits have always enjoyed bipartisan support. Infrastructure spending has never been a partisan issue. And the payroll tax cut is something Republicans have long proposed. So why is the GOP saying no?

The only possible explanation is their willingness to do anything, including sabotaging the economy, in order to decrease Obama’s chances of reelection. There is no other plausible rationale.

The American economy right now continues to be weak, the EU seems on the verge of a meltdown, and growth is slowing in Asia. Every independent analysis indicates that Obama’s proposals would help ordinary Americans make ends meet and provide a modest hedge against the downside risks faced by the U.S. With interest rates near zero, there has literally never been a more opportune time for America to issue more short-term debt.

Some argue that concern over the deficit has led Republicans to change their minds over economic policies they supported only a few years (or months) ago. But simple arithmetic demonstrates that this claim is false. The GOP is calling for an extension of all the Bush tax cuts, and is resisting even modest cuts to the defense budget; these positions alone would add much more to the deficit than Obama’s proposals. Even Paul Ryan’s budget, hailed by many for its “fiscal seriousness,” would add more than $6 trillion to the deficit just in the next decade (yes, you read that right).

And don’t forget, Republicans want to repeal Obamacare even though it shaves hundreds of billions from the deficit in the first decade, and more than a trillion in each subsequent decade. There is simply no credible evidence that Republicans really care about the deficit—except as an excuse to dismantle social safety nets, and to keep redistributing wealth to the already wealthy

In the meantime, tens of millions of Americans continue to be burdened by crushing debt, unemployment and under-employment, and the prospect of more on the way. No doubt some of these individuals made bad decisions, and a case could be made that they deserve their fate; but most are simply victims of the most vicious economic downturn in three-quarters of a century.

None of this seems to matter in the slightest to the Republicans. They intend to bring Obama down and to continue catering to the rich, no matter how much ordinary Americans suffer.

If this isn’t economic terrorism, I don’t know what is.

Jason Scorse

Like many, I recently watched with amazement as dictators were challenged and overthrown in the Middle East. As one who came of age during the reigns of Gaddafi and Mubarak, and remembers the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979, I never thought I would see the day when unarmed civilians would take on such brutal regimes. Their courage is inspiring (I strongly recommend the Frontline documentary “Syria Undercover”).

Here in America, I have often wondered when (if ever) people would get fed up with a status quo in which the rich get richer while the poor and the middle class stagnate, and social and environmental needs are ignored. I have heard stories about the 1960s when mass actions by concerned citizens produced the civil rights movement, the women’s rights movement, and opposition to the Vietnam War. I’m told there was a sense that something big was happening, and the feeling was almost palpable. I never thought I’d see a repeat; people have become jaded, and with 24-7 media the distractions are endless.

I was wrong. It is happening again in 2011 with the Occupy movements.

Despite all the shortcomings of this populist uprising, especially its lack of specific demands and leaders, the movement has become a force to be reckoned with and it’s not going away. I predict it will have a significant impact on American society over the next decade, starting with the 2012 election.

Saturday I watched the live telecast of the General Assembly of Occupy Oakland. While there were some crazy ideas and strange personalities, I was struck by how incredibly sane it seemed overall. The participants have created an extremely democratic and open society. People take turns discussing issues which are then brought to a vote. I know from my job how hard it is for as few as four people to agree on anything; it’s extremely impressive that the Occupy protestors in Oakland have created a forum where hundreds of disparate people, almost all strangers, map out a strategy and take action.

I also watched video of the police at UC-Davis pepper spraying a group of peaceful students, and it was a sight to behold—police brutality plain and simple (which supposedly got even worse off camera). What is most striking is that the crowd didn’t back down, but instead shamed the police into retreating. You can tell that the students recognize they have the moral upper hand, and that their cause is just. This dichotomy between people with truth on their side and police officers lashing out indiscriminately is more evidence that the balance of power in America needs to shift. There are now calls for the president of UC-Davis to resign (I recommend reading this letter and signing the petition).

Elites across America have been getting away with corruption and abuse for decades. We may have reached a tipping point where people are simply not going to take it anymore. When times are good and everyone benefits from a strong economy, it is easy to gloss over the inequalities; when times are bad, ugly truths can come to light. This is the time we are living in now.

And while I understand why the Occupiers resist aligning themselves with any political party, they will eventually have to enter the political realm in order to make any substantive changes. Doing so could force the Democratic Party to weed out its so-called “centrists,” who actually undermine core Democratic values. Whether through primary challenges or other means, anything that forces the party back to its populist roots would be a blessing. A significant number of Democrats are as beholden to financial interests as their GOP counterparts, and helped usher in the era of deregulation that is responsible for much of our current economic malaise.

Republicans don’t know what to do about the Occupy movements, which challenge just about everything they stand for. In the short term the party will likely continue to hold significant power—because of the undemocratic nature of the Senate and the Electoral College, because of redistricting by GOP-controlled state legislatures, and because so many rightwing extremists allow religious zealotry to trump their economic self-interest. But the party’s long term prospects are worsening by the day, and the Occupy movements are sure to hasten their ultimate defeat.

The Occupiers have put us on the road to a paradigm shift in America, one that will ultimately produce changes as significant as those from the 1960s.

P.S. The powers-that-be are getting scared and trying to undermine the movement as this memo shows. Also, for great updates on the UC-Davis incident check out this piece by James Fallows at the Atlantic (and check out the video at the bottom).

Jason Scorse

By any objective standard, Obama’s legislative and foreign policy accomplishments put him in a select group of consequential presidents. He is clearly one of the most thoughtful, intelligent, and rational leaders the U.S. has ever had, and his Administration has been essentially scandal-free. But no president has ever won reelection with unemployment hovering near 9%, which is almost certain to be the reality on Election Day 2012.

Sadly, Americans choose presidents based more on the economy and the candidates’ “likability” than on their policy positions. Contrary to Republican propaganda, the economy is actually much better, and will likely continue to be, than when Obama took office. At that time we were hemorrhaging 750,000 jobs a month, and the economy was contracting at an annualized rate of almost 9%. This, however, will do little to mitigate Americans’ feelings that Obama has failed on the economy; “it could’ve been a lot worse” is not a persuasive campaign slogan although Obama should be applauded for helping us avoid another Great Depression.

So by any reasonable metric one has to assume that Obama is likely to lose reelection next year. This is what statistical guru Nate Silver—putting the odds at slightly greater than 50%—predicted in his recent piece in the New York Times Magazine

Here’s why I think the analysis is wrong.

To begin, let me state that if the GOP nominated a conservative with solid credentials, someone smart and a moderate on social issues, Obama would likely lose. But that’s like imagining Republicans suddenly believing in strengthening the middle class and social safety nets, and that’s not who Republicans are.

The modern GOP is little more than a freak show comprised of intellectually challenged and morally bankrupt politicians and future reality TV stars. Jon Huntsman, who currently polls at less than 1%, is the only candidate both sane and not craven.

Mitt Romney, the likely nominee, is sane, and during his better days as Governor of Massachusetts he was actually a moderate Republican in the old mold. But that Mitt is long gone, and his positions today are little different from just about anyone on the far right. No doubt he will change his views and lie to the American people during the general election, but YouTube and Google will make this tactic not nearly as effective as it would have been in the pre-digital era.

More importantly, two elections last Tuesday portend badly for Mr. Romney. In Ohio, the anti-union measure signed into law by the newly-elected Republican governor was repealed by a nearly 2-1 margin. Shortly before Election Day, Romney had declared his “110%” support for the measure. That comment in 2011 could be decisive in 2012; given Ohio’s importance as a key swing state, this amounts to a huge boost for Obama.

Far away in Mississippi a much different ballot measure went down to defeat—the Personhood Amendment, which would’ve declared that a fertilized egg is a human being. This legislation would have criminalized certain forms of birth control, would have forced rape and incest victims to carry to term, and would have outlawed most fertility clinics. Even in Mississippi, one of the most far-right places in America, the measure was defeated by a double-digit margin. Romney was again on the losing side of the issue, supporting the measure and agreeing that personhood begins at conception. This position is well out of the mainstream; with two Supreme Court positions likely on the line in the next election, Romney in effect gave voters one more reason to be wary.

One final point: Romney is on record opposing Obama’s bailout of the auto industry. The problem is that the effort was extremely successful, saving upwards of a million jobs and leading to the rejuvenation of the industry. Romney, whose father was governor of Michigan, was supposed to have an advantage in the Upper Midwest states—but his opposition to the auto deal probably threw that advantage away.

It’s a long way to November 2012. Events in Europe are particularly troubling, and could pull the U.S. back into recession and diminish Obama’s prospects.

But barring any economic calamities, scandals, or foreign policy crises that reflect poorly on the President, I think he will beat any of the current crop of GOP nominees. The GOP field is that bad. We should all be thankful since Obama, despite his faults and stumbles, deserves another term.

P.S. I still think Obama could’ve lost in 2008 if John McCain had chosen a credible female vice-presidential running mate, rather than a person as divisive and idiotic as Sarah Palin. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas or Olympia Snowe of Maine would’ve greatly improved his chances.

Jason Scorse

Redistribution is a dirty word in politics, thanks mostly to 30+ years of Republican propaganda, but it has always been a facet of modern democracies. Even with a perfectly flat tax system, those with more money would contribute more to government coffers and thus provide more public goods to society.

In addition, a profound trend in the workplace will increase the need for income redistribution at exactly the time when strong political forces most oppose it. Blue collar manufacturing jobs have been shrinking due to automation for decades, despite continued U.S. growth in manufacturing output. These same forces are now threatening white collar jobs that were once thought immune to technological advances. Professionals like computer programmers, lawyers and doctors all face potential replacement by machines, decreasing the demand for these lucrative occupations.

Where, then, will our new jobs come from?

Developed industrial societies have gone through periods of innovation when whole professions have been swept away by machines. Even so, the pace of today’s innovation is so fast, and the effects so profound, that job creation may no longer be able to keep pace with increases in the labor force. The financial collapse coupled with the treasonous behavior of the GOP has already given us three years of historically high unemployment, with no end in sight.

The jobs that seem most impervious to innovation and automation—at least for the foreseeable future—tend to be service industry jobs. There’s nothing wrong with these jobs, but by and large they’re low- and middle-income jobs with little upward mobility. With continual increases in the costs of education and healthcare, it’s almost impossible to raise a family on the incomes these jobs provide.

This is why income redistribution is going to become increasingly necessary to prevent ever more Americans from falling into poverty. Redistribution doesn’t have to come in the form of direct handouts, but we are going to need larger subsidies for healthcare, education, preschool, and increased tax breaks that allow those at the bottom to increase their discretionary income. This money has to come from somewhere, and there’s no better place than the top 1%–who, over the past 30 years, have gained almost all of the increases in national wealth.

Increasing taxes at the very top will hardly decrease incentives to work, since taking a few extra percentage points out of the 10th, 100th, or 500th million dollar is unlikely to affect behavior. The people who make these exorbitant sums are motivated by many things other than money, and relatively meaningless changes in their after tax income is not a primary driver.

To those who argue that any diminished incentives on the entrepreneurial class will make all of our lives poorer (after all, who would want to dissuade a Steve Jobs from pursuing the Next Big Thing?), the truth is that few of the top 1% are entrepreneurs. They’re CEOs, financial service executives and the like, and they contribute few if any direct benefits to society. More than anything, they’ve gamed the system to pay themselves outsized sums (helped along hugely by a tax code that favors capital gains, dividends and stock options over wages).

America’s fiscal and employment problems can’t be solved simply by taxing the rich, but it surely would help. It’s simply immoral to cut college tuition grants, funding for Food Stamps and healthcare for children, while those at the top continue to reap unimaginable sums. As Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren so eloquently put it, no one in America gets rich on their own; it’s the institutions and structures we all pay for that provide them the opportunity to amass great wealth. Asking the wealthy to chip in a little more, after decades of having almost all of the nation’s income gains for themselves, is eminently fair. It’s not socialism, nor is it class warfare. It is simply updating the social contract to reflect the realities of the 21st century.

As usual, the Republican Party and a handful of Democrats beholden to Wall Street are on the wrong side of the issue. The Republicans not only want to shield the ultra-wealthy from additional taxes; the plans put forth by all of the presidential contenders would actually cut taxes for the rich and raise them on the poor and middle class.

Fortunately, a wide majority of the American people realizes that increasing taxes on the ultra-wealthy is both necessary and just. They might not like to call it income redistribution, but that’s what it is.

Given the employment projections of the next decade, it’s going to become increasingly urgent.

Jason Scorse

A key feature of the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protest is that its members aren’t aligned with either political party. In fact, some of the protesters seem to have as much animosity towards the Democrats as the Republicans.

Why they dislike Republicans is self-evident: the GOP stands for the 1% at the expense of the 99%, not only on economic matters but on everything related to public health, safety, and the environment—to say nothing about their oppressive stances towards gays and women.

Some of the ire directed at Democrats is also warranted. It was Bill Clinton who repealed Glass-Steagall, ushering in the era of deregulation that wrecked the global economy and allowed Wall Streeters to reap huge profits at the expense of the general public. President Obama populated his Administration with former Clinton staffers known for their Wall Street ties, and many of his policies followed suit, causing some to feel that his position towards the big banks has not been sufficiently tough. In addition, his focus on deficit reduction instead of job growth (especially when it became clear that the recovery was faltering) is viewed by many as a betrayal of the middle class. While Obama has faced political constraints these past three years, there’s definitely some truth to these criticisms.

All the same, there are strong reasons why the OWS protesters are wrong to stay above the political fray. Their counterpart on the right, the Tea Party, has become a powerful destructive force. House Speaker John Boehner is unable to control them, and they essentially hold veto power over the entire House GOP caucus. It’s important for the OWS movement—an actual grassroots movement—to make the Democratic Party more progressive.

The reasons are simple math. The first are the numbers 7 and 2. In the next presidential term, two liberal Supreme Court Justices—Ginsburg and Breyer—will almost surely be retiring. A Republican president would tilt the Court rightward by 7-2, guaranteeing rulings in favor or corporate interests for another generation. Everything OWS stands for would essentially be made impossible for the rest of their lives. This isn’t hyperbole, it’s reality. If the OWS protesters think the Citizens United decision was bad, they need to imagine what a 7-2 Roberts Court would do.

The other math relates to the tax code. The next president will set the economic agenda by either allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire or by extending them. You can bet that a Republican president will not only continue the Bush tax cuts, but cut taxes for the rich (and for corporations) even more. This will increase income inequality while it explodes the deficit—allowing the GOP to claim how imperative it is to slash Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and all other social welfare programs.

What I’ve outlined is at least plausible, perhaps even probable. If a Republican becomes president, the goals of the OWS protesters will never be achieved.

OWS may not love the Democrats, but facts are facts. The protesters have a better chance of making the Democratic Party more progressive than of achieving success with a third party. There is already a solid progressive caucus within the Democratic Party, and building on this would give it new energy. The OWS protesters should seek out progressive candidates, and help the Democrat Party as it attempts to retake the House.

The Tea Party will ultimately harm the GOP because its positions are way out of line with the majority of Americans. By contrast, what OWS stands for is popular across all demographics, including independents and Republicans.

The OWS movement has the potential to become a powerful progressive force, but only if it translates its intensity and passion into political power. The Democratic Party provides that opportunity, however flawed and imperfect the party is.

Now more than ever, OWS protesters need to remind themselves not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Jason Scorse

In 2008, in response to the candidacy of Barack Obama, America experienced the resurgence of the extreme right. John McCain picked the anti-intellectual culture warrior Sarah Palin as his running mate. The crazies came out of the woodwork and called Obama a foreigner, a secret Muslim, and a terrorist sympathizer. But even then, McCain’s actual policy platform included some reasonable and centrist policies: he supported a modest cap and trade bill for greenhouse gases, the expansion of health savings accounts, and immigration and campaign finance reform.

But look what three short years can do. The current crop of Republican presidential candidates is fighting to see who can be the craziest. The two leading contenders, Mitt Romney and Rick Perry, both want to repeal the healthcare law, cut taxes for the rich and increase them on the poor and middle class, deny climate change, and stoke the culture wars with new anti-choice and anti-gay measures. The only semi-sane candidate, Jon Huntsman, is polling at close to zero—and even his economic policies would greatly exacerbate income inequality.

The other candidates are engaged in little more than vanity campaigns that they hope will lead to Fox News contracts, reality TV shows, and/or book deals.

Even more depressing than the candidates are the audiences at the Republican debates. So far they’ve cheered loudly for Perry’s record number of executions in Texas, for letting people who don’t have health insurance die, and for the notion that poor people have only themselves to blame. They’ve also booed a soldier in Iraq who happened to be gay. In a display of breath-taking cowardice, not one of the candidates has chastised the audiences. So much for compassionate conservatism.

Whatever the critics say about President Obama, he’s a brilliant man who has used reason, facts, and science to shape his policies, both domestic and foreign. He is not an ideologue and is willing to compromise to get things done. As I have argued before, in many ways he is the pragmatic, centrist candidate that the mainstream media continually pines for—but can’t acknowledge is already in the White House.

Whoever the GOP eventually nominates, the candidate will be on the other end of the spectrum: an anti-reason ideologue. There is no sugarcoating the fact that the Republican Party has gone off the rails, and represents the worst that America has to offer. The choice in 2012 will ultimately boil down to reason vs. fantasy, empiricism vs. quackery, science vs. religion, and progressivity vs. regressivity.

Unfortunately, with unemployment hovering around 9% and many people ignorant of the fact that Republicans have purposefully tried to sabotage the economy, the election will likely be extremely close and Obama could well lose. If he does, the forces of irrationality and corporate greed—which have taken over the Republican Party—will be rewarded for their outrageous behavior with control of the White House.

This already happened in the 2010 midterms, with the GOP taking control of the House on a wave of rightwing extremism. I shudder to think what will happen if the same thing happens in the race for the presidency, or the battle to control the Senate.

The stakes could hardly be higher.

Jason Scorse

Yesterday, I went to the Occupy Wall Street protest as it converged on Times Square in the late afternoon. All in all, the protesters were joyous, motivated, and respectful of the police and passersby. As expected, the messages conveyed by such a diverse group ranged from pithy and legitimate critiques of Wall Street to anti-capitalist mantras that were ill-informed and non-constructive.

On my way home I got into a conversation with a group of young radicals who were calling for an end to the Federal Reserve. I tried to explain that the Fed serves important functions, and that if anything we should be demanding more aggressive action to reduce unemployment. They complained about the weak dollar and the threat of inflation, and I tried to explain that both could help remedy unemployment by boosting exports, reducing imports, and helping the economy grow faster.

At this point the dialogue ended. The young men said I didn’t know what I was talking about. When I told them I had a Ph.D. in economics, they got even more irate. They were particularly incensed when I defended Obama and the Dodd-Frank bill. When I asked them to tell me what they didn’t like about Dodd-Frank, they mentioned the government’s support of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I tried to explain that they were confused, and clearly didn’t understand what’s in the bill.

And herein lies one of the reasons that substantive change in America is so hard: the policies challenges we face are incredibly complex. In fact, in the two areas where we most need reform—health care and the financial system—the policy details are so complex that even people with advanced degrees have difficulty understanding them. In a culture where most people can’t even name their own Congressman, there’s little chance of understanding topics like derivatives or healthcare exchanges. Frankly, I myself don’t fully understand them.

The gulf between what average voters know about government policy and what the experts engaged in carrying out the policy must take into account has never been greater. It’s difficult to imagine that ordinary voters will ever be sufficiently informed to make clear judgments about policy specifics. We may know that we want tighter regulations on banks, or universal healthcare, or strong environmental controls, but the complexity of achieving these outcomes will elude all but the most devoted policy wonks.

This leads to the next conclusion: voters must trust the politicians they elect to do the right thing. Yes, this creates the potential for corruption, abuse, and the influence of special interests in the political process. More than ever, the most important characteristics for our political leaders are integrity, honesty, and a commitment to science, rationality, and the public good. Without these traits, the entire policy process degenerates into a free-for-all for corporate interests and crony capitalism.

This is exactly what happened during the Bush Presidency. The public interest was subverted by corporate interests in virtually every piece of legislation, from the prescription drug bill to energy policy to the fight to privatize Social Security (which ultimately failed).

Corporate interests were hardly banished in the Obama Administration. They were placated in the healthcare bill by the lack of a public option, by the decision to waive competitive bidding for drugs, and by the individual mandate. More recently, the Administration decided to delay new Clean Air rules. But the public interest did prevail at some key points, notably with the Volcker rule in the Dodd-Frank bill, strong patient protections in the Affordable Care Act, and the removal of bank subsidies for student loans.

The media can and should be the bridge between the complexities of the policy process and the public. Unfortunately, the traditional media in America fails to perform this crucial function, and in fact makes matters worse by routinely peddling false equivalencies (this one is particularly egregious).

The void left by the media puts Americans in an especially precarious position as the challenges become ever more complex, and beyond the capacity of average voters to comprehend. In such a situation, voters would be well-advised to put more stock in the integrity and intellect of those they elect. At the end of the day, these qualities are the most likely to determine whether they act in good faith for the public interest.

Jason Scorse

When the “Tea Party” began a little over three years ago, I and many others pointed out that it was the same old rightwing extremists who had been peddling nonsense for decades. Their rebranding was due in large part to the financial support of billionaires and a Murdoch news network devoted to spreading lies and propaganda. Even people who should’ve known better were tricked into believing that the Tea Party represented a genuine grassroots populist movement.

The ever-compliant and intellectually lazy traditional media was all too ready to echo the party’s talking points and elevate them into something new and sexy. Never mind that from day one the supposedly non-partisan Tea Party was 100% aligned with the Republican Party and has remained so ever since; never mind that its demands for deregulation and smaller government are the same as those of every rightwinger now running for president; never mind that in 2010 the Tea Party supported lunatic standard bearers the likes of Christine O’Donnell and Sharron Angle, and supported candidates in Colorado and Alaska who likely cost the Republican Party control of the Senate. Disrupting town hall meetings and bringing guns to rallies makes for sensationalist news stories and sells air time, which is ultimately what the corporate media cares most about. Most disappointing, even usually responsible outlets such as NPR have taken the bait and failed to accurately portray the Tea Party.

I just arrived in New York City and intend to take a trip downtown to see for myself the Occupy Wall Street protest, which has now spread to several major U.S. cities. Unlike the Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street is a true grassroots movement, unsupported by outside money, with no fawning cable network ready to do its bidding. In fact, the fecklessness of the traditional media has been in full display in their coverage of the protesters so far, ranging from condescension to outright hostility; so much for the media’s “liberal bias.” It’s started to change in the last few days as the numbers of protesters grows and the focal point of their discontent coalesces around the theme of income inequality, which is undeniably increasing and cries out for some kind of political response.

While most Democratic leaders have so far (rightly) stopped short of fully endorsing the protesters, they have expressed sympathy with their grievances and applauded their energy. The response from the Right has been predictably hypocritical. One Party’s Tea Party is another Party’s “mob” bent on dividing Americans and engaging in class warfare. That Republicans can lob the class warfare charge at people protesting at the steps of those who nearly collapsed the world economy, and were bailed out with trillions in taxpayer dollars, shows how frightened they really are. And they should be: stripped of all its rhetoric and patriotic pageantry, the GOP is little more than a private club representing the interests of millionaires and billionaires (and it’s becoming increasingly difficult to hide).

For decades middle class wages have stagnated while the price of necessities like healthcare and education has skyrocketed. At the same time, the top 1% of Americans has grown wealthier than ever. The Occupy Wall Street protesters may hold disparate beliefs, including a fair share of leftwing nonsense, but what ultimately binds them is the belief that income inequality in America has gone too far. And they are right.

The protesters aren’t aligned with the Democratic Party, but it’s likely they’ll be voting that way in 2012. The one thing standing in the way of reduced income inequality is the Republican Party; their existence is predicated on crony capitalism that funnels money to the top, cuts services for the bottom, and increases corporate power.

With unemployment at 9.1 percent and discontent widespread, Republicans should be able to topple Obama in 2012. But with the President finally taking a stand for strong, progressive policies, the last thing the Republicans want is a fired-up Democrat base heading into the election year. Occupy Wall Street may end up producing just that.

Jason Scorse

I (and many others) have fiercely criticized President Obama’s economic policies and rhetoric over the past three years. During the debt-ceiling debacle, I was particularly incensed by the president’s offer to raise the Medicare eligibility age and decrease Social Security benefits in exchange for tax increases that are already scheduled to occur in 2013. Raising the Medicare eligibility age is horrible economics—private insurance costs much more than Medicare—and terrible politics too, since Democrats would lose their long-held advantage as Medicare defenders. And Social Security is completely solvent through 2036 and would be indefinitely if we simply raised the regressive cap on taxable Social Security income.

It has therefore been refreshing to see the President finally put forth a progressive economic vision, both with the American Jobs Act and with his promise to veto any deficit reduction bill that cuts Medicare benefits without also including significant tax increases on the wealthy. He has also taken Social Security off the table. The President’s policies are economically sound and overwhelmingly popular, and his rhetoric has improved substantially as well. He has been calling out Republicans by name for their insistence on no new taxes on the wealthy, and putting significant pressure on them to pass the new jobs bill. (His rhetoric is by no means perfect: he continues to say that governments are like households and should tighten their belt in a downturn, which is bad economics.)

Even more encouraging is that Obama is taking his message directly to the people. It is a shame that this populist and confrontational Obama has been dormant for so long; we can only wonder what the political landscape might look like if he had done this long ago.

One of the fairest criticisms of the President and his team is that they did so little to capitalize on the momentum they had built up during the 2008 election. Immediately after his victory, there were tens of millions of people who were incredibly inspired, many of whom had never voted or participated in a national election, and they were eager to remain involved. The failure to keep these people engaged represents a huge missed opportunity.

Some commentators have posited that Obama simply hates partisanship and confrontation and refused to believe that it was impossible to achieve compromise with the Republicans. After framing his entire campaign and image around “post-partisanship” and the need to come together as Americans, it’s understandable that Obama felt compelled to genuinely try to work with the GOP. But I will never understand why the president and his team pursued their strategy of capitulation and concession for as long as they did.

Whatever the reasons, I now must give credit where credit is due. Obama seems firmly committed to fight for the middle class and progressive policies. His emphasis on fairness is crucial; many economic policy battles are ultimately battles over values, and the Democrats need to frame them as such. Polls consistently show that the overwhelming majority of Americans, including Republicans, share Democratic values on the individual issues.

I’ve always been amazed that the GOP—on the wrong side of virtually every issue—has been able to maintain so much political power. Part of the explanation, surely, is that Democrats have largely ceded the language of morality and values to the Republicans. With that in mind, it’s especially heartening to hear Obama making his case with words like fairness. He and the Democrats stand a much greater chance of winning in 2012 if they take the offensive and use strong moral language to contrast their positions with those of the GOP.

On that note, the announcement by Elizabeth Warren of her candidacy for the Senate seat in Massachusetts has been a shot in the arm for progressives. Her recent defense of the social contract has gone viral; it is populist, articulate, and easy to understand. In a follow-up discussion on “Morning Joe,” Warren turned the tables on her questioners and showed an ability to speak in simple, effective language on a range of issues. This is the type of politician Republicans most fear, and I’m confident she will defeat Scott Brown next year (you can help her candidacy here). Who knows? Her Senate career could be a prelude to an eventual run for the Presidency, and she’s the type of unapologetic progressive who will fight tooth and nail for the middle class.

Thankfully, Obama has now taken that direction too.

Jason Scorse

Watching an interview with former President Jimmy Carter the other day reminded me of all the caring work he’s done since losing his bid for reelection in 1980. Carter has spent the past three decades working on housing issues for the poor, most notably as ambassador for Habitat for Humanity; in addition, perhaps more importantly, his Carter Center has been promoting free and fair elections and human rights throughout the world.

I then thought about former President Clinton and Vice President Gore, both of whom have worked tirelessly since leaving office on major global health initiatives and raising awareness about climate change. President Clinton, through the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Health Access Initiative, has raised billions of dollars and likely saved millions of lives.

My thoughts then turned to modern-day Republican presidents and vice presidents. The contrast is stark.

Let’s give Ronald Reagan a pass. According to his son, he may have been suffering from Alzheimer’s as early as his second term, and kept a low profile for the remainder of his public life.

It’s been almost 20 years since George Bush I left office, and he’s done very little in the way of humanitarian or charitable work. He does manage, though, to host his own annual fishing tournament in Florida.

George Bush II and Dick Cheney have been ordinary civilians for three years now, and there’s no sign that either one is inclined to devote any significant time to helping others. Bush II shows up at sporting events every so often, and has appeared as a paid motivational speaker in large arenas, but has shown little interest in working on the issues of freedom and democracy that he committed so much blood and treasure to while commander-in-chief. Dick Cheney seems far more interested in continuing to make the case for “enhanced interrogation techniques” (a.k.a. torture) than in doing anything helpful for humanity. (See this Frontline documentary for the facts about the damage that the sanctioning of torture has done to U.S. interests and our moral legitimacy).

Of course this is a small sample, but to me it highlights one of today’s big differences between Democrats and Republicans. The biggest cheers at Republican primary debates come from the mention of record executions in Texas and letting sick people without insurance die; at the same time, Cheney makes the rounds on TV shows to hustle his book and reaffirm his support for torture.

When he was elected, Bush II claimed to be a compassionate conservative. Whatever amount of compassion he meant to bring to the Republican Party, it is now completely gone. All we’re left with is cruelty, selfishness and mean-spiritedness (in addition, of course, to a complete disregard for science and facts).

Former Democratic presidents and vice presidents spend their time saving lives, promoting human rights and free elections, and trying to rise to the challenge of climate change; former Republican high officials lounge in their mansions and gated communities and periodically promote their bankrupt ideologies.

It’s a perfect reflection of the difference between the two parties.

Jason Scorse

Disappointment and disillusion with President Obama are at an all-time high, not just among the general population but among his liberal base as well. His recent decision to prevent the EPA from issuing new Clean Air regulations was seen as another indication of his capitulation to business and his unwillingness to take a stand for the public interest. Many Democrats now view him as overly conciliatory, weak and ineffectual. Regular VoR readers know that I’ve often been critical of his economic policies and rhetoric, along with his lack of leadership on the environment.

But it’s important not to get carried away with criticizing the President. There’s something about the office, and the unrealistic expectations that come with it, which invariably lead to disappointment.

Ronald Reagan, who holds almost god-like status in the GOP, wouldn’t even make it through a Republican primary today. He raised taxes multiple times, sold weapons to our sworn enemies the Iranians, retreated from a terrorist threat in Lebanon, and granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who enjoys almost equal veneration by the Left, signed off on a number of policies that are anathema to today’s progressives. The internment of the Japanese during WW II is probably the blackest mark on his record. He also signed legislation that deprived many blacks of Social Security, and many of the New Deal’s work programs discriminated against women.

Bill Clinton? His Administration created “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the Defense of Marriage Act. He did almost nothing for the environment during his eight-year tenure, and his signature welfare reform has been a mixed success. When I ask Clinton fans to name one lasting accomplishment, they often come up empty (I think the expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit is his greatest domestic achievement).

George Bush II went against the GOP base by working with uber-liberal Ted Kennedy to pass “No Child Left Behind”—and with Medicare Part D, he signed into law the biggest expansion of an entitlement program in over a generation. He also sharply increased federal funding for global AIDS initiatives, and he tried to pass an immigration reform that would have granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.

The obvious take-away is that presidents never fully satisfy their base. The country is so diverse, and the demands of the office pull in so many different directions, that all presidents find themselves forced to make decisions that upset some of their core constituencies.

The question is how to judge President Obama in this context. It is too early to make lasting judgments; he has a year left in his current term, and could enjoy another four years after that. But I think it is fair to make a preliminary assessment based on his 2008 campaign, and on the constraints he’s faced as President.

By these criteria, I still give Obama high marks. He’s followed through on a number of his signature campaign promises—healthcare reform, financial regulatory reform, student loan reform, repealing DADT, ending the Iraq War and focusing on Afghanistan, and passing a massive (albeit too small) stimulus bill. He has also accomplished many things under the radar—rebuilding the Justice Department after its decimation by the Bush Administration, rebuilding FEMA and making it effective again, increasing transparency in government, and greatly improving automobile fuel efficiency standards.

He took over after the worst recession in 70 years, and he’s faced a unified and ruthless Republican opposition determined to deny him at every turn. Has Obama done everything he promised? No. Has he made huge mistakes? Yes. Would someone else have done better? This is impossible to know for sure, but my guess is probably not.

None of this is to suggest that there aren’t legitimate reasons to be angry with Obama, or that we should stop criticizing him. But progressives should put their frustrations in context. Compared to Rick Perry or Mitt Romney or Michelle Bachmann (or any other declared or undeclared Republican candidate), President Obama is so clearly superior that his supporters need to cut him some slack. It’s the right thing to do.

Jason Scorse

There was a time when Republicans generally shared the same social goals as Democrats on key issues like environmental regulation and healthcare, but differed on how to achieve them. This gave rise to legitimate grounds for debate on the best ways for society to reach its objectives. But those days are long gone. Today’s GOP no longer even pretends to care about the public interest, and it denies even basic science in its drive to promote corporate interests over the public good (see, e.g., this critique of the GOP’s stance towards the EPA).

But there is something even more troubling about the modern Republican worldview. It now rests almost entirely on two fundamentally flawed beliefs about American society.

The first is that America is a meritocracy that rewards those who work the hardest. The reality is that social mobility in the U.S. is near its all-time lows, and is the lowest among all the world’s most developed nations. For Americans, the socioeconomic status of the household they’re born into is the best single predictor of their future prosperity—and nothing is more random, and not based on one’s own efforts, than the family into which a person is born. Even some progressives have a hard time accepting the profound influence of sheer luck in determining one’s ultimate lot in life. Besides being born into a rich or poor household, we are all to a great extent a product of our genes: some of us get genes that make us strong, healthy, smart, and attractive, while others do not.

I’m not claiming that heredity is destiny, only that it is more consequential than people acknowledge or admit—especially on the Right. I could’ve spent every waking hour in my youth trying to be a professional baseball player and I would’ve never gotten to the minor leagues; not for lack of effort, but for lack of raw genetic talent. The same for being a brain surgeon. Fortunately, I was born into a middle class family in Manhattan and my intelligence was sufficient to help me earn an advanced degree.

But do I deserve all that I’ve received? Yes and no. I’ve worked hard, and I believe I’ve made some contributions to my field. But at the end of day, I know that my success is as much a product of luck as hard work: luck with my parents and upbringing, capped off with the luck of being born into a society with the institutions and wealth that allowed me to spend so many years studying (all of them, as it happened, in public schools and universities).

Bill Gates often jokes that if he had been born 10 years earlier he would’ve been a lab technician. In fact, of course, he was born at exactly the time when he could merge his unique talent with the rapid innovation taking place around him (much of it originally funded by government R&D). Gates knows that his immense wealth is as dependent on lucky timing as it is on any genius.

Or think about the hedge fund managers who make billions buying and selling complex financial products. How is it that there is so much wealth to be had in this endeavor? The global financial system created after WW II by the Western powers (beginning with the Bretton Woods agreements) is largely responsible; without it, there probably wouldn’t be any hedge fund managers.

But in the Republican worldview, individual worth is totally independent from the forces that in fact hand out these opportunities. In addition, while America has clearly made great progress with regard to racial and gender discrimination (and other types as well), there is little doubt that these too continue to shape individual destinies in profound ways.

The truth is that meritocracy is largely an illusion. It is perpetuated by those with wealth and power to justify their privileged positions and help rationalize their exalted status. Of course individual determination and effort matter, but they are generally not the most consequential forces.

The GOP’s second illusion stems from the first. Republicans increasingly believe that those who receive net benefits from society are nothing more than “takers,” mooching off society’s productive members. This too is contradicted by the facts.

Most people who receive Social Security benefits have paid into the system for their entire working lives. It shouldn’t be called an “entitlement” at all; it should be called an earned benefit, which is really what it is. And the tax itself is extremely regressive, limited to the first $106,800 of income. A high percentage of Americans, in fact, pay more in Social Security taxes every year than they do in income taxes. People on Medicare have also been paying into the system all their lives, and on their entire income (albeit at a much lower rate). Other social welfare programs (e.g., Food Stamps, Head Start, and the Earned Income Credit), are used primarily by working families with low incomes. In addition, people who don’t make enough to pay income taxes pay regressive sales taxes and excise taxes every day.

The only program that might be considered a handout is unemployment benefits, but these go mainly to people who have been laid off, not to those who choose not to work. In the aftermath of the financial collapse, there are still roughly 17 million Americans who are either under-employed or unemployed through no fault of their own.

In summary, to the modern GOP, the rich deserve all their wealth; the poor likewise deserve their poverty, and should therefore not be assisted by the state. This extreme form of social Darwinism is premised on two grand illusions: that we live in a true meritocracy, and that most social programs funnel money to those who are not contributing to society.

No wonder Republicans are focused on dismantling the social contract, cutting taxes for the rich, and blocking assistance to those in need; it is the natural byproduct of a twisted worldview with little basis in reality.

Jason Scorse

Obama is set to make a major address on jobs in September. Besides being three years too late, there is little chance that his ideas can pass the Republican-controlled House. Worse, Obama is tying his jobs agenda to deficit reduction—saying that we need one in order to do the other. This plays right into the GOP’s talking points, and it’s bad economics.

Despite the S&P downgrade of U.S. debt, America can currently borrow money at the lowest interest rates in more than half a century. This means that the government could finance new stimulus measures without doing a single thing to cut the deficit, and pay close to zero percent on the borrowed money. Deficit reduction is in no way a prerequisite for more stimulus.

Those arguing against stimulus claim that the government is incapable of making any investment that promises a positive return. This is ridiculous, and the President should be stating the obvious: borrowing money at near-zero percent and using it to repair roads and bridges, expand internet access, invest in green energy R&D, medical R&D, or increased early childhood education makes economic sense because all of these investments have high rates of return.

Americans can understand that if you spend $1 million to fix a bridge, and this saves you from spending $5 million if the bridge failed, this is a good investment. And doing it when you can borrow that $1 million at the lowest rates in decades makes it a great investment. It’s like homeowners fixing their ailing roof, saving them from much greater future damages, at a time when they can borrow the money almost for free.

With 25 million people out of work or underemployed, we should be using the current low rates to make the investments that will put people to work and have positive rates of return. This is how we “win the future”—which was Obama’s slogan last year, but has now faded as he increasingly adopts a spurious, right wing framing of the issues. An important teachable moment has been missed, and the President has no one to blame but himself.

Long-run deficit reduction is a worthy aim, but for now Obama is peddling bogus economic reasoning. The major reasons for our growing national debt are the explosion in healthcare costs and the continuing erosion of revenues stemming from the Bush tax cuts and the recession.

Obama should be focusing on our dysfunctional healthcare system, highlighting the good that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is already doing and pushing for additional reform. Instead, he’s talking up cuts in entitlements that will do little to reduce the deficit and will further harm those who are already hurting. He’s also calling for discretionary spending cuts that will mean less environmental protection, medical R&D, and other important government functions.

The Administration also appears ready to take the wrong course on housing. I wrote in an earlier VoR piece that Republicans have a better policy than Democrats on housing, especially the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. While the GOP is wrong to blame the financial meltdown on Fannie and Freddie, they’re correct that the government should privatize the home loan industry and get out of it completely.

The economic case for government intervention in the housing market is weak to non-existent. In fact it’s a policy that distorts incentives, makes it harder for people to be mobile, and largely benefits the wealthy (since they get the biggest tax breaks). It also costs the Treasury hundreds of billions a year—and U.S. taxpayers have already lost over $150 billion bailing out Fannie and Freddie, with the number almost certain to grow larger.

Unfortunately, all indications are that Obama is pushing for a continued dominant government role in the housing market. His policy would leave the same incentives in place, continue to cost the Treasury dearly, and once again put taxpayers on the line should we have another housing bubble. There were early signs of a willingness to unwind the government’s role in Fannie and Freddie. It now appears that pressure from housing groups (including many liberal lobbying arms), as well as from Republicans not as committed to their principles as they claim, have convinced the Administration to change course. Reducing government subsidies for housing now seems to be off the table, when it should be near the top of the list.

Since the GOP has gone (at least temporarily) insane, rational voters will have no choice but to support Obama in 2012. It’s extremely troubling, however, to see his economic message go from bad to worse. The President either doesn’t have a firm grasp of economics, or because of political expediency and/or cowardice refuses to propose the serious economic reforms that will help the economy. It’s hard to know which explanation is worse.

Jason Scorse

The economic remedy now being touted is comparable to a situation in which doctors demand that leeches be used to cure illness, claiming that when people are sick the best thing to do is to bleed them to get rid of their toxins. Government austerity—when the private sector is sitting on $2.5 trillion in cash, unemployment is over 9 percent, and economic growth is dwindling—will definitely bleed the economy, and could kill off a recovery that’s never been more than tepid.

But this is the “solution” we’re now facing, both because the Republican Party has put defeating Obama ahead of the suffering of the American people, and because Obama and the Democrats have let the rightwing fanatics frame the debate. It is a tragedy largely of our own making, and one that could have been avoided.

Across the Atlantic, the situation is no better and possibly even worse. Great Britain and many European nations have not only embarked on severe austerity programs; in addition, the European Central Bank (the equivalent of our Federal Reserve) has decided to raise interest rates, electing to fight phantom inflation rather than promote growth. The likely result, of course, is to further choke off Europe’s economic recovery. Sometimes it seems as if the wealthy nations of the world are competing to see which can be more irresponsible and oblivious to basic economic truths.

Fortunately, many emerging economies (while not immune to the downturns in the wealthier countries) continue to grow strongly, and to lift millions out of poverty. Brazil, profiled in Saturday’s New York Times, is a case in point: after almost a decade of economic policies that have driven down inflation and attracted increasing foreign investment, plus significant government investments in social programs, the country has become a model for Latin America. And in Asia, even though China has run into higher-than-expected inflation, it too continues to enjoy rapid growth, and its investments in infrastructure continue to pay large dividends.

What will happen in America over the next couple of years is anybody’s guess. If we somehow manage to avoid a double-dip recession, luck will have more to do with it than sound policy. Despite the terrible economy, Obama still has a decent chance of being re-elected given the quality (or lack of it) of the possible GOP nominees. The fact that Michelle Bachmann has any chance at all of winning the nomination shows how crazy the Republican Party has become; she is truly a lunatic who has no business anywhere near the presidency. The new entry, Rick Perry, is the governor of one of America’s largest states; even so, he’s probably too conservative, fiscally and socially, to have any real chance of reaching the White House—no matter how bad the economy.

I never liked Obama’s emphasis on hope, which we rely on when things seem out of our control. I have always preferred human agency, and a strong conviction that we can be the masters of our own destiny.

But I do hope that one day I will be able to write a piece entitled “The Age of Reason,” when we actually get around to tackling the tough challenges we face—instead of pretending the problems will go away, or intentionally making them worse.

Jason Scorse

In 2000 and 2004, America voted for George Bush for president, a man clearly lacking in the intellectual fortitude necessary to lead the most powerful country in the world. This was a man, after all, whose rise was predicated almost exclusively on his family name, and who had failed at every business venture he had ever attempted. As president, he and the GOP managed to create a lost decade: America embarked on a disastrous war of choice, a federal surplus turned into a galloping deficit, a major American city was partially destroyed while the government watched, apparently helpless, and industry lobbyists essentially wrote any major legislation that managed to pass. It was a decade of crony capitalism, which, along with the horrifically managed Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, left America poorer and weaker in almost every way.

With the election of Barack Obama, I had high hopes that America had learned from its mistakes and would regain solid footing. Never again, I believed, would the country act so irrationally.

But I was wrong.

Less than three years after Obama was sworn in, along with a large Democratic majority in the House and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, the country has been taken hostage by rightwing extremists who make Bush and Cheney look like moderates. The Tea Party fringe of the Republican Party exhibits all of the traits of a cult that is impervious to reason, and willing to impose untold suffering on others in order to get its way.

Some in the traditional media are finally recognizing the lunacy of the modern GOP and calling the extremists what they are: economic terrorists. But tremendous damage has already been done. The debt-ceiling deal will likely make the economic situation worse. Even though the immediate budget cuts are small, the country in fact is in desperate need of additional fiscal stimulus. By emboldening the lunatic fringe of the GOP and showing them that hostage taking works, it’s next to certain that Tea Partiers will hold the economy hostage every chance they get.

They’ll get the chance very soon. Budget fights in the coming months will include the renewal of unemployment benefits at the end of 2011, which Obama was unable to get into the debt ceiling deal. And while Obama asserts that it’s now time to pivot to a jobs agenda, the chances of passing anything meaningful with the Tea Party controlling the GOP is close to zero. Even if he managed to get a few small programs passed, their impacts would be minimal and too late to have any appreciable impact on the economy (and the election) in 2012.

As expected, the rating agency S&P downgraded U.S. debt holdings for the first time in history because of Congress’s inability to pass meaningful fiscal reform. Why anyone cares what S&P or any of the ratings agencies say is beyond me; these are the same groups that rated subprime derivatives Triple A, not coincidentally because of the fees they received from the banks issuing the derivatives. The heads of these agencies should be in jail, not taken seriously in policy circles.

But we live in an age of insanity: up is down, and black is white.

We are definitely not in the world we hoped would follow Obama’s election—not in the post-racial or post-partisan world. In fact we’ve regressed: throughout the decades we’ve always had policy difference and chasms between the left and the right, but now we’ve entered an era where facts don’t seem to matter and discredited ideas take on lives of their own.

To my and many others’ disappointment, President Obama seems not to be the right person to help America out of the deep hole we’ve managed to dig for ourselves. What we need is a fighter, not a conciliator. We need someone who can forcefully stand up to the agents of intolerance and irrationality—not compromise with them, not embolden them.

America is a great country, but I wonder whether we can withstand another lost decade and still hold our place as the most powerful country in the world. Not only would America’s prolonged economic stagnation lead to diminished economic prospects and immense personal hardships; historically, long periods of economic decline have been accompanied by sharp rises in extremism and violence. We’re already seeing some of this as severe austerity programs go into effect in Great Britain, Greece, and other parts of Europe. They could well be the forerunners of similar tumult in America.

We are in dark times, times that are almost all of our own making.

Jason Scorse

Every time I have thought President Obama was on the verge of making an unwise decision, I have assumed that since he is privy to a lot of information I don’t have that I should trust his judgment. But now, on the verge of an epic defeat that may very well harm his reelection prospects, I realize that he is as fallible as all human beings and quite capable of making foolish decisions.

Before I outline why his handling of the debt-ceiling debate has been a complete debacle, let me be clear that I do not share the general view that Obama has betrayed progressives and liberals. Obama always campaigned as someone on the center-left, and much more on the center than on the left.

Recall that his healthcare proposal was the most conservative of the three major Democratic candidates; it didn’t even include an individual mandate. Many liberals oppose his escalation of the Afghanistan War, but he promised to do exactly that multiple times during the campaign. And never once did Obama come out in support of gay marriage despite the obvious parallels with the Civil Rights movement that he so often referenced.

Up until now Obama’s governance style and legislative accomplishments have been remarkably consistent with his campaign promises (those on the right who characterize him as some sort of Marxist are simply delusional).

After the 2010 midterms Obama found himself in extremely challenging political territory. Most current members of the Republican Party have in effect become economic terrorists, willing to sink the U.S. economy in order to promote their extremist agenda (in a rational world their behavior would be characterized as treasonous). And the general level of ignorance promulgated by the media regarding economic fundamentals is at an all time high. In this atmosphere reason is in short supply.

This is where Presidential leadership comes in. The GDP numbers released last Friday were abysmal and indicate that we are on the verge of a double-dip recession. And the reason the situation is so dire is as simple as basic arithmetic: GDP=C+I+G+NX. Consumption has plummeted due to huge losses in wealth and income from the recession, and people are saving a lot more of the income they do have; investment is down because businesses do not see increased demand on the horizon (and they are sitting on record amounts of cash); net exports are doing okay but because the rest of the world is in such bad shape the value of the dollar has not fallen sharply enough to make our goods much more competitive. That leaves government spending as basically the only thing standing in the way of falling GDP.

The revised numbers from 2008-09 show that the recession was even worse than previously thought, with the economy contracting by almost 9% at the nadir. The 2009 stimulus package helped to bring the GDP back from this trough to positive territory, but as it winds down the economy is once again sputtering. This is not rocket science, and yet it is almost unanimously believed that the stimulus failed. This is akin to complaining that water doesn’t put out fires if you use a bucket to put out a burning building.

With joblessness still near record highs for the past 50 years, we are now on the eve of enacting a draconian austerity package as part of what was once a routine debt-ceiling vote. This unprecedented capitulation to the most extremist elements of the rightwing will not only further embolden them, but further weaken the economy and prolong our economic misery. Not only was Obama unable to wrangle any tax increases out of the deal, he didn’t even manage an extra dime of stimulus for anything, not infrastructure, green energy, jobs training, a new payroll tax cut, nothing.

What is even more shocking is that the President at one point offered to make cuts to both Social Security and Medicare as part of a $4 trillion dollar reduction package. He wanted to reduce the rate of increase in Social Security payments and raise the retirement age for Medicare to 67. These are both horribly regressive policies that would save little money, and weaken the Democratic position as defenders of the social safety nets. Social Security isn’t even contributing to the deficit, and as Obama knows it is rising medical costs that must be tackled, not reductions in Medicare eligibility (if anything, Medicare’s lowered overhead costs argue for lowering the age of eligibility).

So what was Obama thinking?

No one knows for sure and we will likely have to wait for years after the end of his presidency (which may well be in 2012) to get the full story. From everything I have read, it appears that Obama vastly underestimated the intransigence of the Republican Party, and in his desire to be the “compromiser in chief” was willing to embrace bad ideas as in order to win over so-called independent voters.

Like many Obama supporters I oscillate between profound disappointment, frustration, and anger. I feel that the President has sacrificed key Democratic principles for nothing. I never expected him to be a fierce partisan or a far-left progressive, but in my mind he has crossed a line.

One last note for those who are thinking of not supporting Obama in 2012; let me remind you that the next President will almost certainly have the opportunity to replace two additional liberal Supreme Court Justices, the fate of the Bush tax cuts hangs in the balance at the end of 2012, and the main provisions of the new healthcare law come into effect in 2014. Come 2016 I’ll be the first to support a true progressive candidate, but no matter how much Obama has let us down, we should support his reelection for the good of the country. That’s what true patriots do; they put country first.

Jason Scorse

After House Speaker Boehner abruptly walked out of the debt ceiling negotiations Friday afternoon, President Obama held an impromptu press conference in which he expressed his deep frustration with the Republican leadership (I highly recommend watching it in its entirety). The President called out individual Republicans by name and posed the question, “is there anything they’ll say yes to?” At the very end he became agitated and said it was inexcusable for the GOP to put special interests and petty politics ahead of the interests of millions of struggling Americans.

As someone who has watched in horror as Republican demands have gotten more outrageous by the day, I was heartened to hear the President place the blame squarely where it belongs. Obama has bent over backwards to reach a compromise with the GOP, in the process conceding way too much in spending cuts, and yet still there is no deal. Americans need to know who is at fault and why; Obama made the case in simple terms that even the traditional media will have a hard time misrepresenting.

But while it was satisfying to see Obama finally take the Republicans to task, I had to wonder whether this display of presidential leadership was simply too little too late. For the past two and a half years, the GOP has done everything in its power to threaten the economic recovery, roll back Democratic accomplishments, and block social progress. They used their victory in the midterms to bring Washington to a halt; at the state levels, they’re enacting the most regressive economic and social policies in a generation.

The economy very likely will limp into 2012, with unemployment extremely high and most Americans feeling worse off than they did in 2008. If the GOP allows a U.S. default the situation will be much worse, with another major recession in the works. These conditions are clearly unfavorable for Obama. It’s difficult to know how a different debt ceiling strategy might have played out, but it is hard to imagine the situation being much worse for the President and the Democratic Party than it was heading into the weekend.

Like many other Obama supporters, my primary critique of the President is that he has not fought hard enough for core Democratic principles. Perhaps more importantly, he has failed to consistently and clearly articulate his agenda and call out the Republicans for blocking it. I appreciate the president’s show of leadership with the U.S. on the brink of economic calamity; at the same time, it should never have come to this.

The President seems incapable of appreciating how hell-bent the Republicans are on defeating him, no matter how much suffering they inflict on average Americans. Hopefully, both the President and the electorate will recognize how dangerous and radical the Republican Party has become before irreparable damage is done.

Jason Scorse

I am not a huge fan of the Atlantic's Megan McArdle, but her article on the plight of the long-term unemployed is quite compelling. She was unemployed for a long period years ago and recounts the terrible toll it took on her life and her economic prospects. She was one of the lucky few who eventually found a rewarding career. But many of the long-term unemployed in America are not likely to be so fortunate, especially those in their 40s and 50s. Research suggests that the long-term unemployed suffer increased illness, along with significantly lower standards of living for the remainder of their lives.

This is a tragedy.

The millions of Americans who have been out of work for six months or more during the recent recession and its aftermath are out of work due to no fault of their own. The collapse of the financial system sent the global economy into a tailspin; at the peak of the recession the economy was shedding 3/4 of a million jobs a month. Today's jobless are capable of working and want to work, but because of depressed demand businesses don't want to hire them. And with the government shedding hundreds of thousands of jobs the situation in the public sector is even worse.

President Obama and the Democrats have provided the jobless with unemployment benefits for the past 2+ years, but they are about to run out (the Republicans have fought against providing the jobless with any benefits and routinely cast them as lazy and undeserving). With the economy barely producing any jobs at all their prospects continue to look bleak, and they will likely continue to suffer the toll of prolonged joblessness.

With the Congress and traditional media obsessed with long-term deficits, it appears that new assistance for the unemployed or new stimulus measures are a near impossibility. The Democrats, and particularly President Obama, share a tremendous amount of blame for the absurd situation we find ourselves in, because they have failed to draw attention to the plight of the millions of Americans who still can't find work.

Since the first day of Obama's presidency the Republican Party has not acted in good faith for the betterment of the American people; the GOP cares only about moneyed interests and catering to its extremist theocratic base. A strong leader doesn't simply accept the limits imposed on him by those who want to destroy him, and whose electoral victory is premised on the failure of the economy.

With the historic Democratic majorities Obama enjoyed for the first two years of his presidency he was able to pass excellent legislation that is and will continue to benefit ordinary Americans. For this he must be applauded and given credit. But his failure to fight for additional measures to boost the economy and help the jobless is by far his biggest failure. He should be using the bully pulpit that only the President has to express moral indignation at the Republicans for blocking additional stimulus measures. He should propose direct jobs programs for the unemployed that put them back to work right now building roads, bridges, and trails for our national parks.

There are those who argue that this is bad politics because the Republicans will likely block these programs and the President will then look weak and ineffectual. I disagree. A strong leader doesn't accept the status quo, but changes it through the force of their rhetoric, persistence, and moral suasion. I find it hard to imagine that if week after week Obama called on Republicans to finally honor their pledge to focus on jobs, that nothing would come of it. And even if this were true, what could be a better political message to carry into 2012 then Obama making the case for a greater focus on jobs and the Republicans rebuffing him at every turn?

Jason Scorse

George Bush’s presidency ended two and a half years ago, but his legacy continues to profoundly harm American society. I’m not referring to the Iraq War, to the destruction of New Orleans, or to the fiscal policies that created record federal deficits and triggered a global financial crisis. I’m referring to his two Supreme Court appointments: John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

The Supreme Court term that just ended marks one of the most extreme expansions of corporate power at the expense of ordinary Americans that the country has ever witnessed. Dalhia Lithwick’s recent article in Slate on the topic is a harrowing must-read. Not only did the Court throw out class action suits against some of the world’s biggest corporations; it also pointed the way for corporations to keep stiffing workers and evading responsibility. At a time when American wages are stagnating, union rights are being stripped, and globalization is putting ever more jobs at risk, the Court’s gifts to big business couldn’t come at a worse time for the lower and middle classes.

All of the key decisions were decided by 5-4 majorities that included the votes of Justices Roberts and Alito. And these decisions came on the heels of the Citizens United ruling, decided by the same 5-4 majority, which overturned decades of precedent to give corporations virtually unlimited ability to donate to candidates. The result has been a huge increase in corporate election spending, free of accountability and brimming with lies and propaganda.

In a recent interview, former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, no liberal, expressed disagreement not only with the Citizens United decision; she also confessed to a general unease with the direction the new Court is taking—including on abortion rights, where she was regarded as a moderate. O’Connor was replaced by Alito, and his single vote has had a tremendous impact on the Court’s direction.

Alito, you’ll remember, wasn’t the first person Bush nominated for the O’Connor seat. He first chose Harriet Miers, the White House legal counsel. But Miers was a relative unknown, and the far right wasn’t interested in taking any chances; it mounted a full-court press to discredit Miers, and eventually forced her withdrawal. Bush replaced her with the known right-leaning Alito, whom he knew would satisfy the GOP base. It is now clear that the far right’s work to get Miers replaced by Alito has paid off handsomely.

Alito, only in his 50s, should serve well into the middle of the 21st century. He’ll be a reliable vote in helping to strip workers of their rights, to keep chipping away at Roe v. Wade and perhaps overturn it, and to continue the expansion of corporate and executive power.

Fortunately, Obama has made two great additions to the Court with Justices Kagan and Sotomayor. Chances are, however, that any near-term additional opportunities would only replace liberal justices (Ginsburg and Breyer), which won’t change the liberal/conservative composition of the Court. If for some reason Justices Ginsburg and Breyer don’t retire before the 2012 election, and Obama loses, a new Republican President could have a golden opportunity to turn a 5-4 right wing majority into a overwhelming 7-2 majority.

I shudder to think of the consequences for social programs, women’s rights, and the environment if this comes to pass. There is no more powerful evidence than Supreme Court appointments that elections have far-reaching consequences, stretching well beyond the terms of specific political offices. Nominating Alito to replace O’Connor will likely prove one of George W. Bush’s longest and most pernicious legacies.

Jason Scorse

Negotiations over raising the U.S. debt ceiling have become grotesque, with the Republicans holding the country hostage to their agenda of coddling the rich, ignoring the middle class, and gutting the social safety nets that protect the poor and vulnerable. With the GOP eager to damage the economy and bolster their 2012 prospects, they seem to be in a no-lose situation. The lazy and incompetent traditional media are playing along as always, doing little to point out just how dangerous Republican tactics are or to remind Americans that the deficits are almost completely a product of Republican decisions made during the Bush years.

But it’s really Obama’s fault that the GOP is able to use the negotiations in this manner. He could’ve demanded a debt ceiling increase when he agreed last year to extend the Bush tax cuts, or he could have insisted on a clean debt-ceiling vote with no strings attached. Instead, once again, he’s been parroting nonsensical right wing talking points: the government has to balance its books just like ordinary households, and businesses (sitting on record amounts of cash) can’t have any confidence unless and until the government acts on long-term deficit reduction. In reality, what businesses really need is more demand. Cutting spending now is almost certain to worsen the economy, and may even lead to a double-dip recession; in addition, entitlement changes that take effect years from now won’t make businesses start spending today.

It’s times like these when I have to ask myself what Obama can possibly be thinking. Maybe his message resonates with so-called “independent” voters, who are mostly disaffected Republicans that appreciate rightwing rhetoric. Maybe he believes that the debt talks will help him cut down on military spending and agricultural subsidies, which have proven untouchable in the past. With both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars now scheduled to end, the Treasury is set to save over $1 trillion over the next decade (so maybe the cuts to discretionary spending won’t have to be that deep).

Maybe he’s a better negotiator than it seems, but I’m nervous. The GOP’s insistence on no new tax revenues, coupled with savage cuts to social programs, may make even Obama unwilling to compromise. It’s also important to remember that debt ceiling votes come up continually; if Obama doesn’t stand strong now, Republican demands and intransigence will only get worse in the future (as hard as that is to fathom).

As Maureen Dowd recently wrote in her New York Times column, Obama seems hard-wired against staking out strong positions and drawing lines in the sand. He seems predisposed to always be conciliatory and split the difference. Now well into his third year, Obama has acted decisively on only two fronts: the healthcare overhaul, and a more aggressive terrorist assassination program that has taken out not only Osama bin Laden but a majority of the Al Qaeda leadership. In both cases he exercised strong leadership, took large risks, and used up huge amounts of political capital.

In the current debt ceiling negotiations, he needs once again to exercise boldness and stand up for progressive values. He needs to remind Americans that it was the GOP that got us into this mess, and that now is the absolute worst time to take money out of the economy and weaken ordinary Americans’ safety nets. He needs to stop worrying about false class warfare accusations, and point out to the country that it is Republicans who are actually practicing class warfare at every opportunity—from statehouses to the Congress. (Prime example: after talking incessantly about jobs in the run-up to the 2010 elections, the GOP has done absolutely nothing along those lines; instead, almost openly, they seem to be hoping for a limp economy come 2012).

The August 2nd debt ceiling deadline represents a crucial test of Obama’s leadership. If he stands strong, he will strike a populist note, make an impassioned case for progressive priorities, and highlight the GOP’s hypocrisy and allegiance to the affluent. But if he gives in, he will severely tarnish the Democratic claim to stand for the middle class—and allow the GOP to further divide and weaken our country for the benefit of the rich.

Jason Scorse

Arguably, the three biggest challenges in America right now are high unemployment, the lack of sensible energy policy, and rising healthcare costs. All of these issues are complex; solving them requires a well-informed public that can make reasonable decisions that benefit the public good. Informing the public is the role of the traditional media, but they are failing miserably, with dire effects.

To illustrate, here are some quotes from the New York Times and Meet the Press over the last few weeks:

“Republicans have set the terms of debate by pressing for large cuts in federal spending, which they say will encourage private investment. Democrats have found themselves battling to minimize and postpone such cuts, which they fear will cause new job losses”--The New York Times, June 2, 2011

"The companies estimate that the boom [from new oil drilling] will create more than two million new jobs, directly or indirectly, and bring tens of billions of dollars to the states where the fields are located, which include traditional oil sites like Texas and Oklahoma, industrial stalwarts like Ohio and Michigan and even farm states like Kansas."--The New York Times, May 28, 2011

“This play has been run time after time. If you go back and look at the quotes from President Clinton back when he needed to win re-election, they sound a lot like the quotes from Democrats today about don’t let those Republicans take away your Medicare. The difference is that the debt is bigger, the deficit is bigger, the gap is bigger, and the situation is more dire. But I think that, sadly, the lesson of New York 26 is “mediscare” works.”--Ruth Marcus on Meet the Press, May 29, 2011

In the first quote, The Times presents as equivalent two views on the effects of cuts in federal spending, one put forth by the Democrats and the other by Republicans. But the fact is that one position is entirely wrong, and anyone with a shred of common sense or a knowledge of basic economics should recognize this. Cutting federal spending leads to job losses. There is no dispute about whether this is true. In addition, corporations currently have record amounts of cash on hand; the notion that somehow they will decide to invest if the government slashes spending and decreases employment makes absolutely no sense. In fact they are waiting for increased demand before they invest their capital.

The second Times quote simply repeats a claim made by the oil and gas industry without any analysis whatsoever as to whether the claim has merit. In fact, the notion that increased offshore drilling could lead to two million jobs is absurd and no independent analysis predicts job gains even approaching this number. If the oil and gas industry promised everyone their own unicorn if more drilling were allowed, would The Times simply repeat their words?

Ruth Marcus’s complaint about Democratic attacks on Ryan’s Medicare plan is perhaps the most depressing of the three quotes. The Ryan plan would exchange guaranteed benefits for a voucher that will not keep up with healthcare costs, and will lead to pronounced medical insecurity and higher costs for seniors. This is simply a fact. That Ryan and the Republicans still call their plan Medicare, and claim that destroying the program is actually saving it, doesn’t make it so. Any reasonable analysis must conclude that the Ryan plan ends Medicare as we know it.

We cannot solve our problems and retain our global leadership unless the citizenry understands the realities we face. A compelling case can be made that people who routinely watch cable news and read our most prestigious newspapers actually become less informed from the coverage.

This is especially frustrating because better reporting is not extremely difficult. Fact-checking the statements made by politicians and interest groups, and grilling them on the false claims they make, is what real journalism is all about. Unfortunately, our traditional media has become increasingly lazy, incompetent, and irresponsible, and American society is suffering tremendously as a result.

There are still some examples of good reporting in the traditional media, but overall the best reporting is now done on blogs and new online media. No wonder viewership for major newspapers and TV news is down.

By far the biggest beneficiaries of the death of the traditional media have been the Republicans and their corporate backers, who have come to realize that they can wantonly lie and spread disinformation without being held accountable. With no incentive to tell the truth, they simply make stuff up as they go along; no matter how outlandish, the media simply act as stenographers and report it. This puts progressives at a huge disadvantage: not only do they need to make an affirmative case for their causes, they have to fight back against the tremendous amounts of disinformation that clogs the airwaves and newspapers.

It is a monumental task only made worse by the media’s obsession with the sensationalist and superficial over the substantive. Case in point: when Nancy Pelosi decided to talk about jobs and the economy instead of the controversy over Anthony Weiner’s sexual indiscretions, the major networks simply pulled the plug and switched programming.

This is no way for a free society to operate. We face serious challenges that will require major policy decisions; trillions of dollars are at stake, to say nothing of the health and well-being of all citizens and our ecosystems as well.

What can we do? We can contact traditional media outlets and complain about their poor reporting. We can create our own blogs. We can direct our friends, families, and coworkers to trusted and reliable news sources. One way or another, we can all play a part in creating a media culture where facts are respected and falsehoods are consistently denounced.

Jason Scorse

Anybody who wondered how far Tim Pawlenty was willing to go to ingratiate himself with the crazies on the Republican right has gotten the answer: plenty far, and then some.

It all became clear last week when the former Minnesota governor, a so-called moderate and one of about a dozen GOP presidential wannabes, unveiled what The New York Times called his “chimerical” economic plan. Chimerical? Maybe so, but comical would be more accurate.

Following three decades during which just about every dollar of economic gain has gone to the top, Pawlenty went over the top and proposed sending trillions more to the same people. Among his make-the-wealthy-wealthier proposals: no taxes on capital gains, no taxes on dividends, no taxes on estates.

It’s been GOP orthodoxy for years to lower capital gains taxes, and the current rate of 15 percent on long-term gains is the lowest since FDR’s first term. Combined with the same current rate on dividends, it’s the No. 1 reason why income inequality in the United States has risen to levels not seen since the robber barons.

Not good enough for Pawlenty; let’s raise it even higher!

Besides showcasing his ability to pander, Pawlenty’s economic plan also showcases his total lack of interest in cutting the deficit (a lack of interest he shares, of course, with every Republican who simultaneously touts tax cuts and spending cuts as the solution to all fiscal problems. As The Times points out, the numbers can never add up “because of the giant deficits the vanishing tax money would create…”)

Never mind. Pawlenty has his eyes on the prize, in this case the Republican primaries. Here’s how his strategy looked over at Talking Points Memo: “…Pawlenty is clearly placing himself staunchly on the right, with a program that would drastically change the shape of the federal government as Americans have known it. In an environment where the GOP has run into trouble over Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) proposals to privatize Medicare, will these ideas fly with the general public beyond the GOP primary base?”

For the moment, they don’t have to. For the moment, all Pawlenty has to do is keep on pandering to the base.

Given what he did last week, that's the master plan for the man The Times called “at least until this speech…one of the more reasonable of the suitors for the Republican presidential nomination.”

Gerald Scorse

Regardless of whether Obama gets reelected in 2012 he will go down as an extremely consequential president. While he fell short on many fronts, his achievements are enormous and will be felt for generations to come. And he likely will be reelected, giving him another opportunity to pass legislation in areas where he has so far failed––namely energy policy and immigration reform–as well as an opportunity to nominate at least two more Supreme Court justices.

At critical moments Obama has stood strong against Republican attacks on the middle class, social safety nets, and civil rights, and provided a compelling vision for an America that is compassionate and committed to the common good. But these moments have been interspersed with the baffling use of right wing framing to describe our economic problems, and an over-eagerness to appear non-partisan even in the face of the routine, far right positions of the modern GOP.

It’s true that a firebrand liberal could never have been elected the first black president of the United States, and Obama seems to be hard-wired with a more centrist and moderate temperament. This has clearly served him well, and will likely help his reelection prospects among the so-called swing voters.

But the Democratic Party, and the country, will eventually need more committed progressive champions who can frame the issues in bold moral language, and who are willing to take much stronger positions against the right wing. A cool and cerebral President may be well-suited to a world reeling from a global financial crisis and a country still mired in two wars. Coolness, however, is not what the country needs to take on a Republican Party hell bent on reversing the social and economic gains of the 20th century.

There are times when compromise and negotiation are what’s best for the nation, and then there are others when it’s time to draw lines in the sand and stake out positions from which you will not yield. That time is approaching. The Republicans want to end Medicare, eviscerate Social Security, strip women of their reproductive rights and subject them to degrading and intrusive treatment; they want to keep12 million illegal immigrants in the shadows, even denying their children entrance into our colleges; they want to slash health, safety, and financial regulations, strip unions of their collective bargaining rights, and usher in a kind of voter intimidation not seen since the days of Jim Crow. None of this is hyperbole: almost every Republican in the Congress has already voted for many of these policies, and they’re being enacted at the state level by many Republican-controlled legislatures.

Make no mistake: an ideological war is underway for the soul of America, and a lot is at stake. I will work hard for Obama’s reelection, and hope that he uses his second term to make a stronger commitment for progressive values.

But in 2016 and beyond, I am searching for a true progressive champion whose message is not one of compromise or post-partisanship, but of principles. For those who think someone like that can’t win, I say look at the polling data on the issues raised above; by large margins, the American people support progressive policies. They just need someone to point this out forcefully and consistently, and go on the offensive against the Republicans without fear.

P.S. Kevin Drum has an article today on how the Democrats have abandoned the middle class. I think Drum exaggerates since Obama and the Dems have passed many policies that have benefited the middle class, but his call for leaders that are true economic populists is aligned with what I am advocating.

Jason Scorse

The past decade has been extremely depressing for the U.S. environmental community. Rather than lead the world on climate and energy policy, the U.S. has fallen further behind our developed-world allies, and now even falls behind rising powers such as China and Brazil.

The question arises: Why has America not been able to muster the political will to usher in a clean energy future and join forces with the other rich (and not so rich) nations of the world to combat climate change?

The answer is, of course, complex. Institutional barriers in the American political system favor rural states over urban ones and demand super-majorities that are almost impossible to muster; powerful industrial interests continue to disproportionately sway politicians while funding vast networks of misinformation; and one of our two major parties has embraced a virulently anti-science position that is unprecedented in modern history.

But there is something even more fundamental that the environmental community has failed to grasp. It’s not that Germans, Canadians, Norwegians, and French have a greater love for the environment, or that these countries lack parochial and special interests and powerful corporations. Above all else, what differentiates Americans from these other wealthy nations is our much greater degree of economic insecurity.

The reality is that a bold new energy and climate change policy would inevitably result in dislocations in certain industries and upset long-established ways of life in many regions; in addition, it would lead to higher prices for basic commodities such as gas, home heating oil, and food.

In societies where there are strong social safety nets―universal healthcare, universal preschool, strong support for new parents, significant investments in public transportation, and sustained support for higher education ―the changes wrought by a paradigm shift in energy will tend not to result in hugely destabilizing effects across whole towns and communities. In fact, with good planning and investments in critical infrastructure, strong environmental policies can result in overall improvements in the quality of life for nearly everyone.

Throughout much of the developed world, citizens are willing to pay prices for gasoline that would lead to riots in American streets, because they know that the government revenue raised by high gas taxes is used for programs that directly benefit them. In other words, ten-dollar a gallon gas isn’t such a big deal when everyone has great healthcare, great public transportation, and free high-quality schooling.

Many environmentalists criticized President Obama for using virtually all of his political capital to pass healthcare legislation before a comprehensive energy bill. Though many of the benefits of that healthcare bill won’t go into effect until years from now, and support for the legislation still suffers from the copious amounts of misinformation peddled by the bill’s detractors, the goal of universal healthcare will ultimately serve the environmental community. The question is whether it will be too late to matter.

The bottom line is that people are much more willing to support environmental policies that come with large risks and disruptions to their way of life when other policies are in place to shield them from excessive risk and instability. Progressive environmental policies must rest on a foundation of broader investments in social safety nets. One of the primary reasons that the U.S. has fallen behind the world on environmental policy is because we have fallen behind on virtually all measures of economic security; the two are intimately linked.

Jason Scorse

Tax-deferred retirement accounts were created under a law passed by Congress in 1974. They strike a bargain between taxpayers and the Treasury: money in the accounts grows tax-free, but taxable withdrawals must be taken yearly after age 70 1/2.

Both sides win. Roughly half of all Americans have gotten a jump on financial security, and now hold trillions in retirement savings. On its part, the Treasury gets an annual influx and is nearing demographic gold: the first baby boomers reach required distribution age in 2016, and a mother lode of retirement taxes should start streaming in.

Congress, though, has proven more than willing to help the affluent slip away from the tax payback. Two examples are the late-December renewal of a 2006 Bush tax break, and a one-year suspension of minimum required distributions.

The starkest instance—and the most costly for the Treasury—stemmed from the financial meltdown. With portfolios plummeting, Congress rushed to freeze mandatory withdrawals for 2009. Only the haves stood to gain. Anyone who actually needed the distribution had to take it and pay taxes; the haves took a pass and saved thousands.

The stock market recovered and the suspension was allowed to lapse. Nobody should expect an encore, but the precedent has been set.

As the clock ticked down on 2010, the lame-duck Congress passed an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent of Americans. Along with it, fitting right in, came a one-year renewal of the IRA charitable deduction.

It allows holders of Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) to give up to $100,000 of their required annual distribution to charities. No federal or state taxes are paid. In addition, because the money doesn’t count toward income on tax returns, high-income filers could avert hikes in Medicare premiums. According to one estate attorney, the bill is “good for about 10 different [tax-avoidance] reasons.”

What we have here is a siphoning away of public revenue to private charity. Money may go to good causes, but the transfer violates the payback half of the retirement bargain. In effect, the money is being stolen from the U.S. Treasury (and from every state that has an income tax).

Donors have their hearts in the right place and the law behind them. Charities are thrilled. The thieves are in Congress, always ready to jigger the tax code on behalf of the well-off.

Withdrawal formulas also stiff the Treasury by keeping a tight lid on required withdrawals. The formula that applies to most people calls for a starting minimum required distribution of under 3.7 percent. The rate rises annually, but ever so slowly; 25 years later, at age 95, the required distribution is only 11.6 percent. The formulas don’t overtly discriminate, but they heavily favor those in no need and no hurry. So-called stretch IRAs, an estate planning tool, can string out distributions—get ready now—into the next century.

Brokerage houses distort the tax payback in their own way. They’re making billions on retirement accounts, but they continually bash required distributions. A Fidelity advisory, for example, told clients that at 70 1/2 they’re “required to start raiding” the accounts.

Raiding? Not exactly. Minimum distributions mean it’s time to start paying back Uncle Sam for decades of tax deferral. Even after federal and state taxes, affluent Americans over 70 1/2 are likely looking at annual payouts in the healthy five figures. Whatever the number, it got there with a long tax-free ride.

How about a little gratitude. And instead of robbing Uncle Sam, let’s have distribution rules from Congress that are more sensible and equitable.

Gerald Scorse

For the past three decades the Republican Party’s domestic goals can largely be summarized as follows: cut taxes on the rich, deregulate the economy, weaken the New Deal social contract, and impose an intolerant and regressive form of Christianity on all of society. The problem for the GOP has always been that these policies are deeply unpopular with the vast majority of Americans, making it necessary for the party to mask its true intentions. By and large, it’s been expert at doing this.

Republicans for decades have camouflaged their policies under the rhetoric of freedom, liberty, and small government. In addition, they’ve manipulated a strong strain of victimization that runs through American society, especially the victimization of whites: immigrants arrive to take their jobs, their hard-earned money goes to black welfare queens, affirmative action robs them of their chance at college, gays come to seduce their children.

At times, Republican presidents and Congressional leaders have passed centrist legislation and presented a more moderate face of the GOP. George Bush I passed a cap and trade program for sulfur dioxide to combat acid rain, and raised taxes. George Bush II ran on a platform of compassionate conservatism and passed the largest expansion of entitlement programs in a generation with the Part D Medicare prescription drug bill. In addition, he joined hands with Ted Kennedy to pass No Child Left Behind, and he expanded aid to Africa for AIDS drugs. To his credit, he also tried to pass a comprehensive immigration bill that would’ve created a path to citizenship for the 12 million illegal immigrants currently in the U.S.

But something in the Republican Party snapped the moment Obama was sworn in as president. Ever since, we’ve been seeing pure unadulterated rightwing extremism—and it hasn’t been pretty. Every crackpot conspiracy theorist, racist, and extreme libertarian has crawled out from under a rock and found a home in the GOP. The party won more power during the midterms and is now putting its crazy ideas into practice, with horrific results.

The Republican-controlled House has spent its time crafting draconian anti-abortion bills, attempting to defund Planned Parenthood, and repealing the Affordable Healthcare Act. Despite promises to the contrary, they have yet to offer anything to replace it. They no longer even pretend to care about universal coverage.

Their near unanimous vote for Paul Ryan’s long-term budget shows even more how extreme the Party has become. The plan is no less than a redistribution of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the very wealthy. It would obliterate Medicare, forcing millions of future seniors to choose between extreme poverty or no healthcare at all. Radical is too kind a word for Ryan’s plan; it is mean-spirited and cruel. For good measure the plan also repeals financial regulatory reform, cuts the funding for green power by 70%, and cuts food stamps. (Interestingly, Ryan credits none other than the extremist Ayn Rand as his philosophical inspiration. Her views about unfettered capitalism are increasingly popular in the GOP; rarely mentioned is her atheism, and her detestation of religion.)

It doesn’t end at the federal level. In statehouses around the country, unhinged rightwing governors and state legislators have unleashed even more draconian anti-abortion bills (almost all of which are clearly unconstitutional), severe rollbacks of environmental legislation, massive attacks on unions’ collective bargaining rights, and voter suppression efforts not seen since the days of the Jim Crow South.

Never in my adult life did I imagine that the Republican Party would be so brazen in its attempts to remake America in these ways. I always assumed that counter-forces would temper the extreme elements.

The two people most in charge of forming the Republican message, the strategists Karl Rove and Frank Lutz, are once again putting lipstick on a pig, but one that is bigger and uglier than ever. Unsurprisingly, just about every word out of their mouths is the opposite of the truth: black is white, up is down, 2+2=10.

Just as unsurprisingly, we now have the racist, demagogic, fraud Donald Trump capturing the imagination of the rightwing, even leading some polls for the Republican 2012 presidential nomination. Trump once espoused positively liberal views; he’s married (and declared bankruptcy) several times; estimates are that if he had simply taken his inheritance and put it in the S&P 500, his net worth today would be greater than what he’s amassed through his business dealings. It’s beyond ironic that at a time of record long-term unemployment, the GOP’s new hero is a man most famous for yelling “you’re fired”.

Even if Republican primary voters come to their senses and turn on Trump, you can be sure that whoever they nominate will have renounced any moderate views and given the base all the extremist red meat they could swallow. Ironically, while we’re in great danger of falling behind in the 21st century, the modern Republican Party wants to “save the country” by taking us back to the 19th.

Jason Scorse

Almost since the day President Obama was sworn in, liberals have waited for him to strongly defend progressive taxation and a robust social safety net.

For the longest time, he did neither. He let many core supporters down with his lukewarm support for a public option during the healthcare debate. Back in December he signed into law an extension of all of the Bush tax cuts, including those for the wealthiest, effectively breaking a central campaign promise.

But Wednesday, April 13th marked a turning point in the Obama Presidency, with his stirring defense of the social contract and his vow to never again extend the Bush tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 a year. More importantly, the President delivered a scathing critique of Paul Ryan’s budget proposal (which has since passed the GOP-led House of Representatives); the President called Ryan’s vision “deeply pessimistic,” and said it was neither “serious” nor “courageous”.

Since making this speech, Obama has been on a national tour consisting of town hall-style meetings in which he continues to hammer the Republican plan and offer his vision of how to reduce our long-term deficits while at the same time protecting key entitlement programs. The public supports his positions by wide margins. Approximately three-quarters of the electorate support raising taxes on the rich and protecting Medicare; virtually all the particulars of Ryan’s budget are deeply unpopular.

So if the election of 2012 comes down to competing visions of how to get the long-term U.S. budget in balance, Obama will clearly win. But that’s not necessarily what the election will be about. Unfortunately, most Americans vote based on much more immediate concerns, and the state of the economy is usually more important than any other factor. With high gas prices eating into consumer spending, people’s attitudes are becoming much more negative—despite many months of positive economic growth and recent signs of decent growth in new jobs.

The reality is that the economic recovery is extremely fragile; if gas prices remain high, which is likely, this could lead to anemic growth and more unemployment. And despite Obama’s stirring defense of liberal priorities, he is arguing on turf that the Republicans have defined.

In the run-up to the 2010 midterms, all Republicans could talk about was jobs, jobs, jobs. Since taking office they have done nothing to promote job growth, but instead have used deficit reduction as a cover for slashing spending on social programs. Instead of relentlessly attacking Republicans for betraying their campaign promise, the President allowed them to frame the debate. Instead of focusing on the need for immediate job creation, Obama conceded that deficit reduction should be the nation’s first priority. If the economy simply putters along for the next 18 months, he may pay a huge price for that concession.

Let’s say it was politically impossible to get a second stimulus bill through the newly elected Congress. Even so, if Obama had tried and failed he would’ve demonstrated his priorities to the American people. He would’ve forced Republicans to go on record opposing job creation. Instead, we have differing visions of how to overcome long-term deficits—visions that may ultimately have little bearing on the public’s mood come November, 2012.

At this point, the Obama team has to hope that the economy picks up and provides enough momentum to get the President over the finish line. If it doesn’t, there will be lots of second-guessing about whether he did enough to make the case for job creation instead of joining the GOP in putting deficit reduction first.

Jason Scorse

Today's piece is written by guest contributor, Gerald Scorse, who helped get this legislation passed through his tireless efforts for tax fairness.

Income from wages has been reported to the Internal Revenue Service ever since World War II. Starting in 2011, income from stock market capital gains will effectively begin to get the same treatment.

This closes a loophole that cost the Treasury billions every year. It takes a big burden off taxpayers. And it never would have happened without a man the Left loved to hate.

He’s Evan Bayh (D-IN), who retired from the Senate in January. His Blue Dog politics rankled liberals, and he was trashed for giving up a seat that would flip to the GOP. All the same, Bayh made tax reporting fairer than it’s ever been in America.

He did it by passing a bill that requires brokers to report basis prices to the IRS. Basis prices are what investments cost going in, and brokers didn’t have to turn over these numbers. They had to report proceeds, but not basis prices.

The only way to figure capital gains is to have both numbers, and do the arithmetic. For nearly a century, since the beginning of income taxes in 1916, capital gains income has been reported on the honor system. Now the IRS will get basis prices along with proceeds. Brokers won a gradual phasing in: new stock purchases this year, mutual funds in 2012, bonds and options in 2013.

National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson recommended basis reporting to Congress, and it was her proposal that prompted Bayh to draft his bill. The Treasury was losing up to $25 billion a year through capital gains misreporting, and states were being stiffed additional billions. The reasons were no mystery. As Ms. Olson told the Wall Street Journal, “It seemed that people who wanted to comply with the law were finding it too hard, while those who wanted to skirt the law were finding it too easy.”

It was easy faking numbers on tax returns. It was hard keeping records year after year, adjusting them for distributions and stock splits, even remembering where they were. Computers erased the problems; brokers are now required to maintain basis records and forward the final results.

Tax compliance for income that’s reported to the IRS far exceeds compliance for self-reported income. Wage earners essentially report all their wages, and the reason is written on the W-2 forms they get every year: “THIS INFORMATION IS BEING FURNISHED TO THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE.” Compliance figures slump for every kind of self-reported income, including stock market capital gains.

When Bayh re-introduced his bill in 2007, he cited a study that found misreporting by more than a third of taxpayers with capital gains or losses. The Congressional Record for that day shows one other senator making the case for basis reporting. Let’s listen in:

“It is estimated that $345 billion of federal taxes goes uncollected each year. This bill doesn’t solve that full problem, but it is a step in the right direction. It reduces the federal deficit without raising taxes or cutting spending. It simplifies the tax filing process and reduces the chance of error or fraud. It applies what we know about the clear benefits of automatic reporting to the IRS—which is required now for wage income—to capital gains income as well.

“This bill makes sense. It’s good policy. And I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it and in helping to improve our tax code.”

So said the junior senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, on February 14, 2007. Now, as president, his budgets (and America’s taxpayers) will benefit from the added billions that fairer tax reporting will bring in to the Treasury.

P.S. Next week the theme will be Obama's strong new defense of a center-left progressive vision, which stands in stark contrast to the extremist regressive and reactionary vision of Paul Ryan and the House Republicans.

P.P.S. Some commenters support raising the Social Security retirement age to 70. The reason this is a bad idea and regressive is because average life expectancy is up mostly because of reductions in child mortality. Life expectancy conditional on reaching age 65 has barely budged over the last decades, and the retirement age for Social Security has already risen from 65-67. Increasing it 3 more years will lead to a net reduction in lifetime benefits, hurt the poor and middle class the most, hurt minorities more than whites, and is unfair especially to people who work in physically demanding jobs. Raising the cap for Social Security taxable income above $106,000 is a much more equitable way to handle the projected 25% shortfall in 2037.

Gerald Scorse

When negotiating with hostage takers who are willing to kill their hostages, the negotiators are at a serious disadvantage. Such was the case with the budget talks that concluded late Friday, with the Republicans playing the role of the hostage takers. Ever since Obama came into office, the GOP has done everything it could to harm the economy and bring down the President. Republicans know that with a pliant and unserious media, they won’t be blamed; the more the economy suffers, the more votes they’re likely to get from a populace that pays little attention to facts and has a painfully short memory.

Republicans voted against the stimulus bill, tried to block unemployment benefits at every turn, and held both unemployment benefits and middle class tax cuts hostage to tax cuts for the rich. They voted against the financial regulatory bill, and have tried to defund it ever since taking control of the House. Over the last three months, despite all their talk about jobs, their agenda has been dominated by trying to take away women’s reproductive freedoms and deny gays their rights. Their policies are unambiguously job killing, since it’s harmful to take any money out of our still-fragile economic recovery. The party opposes the interests of the overwhelming majority of the American people; its base is dominated by religious extremists and supporters of crony capitalism. And now Paul Ryan has added insulted to injury by proposing to massively cut Medicaid for the poor and disabled, privatize Medicare and force millions of seniors into poverty, all the while dramatically ballooning the deficit and cutting taxes for the rich by trillions more.

Given that the GOP has essentially taken leave of its senses, President Obama and the Democrats were in a terrible bind. If they gave in to the GOP’s demands, it would harm the economy and the American people; if they didn’t, the GOP would willingly shut down the government—harming the economy and the American people. It was a no-win situation. Obama decided to give the GOP almost everything it wanted, agreeing to cuts totaling close to $100 billion compared to his original budget proposal.

This was a bad deal, but I understand the need to be pragmatic and the “grown up” in the room. What I don’t understand is why Obama legitimized the GOP’s position by almost bragging that the compromise included the biggest spending cuts in history. That was astounding. He should have explained to the American people that spending cuts are a terrible policy, with unemployment near 9% and the recovery far from assured; he should have said that he agreed to the cuts only to avoid a shutdown and even worse damage.

Instead he allowed the GOP to move the goalposts once again towards the far right. Bigger spending battles lie ahead, and the GOP will now be emboldened to push for even deeper cuts.

Many on the Left have claimed that Obama is a weak negotiator. They point out that he often concedes to the Right’s demands before negotiations even start, and keeps echoing their rhetoric instead of forcefully presenting the progressive alternative. I keep asking myself why he does this, and I have no good answer. He has completely failed to reshape the debate over energy policy, going so far as to entirely drop the use of the term “climate change” from his speeches; on fiscal policy, with millions still out of work and other millions under-employed, he has completely abandoned the Keynesian rhetoric he ought to be using.

Some say that Obama is saving his political capital for fights over entitlements, or ending the Bush tax cuts for the richest 2% of Americans, or for his reelection campaign. Personally, I’m starting to wonder whether he’s ever actually going to mount a full-throated defense of American progressivism in the 21st century. I’m starting to think he simply doesn’t have it in him.

Someone needs to stand up strongly for core progressive principles against the GOP onslaught. If they don’t, America’s middle class could quickly become only a memory—and American greatness will be something for history books sooner than we think.

P.S. Word is out that Obama is giving a major speech on Wednesday outlining his vision for entitlement reform and proposing steps to rein in our long-term deficits. We will soon know whether he has the backbone to stand firm against the Republican onslaught against the middle class.

Jason Scorse

For most of modern American history, the two major political parties in America have largely agreed on the desired long-term environmental outcomes for the country: there was a consensus among Republicans and Democrats that it was a good thing to press for cleaner air and water, less toxins in the environment, biodiversity preservation, and mitigation strategies for clean energy and, mostly recently, climate change.

The disagreements were largely centered around how to achieve these outcomes, and to some extent the pace of change and the absolute targets. Democrats by and large preferred a heavier regulatory approach (i.e. “command and control”) that set specific firm-level emissions limits, prescribed permissible technologies, and set industry-wide energy and fuel efficiency standards. Republicans tended to support more market-oriented policies, with cap and trade foremost among them.

Nowadays, the arguments are no longer over the methods to achieve environmental progress, but whether we should support such progress in the first place. This situation is unprecedented. Those who believed that divided government would lead Republicans to take a more moderate and constructive role have so far been proven wrong. It is hard to imagine the situation being much worse for America’s environmental quality, which is directly linked to the quality of life for all Americans.

The modern Republican Party has absolutely no affirmative environmental agenda whatsoever, and goes so far as to contest the entire rationale for continued environmental progress. Ironically, this extremely reactionary environmental agenda is coming at a time when the ideas that Republicans once championed are now widely accepted as the best ways to structure environmental policy.

The cap and trade bill that died in the U.S. Congress in 2010 was based on market-oriented principles that were the centerpiece of George Bush Sr.’s cap and trade policy for sulfur dioxide, enacted in 1990. It permitted maximum flexibility in achieving its goals of greenhouse gas reductions over a long time horizon, giving businesses plenty of time to adjust and adapt. The bill’s intellectual foundations were so strongly rooted in conservative economics that then-presidential candidate John McCain was a huge supporter of the measure and included it in his presidential platform.

And yet today, the Republican-led House of Representatives has voted to deny the science of climate change and strip the EPA of its authority to regulate greenhouse gases, which was granted to the agency by a 5-4 decision in the very conservative-leaning Supreme Court. The GOP-led House has proposed gutting the EPA’s budget as well. And it gets worse.

The Republicans in the House have refused to end the subsidies for oil companies (as these firms continue to rake in record profits), and while they seek to reduce food stamps, they have made it clear that they will not touch the billions in agricultural subsidies that disproportionately benefit big agribusiness. Adding insult to injury, House Republicans even reintroduced Styrofoam into the House cafeteria after Democrats had removed it during the last Congress.

I have been involved in environmental policy for almost 20 years and have never seen anything like the current Republican assault on the environment. It is truly astounding. To be clear, the Republicans leading this charge against environmental progress are in no way following conservative principles―they are doing the exact opposite. Those who profess to support conservative economics should be leading the charge against subsidies for big business and taking a firm stance in favor of the “polluter pays principle,” which states that those producers and consumers whose actions degrade the environment should pay for the damage. (You know we’re living in an upside down world when the one avowed socialist in the Senate, Bernie Sanders, has been the most vociferous opponent of oil company handouts.)

There is absolutely nothing “free market” about letting polluters trash the environment for free. In fact, this fits the definition of a market failure, not a well-functioning capitalist system. What the Republicans are currently practicing is crony capitalism of the worst kind: rewarding industry at the expense of the public interest and future generations.

It is the Republican rank and file who should be the most offended by these policies. Public opinion polls consistently show that both Democrats and Republicans care deeply about the environment, and support clean energy policies and strong environmental safeguards. Unfortunately, the once proud environmental ethic of the Republican Party has been snuffed out by a small group of radical Tea Party extremists who are deeply confused both about true conservative principles and the proper role of government in society. And once moderate Republicans who supported sensible environmental policies are nowhere to be seen. Until true conservatives retake the Republican Party we will be left doing little more than damage control, and the chances of a new comprehensive affirmative environmental agenda are slim to none.

Jason Scorse

Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin signed an extremely anti-union bill last week, stripping some public-sector unions of their collective bargaining rights. Many have called his actions a “power grab,” and already lawsuits are pending. Some argue that since Walker didn’t campaign on policies even remotely as radical, what he has done is both immoral and inconsistent with what he was elected to do.

Like it or not, what the governor and the GOP-dominated state legislature did was entirely legal and consistent with democratic principles. We live in a representative democracy; we elect people to office for a set term, and we don’t get to vote on every issue they decide. The Republican Party has for decades been attacking unions and doing everything it could to weaken worker rights and redistribute income to the wealthiest Americans. These things are no secret. Anyone who votes Republican has no reason to expect anything different.

The citizens of Wisconsin voted for Walker over a Democratic opponent who would never have tried to strip unions of their rights. If the majority of voters in Wisconsin want strong union rights, they can vote for a Democrat next time around (or vote in the recall campaigns that are now underway).

Complaining that a Republican has taken away union rights is like complaining when a pig wallows in the mud. The people of Wisconsin not only voted for a far-right Republican for governor; they also kicked out Russ Feingold, one of the most consistently progressive U.S. Senators, in favor of a Tea Party extremist who doesn’t even believe in climate change.

This is what people get when they vote out of emotional frustration and not with their heads. By punishing Obama and the Democrats for their inability to clean up the economic catastrophe left by the Bush administration, voters demonstrated no understanding of the limits of political power and the time it would take to dig out of America’s deepest recession in 80 years.

What happened in Wisconsin played out across the country in November, e.g., Florida elected a far-right governor famous for presiding over the biggest fraud in Medicare history. While voters in a few states resisted the worst that the Republican Party had to offer (such as Sharron Angle, Joe Miller, and Christine O’Donnell), numerous other extremists (like Rand Paul) were swept into office.

And let us be clear, Republicans don’t even bother to hide their intentions. When asked whether the GOP House spending bill would lead to job losses, Majority Leader Boehner said “so be it”. While claiming to care about jobs and the economy, Republicans have spent all their time trying to strip women of their rights, bash gays (and now Muslims), and cut every piece of socially progressive legislation they can—family planning, Head Start, children’s health, even environmental protection and tsunami warning systems.

To those who contend they didn’t actually vote for any of this, I say, stop fooling yourself. The Republican Party of 2011 is nothing more than a wholly-owned subsidiary of the rich, powerful corporate interests, and far-right religious extremists. Anyone who votes for a Republican has to know what they’re getting.

But they don’t deserve all the blame. Millions of progressives stayed homed last election because Obama only delivered on 60% of his promised agenda in two years, not 100%. While it is true that the president didn’t fight hard enough for a public option, and failed to get climate change legislation passed, these shortcomings pale in comparison to all he achieved. Yet, letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, millions sat out and let Republicans sweep to victory.

Democracy is messy, and the votes of even the tiniest majority can lead to devastating impacts on everyone—but that’s how it works. Ultimately, voters are responsible for the quality of their leaders and the policies they promote.

Until Americans take a more mature and long-term view when they head into the voting booth, and once and for all reject the modern Republican Party, our quality of life will suffer and our position in the world will falter. We have only ourselves to blame.

Jason Scorse

One of the aspects of economics that I most respect is that we’re trained to give credence not to what people say they value, but to what they actually do—and to what those actions reveal about their real values and priorities.

Economists know that what people say they believe, and their motives, are often at odds with their actual behavior. For example, an individual who claims to care about the poor but who does nothing to help poor people, cannot in any meaningful sense continue to make this claim; they may “care” in some abstract sense, but this is hardly the same as someone whose care manifests itself in volunteer work, donations, or a voting pattern that reflects this care.

Paying attention to actual behaviors and choices is most important when scrutinizing political parties; it’s also where rhetoric and reality may not only be miles apart, but directly contradictory. Case in point is the modern Republican Party. For most of the run-up to the midterm elections, Republicans hammered the Democrats and President Obama for a weak economy and promised to focus on jobs if they were returned to power.

It’s been well over a month since the GOP took over the House of Representatives and gained several seats in the Senate—and what they’ve done shows that jobs are the last thing on their mind. They have focused on radical anti-choice legislation to strip women of their reproductive rights, opposition to D.C.’s legalization of gay marriage, and on budget proposals that, by all independent analyses, would lead to job losses in the hundreds of thousands.

Republicans want to cut funding for environmental protection, children’s healthcare, implementation of the Affordable Healthcare Act, college student loans, the arts, science research funding, funding for AIDs drugs, and long-term investments in infrastructure. They will do everything to preserve hundreds of billions in tax breaks for the affluent, but when it comes to the most needy they claim “we are broke”.

These actions, not the GOP’s words, show what the party values and prioritizes. Their priorities reflect an extremely pro-industry stance that would greatly diminish the quality of life for millions of low and even middle-income Americans, while doing almost nothing to address the nation’s long-term financial imbalances—which are driven almost exclusively by projected Medicare liabilities.

In truth, the GOP’s priorities are shameful, and if made into law would not only directly harm many Americans, but jeopardize the still-fragile economic recovery. It is a road map that should be lambasted and ridiculed by every serious person.

The reason the GOP has so far gotten away with these insanely misguided priorities (which they won’t ultimately get away with) is because the traditional media spends way too much time reporting on what Republicans say and not what they do. The leaders say they are focused on jobs and the media dutifully reports this, instead of pointing out the contradictions between their words and their actions.

A media that made educating the public (not entertaining them) its central role would hold our politicians to account, both Democrats and Republicans. They would relentlessly ask GOP leaders questions such as:

- After winning the elections based on a platform of increasing jobs, why have you focused on everything BUT jobs since taking power?

- Why the focus on divisive social issues that have nothing to do with your mandate, and are not what people voted for?

- Why are you proposing a budget that by all independent accounts would cost jobs and hold down economic growth?

- Why have you refused to address long-term fiscal issues, especially Medicare, and focused instead on parts of the budget that in effect are a sideshow?

- How can you claim to care about long-term economic growth when you’re proposing cuts to infrastructure, education, environmental protection, and science research that will harm long-term growth?

- You said that you wanted to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act, but so far you have focused exclusively on repeal and offered nothing to replace it with. You even spurned Obama’s call for greater flexibility for the states in providing care. Do you no longer believe in providing affordable care to all Americans? If you do believe in it, how do you propose to actually achieve it?

Of course, on the Sunday talk shows all day today (and for the remainder of the week as well) these questions will barely be asked if at all. Republican leaders will continue to say one thing and do another.

Until the traditional media focuses more on politicians’ actions and less on their rhetoric, it will be up to us (on forums like this and thousands of others) to build an informed citizenry that will hold politicians to account.

Jason Scorse

The attempt by Republican Governor Walker of Wisconsin to eliminate collective bargaining rights for some public sector employees (those who happen to vote Democratic) is in keeping with a long history of GOP efforts to undermine unions and tilt the playing field even more towards corporations over workers.

Before proceeding, let me agree that unions can breed corruption and bad outcomes when they lose sight of the public good and resist reasonable change—e.g., teachers unions that oppose merit pay and make it almost impossible to fire bad teachers. Like all interest groups, unions can become ossified, myopic, and counter-productive.

But unions also provide a significant and often necessary check on the power of corporations to dictate terms of employment. Even though union membership in the private sector is at an historic low, the benefits won by unions continue to impact wages and benefits for workers throughout the economy. They provide the benchmark with which the private sector must compete.

The International Labor Organization deems the right to collective bargaining a core labor standard, and it’s embraced by all democracies. At a time when large multinational corporations can play one nation’s workers against another’s, and even one state’s against those next door, the power of the average worker to influence the terms of their employment is at a low point. Today, few private sector jobs offer defined benefit pensions, increasing healthcare costs are routinely passed on to employees, and the median wage for middle class workers has basically stagnated for decades, while corporate profits and pay for CEOs have hit stratospheric levels.

Governor Walker’s proposals are extreme. Wisconsin’s public sector workers have agreed to major concessions to help close the state’s budget gap, but he seems intent on destroying the unions. The state’s Senate Democrats—ever since they fled to deny the Republicans a quorum—have been trying to open lines of communication and strike a deal. The Governor has rebuffed their efforts and insists he will not compromise.

But when a man posing as the billionaire David Koch called the Governor’s office, he was able to get Walker on the phone in minutes to discuss union-busting strategy.

This is yet another clear illustration of the difference between Democrats and Republicans. The GOP is basically a wholly-owned subsidiary of corporate America—especially the giant banks, insurance companies, and the oil, gas and coal companies. Republicans couldn’t care less about the middle and lower classes, as shown most recently by repeated attempts to block unemployment benefits and hold middle class tax cuts hostage to tax cuts for the rich.

Democrats are by no means perfect. They’re too beholden to unions, and too many Democrats take large amounts of corporate contributions and side too quickly with corporate interests. But in the large, a commitment to the lower and middle classes is still a core element of the Democrat platform. Democrats have taken on powerful interests in fighting for the healthcare bill, for the Frank-Dodd financial reform bill, and for environmental legislation (though well short of the degree that it’s needed).

In America today one party stands for corporate power and nothing else; the other party at least in the main stands up for the public good.

It amazes me that tens of millions of Americans apparently don’t recognize this basic fact.

Jason Scorse

Conservative politicians and commentators have been saying for the past two years that a major weakness of the Frank-Dodd financial reform bill was its failure to address the problems caused by the government’s involvement with mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The conservatives were right.

The Obama Administration believed that including the issue would have made an already large bill too large, and said they needed more time to come up with a plan. Now the Administration has released its recommendations, and we can appreciate the bind the government finds itself in.

Public anger at the bailouts was largely directed at banks, but those bailouts have largely been repaid and often turned a profit. Meanwhile, the cost of bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is approaching $200 billion and will continue to grow. Between them, Fannie and Freddie guarantee 85% of all the mortgages in America; with a backlog of foreclosures and declining home prices, Uncle Sam will be on the hook for billions more.

The obvious solution is to get the government out of the market. The problem is that if Fannie and Freddie are sold off, and the government ends its commitment as the insurer of last resort, the housing market could crash again and lead to another recession. Hence the Administration’s bind: on one hand an unsustainable policy that needs to end, on the other the prospect of even greater economic pain.

The Administration’s plan would come close to eliminating government support of the housing market. But—even in the plans where Fannie and Freddie are eventually privatized—the government would still back certain mortgages, and support would be withdrawn gradually over many years. This makes sense, since the last thing we need now is another recession. It would still be best if the government got out of the housing market entirely within 10 years.

Congress will decide which if any of the Administration’s recommendations become law, and it is unclear how far lawmakers are willing to go to end a half-century of government-guaranteed home mortgages. If they really want to get serious, they could also address one of the “third rails” of American politics, the home mortgage interest deduction: it costs the Treasury billions a year, it’s regressive, and it increases suburban sprawl.

Whatever happens, the era of massive direct government promotion of home ownership is likely to end. This will probably lead to higher mortgage interest rates and, in turn, lower home prices. It’s something to keep in mind for people who look at residential real estate as an investment; the long-term trend for home prices is not favorable and could get worse.

Jason Scorse

Events in Egypt represent a major turning point in Middle Eastern history: the world’s most populous Arab state is in the midst of a grassroots uprising against a three decades-old autocracy. It is particularly fascinating because the Mubarak regime has been a stalwart ally of the United States in its dealing with Israel and the “war on terror”. In addition, the U.S. has long had a tortured relationship with Middle Eastern autocrats—in Iran and Saudi Arabia, in Kuwait and Yemen. This is clearly the beginning of a new chapter in Middle Eastern and Arab history, and it holds the promise of greater freedom, prosperity, and the protection of human rights.

But the inflection point I want to discuss this week is the one occurring in America.

According to new Census data, almost all the growth in the U.S. population is occurring among minority groups. The “browning” of America is accelerating and the proportion of “whites” continues to decline. This simple fact explains most of the political upheaval in the Republican Party over the past two years, including the elevation of rightwing Tea Party extremists to national prominence.

What has occurred since 2008 has been a perfect storm for the regressive forces in America: an economic recession, the election of the first black President, and the mainstreaming of gay rights. The dying days of empires often brought out rage and violence, and these are the characteristics of today’s Republican Party. It represents the last vestiges of an old order that is quickly losing power and status.

Look at virtually any “conservative” political gathering, Tea Party convention or Republican convention, and the most striking fact is how unrepresentative the Republican Party has become. Of course there are individual minority Republicans, and plenty of Republican women, but the modern GOP does not represent a cross-section of America society; increasingly, it is made up of white, fundamentalist Christians. They are caught up in a delusional paranoia brought on by the realization that today’s America, and the America of the future, barely resembles their America.

The GOP has appealed to white racism and the marginalization of minorities for decades; even so, the extent to which the Party has adopted white grievance and eliminationist rhetoric is shocking. Rightwing extremists can win in the South and even occasionally in “blue” states like Wisconsin and Illinois; with almost 10% unemployment, the GOP could have run Donald Duck in many Congressional districts in November and still picked up seats. But there is no way that extreme nativism, and the complete lack of an affirmative agenda, can translate into a winning national strategy. As the economy continues it too-slow but steady rebound, the vacuity of the GOP will only become more apparent.

We will look back 10 or 20 years from now and view this period in American history as a major inflection point: a time when the rise of a more multiracial, multiethnic, and culturally more diverse America finally eclipsed the old, socially conservative white order. The hyperbolic rhetoric of the Tea Party, of demagogues like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, and the sheer insanity that has infected the Republican Party will be seen in its proper historical context as the final throes of a stilted and reactionary class, being eclipsed by a new America.

Jason Scorse

I have spent the past two weeks lambasting the GOP and calling out Republicans for their extremism, regressivity, and violent rhetoric. Anyone who pays attention to politics and cares about solving America’s major problems (which should include everyone) should be aghast at the turn the Republican Party has taken.

Republicans across the country, from local city councils all the way to the Congress, are promoting extremely damaging policies, ranging from widespread attacks on abortion rights to attacks on science and history curriculum in textbooks, to massive cuts in basic social services for the poor and middle class.

But perhaps even more damaging to the body politic, is the Republican assault on reason. Over the past two years the Republican Party, urged on by its most incoherent and extremist fringe―the Tea Party―and amplified by the rightwing media noise machine has constructed an alternative reality for conservative activists in which up is down and black is white. In this universe once popular conservative ideas are now considered heresy. Essentially, the ruling philosophy of the modern Republican Party is to oppose virtually everything Obama and the Democrats support, regardless of its merit, even if the policy is based on bedrock conservative principles.

This is no way to run a country. America is a two-party democracy, and we need both political parties to be firmly rooted in reality, and share at least the same basic goals for society; e.g. equal opportunity, a robust social safety net, high environmental quality, and strong national security.

And while the debt problems of the U.S. in the short-term are not a serious concern (in fact increasing government debt to stimulate the economy in a severe recession is the exact right policy), our long-term deficit problems are serious. Solving them will require some major changes to Medicare, military spending, and the tax structure, and both parties will have to make tough choices and come to the bargaining table in good faith. That faith doesn’t exist right now, largely because of the intransigence in the GOP, and its insistence on promoting misinformation and lies about the budget realities, as well as opposing common sense cost-control that are already in the new healthcare legislation (which they just voted to repeal).

The country desperately needs the serious and reasonable wing of the Republican Party to make a resurgence and take the Party back from the Tea Party extremists, and the likes of Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, and Hannity. Many of the policies needed to address climate change come straight from conservative economics, and their best advocates would be Congressional Republicans. The same goes for healthcare; the individual mandate was originally a Republican idea (promoted as an alternative to government-run healthcare), and we need Republicans who recognize why it is crucial for a well-functioning private insurance system; instead we get massive lawsuits peddling the nonsense that the mandate is unconstitutional. On taxes, we are going to need serious Republicans who are willing to support higher taxes for the rich, along with reductions in corporate giveaways, and even some of the “sacred cows” such as the home mortgage interest rate deduction and agricultural and fossil fuel subsidies.

While I am disgusted at the behavior of the modern Republican Party over the past two years, honest conservatives should be the most upset, since their Party and its ideals have been sacrificed in the most cynical way for political power at the expense of principle and the public good. It is ultimately up to them to wrestle back their Party from the extremists and return the Republican Party to its honorable conservative roots.

P.S. Here are links to a talk I gave a few months ago that relates this theme to environmental policy:

http://go.miis.edu/scorse-environment-economics-short
http://go.miis.edu/scorse-environment-economics-long

Jason Scorse

Most of the media long ago stopped practicing real journalism, in which positions, ideas, and policies are critically examined and shown to be either truthful and accurate or false and misleading. Reporters nowadays simply note what people across the political spectrum are saying, as if all viewpoints are equally valid. This phenomenon has worsened over the past decade, and has gotten to the point (as Paul Krugman notes) that journalists will treat someone who claims the Earth is flat as equally deserving of air time as someone who maintains that it’s round.

The Republicans and the rightwing have capitalized on this new dynamic by lying shamelessly and continually, knowing that misinformation will not be challenged and that they stand a good chance of moving opinion in their direction if they simply repeat the lies often enough. If even a tiny fraction of the lies that Republicans spew daily were challenged, and the individuals saying them were publicly shamed, it is likely they would be forced to backtrack.

Following the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords, the media is busy wondering whether the violent rhetoric on the right is at all responsible. It is disgraceful that it took an event of this magnitude to get the media to examine more closely the rhetoric that has emanated from the Right ever since Obama was sworn in; it’s also beside the point to try to link the act of a madman to the cacophony of political rhetoric.

The rhetoric from the Right should’ve been denounced long ago, not just for its potential to incite violence but because it was incoherent, clearly false, and antithetical to constructive political discourse. It can harm people in serious ways; policy decisions that directly affect the lives of America’s 300 million people hang in the balance.

It is long past time to acknowledge that Republicans and the Right have gone off the deep end, and that there is no equivalent amount of hatred, bigotry, and misinformation coming from the Left. Yes, there are individual Democrats who lie, say stupid things, and degrade political discourse, but they’re a tiny minority; on the right, the extremists are essentially in charge and setting the agenda.

Obama and the Democrats in Congress are hardly far-left liberals; in fact, not a single policy achievment of the past two years could truly be described as liberal. Obama and the Democrats represent a centrist or at most a center-left Party. Their domestic achievements rest on conservative ideas; in foreign policy, Obama has largely followed and often expanded on the policies of George W. Bush .

Republicans on the other hand have turned against their own ideas (e.g. the individual health insurance mandate, cap and trade), have become more reactionary on social and immigration policy, and even more regressive on fiscal policy. They have tacked so far right in the past two years that the only choice voters now get is between the hard right and the center. This is clear to anyone who pays a modicum of attention to American politics, yet it’s barely acknowledged by the media.

I want to end with a point about the use of strong rhetoric. Another false equivalency is that the use of condemnatory rhetoric is always bad, no matter whom it’s directed against. From my viewpoint, there are times when the words evil, vile, despicable, and fascist fit the circumstance, and are an appropriate response to outrageous statements or acts. I would use those words, for example, to describe Rush Limbaugh, who makes hundreds of millions of dollars doing nothing more, and nothing less, than spewing lies and stirring up hatred.

To sum up, it’s my belief that context and facts matter deeply. Hating people who deliberately inflict pain and suffering on other people, and often profit from it, is rational; hating gays or illegal immigrants isn’t rational. Only when we disentangle ourselves from the false equivalencies that permeate our culture can we have a truly vigorous and reason-based dialogue.

Jason Scorse

The labels we use to describe our political parties and their ideologies have turned into caricatures, devoid of meaningful content. For decades the Right has waged a campaign to tarnish the word “liberal,” linking it with elitism and people who are wishy-washy and out of touch. The term is now extremely unpopular, despite the fact that a majority of Americans support liberal policies such as progressive taxation, strong social safety nets, and environmental regulations.

Ironically, those on the Right who have demonized liberals are the ones actually working for the real elites—the wealthy and the super-wealthy—and their policies do the most to harm the middle and lower classes.

At the same time, the Right has managed to burnish the term “conservative” so that many more Americans now identify themselves as conservative rather than liberal. True conservatives espouse principles which in fact are quite admirable and promote the public good. The problem is that modern-day Republicans by and large support the opposite of conservative principles.

And yet day after day the media refer to Republicans as conservatives, and the more they deviate from true conservatism the more they are identified as conservative. This is a situation where black is white and up is down, not just on Fox News but even on the left-leaning Rachel Maddow Show, where Republicans with views the most divergent from true conservatism are labeled the most conservative.

This mislabeling needs to stop. It confuses the public over what policies our major political parties actually support (as opposed to what they profess to support), and it can lead to bad policy outcomes. Let’s look at some examples of real, and faux, conservatism.

True conservatism recognizes that tax cuts don’t pay for themselves, and that balanced budgets require sufficient revenue. Modern-day Republicans continue to subscribe to the “voodoo economics” that has been discredited by serious economists for decades.

True conservatism promotes individual choice and responsibility. Modern-day Republicans oppose the health insurance mandate and end-of-life counseling, both of which are conservative ideas.

True conservatism believes in free markets with a minimum of distortions caused by government involvement; at the same time, true conservatives recognize the importance of strong regulations. Modern-day Republicans did everything in their power to weaken the financial regulatory bill and shield the largest banks from oversight. (The new GOP Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Spencer Bachus, recently stated that “Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks.”)

True conservatism promotes a robust national security policy aimed at maintaining a strong military and reducing the threat of nuclear proliferation. Senate leaders of the Republican Party voted against the new START Treaty, which true conservatives championed, and against repealing DADT, which the military itself strongly backed.

True conservatives understand that trade-offs are necessary to deal with the threats to our environment. Modern-day Republicans favor fossil fuel subsidies and nuclear power subsidies, but oppose making polluters pay for the damage they cause.

True conservatives believe in a rational, scientific approach to public policy. Modern-day Republicans are anti-science, and openly promote scientific ignorance.

And the list goes on.

Instead of calling today’s Republicans “conservatives,” we should be calling them rightwing “radicals” and “extremists.” These are more accurate descriptions of a party that has embraced the worst forms of populism, crony capitalism, and reactionary social ideology. By calling them what they really are, perhaps we can show how out of step the GOP is with mainstream American values—and true conservatism as well.

Jason Scorse

While the rhetoric aimed at President Obama the past two years has been worse than anything aimed at President Bush during his presidency, it’s nevertheless true that both the Left and the Right use hyperbole to tarnish their political opponents. The Right does this with greater frequency and ferocity, and I reject all notion of equivalency, but this doesn’t mean it isn’t a problem on the Left.

At the same time our increasingly vulgar, uninformed, and sensationalist media culture only makes matters worse by rewarding the loudest and most ignorant voices with the most air time. One particularly disturbing trend is allowing individuals to compare politicians and policies they don’t like to Nazis and fascism; demonization along these lines this should automatically disqualify anybody from being taken seriously.

But sometimes strong moral language is needed to describe the actions of politicians, political parties, and specific ideas and ideology. One of my major criticisms of Democrats and progressives is the infrequency with which they frame policy discussions in simple, value-laden terms—right and wrong, good and bad.

Which brings me to the question that headlines this piece: is it hyperbole to describe the modern-day Republican Party as “evil”? Even entertaining the question will strike some as extreme, but I think the facts warrant a close inspection.

First, let me say unequivocally that I in no way think the Republican Party’s moral failings put them on a par with a surfeit of unquestionable evil in the world: the severe oppression that occurs daily in most Arab dictatorships, the genocide in Sudan and the Congo, the crimes against children perpetrated by the Roman Catholic Church. But “evil” is not a binary concept; there is a spectrum, and it’s fair to consider whether the goals and actions of the modern GOP put them anywhere on it.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary lists multiple definitions of evil: morally reprehensible, arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct, causing harm. By these definitions, any serious examination of Republican priorities and actions over the last two years demonstrates that the term “evil” is a fair descriptor.

Let’s begin with GOP opposition to Obama’s healthcare bill (which passed) and energy legislation (which didn’t). In both cases Republicans opposed policies they once supported for no other purpose than to deny Obama and the Democrats a victory; in both cases, they put Party politics over the national interest. The healthcare bill that Obama eventually signed is comprised almost exclusively of Republican ideas that have been around for decades. The same goes for the now-dead cap and trade bill: it was the product of conservative Republican ideology, and was part of the 2008 Republican presidential platform.

Both issues reflect far more than abstract ideas or principles. Healthcare affects all Americans, especially the 42 million who have none; energy legislation to curb climate change may literally determine the quality of life for all future generations. If Republican objections had been based on differing approaches to tackling these issues, that would have been one thing; but they were obstructing for obstruction’s sake, and nothing more. With so much at stake, this type of opposition to score political points can reasonably be described as evil.

On the issues that defined the lame duck session of Congress, Republicans did no better. They blocked a vote on the once-bipartisan DREAM Act, denying tens of thousands of innocent children and young adults the opportunity to get a college education or serve in the military. Almost all Republicans voted against the repeal of DADT (and the GOP even tried to insert a reversal of the repeal into the defense authorization bill, three days after DADT was repealed in the Senate). The GOP also blocked a bill to pay medical expenses for 9/11 first responders, backing down only after being shamed for days by the media, including Fox News’s Shep Smith. Republicans called the $7.6 billion price tag too high—even though it was entirely paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes, and Republicans just days before had added more than 100 times this amount to the deficit by continuing the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

That, of course, was the one thing Republicans remained committed to at every step: keeping tax breaks for the rich, the richer, and the richest, up to and including the estates of billionaires. In order to help the already wealthy, the GOP stood ready to hold up tax breaks for the middle class and unemployment benefits for millions of Americans who lost their jobs, and often their homes, through no fault of their own.

These documented and continuing stances of the GOP put the interests of the privileged and the powerful above all else, and showed little to no empathy for anybody else—not for the gays being discriminated against, not for the illegal aliens living in the shadows, not for those down and out because of the excesses of others. If these actions can’t be considered “evil,” we need a new definition.

The modern-day GOP has earned the label. Until Republicans change their ways, this is how their actions should be described.

Jason Scorse

In an era of amazing political moments, last week ranks high on my list of most fascinating. For decades, the Republican Party has been a front group for corporate special interests and the rich, with bones thrown now and then to religious extremists. Basically, from the 1980s on, nothing has been more sacred to the GOP than tax cuts for the rich.

In many ways, 9/11 allowed Republicans to hide their anti-regulatory agenda and their efforts to redistribute wealth upward behind anti-terrorism and national security issues. When these moved to the front of the political landscape, their relentless efforts for the rich received far less scrutiny than they otherwise would have.

But with the economy in the doldrums for more than two years, and foreign policy issues fading, bread and butter issues are front and center once again. And the brazen class warfare that the GOP displayed this week was a sight to behold; I recall nothing like it in my adult life.

The Republican Party literally held unemployment insurance for millions of Americans and middle class tax cuts that benefit all Americans hostage to tax cuts that benefit only the richest of the rich. For all their talk of deficit reduction, they didn’t even pretend to care how the tax cuts will be paid for; such talk was only a charade for the election season.

And they didn’t stop there: Republicans also struck down a deal to pay compensation for 9/11 workers suffering from medical issues related to the cleanup (and had the nerve to blame the $7.6 billion price tag, when the tax cuts for the top 2% will cost 100 times as much); they delayed a vote on the DREAM Act that would allow illegals under a certain age to obtain citizenship after 10 years if they go to college or serve in the military; and they blocked a vote to repeal DADT, even though virtually all the top military commanders practically begged Congress to end the policy.

Even I, who hold the modern Republican Party in contempt, was shocked at this display of callousness, disregard for the public good, disregard for civil rights, and lack of any sense of fiscal responsibility. The GOP made crystal clear to the American people whose side they’re on, and we have their votes to prove it.

And yet this is the party that was rewarded with increased political power only weeks ago. It shows no sign of tempering its extremist goals, or refraining from holding most Americans hostage to the desires of the party’s ultra-wealthy corporate sponsors. The question that matters most is how long they’ll be able to get away with it.

My hunch is that they’re already over-playing their hand. As soon as the economy picks up, people will turn on the Republicans with a vengeance. Voters can be incredibly ignorant and misinformed, driven by emotions more than reason, and prone to irrational outbursts motivated by fear, but at the end of the day I think their better judgment ultimately prevails.

The GOP today lacks any sense of civic duty or seriousness. It can win when people vote their frustrations, but not when they vote their hopes.

Jason Scorse

Liberals, progressives, and other supporters of President Obama have been disappointed for quite a while. The Administration diluted the original stimulus package, failed to get a public option in the healthcare bill, failed to get any significant energy legislation passed, never pushed for immigration reform, and has yet to repeal DADT or close Guantanamo.

It’s true that some of these failures are as much the fault of Congress, especially the Republicans in Congress, as they are of Obama. That said, what has irked many of his supporters is Obama’s seeming inability to take strong principled stands and use the power of the presidency to demand better policy. Progressives believe that stronger leadership from the White House could force Congress’s hand, even if only incrementally.

The Left yearns for Obama to frame the issues in terms that resonate with the American people; sadly, this yearning has gone unfulfilled. To me, this is one of the great mysteries of the Obama presidency. I expected him to more forcefully argue for a new paradigm of governance, a new compact between the people and the state, and the roles and responsibilities of each. He has touched on these themes but never woven them together into a narrative that can help rebrand the Democratic Party. It seems like a huge missed opportunity.

Nonetheless, it is worth reminding ourselves that Obama’s legislative victories are almost unparalleled in modern American history. The healthcare bill, financial regulatory reform, the stimulus bill, and student loan reform all represent achievements that place Obama among the most influential presidents since WW II. Just in the last few days, a new Food Safety and Child Nutrition bill were added to the list.

However, it is also fair to measure Obama against the potential he seemed to have when he first took office. Could he have achieved more if he had taken a stronger stand on key issues? We will never know for sure, but we will soon find out if Obama is willing to take a strong stand on what could ultimately prove a decisive issue regarding his reelection prospects.

The public and the Democratic Party are strongly behind Obama’s proposal to extend the Bush tax cuts for those with incomes under $250,000 and let them expire for the richest 2%. The way the Administration and the Democratic leadership have mismanaged this issue all along—from messaging, to timing, to negotiating—has been abysmal, perhaps the worst example of Democratic spinelessness I have ever witnessed. But the ball remains in Obama’s and the Democrats’ hands. If they cave without exacting concessions, such as new infrastructure spending and extended unemployment benefits, it would represent a colossal failure. Tax cuts for the wealthiest will do almost nothing to stimulate the economy, will contribute enormously to the federal deficit, and will hand the Republicans a victory that will only embolden them to continue to destroy the Obama Presidency.

Until now I have always given Obama the benefit of the doubt. I assume he is smarter than I am, and many steps ahead politically. But if he loses this tax cut battle with little or nothing to show for it, I am afraid I will have to reconsider.

Again, a qualifier is in order. At the end of the day, I don’t care about Obama’s style of governance or how he’s perceived; all I care about is what he accomplishes. In the coming weeks DADT could be repealed, the START treaty ratified, the DREAM Act passed (at least a version), and a reasonable deal made on tax cuts (trading more stimulus for a temporary extension for all incomes).

It’s extremely foolish to underestimate Obama (just ask Hillary Clinton). He still has time to display strong leadership and make a midcourse correction that his supporters can respect. I’m prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt one more time.

Jason Scorse

A huge battle is shaping up in Congress over extending the Bush tax cuts, with Obama wanting to extend only the middle class cuts and Republicans wanting to extend all of them, including those for persons making over $250,000 in taxable income (which would add $700 billion to the deficit over 10 years, negating any claim that the GOP is serious about the deficit).

Obama should call the GOP’s bluff and agree to an extension of all the tax cuts permanently—but with a catch.

The president should propose new and higher marginal rates on incomes over $1 million, $5 million, $10 million, and $100 million, with the highest rate at 49% (so that the federal government never gets more than half). In addition, all stock options should be counted as income so that hedge fund managers don’t get to pay low capital gains rates on their compensation. Not only would this be a political winner—wide majorities believe the ultra rich should pay higher taxes, even Republicans—but it is likely (I haven’t done the math yet) that the additional tax revenue would more than offset the revenue lost by extending all the Bush cuts.

Making a bold move like this would put Republicans between a rock and a hard place. Obama would be giving them what they want—permanent extension of all the Bush cuts—but only in exchange for new marginal rates that make a ton of sense: it’s insane that a billionaire pays the same marginal rate as someone making a few hundred thousand. If the Republicans refused, Obama could go back to his original proposal, point out that he offered a reasonable compromise (one that would’ve reduced the deficit and improved the tax structure), and that Republicans killed the deal. I see no downside to this whatsoever.

On healthcare, calling the Republicans’ bluff will be a little trickier and take time, but it could turn out to be just as effective. Republicans lied egregiously about the actual contents of the healthcare legislation—with their talk about “death panels”, socialism, and a government takeover—but most of the specific provisions are popular with the public (e.g., allowing for pre-existing conditions, banning rescissions, eliminating lifetime caps, preventative care without co-pays, and allowing children up to age 26 to remain on their parents’ policies). The individual mandate is the most controversial part of the bill, but it’s the glue that keeps everything together: without it, there is no way the private insurance companies will be able to afford the additional regulations mandating and expanding coverage.

Republicans will never be able to revoke the popular provisions of the bill—and if they truly threaten the individual mandate, the insurance companies will be up in arms. So again, call their bluff: dare them to remove the individual mandate, and come up with the money to pay for the additional services that Americans want and have now been promised. The Republicans will fold. The only alternative is a public option, or true socialized medicine. (Keep in mind that Obamacare relies almost exclusively on private insurance. This was once a Republican idea, put into effect in Massachusetts under then-governor Mitt Romney and proposed in the Senate under former GOP presidential candidate Bob Dole.)

Governing is far more difficult than campaigning, especially when your base consists largely of people looking to vent their frustrations instead of thinking about how to solve problems. Now that the GOP has to actually govern, it’s time to expose their inconsistencies and contradictions and move forward with a serious progressive agenda. For Obama and the Democratic leadership, the only thing standing in the way is timidity.

Jason Scorse

The 2010 midterms have come and gone. Democrats did a little worse in the House than expected, a little better in the Senate. Importantly, we now have clear evidence of the damage that the Tea Party is doing to the Republican Party: the GOP lost sure Senate wins in DE, NV, and CO because of extremist Tea Party candidates, and had to invest significantly more in other races (e.g., KY) that should have been less costly pick-ups. In fact, a reasonable case can be made that the Tea Party cost the GOP control of the Senate. Tea Partiers may have helped pick up a few extra House seats, but these were more than offset by the Senate setbacks.

Voters in Wisconsin and Florida made egregiously bad choices in their Senate and governor’s races respectively. In Wisconsin, progressive champion Russ Feingold lost to Republican Ron Johnson, an extremist climate-change denier who is clearly a nut job. By exercising profoundly poor judgment and elevating a person of dubious moral and intellectual caliber to the U.S. Senate, the people of Wisconsin have demonstrated that they are not serious.

In Florida the voters elected Republican Rick Scott as governor. Scott’s signature achievement as chief executive of Columbia/HCA, the largest for-profit healthcare provider in America, was to defraud the government out of billions in Medicare claims. He was forced to resign in disgrace, and Columbia/HCA had to pay the biggest settlement in Medicare fraud history. It’s hard to fathom how any group of people, let alone the voters in one of our most populous states, could elect a crook of this magnitude to statewide office. But elect him they did, and Florida too wins a prize for horrible electoral judgment.

There are many ways to punish bad actors. Just as I will never visit Arizona as long as it maintains its draconian anti-immigration policies, I will never visit WI or FL and contribute to their tax base and tourism industries.

I would like to make a distinction between simply opposing Republican candidates and opposing extremists. Florida also elected Marco Rubio to the Senate. I disagree with Rubio on probably 80% of his policy views, but he is articulate, reasonably intelligent, and not prone to demagoguery. I dislike Rubio and would never vote for him, but he’s a Republican who’s at least amenable to reason; he’s also a very good orator, and my pick for the 2016 GOP nomination for president. He’s poles away from people like Johnson and Scott; both are frauds who damage the body politic and don’t deserve the high offices they’ll soon hold.

All in all I am surprisingly happy with the midterm results. California went straight Democratic and defeated the anti-climate change forces; the most extreme Tea Party candidates lost and the Tea Party will continue to harm the GOP; the House turning Republican will force the GOP to actually attempt to govern, making clear to the public that the party has nothing but bad ideas that don’t add up.

Now if only the economy can continue to improve, we can count on an Obama victory in 2012 and an upswing for Democrats overall.

Jason Scorse

Democracy’s greatest strength is that it turns what were once contests of arms into contests of ideas. Political contests are often aggressive, confrontational, and generate extreme rhetoric, but they are rarely violent; this is one of humanity’s greatest achievements.

But while politics channels otherwise violent forces, it is important to realize that politics still represents a war of ideas—of conflicting ideologies, and often incompatible worldviews.

We cannot both cut taxes for the ultra-wealthy and provide reasonable standards of social services for the poor and the middle class; we cannot both respect a woman’s control over her own body and the dictates of religious fundamentalists; we cannot both believe in equality and deny gay people the right to marry. Although politics is often the “art of compromise,” public policy often requires choices that need to be made in which one side wins and the other loses.

I feel strongly that the extremist ideology of the far right in America is poisonous and a threat to the long-term viability of America as a great power; further, that it results in extreme suffering for large portions of the population. The far left also espouses some terrible ideas, but it has virtually no power and is relegated to fringe status; the far right, however, is ascendant within one of our two major parties. The Democrats are by and large centrist, while the Republicans have morphed into something radical that pays little if any attention to true conservative principles.

It is my goal to defeat the far right; I don’t want to compromise with them, to lend credibility to their ideas, but to bury their delusional worldview in the dustbin of history. There are times when a political party goes so far off the deep end that it loses its intellectual and moral legitimacy; such is the case today with the Republican Party and its extremist enablers.

The war of ideas that I and others want to engage in seeks to discredit the far right on social policy, on tax policy, on the role of religion in society, and, perhaps most importantly, on the proper role of the government in the regulation of business. We have just witnessed the immense damage that lax regulation has wrought on our society: putting us on the brink of a second Great Depression, dropping us behind in the crucial technologies of the 21st century, and creating the greatest income inequality in America in generations.

As in most wars, battles will be won and lost, and one must take a long-term view. On Tuesday, it is likely that a battle will be lost and some of the most extremist candidates ever to run for national office will be elected. But this should only make those dedicated to reason and rational public policy more determined than ever not to give up. The ultimate goal is to make sure that 10, 20, 30 years from now there will be no more talk about how tax cuts for the rich pay for themselves, why gays should not have the same rights as everyone else, and why healthcare is best left to the whims of the free market.

We will ultimately win this struggle, but victory will come sooner if we realize that it is a war of ideas that we are engaged in. It’s a war that requires plenty of fortitude, mental toughness, and the will to win.

P.S. My new book, What Environmentalists Need to Know About Economics, is my contribution to the war of ideas on the environmental front. It is now available from Amazon.

Jason Scorse

With a little over a week until the midterms, the only thing we can be sure of is that the Democrats are going to be net losers by a pretty big margin. It’s still possible, though unlikely, that the Democrats will retain control of the House, and almost certain that they will retain a reasonably comfortable majority in the Senate (53+). Since so much of this election depends on turnout—always hard to predict—we simply have to wait and see.

For progressives (and anyone else who cares about the public interest), election 2010 will likely put in office a crop of extremist rightwing candidates whose views range from bizarre to downright oppressive. However, not all is grim.

Here are some things to consider:

1. A good portion of the expected Democratic losses will come from the so-called “Blue Dogs” who rode the waves of 2006 and 2008 in districts that traditionally lean Republican. While these representatives are friendlier to progressive causes than their Republican counterparts, they have aided the GOP by helping block key aspects of the liberal agenda, e.g., a public option in the healthcare bill. With most of them gone, it will be easier for the Democratic caucus to maintain a unified progressive stance. This could help going into the election of 2012, and also over the next two years.

2. Many Tea Party candidates will be defeated, delivering a blow to the know-nothings in the Republican Party. It is possible that the Republicans will lose as many as 5 Senate seats that they could’ve easily won with reasonable center-right candidates. These losses will likely accelerate the intra-party warfare within the GOP. The adults know that the Palins, O’Donnells, and Angles are toxic to the Party’s long-term viability, but they don’t know how to stop them. When their candidacies result in losses, the adult voices are going to speak out. We’re going to get a preview of the 2012 Republican presidential nomination fight, and it won’t be pretty.

3. It is obvious that the extremists among the Republican candidates will never be able to deliver. Their actual positions are unpopular; the reasons they’re going to win seats are a weak economy and widespread anger over forces beyond people’s control. If they win the House, however, Republicans will have to govern—and it will quickly become clear that they have no real plan for job creation, deficit reduction, immigration reform, energy policy, or practically anything else. Any attempt to repeal healthcare reform will not only face an Obama veto; many of the bill’s provisions are very popular (when people cite the unpopularity of the bill overall, they forget that half of those who don’t like wish it were more progressive). The bottom line is that Republican policies and ideas are more unpopular now than they were a few years ago, and the GOP will soon find itself caught between a rock and a hard place: placate the base and alienate 70% of the public, or move to the center and face the ire of the Limbaugh-Tea Party crowd.

So not all is grim, even if the Democrats lose control of the House.

Politics is a strange game. I wish those who are ignorant and reactionary didn’t have so much sway in our system, but I am still all but certain that progressive policies and ideas will ultimately win. In 20 years we will have a solid universal healthcare system, gays will be able to marry, our immigration system will be much more humane, and we will have ushered in a green tech revolution.

Reactionary forces always stall progress and increase suffering along the way, but they also always lose in America, and this time won’t be any different. We have to be in it for the long haul.

Jason Scorse

Religious extremists in the U.S. are at least partly responsible for the homophobia and misogyny that still dominate our culture. The vitriol spouted in weekly sermons across the country leads to real harm, including violent attacks on homosexuals and the high gay suicide rate. But many other forces contribute, and the harm is hard to quantify.

But in one area the link between the religious right and societal harm will ultimately become much clearer: therapies resulting from embryonic stem-cell research. During the Bush Administration, at the behest of religious extremists, federal funding for stem-cell research was limited to existing lines—essentially a ban on federal funding. One of the first things Obama did when he took office was to lift the ban. Despite legal challenges, funding is again flowing into this promising area.

Just last week, a trial began in which embryonic stem cells will be injected into the spinal cord of a partially paralyzed man to try to cure his paralysis. This treatment, and many others like it, may not work. But it is almost certain that embryonic stem cells will ultimately lead to effective treatments for some of the most debilitating medical conditions. It will then be possible to roughly calculate how much misery and suffering resulted from the eight-year ban on federal funding; we’ll be able to approximate how many people, for how many years, went without treatment because religious extremists had brought research to a halt. Blocking stem-cell research is hardly equivalent to shooting abortion doctors, but it imposes real costs on real people.

It’s also worth reminding ourselves how morally bankrupt the case is for opposing stem-cell research. An embryo with no consciousness or identity, which is going to be destroyed anyway, is placed off limits to scientists. At the same time, researchers can inflict horrific pain and suffering on sentient animals. You don’t have to believe that animals are in any way morally equivalent to humans to realize that torturing them is worse than destroying microscopic embryos.

In addition, the religious extremists who oppose stem-cell research are hypocrites. Robert Edwards just won the Nobel Prize in medicine for his work on in vitro fertilization, which allows infertile couples to have babies. His medical breakthroughs produce millions of embryos, unused and ultimately discarded, that are sought for stem-cell research. Nobody on the religious right pickets fertility clinics or expresses moral outrage at producing extra embryos so that couples can have their own children. The religious right opposes stem-cell research that may one day ease human suffering, but not the destruction of embryos to produce more humans. This is morally inconsistent.

But moral consistency has never been a hallmark of religion.

I look forward to the day when breakthroughs from embryonic stem-cell research help ease some of the worst human diseases and injuries. In addition to celebrating the benefits to humanity, it’ll make it easier to clearly see how much harm has been caused in the meantime, and represent one more case against religion.

P.S. If you have any topics you would like covered in VoR send me an email at: voicesofreasonblog@gmail.com.

Jason Scorse

The mosque controversy in Lower Manhattan has died down, and a fringe preacher is no longer threatening to burn the Koran; in this calm atmosphere, it’s worthwhile remembering that in a liberal democracy there is no right not to be offended. We can be miffed by all sorts of behavior, but in free societies our annoyance is never a reason to restrict someone else’s freedom—even to do something as stupid as burning religious books.

Of course, if an individual’s actions could cause bodily harm or impose significant hardships on others, then the State has a right to restrict that behavior. But offensive art, book burning, flag burning, and all sorts of offensive media materials are almost always Constitutionally protected. Why? Because no matter how disagreeable, they can be ignored.

When the radical pastor in Florida planned to burn the Koran there was a huge outcry because of the impact this might have on Muslim perceptions of America, which could lead to increased violence against U.S. troops and citizens. Everyone from the President to General Petraeus spoke out against it. I understood their argument, but thought it was a poor one.

A free society permits a person to do stupid and offensive things; if a pastor wants to waste his money burning books, that’s his business. And the argument should’ve continued: for Muslims around the world, this insulting act should be met with peaceful protest as evidence that the Muslim faith is consistent with liberty.

But of course this didn’t happen. The simple threat of Koran-burning led to violent and fatal protests in Afghanistan and other Muslim countries. Killing people because someone insulted you is a wildly disproportionate response; you prove your maturity, and show confidence in your beliefs, by taking a higher road.

Instead, in many European countries and even in the United Nations, attempts are underway to make it illegal to insult religions. This is insane. If anything, we should be challenging the special treatment of religions in society, not sacrificing core liberal values.

I vehemently believe the world will be a much better place when religious influence decreases; at the same time, I vehemently respect the right of every person to believe whatever they want. Just as I would fight to my last breath to prevent religions from imposing their values on the rest of society, I will always fight for the freedom of religion—because that compact is part of the basis of American society.

I think most religious people have thick enough skins and a strong enough commitment to liberty to accept that insults to their faith are part of the bargain. Those who don’t should not be appeased.

It’s a very slippery slope once exceptions are made to honor the delicate sensibilities of religious extremists.

Jason Scorse

The GOP “Pledge to America” is a joke; it greatly increases the national deficit and includes no new ideas whatever. Strikingly, however, it calls for the repeal of healthcare reform and its replacement with a Republican version. The Pledge is vague on what the Republican bill would include, but the GOP has conceded there is no way we can go back to the old status quo.

The American healthcare system is the worst among developed countries in terms of what we get for our money, the levels of coverage, and the injustices that befall families who are denied treatment or can’t get coverage due to pre-existing conditions. Providing universal coverage is difficult, but many countries have managed to do it for decades.

Universal systems fall into one of two basic types: public systems run by the government in which doctors are paid salaries instead of per-service fees, with the government deciding what treatments patients receive (or they can pay for additional services out of their own pockets); or tightly-regulated systems of private insurance. The UK falls into the first category while Switzerland has the latter.

Obama’s healthcare policy resembles the Swiss model. As yet, America has no public option and doctors are paid by individuals and insurance companies, not the government. Republicans are so opposed to government-run healthcare, like the UK’s, that the public option was never on the table (though progressives strongly favor this approach).

What Obama and the Democrats passed is actually what many Republicans proposed in the past, including Bob Dole and later Mitt Romney, who instituted a very similar program in Massachusetts. But then Republicans put themselves in a bind: instead of building off these centrist and reasonable plans, they took an ideological position opposed to anything the Democrats proposed. In addition, they stoked the fears of their extremist base with cries of socialism and death panels. As a result they’re can’t even support policies they once championed, such as the individual mandate.

But if private insurance is going to be the delivery mechanism, insurance companies will have to be so tightly regulated that they become almost non-profits, which is the case in Switzerland. Without tight regulation, private insurers will simply choose to insure the healthy and refuse insurance to the sick; this is what maximizes profits, which is what private businesses do. Without tight regulation, there is no way to deal with preexisting conditions, mandatory preventative care, and other thorny issues.

Americans love many provisions of the bill Democrats passed, e.g., the fact they can’t be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions and have lifetime caps. Republicans are trying to tell people they can have it both ways—all the benefits of Obamacare, without any government involvement. This is simply impossible: Republicans will ultimately have to choose between the popular provisions of the bill or government regulation.

Democrats were right to vote for the healthcare bill, as imperfect as it is; once the train leaves the station it doesn’t go back. We’re headed for universal healthcare in America, and only the Democratic Party can deliver it. That Party will win the healthcare battle, even if there are minor setbacks along the way.

Jason Scorse

It’s amazing how quickly things change: three of my four predictions last week proved wrong.

DADT repeal and the Dream Act, both of which I thought would pass, were thwarted in the Senate by the GOP’s unprecedented threat to filibuster a defense authorization bill. The Democratic leadership clearly miscalculated by trying to bring the bill to the floor without having the votes.

On the middle class tax cuts, Democrats completely dropped the ball by refusing to hold votes before the election. This is the spineless Democratic behavior that drives the base crazy, and it comes just when they need inspiration. To hold two separate votes on tax cuts—one for the middle class and the other for the wealthy—was a no-brainer. The public vastly favors extending only the middle class cuts (even Republicans by a 2:1 margin), and it’s been a signature issue for Obama.

It’s a shame that the Democratic leadership let such a golden opportunity slip by; nothing would have clarified the differences between the parties more sharply, and it’s exactly what the Democrats should have done going into the election.

This week also witnessed the rollout of the GOP’s “Pledge for America”, which turned out to be little more than industry wish lists, patriotic slogans, and regressive social values. It was trashed by so many Republicans that I had to wonder why they even bothered to release it. Given widespread discontent with the economy, Republicans are poised to make huge gains if only the public doesn’t think too hard about what the GOP actually stands for. Why remind them when you don’t have to?

Instead, “The Pledge” gives Democrats another chance to make the election not simply a referendum on the economy but a choice between competing visions. The Democrats, for all their imperfections, have demonstrated over the past two years that they stand for the public interest and social progress. Over the same time, Republicans have essentially turned into lobbyists for the corporations that fund their campaigns and give them lucrative jobs when they retire from public life; they’ll do anything to subvert the public good—opposing healthcare reform, Wall Street reform, environmental protection, even food safety. Besides their regressive economic policy they’re regressive socially, openly hostile to women’s rights, gays, and immigrants.

If elections were decided on the merits of party policies, we’d be looking at another Democratic victory. Yet here we are five weeks before the election, and a major Republican victory is highly probable

But it is not a given. There is still time to contain the damage, if only the base, all progressives and all Democrats bury the hatchet and work together. To this end, I urge everyone to read the Matt Yglesias article on how high the stakes are. Major provisions of the healthcare law are just going into effect, improving hundreds of thousands of lives, and these are the things Republicans want to repeal. Stop complaining and get in gear, Yglesias says; staying home will set back progress for years to come.

I couldn’t agree more. Those dedicated to reason and social progress cannot sit this one out.

Jason Scorse

With six weeks to go before the midterm elections, the key to avoiding a major defeat for Obama and the Democrats is to rally their base. High unemployment and a weak economy are the main reasons they’re in such bad shape; these macroeconomic factors largely determine electoral outcomes, despite all the theories put forth by pundits about particular policies or personalities. The additional element hurting Democrats this cycle is low enthusiasm among supporters, not the popularity of Republicans. If Obama and the Democrats can fire up a sizeable portion of the coalition that swept them to victory in 2008, they may be able to hold the Congress.

So what do Obama and the Democrats have planned?

1. The appointment of Elizabeth Warren to lead the Consumer Protection Agency

This position was announced Friday; while Warren’s position is ambiguous, she’s basically in charge and avoids a long and contentious confirmation battle. Warren is a progressive champion, and will likely be all over the airwaves in the coming weeks touting the new agency and its regulatory benefits for consumers. The regulations she’ll be overseeing are extremely popular, and the Republicans voted against them.

2. Repeal “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”

As early as next Tuesday, the Democrats will bring to a vote the new defense authorization bill that includes an amendment repealing DADT. Republicans will have to decide whether to filibuster; if they do, their anti-gay bigotry will be holding up needed resources for the armed services. I predict that the DADT repeal will pass, handing a major progressive victory to Obama—one that activists have been waiting for since his election.

3. The DREAM Act

Another amendment to the defense bill, the DREAM Act will give college-age children of illegal immigrants, who are also illegal, the right to apply for citizenship if they attend college or serve in the armed forces. This has been a huge goal of immigrant rights supporters, and will provide a tangible victory to help make up for the failure of comprehensive immigration reform. I predict that this will pass as well, with the military in favor because it increases the pool of potential volunteers.

4. Tax cuts for the middle class

This is like a softball down the middle of the plate. Americans are heavily in favor of ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and keeping them for the middle class (remember, the wealthy also keep the cuts on the first $250,000 of income). Extending the middle class cuts and letting the high-end breaks expire has been one of Obama’s central promises; getting it enacted would restore some progressivity to the tax code and help the struggling middle class. The Republicans are complete hypocrites on the issue; it’s impossible to oppose increasing the deficit and simultaneously favor tax breaks for the rich, especially when the economic stimulus they provide is minimal. The GOP complains about spending for unemployment benefits and children’s healthcare, and then wants $700 billion for the ultra-rich? That’s a political gift that cries out to be exploited, and the Democrats have from now until Election Day.

All of the above are in addition to what has been two years of major legislative victories (for a good summary click here). Obama has not delivered on all of his promises and there is reason for both criticism and disappointment, but this has been the most progressive administration in 60 years. Any Democratic supporters who choose to sit it out on Nov. 2 are simply not thinking straight.

Jason Scorse

I don’t subscribe to the “things have to get worse before they get better” theory, but I’m starting to think it could happen this time around. But before I explain why a GOP wave in November might turn into a silver lining, let me first say that I think it’s premature to call the elections for Republicans.

The midterm season doesn’t really start until after Labor Day, and polls can swing hugely between now and Nov. 2. And while many Democrats are disillusioned (for a number of reasons, some sensible and some not), I can’t imagine that many will end up not voting given how much is at stake. Three words—“Speaker John Boehner”— should be enough to get even unhappy Democrats to the polls. And while the youth turnout might not be as high as in 2008, the Administration’s student loan reform provides a strong reason to vote. Loans are cheaper and grants bigger than ever before, all because of Obama’s efforts.

I also think the Republicans peaked too early, leaving a significant window of opportunity for Obama and the Democrats to drive the narrative leading up to the election. Obama is likely to appoint Elizabeth Warren, a liberal favorite, to head the new Consumer Protection Agency; it appears that the small business tax credit bill will pass (thanks to the defection of Ohio’s Republican Senator); Obama wants to extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class and end them for the rich (a very popular position); and the controversy over the mosque near Ground Zero has given the president another opportunity to promote America’s best ideals in the face of rightwing fear-mongering.

But let us assume that the worst comes to pass: Republicans take control of the House and gain several seats in the Senate. Many Tea Party candidates will have won, and rightwing extremism will have been rewarded.

Governing, though, is a lot harder than stoking anger and taking extreme positions; the fact remains that the far right’s policies are deeply unpopular.

If Republicans try to repeal healthcare reform, or privatize Social Security, or extend tax cuts for the rich, Americans will quickly get buyer’s remorse. Republicans might also shut down the government, which would also be extremely unpopular. Lastly, of course, Obama holds the veto power over whatever might get to his desk. So if the Republicans do take control, it’s my prediction that it will virtually guarantee his reelection in 2012; voters will clearly see the GOP agenda, reject it, and hand Obama four more years.

America has major problems that need to be addressed—climate change, immigration, tax reform, and the long-term deficit. These require serious people making difficult choices, and today’s Republican Party is incapable of taking part. If government in Washington must grind to a standstill and extremist Republicans such as Joe Miller, Rand Paul, and Sharron Angle given a platform to espouse their lunacy in order to make finally people realize that the GOP is nothing more than a front group for corporate interests, then so be it.

If Democrats do manage to hold onto the House and the Senate, but with smaller majorities, the caucus that remains will likely be more progressive. It will embolden Democrats if they manage to hang on, encouraging them to fight harder and with a more unified voice for their legislative priorities—even if they’re ultimately thwarted by the obstructionist GOP.

So whatever happens in November, I’m still optimistic. The question is how much needless suffering we have to endure before our political system is again populated with rational actors committed to the public good.

Jason Scorse

Most political analysts predict that the Republicans will make huge gains in November, likely taking over the House and gaining several seats in the Senate. Voters are angry over the economy and disenchanted with the Obama Administration. While there is some justification for this malaise, rewarding the GOP come November is insane; no rational reading of America’s problems would dictate that the solution is more Republican control.

For all of the shortcomings of the Democrats and Obama*, the Republicans have been in lock-step opposition to every sensible policy for the past 20 months; they fought against healthcare reform and the stimulus package, sided with the banks against financial regulation and student loan reform, blocked climate change and energy legislation, and even opposed extending unemployment benefits.

By any objective measure, if the Republicans had had their way the economy would be in much worse shape, perhaps rivaling the Great Depression. And what are the current Republican priorities? They say they’re against budget deficits, but they want to extend the Bush tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy and repeal healthcare reform—even though the Congressional Budget Office says many of its measures will help control future costs.

Past Democratic supporters who threaten to stay home and wage “protest votes” are simply not thinking straight. If they believe things are bad now, wait till the Republicans take power. There’ll be endless Congressional investigations, a shredding of safety nets, and likely a government shutdown.

The problems we face require long-term planning and sacrifice on all our parts. It’s no help at all, and in fact invites a further crisis, if our impatience leads us to simply “throw the bums out.”

The main thing in the Democrats’ favor is that many Tea Party extremists have won Republican primaries, giving the Democrats opportunities they would not have had if reasonable Republicans had won. GOP Senate candidates Sharron Angle, Rand Paul, Ken Buck, and Joe Miller are true radicals, with views ranging from the bizarre (Buck: our education system was much better in the 1950s) to the outright oppressive (women who are raped should be forced to have babies—all four).

Democrats also have a cash advantage going into the elections, and it’s hardly too late for those who are disillusioned to wake up and realize that not voting would be a colossal mistake.

*I think many on the left have been right to criticize Obama for compromising too much and not fighting hard enough for progressive ideals. He and other Democrats failed spectacularly on energy and climate change legislation. Not bringing immigration reform up for a vote has demoralized many Latinos, and hurt his popularity with this rising constituency. In addition, Obama’s fetish for bipartisanship has worked to blur the ideological lines that separate the parties: on the issues that matter most, the country sides overwhelmingly with Democratic policies.

P.S. Eugene Robinson goes even further than me; in a column last week, he said Americans were acting like “spoiled brats.” He’s right.

Jason Scorse

Following up on last week’s post (about the need for the media to focus on issues and policy first, and political implications second), it occurred to me that one of the reasons this is unlikely to happen is because most journalists do not understand public policy very well. The reality is that policy is complicated and requires some level of training and/or experience to understand, and most journalists lack these qualifications.

I don’t have statistics, but a cursory examination of op-ed writers and journalists in the major newspapers indicates a dearth of individuals with degrees in economics or public policy. This is not to say that those without such degrees are by definition unqualified; nonetheless, the amount of misinformation, mistakes, and poor reasoning exhibited routinely in the traditional media severely undermines the accuracy of the reporting (Dean Baker’s “Beat the Press” blog is a great source that identifies the many errors commonly made in the traditional media about the most important domestic issues).

In addition to loads of misinformation, much reporting and commentary exhibits a profound ignorance of the power and interest group dynamics that lurk behind the daily pronouncements on policy and economic matters coming from various quarters. For instance, a common meme floating around lately claims that the reason new hires are slow is because businesses are concerned about regulatory uncertainty and tax increases; this has been promoted mainly by conservative economists and the Chamber of Commerce. Few reporters ever note that businesses want nothing more than less regulation and lower taxes, and that it is in their interest to try to convince policymakers and the public that this is what is needed to get greater economic growth (regardless of whether it’s true).

Similarly, many media personalities lack the knowledge to challenge politicians on TV when they make outrageous claims about tax cuts leading to increases in government revenue, or that the stimulus bill didn’t create jobs. In a media culture where image and personality are valued over knowledge, we are left with news outlets unequipped to challenge propaganda and spin.

There are of course notable exceptions, such as Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman, who writes for the New York Times (and has to spend much of his time debunking pieces by other, uninformed Times writers, e.g., David Brooks), but these are few and far between.

Of course writing and reporting skills and crucial, but the media discourse would improve markedly if more people who had studied policy held top jobs, especially those who could explain complex issues in ways that ordinary citizens could comprehend. It’s too much to ask average Americans to understand the details of the tax code or health insurance economics, but not too much to ask those charged with informing the public to actually have the requisite training to do so.

This is another instance where the anti-intellectual and anti-elitist mindset in America is harming the country; experts should be sought out, not ignored, especially when it comes to the news.

Jason Scorse

The Shirley Sherrod case (in which a video was edited to make a USDA official appear racist, when she was not) is yet another episode of media chicanery and incompetence; for the better part of a week it distracted the country from policy debates that really matter. The rightwing hacks and enablers who routinely perpetrate these frauds got exactly what they wanted: the more time the country spends on sideshows, the less attention is paid to the real issues.

There’s a fair amount of introspection going on about what brought the media to the point where hatchet jobs from disreputable sources can hijack the news cycle (the Obama Administration itself fell victim, in a disgraceful way). Even many of the media’s most vocal defenders (e.g., Mark Halperin) admit that something is terribly wrong.

And there is.

But I doubt whether the media will learn the most important lesson. What ails them most is not that they fall victim now and them to a con artist; what ails them is the political paradigm through which they view virtually everything. The real trouble is that all news stories are instantly treated as Democrats v. Republicans and left v. right, always with a nod to where “centrists”, “moderates”, or “independents” lie.

This lens does more to distort than illuminate; politics should be secondary to the larger issues and ideas. America is facing tremendous challenges: a slow recovery with high unemployment, skyrocketing deficits, a health care crisis, two ongoing wars and terrorist threats, potentially catastrophic climate change and environmental degradation, and an illegal immigrant population that’s now over twelve million.

The media should focus on these issues, and offer the public the differing views on how to address them—the policies, regulations, and laws they would entail, and the potential pros and cons of the different approaches. Only after laying out the issues should politics enter the equation.

For example, on deficits, the two ways to address the issue are raising taxes or cutting spending. If the media outlined the different combinations of these strategies, and what they would mean for individual Americans, it would be a great service: people could form an opinion on the substance of the issues, ahead of the political implications. Of course, where the parties stand will ultimately be a big part of any policy story—but party stances should not top the discussion. The public needs to be educated and informed first, and then figure out which party is most closely aligned with their views.

The way the media currently works, everything is backwards. In print and on-air, writers and talking heads focus on the political battles before the substance is even close to clear. This confuses the public, which understandably reverts to simply following their ideological predispositions (which in turn further polarizes the nation, and dumbs-down the discourse).

When issues advance or stall in the political process, the media should make clear who is responsible. This will help voters clearly link policy outcomes to specific politicians. For example: when financial reform passes with next to no Republican support, headlines should make that clear; when unemployment benefits are blocked by the GOP, the headlines shouldn’t say “Congress fails to pass unemployment benefits extension”.

And please, no more discussions of how many Americans self-identify as “conservative” or “liberal”; these definitions are extremely vague and imprecise, and people often hold contradictory views on many topics that render these labels meaningless (i.e. wanting lower taxes but increased government spending, or increased personal freedom but the ability to restrict the rights of groups they don’t like).

The media has forgotten that political victories are ultimately meaningless and only policy victories matter. Social Security or tax cuts or gay rights matter because of their impact on people, not because they score points for one party or the other. Being fair and balanced doesn’t mean giving equal weight to both parties, it means describing objectively the costs and benefits of different policies and who stands to gain and lose. This crucial distinction has been lost in our media culture.

VoR prides itself on being a non-partisan forum, which may surprise some because of the strong stances I often take for the Democratic Party over the GOP. But if tomorrow the Republicans started representing just, fair, and reasonable policies, I would switch my allegiance in a heartbeat. Political labels mean nothing to me; they are important only with regards to policy goals.

If the media could finally recognize this, it would bring much greater clarity to the issues and lead to a much better-informed citizenry.

Jason Scorse

The death of climate change legislation this week provides more evidence of a completely broken political system. Not only is the threat from climate change real and growing; addressing the problem would have strengthened our economy and reduced the power of the world’s petrodictators. Climate change policy would have been a huge net positive for society, and it should have been a no-brainer.

But of course, some industries—notably oil and coal—would be harmed. Since they hold disproportionate political sway, these incredibly polluting industries were allowed to block progress. It is truly discouraging to the see the world’s greatest democracy beholden to the lowest common denominator.

The GOP is largely to blame: not one Republican Senator could be counted on to do the right thing (and remember that cap and trade was part of the McCain-Palin platform, but now even McCain is against it, as well as Lindsey Graham who worked with Kerry and Leiberman on a climate bill). Although comprehensive climate change legislation had already passed the House (again, with no Republican support), the new supermajority requirements of the Senate meant that at least some Republican support was necessary (especially since a few “centrist” Democrats from the oil and coal states were likely to vote “no” as well.)

But despite the obstructionism and small-mindedness of the Republicans, I place the majority of the blame on Obama. Why? Because he never made the case to the American people, never forced a true debate on the issue.

Obama’s greatest strength is that he can talk to the American people as adults, and level with us about the hard choices we face. But before the climate bill negotiations even began, he capitulated to the right by offering billions in federal loans for new nuclear plants and pledging to expand offshore oil drilling.

Later, faced with the disaster in the Gulf, Obama could have turned crisis into opportunity and made the case as to why finally—after decades of speeches and broken promises from Presidents as far back as Nixon—we had to wean ourselves off fossil fuels. He could have packaged this with American competitiveness and the need not to let China and Europe become the dominant players in the new alternative energy industries. He could’ve reminded us that most of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, which supports extremists around the world and doesn’t even let women drive cars; he could’ve pointed out that Iran wouldn’t be funding a nuclear program if oil was $20 a barrel.

Instead, Obama and the Democrats caved. They didn’t force a vote to put people on record; they didn’t make the Republicans actually filibuster the bill; the threat was enough to make them fold. Most discouraging (and not confined to the climate bill) is how the Democrats have been unable to enforce party discipline on procedural votes; it’s one thing to resist party-line unanimity on legislative votes, but all Democrats should be required to let legislation come to the floor. It’s beyond me that Democrats who side with Republicans on filibusters go unpunished; loyalty on procedural votes seems to me an absolute minimum requirement for a political party.

Obviously, I’m frustrated. There is simply no excuse for a failure of this magnitude, especially without a fight. There was never any indication that Obama took this issue seriously enough to do what was necessary, and for this I will not forgive him.

But the fight goes on, and Obama and the Democrats still have time to make up for this colossal misstep. There are a number of steps that the EPA is likely to take next year that could significantly limit greenhouse gas emissions, and are also onerous enough that the oil and coal industries may actually prefer congressional action. In addition, there are a number of executive orders Obama could issue to increase energy efficiency throughout the economy—and, through government procurement of green energy, move the market in a new direction.

And who knows? Maybe the Democrats won’t lose too many seats in November, and will get a second wind on this issue. At this point, they have failed and there’s no good spin to put on it.

P.S. The NYT seems to largely agree with how I appropriate blame. On a positive note, Harry Reid spoke to the Netroots Convention and offered a glimmer of hope. And although unrelated to climate, this exchange was extremely moving and demonstrates why despite all of their shortcomings the Democrats are far superior to the GOP.

P.P.S. Krugman has a nice piece Monday on the issue and lays more of the blame on the consummate hypocrite John "country first" (cue the laugh track) McCain.

Jason Scorse

Predicting election outcomes is tricky, but economic conditions are highly correlated with how citizens ultimately vote. The formula is simple: the better the economy, the better for the incumbents; the worse the economic conditions, the worse the party in power fares. (James Carville summed it all up with his much-quoted phrase, “It’s the economy, stupid!”)

Given today’s high unemployment and low growth, the Republican Party should pile up huge gains in November. And they probably will if Republican leaders could just learn to keep their mouths shut. But they apparently can’t, and what’s been coming out almost daily provides what hope there is for Democrats.

Over the last few weeks Republican Congressmen have basically stated that the GOP’s priorities include:

1. Screwing over the working poor and the middle class by refusing to extend unemployment benefits, all the while claiming that the unemployed are lazy and undeserving;
2. Standing up for Wall Street and big corporations, even to the point of calling for a one-year moratorium on regulations (forget about health, safety and the environment, who cares?);
3. Standing up for the rich at every opportunity;
4. Pretending to care about the deficit (when it’s about money for the unemployed), but saying at the same time that deficits don’t matter (when it’s about extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich).

I think it’s safe to say that if elections were determined by actual policy prescriptions, the GOP would fail miserably; only a minority of Americans, perhaps even a small minority, support these views. So, despite the bad economic times, it’s worth asking why so many Americans will pull the lever for a party whose priorities are this perverse.

Part of the answer is because there are people for whom facts simply don’t matter; their worldview is shaped by the ravings of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and the other purveyors of misinformation who dominate Fox News and talk radio. These people can never be swayed by reason. Ironically, the current bad economic conditions (even though Obama inherited them) only reinforce their belief that all Democrats are bad.

The good news is that the people who make up this minority will be quickly shrinking as a proportion of the electorate over the coming decades. Many are older and will simply die off, and many others are from a white working class that is also shrinking. No doubt there are younger Americans who are just as ignorant as the old-guard extremist fringe, but polls indicate that most are significantly more tolerant than their elders and at least moderately amenable to rational arguments.

So, as infuriating as it to watch the know-nothings dominate so much of our political discourse, I believe that what we’re experiencing is the last gasp of this vocal and vitriolic demographic. Granted, this final outpouring from the right-wing, epitomized by the Tea Party “movement”, may last a good while—but in relatively short order, it will fade into the dustbin of history. Our stagnant economy has probably bottomed out, and their appeal will naturally decline as employment, the housing market, and other economic markers begin to improve.

I am not claiming that American political discourse will ever become a bastion of reason based on honest policy discussions. On the other hand, I do think that what we are now witnessing represents our political nadir—that things are as bad as they’re going to get. Demographic trends and the inevitable march of social progress will prove too powerful for the right wing to withstand, and it will fracture and crumble.

Here’s hoping that this occurs as soon as possible.

P.S. Seems like Frank Rich is on the same page as me today. Good stuff.

Jason Scorse

Nancy Pelosi rarely directly criticizes the Senate, despite the fact that hundreds of pieces of legislation that she has passed in the House continue to languish without even a vote in the Senate. But the other day she made some of the strongest comments to date that the filibuster needs to be eliminated and majority rule brought back to the Senate chamber.

There is nothing in the Constitution that states that 60 votes are needed to pass legislation in the Senate; the filibuster is simply an artifact of rule changes that have been made over the past few decades. The Constitution does allow for new rules at the beginning of every session, so that only 50 senators (plus VP Joe Biden who would break a tie) could simply decide to eliminate the filibuster. This would allow the Democrats to pass much of the stalled legislation on energy policy, immigration, and jobs bills in 2011 and beyond.

In fact, even though the Democrats will likely end up with significantly fewer Senate seats in 2011 (perhaps 53-54), with only a majority threshold, it is likely they would actually be able to pass significantly more liberal policies than they have been able to so far. Even with 59 votes they have had to kowtow to the rightwing Democrats and Republicans such as Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Scott Brown to reach the 60-vote threshold.

Of course none of this will matter if the Democrats don’t hold onto the House of Representatives, which they do have a serious chance of losing. But if they can hang on, and then eliminate the filibuster, the second half of Obama’s first term could be extremely productive, even with significantly diminished majorities. No doubt, this will be the major topic of discussion in Democratic circles immediately after the midterm elections.

Without filibuster reform it is likely that the entire Congressional apparatus will grind to a halt, since the Republicans are intently on derailing everything Obama does in the run-up to the 2012 elections. They have proven demonstrably that they don’t care about the problems facing the country, and only want to regain power at any cost, no matter how much suffering they leave in their wake.

It will be very hard to get 50 Democrats to eliminate the filibuster, both because of the desire to cling to tradition, and also for fear that once the Republicans get the majority again they will wreak havoc with their new power. But with significant grassroots activism, I think their hesitation and fears can be overcome. Americans want Congress to govern and to address the problems of the day. Majority rule is simple to understand and as American as apple pie; it speaks to basic notions of fairness. With the filibuster abolished, the difference between the two parties would become even more pronounced, giving the American people an even starker choice with respect to public policy between the two major parties.

This is how it should be. Elections have consequences. Let the Republicans campaign on repealing healthcare, giving tax cuts to the rich, cutting entitlements, and increasing the military budget. If that’s what people want they can vote for it.

But right now majority rule is being thwarted by an extremist fringe in the Senate that won’t even let legislation come up for a vote. As frustrating as these past 18 months have been, if this leads to the elimination of the filibuster it will have been worth it.

Jason Scorse

Just when the bank bailout is looking like it will cost taxpayers much less than previously estimated, the cost of bailing out the government-backed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage brokers has skyrocketed to an estimate of over $350 billion. And yet, the government continues to provide all sorts of misguided tax breaks and subsidies for home owners to the tune of over $230 billion per year.

This is one area where I agree with the serious conservatives (and a few liberals) who say that these policies need to end.

In graduate school I teach about the five primary conditions under which government intervention in the market may be necessary to avoid “market failure” and promote better social outcomes (these conditions are common in the environmental realm, which is my specialty, and why even free market enthusiasts acknowledge that the government has a strong role to play in environmental protection).

1. Imperfect information

In areas where information is poor the producers and sellers of goods may not make well-informed decisions. With housing, the information is close to perfect; sellers know exactly what they are selling, and the buyers can get homes inspected, get their histories, as well as detailed information about the neighborhoods. There is essentially close to zero information asymmetry in the housing market and the information is close to perfect. (It is true that many consumers are poorly informed about special types of adjustable-rate mortgages, which is the impetus for the new Consumer Protection Agency being debated in the financial reform bill conference committee, but this has nothing to do with information about physical homes).

2. Externalities

In situations where the production or consumption of a good imposes costs or benefits on those outside of the transaction (pollution is the classic example), then the price may not fully reflect its true social cost and the government may want to intervene (to either raise the price of goods with negative externalities or lower the price of goods with positive externalities).

Some make the argument that homeowners take better care of their property than renters and therefore create positive externalities for their neighbors (thus justifying a subsidy), but this is based largely on anecdotal evidence and is vastly overblown. In the nations of Europe, where renting is much more common, there is little evidence that renters let their homes deteriorate anymore than home owners. In fact, artificially increasing home ownership may have negative externalities. Not only does it increase the likelihood of default, which then produces terrible blights in a neighborhood, but people tied to mortgages have a much harder time moving, which stalls economic recovery in down times when home prices are low and jobs may be more plentiful in other areas.

3. Lack of secure property rights

Where there are unclear property rights, investment is stymied because people can’t be sure of ownership (and natural resources will be subjected to a “tragedy of the commons”). Home ownership rights couldn’t be more secure in America; when you buy the house it’s yours as long as you pay for it.

4. Lack of competition

When there is lack of competition, monopolists can charge artificially high prices and price discriminate. The housing market is extremely competitive, with millions of buyers and sellers and no one with significant market power.

5. Lack of insurance markets

In areas where insurance is lacking this may lead to under-investment because people don’t want to risk losing everything. There are plenty of home insurance options in America (which are actually required for bank loans); and in fact, the government often perversely promotes the construction of homes in unsafe disaster-prone regions by subsidizing flood insurance where the private insurance market deems it too risky.

What all of this makes clear is that there is absolutely no economic rationale for subsidizing home ownership. Not only is it extremely expensive (at a time of record budget deficits) and has negative unintended consequences—which made the financial crisis much worse than it would’ve been otherwise—but it is regressive; the primary beneficiaries are wealthy people who buy even bigger homes.

Removing housing subsidies would be good policy in every way. But is has become a “third rail” of American politics for the simple reason that most people own homes and get huge benefits from the breaks; they will be up in arms if they are taken away. While it may be unfair to remove these breaks after people factored them into their decisions, we should gradually eliminate them. This will ultimately lower the value of housing, making renting more affordable as well as buying (for those who would live in a world with home subsidies).

If we want to help lower and middle income people, we can do so directly in much better ways. We could take some of that $230 billion and lower the income tax brackets, raise the standard deduction, increase the Earned-Income Tax Credit, or do a host of other things like increase grants for college education. But it is long past time to get the government out of the housing market.

P.S. Frank Rich nails it on how this week's news should prove a godsend for Obama and the Democrats.

Jason Scorse

The greatest challenge for a democratic government is balancing the competing interests in society. The U.S. system of checks and balances is one of the most elegant, sophisticated, and successful systems for doing this—but the framers of the Constitution could never have imagined the rise of the modern corporation, with its attendant concentration of power and wealth.

In the modern era, the Supreme Court has essentially said that money from corporations can be only minimally regulated in the political sphere. Because of their wealth, corporations can employ thousands of lobbyists and give huge donations to politicians. The result is predictable: politicians often put corporate interests ahead of the public interest, often rationalizing that they are one and the same. A sizeable chunk of the regulatory apparatus and the legislative systems in today’s America is crony capitalism run amok: businesses essentially writing their own regulations, minimizing their liabilities, seeking and getting handouts, and avoiding accountability.

Ordinary citizens may bemoan these cozy relationships, but it is ordinary citizens who vote the politicians into office. With the influence of money in Washington having grown to such heights, it is more important than ever for voters to be informed, savvy, and unafraid to hold their elected leaders accountable for the decisions (votes) they make. Unlimited corporate money in politics cannot, in and of itself, guarantee crony capitalism; it can only persist if we allow it to.

The corporations and the politicians beholden to them know this, which is why misinformation is their most powerful weapon. If the citizenry can be confused and their anger and rage deflected, those controlling the money and the legislative process can continue to get what they want: favorable regulation, subsidies, and no blame when the public is harmed.

Currently, the corporate spheres whose interests are most inimical to the public are the financial industry and the fossil fuel industry. Wall Street’s extreme profits come at the expense of financial stability and credit for small businesses; the fossil fuel industry’s profits come at the expense of the environment and national security.

The Democrats have just passed a sweeping financial reform bill. While it’s imperfect, it will create a more stable financial system and subsequently curtail Wall Street profits, which were derived in part through excessive risk. Democrats have also proposed legislation that would increase energy efficiency, develop alternative sources, and consequently decrease the profits of oil and coal companies.

By contrast, the GOP did everything it could to weaken and try to block financial regulatory reform; in addition, Minority Leader Boehner has been practically bragging about his cozy relationship with Wall Street, even promising to weaken regulation if the GOP regains control of Congress. The GOP’s stance on energy legislation is even more deplorable; because of the Gulf oil spill and dashed hopes for more offshore drilling, Republicans are indicating they will not support comprehensive energy reform. With offshore drilling representing only a tiny fraction of the bill, this is absurd.

Adding insult to injury, Republicans are blocking attempts to raise the liability caps for oil companies, saying that this would hurt small oil companies who could never afford to cover the costs of a large oil spill. Think about what the party of “limited government” is saying: we need to put the taxpayer on the hook to make sure oil companies are not financially harmed too severely if they despoil our environment. Even more ridiculous is the notion that there is any such thing as a “small” oil company capable of offshore drilling in depths of thousands of feet. The oil industry is one of the most concentrated in the world and only the biggest companies have the capital and technology to explore in deep waters for oil. But in the GOP fantasy land, where black is white and up is down, protecting big oil from having to pay for its mess is protecting small business.

What we have is a Republican Party that is essentially a wholly-owned subsidiary of big business, with the public interest non-existent.

This is one reason why the Tea Party “movement” is such a deplorable joke. If Tea Partiers really cared about liberty and freedom and an end to crony capitalism, they would run as a third party; the last thing they’d be doing is trying to help the Republicans regain control.

Fortunately for all of us, so far they are only succeeding at alienating ever greater numbers of Americans; by and large, the country is coming to realize that the Tea Party represents an extremist fringe with no coherent or consistent ideology.

Jason Scorse

It is obvious to even casual observers that the Tea Party “movement” is little more than rightwing extremism in new packaging. While the traditional media craves new phenomena for talking heads to speculate about, the Tea Party is a motley crew of disaffected Republicans, crackpots, conspiracy theorists, and racists, with ignorance and misguided rage as their common thread. And much of the Tea Party is funded by corporate interests masquerading as grassroots activists.

But high unemployment and the lingering effects of a great recession have created unhappiness with the current Administration and the Democratic Party in general. While the Obama Administration is not responsible for the meltdown of 2008, it has been in power over a year and the economy is still in poor shape in many areas. Even though the worst is likely over, it is hard to garner support based on the notion (however truthful) that at least things aren’t a lot worse.

The conventional wisdom was that the Democrats should brace themselves for a “wave” election in November, with highly-energized Tea Party candidates primed for major victories. Scott Brown’s victory back in January was said to be a premonition, with a reliable Blue State electing a Tea Party favorite for the Senate seat of liberal lion Ted Kennedy.

But then reality intruded.

Brown sided almost immediately with the Democrats on a jobs bill, drawing the ire of the Tea Party faithful who had propelled him to victory; and just this week, he again voted with the Democrats on financial regulatory reform (despite GOP attempts to label the bill as another bank bailout).

Even more interesting is the case of Tea Party darling Rand Paul, son of Congressman Ron Paul, in Kentucky. Paul bucked the GOP establishment, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, by running as a Tea Party candidate in the Republican senatorial primary and promising to bring conservative purity to Washington. On Tuesday, he won by more than 20 points.

But his victory lap turned into a fiasco. Appearing on the Rachel Maddow show that night, Paul indicated that he opposes the part of the Civil Rights Act that allows the government to bar discrimination in private businesses. Citing one of the extreme tenets of libertarianism, Paul inferred that private businesses should be allowed to discriminate because of their private ownership.

Paul’s libertarianism is so extreme that he also disapproves of government standards mandating access for people with disabilities. And on Good Morning America the next day, he called President Obama’s criticism of BP “un-American” because Obama wanted to blame the company for the Gulf Oil spill (just for the record, BP is a foreign company).

Ironically, Paul’s libertarian credentials don’t extend to the bedroom or to women’s reproductive rights, since he believes the government is right to discriminate against gays and should ban a woman’s right to choose.

In a television interview that shouldn’t be missed, Paul’s Democratic challenger, Jack Conway, went on CNN and completely destroyed Paul’s positions—foreshadowing a tight Senate race in red-state Kentucky, and providing a model for how other Democrats should challenge rightwing ideologues.

Paul went on to cancel his Sunday appearance on Meet the Press (one of only three times this has happened in the show’s more than 40-year history), and it is clear he’s in damage-control mode.

Paul’s meltdown and Scott Brown’s apparent conversion to a moderate New England Republican are high-profile national examples of a Tea Party that’s more bark than bite; a smaller episode on the local level also points to the Party’s inherent limitations.

In Montgomery County, Maryland, a carbon tax was recently put before council members for a vote. Dozens of Tea Party activists and a local energy company spouted all sorts of climate change denier nonsense, hoping to make the council hearings a replay of the healthcare town hall debates last summer, when legislators were screamed down and cowed. Not this time, however: council members voted 8-1 in favor of the carbon tax, and in their statements said that the behavior of Tea Party activists actually emboldened them even more to vote in favor of the measure.

While a few data points do not indicate a trend, it appears that people are getting fed up with Ted Party attempts to stifle rational discourse and legislative progress. The American people are getting a close look at the Tea Party’s true colors, and they’re being turned off.

Nothing would deal the movement a more serious blow than to defeat Rand Paul, so please consider giving to Paul Conway’s campaign; judging by his performance on CNN, he certainly deserves it.

Jason Scorse

Illegal immigration is one of the thorniest issues in America. Even the term “illegal alien” is fraught with negative connotations that lead many supporters of immigrants’ rights to use the term “undocumented” instead. But this is a euphemism; persons without proper documentation are illegal and should be identified as such (just ask the Guatemalans whether Mexican authorizes use such niceties as “undocumented” when they are caught trespassing in Mexico).

Because the U.S. Constitution deems anyone born in the U.S. a citizen, many illegal aliens have children who are citizens, while their parents remain in the shadows. Since many U.S. businesses and individual households thrive on cheap immigrant labor, and low wages by U.S. standards are relatively high by Mexican and other Latin American standards, the flow of illegal immigrants has continued by the hundreds of thousands every year.

Supporters of immigrants’ rights point out that the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants are law-abiding citizens who pay taxes and contribute to the American economy, and deserve a path towards citizenship. Opponents counter that illegal immigrants are breaking the law, that a country has a right to control its borders, and that there are millions of people all over the world, even in Mexico and Latin America, awaiting lawful entry to the U.S.

Putting aside the relative merits of the arguments, there are almost 12 million illegal immigrants in the country and there is no feasible way to deport them even if we wanted to. The only real choices are allowing them to continue in the netherworld of illegality, or granting them some form of pathway to citizenship.

There is a reasonable fear, however, that a citizenship path will only create another incentive for millions more to cross the border illegally—figuring that as long as they can remain hidden, they will eventually be granted some form of amnesty.

Only if we address the root cause of the problem can we break the cycle; we must devise a way to ensure that only legal residents can work in the U.S.

Enter the debate over a National ID Card.

While no doubt many employers hire illegal immigrants because they can pay them lower wages and lower benefits, even the most unscrupulous employers require basic forms of identification such as driver’s licenses or Social Security cards. But these are easily faked, and employers have scant incentive to set up verification processes; they’re costly to begin with, and employers can always tell the authorities they didn’t know the IDs were a sham. Only a counterfeit-proof biometric National ID card has the potential for a virtual error-free method of verifying an individual’s status.

The problem, from the viewpoint of some libertarians, is that any such document infringes on the right to privacy; it would contain information allowing the government to track individual people. Ironically, those most suspicious of a National ID Card overlap greatly with the “law and order” crowd that’s demanding an end to illegal immigration before any negotiations regarding amnesty for the 12 million already here.

But they can’t have it both ways; something has to give.

If they want serious border enforcement and a system ensuring that only American citizens and legal residents can work in the U.S., they’ll have to support a National ID Card; the forces of supply and demand will overwhelm any border fence, and any number of border police.

It will be fascinating to see whether a compromise can be struck this year, coupling strict biometric employment verification with an orderly system for the legalization of the 12 million immigrants currently in the shadows. Given the options, it’s a compromise that’s both reasonable and fair.

Jason Scorse

The climate change bill that was supposed to be unveiled in the Senate on Monday is now on indefinite hold. Senator Lindsey Graham, the lone Republican supporter, walked away from the bill because President Obama and the Democratic leadership signaled that immigration reform may come first. Harry Reid responded immediately to Graham’s reasoning, stating that the American people expect the Congress to tackle both issues and there is no reason not to proceed. We’ll know within a couple of days whether the increasingly watered-down climate legislation has any chance of passing in the Senate this year.

That this legislation, which passed the House almost a year ago and was one of Obama’s main priorities, is so close to failure should be a wake-up call to environmentalists—especially with large Democratic Congressional majorities. The interests aligned against reducing our dependence on fossil fuel are legion; in addition to the climate change deniers in the coal and gas industry and the anti-science wing of the Republican Party, many Democratic lawmakers in states dependent on fossil fuels for jobs and cheap energy are also very resistant to change. Environmentalists need to be at the top of their game for any comprehensive energy legislation to have a chance of passing.

Last week I described why the animosity of some environmentalists towards mainstream economists (coupled with confusion about them) is wrong-headed: economists are by and large strongly on the side of environmentalists, especially with respect to climate change.

This is not just a rhetorical issue with implications limited to bragging rights on blogs; the stakes are extremely high. This is because the political right in the U.S. has mastered the art of messaging, and thoroughly dominated the public policy narrative over the past couple of decades. On the issue of climate change they have clearly dominated the left in every way, sowing widespread confusion that has led to declining public support for bold action.

Think how masterfully the Right has moved the goalposts on virtually every issue since Obama and the Democrats took charge: a healthcare bill similar to Mitt Romney’s is now socialism, closing Guantanamo (agreed to by Bush and McCain) is now appeasing the enemy, and cap and trade, once the mainstream position for addressing climate change that both Obama and McCain agreed on, is now vilified (and McCain, with boundless hypocrisy, joins the chorus against the bill). What we have left in the Kerry-Graham-Lieberman bill is extremely weak, and even this will face an uphill struggle to pass.

Writers like David Roberts and Bill McKibben, who routinely characterize mainstream economics as somehow antithetical to environmental concerns, are inadvertently spreading the exact narrative that the Right wants everybody to buy into. There is nothing that the coal, oil, and gas lobbies, the anti-environmentalists at the Chamber of Commerce, and the extreme libertarians at the American Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute want more than for the public to believe that mainstream economics oppose sensible environmental regulations that are fair, transparent, and put a significant price on greenhouse gases. This makes it easy to characterize those in favor of tougher climate policy as leftists who are anti-business, anti-jobs, anti-economic growth, and anti-competitiveness.

But they are wrong.

The overwhelming majority of mainstream economists favor stronger environmental regulation on many fronts, especially climate change. It is the rightwing economists who are out of the mainstream, who believe, contrary to basic economic theory, that an unfettered market can solve environmental problems despite all evidence to the contrary. There’s is not the consensus view.

By routinely bashing mainstream economics, often through faulty reasoning, environmentalists play into the hands of those with an-environmental agenda. The public needs to know that most of the leading minds in economics come down squarely in favor of strong climate change legislation, as well as efforts to improve water quality, clean air, and biodiversity protection.

This will only happen when environmentalists better educate themselves about economics, and realize that it is actually one of their greatest allies.

Jason Scorse

Last week, I explained why the Republican view on income redistribution is diametrically opposed to the Democratic position. Now that healthcare reform has passed, and the final pillar of the Democrats’ social contract is the law of the land, legislative battles will likely revolve around fixes to the system (despite Republican cries for repeal, which is extremely unlikely).

Since Medicare faces insolvency in the long-term, and Social Security has funding gaps only 10 years out, the great policy debates of the next 10-20 years will focus on the mix of tax increases and benefit reductions that must be made to repair America’s balance sheet.

But there will also be arguments over the best ways to achieve our social goals. In this regard, it would be extremely helpful for Republicans who reject the extremist elements now dominating their party to play a constructive role.

For starters, the Republican insistence on personal responsibility could play a lead role in shaping America’s healthcare policies. Many of the diseases that most afflict Americans—heart disease, cancer, obesity, diabetes—are often due to lifestyle choices. Incentives should be built into the system which reward decisions leading to positive outcomes and penalize negative behaviors.

Example: people who eat junk food, don’t exercise, and smoke cigarettes—and are therefore more likely to require expensive medical procedures—must be given powerful incentives to change. This could mean lower premiums for making positive changes, or higher premiums for not making them. Republicans, with their emphasis on personal responsibility, are well-positioned to make this case.

In order to pay for things that we all want, it will also be necessary to find and root out as much waste as we possibly can.

There is no better place to start than the military budget. At minimum, tens of billions are wasted every year on unneeded weapons systems and on contractors who overcharge. In addition, while maintaining a strong U.S. military abroad may be in our interests, we could save billions more by reducing our forces in Europe and Asia, where threats are minimal. Republicans, with their emphasis on national security, should take the lead on making this a priority.

Ratcheting down the “war on drugs” would also save billions in wasted law enforcement dollars (both in the U.S. and abroad); and through a program of gradual legalization, billions more could be gained in tax revenue. Moves towards legalization would take much of the crime out of the drug trade and reduce a major source of revenue for terrorists. Republicans have always been known for their “tough on crime” stance—so if they showed leadership in this area, it would be taken seriously (see this great video by a former Republican judge on his mission to end the war on drugs).

Economists agree that to solve our high-unemployment problem, America needs a prolonged period of robust economic growth. While free trade is no silver bullet, it’s important because protectionism and distorting subsidies prevent the most efficient use of resources. Calling for a return to the negotiating table to conclude the latest Doha Round of trade talks would be a great way for Republicans to reaffirm their commitment to free trade. In addition, calling for an end to agricultural and other natural resource subsidies would not only help move the talks along; it would also save taxpayers tens of billions (which the GOP always wants to do, right?).

Finally, there are two more domestic issues for which well-intentioned Republicans could take the lead. The first would be to help diffuse the divisive gay marriage issue. Republicans could make a persuasive case, based on personal liberty, that the government has no rightful place in the marriage business. Governments need to sanction civil unions to confer legal benefits and rights, but should not otherwise be involved. By sanctioning civil unions for both heterosexual and homosexual couples, and leaving the issue of marriage up to individual religious institutions and the couples themselves, the government could extricate itself from this issue. This is the most sensible way forward.

On affirmative action, Republicans could help make the case that it’s time to move away from race-based to class-based methods; numerous studies have shown that it’s economics, more than race, which drives educational disparities. This would diffuse another issue that breeds white resentment (which Obama is on the wrong side of), while at the same time maintaining policies to help the disadvantaged.

None of the policies or approaches described above falls entirely within the purview of Republican or conservative ideology, but each represents an area where Republican support could be significant or even decisive.

In sum, Republicans can play a constructive role if they once again embrace reasonable policies, and eschew the obstructionism and venomous sound bites that have turned their once proud party into today’s caricature.

Jason Scorse

Barack Obama entered the White House with a vision for America that differed greatly from his Republican predecessors and modern Republican orthodoxy. After decades of trickle-down economics and the view that government was more a problem than a solution, Obama believed that policies should be targeted at boosting the middle class, and that government plays an essential role in creating equal opportunity and investing in new infrastructure and technology.

With the passage of the stimulus bill, the Fair Pay Act, and now healthcare reform and educational loan reform, Obama has delivered on a vision for American governance that differs greatly from your own.

But before you get up in arms about how “radical” Obama is, keep these things in mind:

First, everything Obama is doing he explicitly campaigned on. People who voted for him (or against him) are not facing any surprises. In fact, I can think of no other president whose governing has been as faithful to his campaign pledges. Second, his policies are centrist by any reasonable definition; his healthcare reform is almost identical to plans once promoted by Republican Senators Hatch and Grassley, and by former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. It is a sign of how extreme Republican orthodoxy has become that healthcare reform without even the weakest public option is considered “socialism”.

There is, however, one aspect of the healthcare bill that does contain a socialist element—the law redistributes income from the upper to the lower classes, just as Social Security and Medicare do.

It’s therefore not surprising that Republicans vehemently attacked all of these policies: Republicans uniformly believe that income from the wealthy should not be used to fund social welfare programs for the less-affluent (especially if they’re administered by the government via taxation).

This is a legitimate ideological position. If Republicans want to make the case that the rich should not be taxed to provide services for the rest of society, I can respect that. I strongly disagree, but the position has intellectual merit.

What is wrong is to characterize redistribution of income as un-American and un-constitutional. This is absurd. Our system of government allows the legislative branch to levy taxes at different rates on different classes of people, and grants wide latitude to use the money for all sorts of social purposes. The Constitution’s Commerce clause and General Welfare clause have both been interpreted this way for at least 100 years (which is why the legal challenges to healthcare reform are doomed to failure).

A question naturally arises as to why Republicans are so opposed to income redistribution. While I can’t claim to speak for all of you, you apparently believe that such policies are equivalent to theft, and therefore morally wrong. This helps explain why you take such an uncompromising view on such matters: if I thought taxing the rich to pay for a janitor’s healthcare was equivalent to robbing a man at gunpoint and putting his money in another man’s pocket, I might feel the same.

This gets at the fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats; Democrats don’t view redistribution this way. Democrats look at society and see that luck—both good and bad—has as much to do with one’s fortune as merit. Where someone is born, the type of parents they have, the schools in their neighborhood, and (unfortunately) their gender, skin color, and sexual orientation can significantly affect their life’s outcomes. People who work equally hard can achieve completely unequal results. Accidents happen, misfortunes occur, and some who choose low-paying but socially vital careers may not be able to afford good healthcare or save a lot for retirement.

For Democrats, these huge elements of chance provide the key rationale for social safety nets, which by their nature must be funded largely through the material wealth of others.

Where Republicans see theft, Democrats see the social contract.

One view is not inherently wrong and the other right, but they are mutually exclusive and incompatible; they are radically different worldviews, which is why the rhetoric gets so heated.

Your Republican worldview won out for much of the last three decades, but it is now in retreat. After rising inequality, stagnating wages, and sky-rocketing healthcare costs, Americans voted for something new and they got it.

So, Republicans, your have every right to strongly disagree with what the Democrats are doing, but please drop the notion that what’s happening threatens the fabric of America. Every liberal democracy in the world redistributes income in some fashion. What we’re now witnessing is an expansion of the American social contract, and it’s as American as apple pie.

If you want to change course, make the case to the American people that it’s bad policy, or unfair, or counter-productive. Make the case for an individualistic society where everyone has to fend for themselves. Stick to your principles and try to regain power using these arguments. But please recognize that what Obama and the Democrats are doing is entirely consistent with American values; they just happen to be values that you disagree with.

Jason Scorse

The voices of reason in the United States won a major victory tonight.

Healthcare is officially no longer deemed a privilege, but a right for every citizen. While the steps made in the final healthcare package are modest, centrist, and do not include a much-needed public option, they represent the biggest advance in America’s social contract in 45 years, since the passage of Medicare. With this one vote alone, President Obama now sits among the most consequential American presidents. It is truly a remarkable achievement.

It also marks the first time in my lifetime that I have witnessed in real-time the extent to which the reactionary forces in America will purposefully misinform, deceive, and slander to stand in the way of progress. I have now seen firsthand the lengths that the forces of ignorance, backed by their corporate special-interest cronies, will go to demonize those who want to take even the smallest amount of wealth away from the already well-to-do and redistribute it to the middle and lower classes.

While the healthcare overhaul is nothing close to socialism, it does represent a progressive redistribution of wealth in American society, after decades in which policies have been vastly regressive. It puts the brakes on, and reverses the concentration of power at the highest income brackets.

Perhaps most importantly, it begins the process of injecting more competition and bargaining power for the average citizen into the healthcare system, even though it falls short of what ultimately will need to be done. This reform effort should be viewed as a first step in a long process, but a critical one. The fight has just begun, and with renewed energy and commitment from progressives, it too, like most pieces of social legislation, will improve over time.

Expect to see a fight for the public option as the next step. Now that it will be able to stand alone, I think the odds are much more favorable that it will pass. It is extremely popular with the public, and now that insurance coverage is going to be mandatory it is logical that the maximum number of choices be made available.

There is so much to say about this past year—the political implications, the ebb and flow of the Democratic leadership, the many failed attempts at bipartisanship, the media’s terrible role in compounding misinformation, the August “Tea Party” townhall disruptions, how President Obama, after losing the narrative and the process, finally got his mojo back and returned to campaign form—but for now I want to highlight my initial thoughts on some of the biggest winners and losers in this epic legislative battle.

Winner: Nancy Pelosi

From all accounts Nancy Pelosi was instrumental in keeping Obama’s eye on the ball for comprehensive reform and not caving in after Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts. She never once waivered in her commitment and she delivered the votes at a time when the House is extremely distrustful of the Senate and unhappy with the more moderate Senate bill they had to accept (my favorite Pelosi quote is here). Also, don’t forget that Pelosi has already delivered on Obama’s other signature legislation, with tough financial regulatory reform and a decent climate change bill. Bottom line: Pelosi is tough as nails, the most powerful woman in America, and one of the most effective Speakers of all time. After being demonized by the Right for years, this is poetic justice. Thank you Nancy.

Loser: Women

Unfortunately (and ironically), in order to secure the votes of anti-abortion Democrats led by the chronically misinformed and deceitful Bart Stupak (who will now fortunately face a serious Democratic primary opponent), the President signed an Executive Order that repeats the restrictive language on abortion in the Senate version of the healthcare bill. Abortion foes have been worried that healthcare subsidies will help pay for abortions, and so to placate their demands, women who want abortion coverage in their insurance will have to send in separate checks, one personal and one with government money. It’s an absurd exercise because no one is arguing that women who get tax rebates or tax breaks on employer healthcare do the same (which most women do); this is simply a way to use poor women to score political points. In a sign of incredible hubris, Stupak went so far as to state this opposition to the healthcare bill (which will save tens of thousands of lives), was premised on its abortion language (which will save none) because of his deeply held “pro-life” principles. Women’s organizations around the country are clearly not happy with President Obama’s Executive Order.

Winners: President Obama and the Democratic Agenda

Even though President Obama is rightly criticized for not taking a stronger leadership role in the healthcare process much earlier on, and continuing to believe in bipartisanship when it was clearly impossible, he has achieved what many presidents before him tried to do and failed. Nothing breeds success like success and I expect to see a much energized and more aggressive Democratic Party in the coming months. And there is no better issue to keep the momentum going than financial regulatory reform, with the Republicans openly siding with Wall Street and big banks. Also expect to see a major push for immigration reform and climate change legislation. It’s going to be a very busy spring.

Losers: The Republican Party and the Tea Party

No matter how they try to spin it, the healthcare victory is a huge blow to the GOP, who now will have to run against elements of the healthcare plan that are extremely popular, such as an end to exclusions for pre-existing conditions, increased subsidies for drugs for seniors, lifetime caps on medical bills, and expanded children’s healthcare coverage. History is clear that social programs, once passed, are almost impossible to repeal. The Republicans threw everything they had at the President and the Democrats, whipped mobs into frenzies, and lied repeatedly on every major media outlet for more than a year on every aspect of the proposed legislation, but in the end they lost. The same goes for the Tea Party movement, which became even more bellicose, unhinged from reality, and outwardly bigoted as the vote drew near.

Americans of all political persuasions are rightly angry about the high unemployment rate and the Wall Street fat cats who gamed the system and ripped us all off, but by and large they do not subscribe to the Tea Party worldview. While this far right movement, funded by fake grassroots campaigns and corporate money, will endlessly fascinate Fox News and the major outlets that prefer screaming over reasoned discussion, the movement has already peaked. I predict that it will do more damage to Republicans through bitter primary fights than to Democrats in the midterm elections (just as it did in upstate New York in the race in which Tea Party candidate Doug Hoffman helped secure the first Democratic congressional victory since the Civil War).

Winner: The American People, who have now joined the rest of the developed world in establishing a fundamental right to healthcare.

Jason Scorse

When I began VoR almost six years ago, I thought of it as a non-partisan forum where all good ideas would get a fair hearing. While I hold many views that are considered liberal, I also believe that a strong case can be made for many policies that please classic conservatives— free trade, school vouchers, an end to all forms of subsidies, including for home ownership, more accountability in health care that promotes personal responsibility, using market mechanisms to achieve environmental goals, and an aggressive policy against terrorism and America’s enemies.

Over the years, to my chagrin, I have found myself increasingly unable to find much in the Republican Party to defend. I have tried where appropriate to give credit to the GOP and its ideas, but the Party has been taken over by extremist ideology and is being led by conspicuously ignorant people. I regretfully came to the conclusion that reason dictates a stand against the Republican Party. Until the GOP purges itself of its anti-science, irrational, and hateful elements, Republicans are enemies of the public good and must be confronted and defeated.

Two episodes this week emphasized how out of step the GOP has become, both with reality and the best interests of the nation.

The first was the publication of an independent analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities of GOP Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget proposal (The Center is non-partisan and well-respected for its serious scholarship). The Center’s findings are shocking. At a time when wealth in America has become ever more concentrated, when the middle class has seen its purchasing power erode, and after a decade of no net job creation, Ryan has put forth a budget that cuts benefits for the middle class while cutting taxes for the ultra-wealthy—to such an extent that even with spending cuts, his plan wouldn’t balance the budget.

Rep. Ryan supposedly represents the GOP’s moderate wing, but his budget proposal is a radical plan that would permanently weaken the middle class and concentrate wealth even more at the top. He’s proposing massive transfers from the lower classes to the upper classes, this after decades in which the wealthy have benefited by orders of magnitude more than everyone else.

One of the great mysteries of American politics is how the GOP can convince a single person that the party is on the side of working families and the middle class. How can the lower-income whites who dominate the Tea Party believe that Republicans represent their interests?

The second thing that brought home how extreme the Republican Party has become was a mailer I received from the National Republican Congressional Committee. Here are a few of the questions in their survey, followed by my comments:

- Should the government take more than 50% of anyone’s income in taxes?

The government doesn’t even take close to this for any income group.

- Which aspect of the Democrat plan for a Washington takeover of health care do you find most objectionable?

This falsehood (the proposed plan is based entirely on private insurance) was followed by additional falsehoods.

- Democrats have recently proposed ACORN inspired “Universal Voter Registration.” Election laws of states would be thrown out and they would be required to register every person on the welfare rolls, unemployment lists, holders of driver’s licenses or any other name on a state-held list and register them to vote. Do you think this will lead to massive voter fraud and is a cynical attempt by the Democrats to cement their power forever?

Voter fraud is a GOP strawman, and the undercurrent of racism here is palpable.

- Do you think Democrats and Obama are more concerned with appeasing petty foreign despots and being “popular” on the world stage than they are with the sovereign national security of the United States?

It’s hard to know where to begin on this one since it’s so absurd.

The mailer had nothing affirmative, just one falsehood and slander after another.

I sincerely hope that the sane people in the Republican Party can regain control and return it to its roots. The Party of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower would be a welcome partner at the legislative table, since Democrats clearly do not have all the right ideas. I thought this would happen after the GOP’s resounding defeat in 2008; instead, the extremist elements became even more empowered.

It seems that the American electorate will need to rout the GOP at the polls for at least a couple more cycles before the party’s moderates can gain the upper hand. While Republicans are sure to gain in the 2010 midterms, Democratic retention of both the House and the Senate may finally send a signal that Americans are tired of the GOP’s scorched-earth policy and obstructionist tactics.

Jason Scorse

David Plouffe, President Obama’s brilliant campaign manager, is famous for inveighing against Democratic “bed-wetting”, the party’s unseemly predilection for showing weakness in the face of rightwing attacks. Plouffe, who took time off for a book tour and to be with his new daughter (born two days after Obama’s victory), is now back at the White House helping to strategize for the 2010 Congressional races.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Obama has adopted a more confrontational and assertive tone in the weeks since Plouffe’s return, and that’s a good thing. It was clear months ago that bipartisanship was a fool’s errand, no matter how gifted a communicator Obama is. Plouffe is tough and doesn’t mince words; he’s not afraid to champion liberal principles, and to call out ignorant and disingenuous Republicans. (If the Democratic establishment was really smart, they’d put him in charge of everything.)

The President will need a stiff spine in the months ahead. The upcoming legislative battles could well define his presidency, and determine whether he holds office for another seven years. Plouffe is not only the man to help Obama get his mojo back, but to help limit Democratic losses and maintain their majorities in November.

Plouffe’s return comes not a moment too soon for Obama’s domestic agenda; at the same time, I’ve been pleasantly surprised for months with how well the Administration has responded to incidences of terrorism on U.S. soil.

There have been four all told. Two were the work of apparent jihadists—the Colorado episode in which a U.S. army officer killed 12 people, and the attempted Christmas-day bombing over Detroit. Two were perpetrated by lone madmen with grudges against the government—the airplane crashed into an IRS building in Austin, and last week’s shooting of two Pentagon police officers.

At no time did the Administration use rhetoric to inspire public fear, or go on the airwaves to issue new terror warnings or raise “threat levels”. Obama and his people did not act as if they were under siege, or engage in chest-thumping bravado. They simply went about their business and responded in measured and reasonable fashion.

By so doing, the Administration has made clear that they will not play into the terrorists’ hands by acting terrorized every time an incident occurs. This, more than anything, differentiates the current administration from the last.

And while the Obama Administration remains calm and collected, almost weekly they are killing or capturing major al Qaeda and Taliban leaders—accomplishing more in a year than Bush did in eight.

One major reason I voted for Obama was because I wanted the adults back in charge. On terrorism, he has not disappointed. With Plouffe back in the White House, there’s hope for similar progress domestically. We know what his motto is: No Bed Wetting Allowed.

Jason Scorse

It is obvious in hindsight that Obama’s strategy for getting healthcare reform passed was a colossal waste of time. Although there is still a decent chance that a comprehensive bill will get passed (we should know very soon), the botched process has taken a tremendous toll on the President’s agenda and both his and the Democratic Party’s approval ratings.

The reform package that the President put forth largely mirrors the Senate version, with a few modifications to make it more progressive and palpable to House Democrats. But because so many concessions were made to try to attract Republican support, the plan has been significantly watered down (e.g., no public option, despite its great popularity both with the public and with healthcare economists), and the Republicans have had ample time to demonize elements of the bill and sow confusion (with the help of a negligent media that by and large has parroted the Republicans’ lies instead of calling them out for their deceitfulness).

Not only has the plan been weakened and no Republican support gained. The process has dragged on for so long, and cost Obama so much political capital, that the other major elements of his agenda—financial regulatory reform and climate change legislation—have been largely stalled, and now face much tougher going. If the Democrats had delivered on healthcare in the summer of 2009 their political fortunes would be much brighter now, and Scott Brown likely would not have been elected in Massachusetts.

There is little doubt that high unemployment is largely responsible for the Democrats’ misfortunes, and there is little they can do it about in the short-term. Even so, a victory on healthcare months ago would’ve provided millions of Americans with tangible improvements in their economic security—e.g., limits on total payments to medical insurers and no denials for pre-existing conditions—and allowed Obama to focus on job creation much sooner. The $15 billion jobs bill that just passed could’ve been a $100 billion package back in September.

Did Obama really believe he could help craft a bipartisan healthcare compromise, or did he try so hard because cooperation between the parties was such an integral part of his campaign? We’ll find out years from now, when the details of Obama’s first year are released.



Regardless of what he once might have thought, he clearly realizes now that substantive bipartisanship is not possible; he realizes that the voters elected him and large Democratic majorities to get things done. It was refreshing, at the end of last Thursday’s healthcare summit, to hear him tell Republicans that it’s his job to enact the policies he campaigned on, and that voters will get their chance this fall to accept or reject them. This is how democracy is supposed to work: the party in power gets to enact its ideas, and if voters don’t like them they can vote them out.

It is impossible to know what the political landscape would look like if Obama had entered office with this mindset, but it is understandable why he felt the need to try to “change the nature of politics” as he promised he would. Given the disastrous 1994 healthcare battle, delegating the responsibility to Congress seemed to make sense; but it’s clear now that he turned too much power over to the legislators, and exerted far too little leadership.

What matters most at this point is finishing the job, however disappointing the final product may be. Liberals and progressives can take heart knowing that major social legislation often starts out well short of the ideal, yet grows stronger over time. Both Social Security and Medicare followed this pattern. Passing comprehensive healthcare reform, whatever its flaws, would still be a momentous achievement.

Activists should keep their eyes on the prize.

There is much work to be done on other fronts, and nothing breeds success like success.

Jason Scorse

On the policy front, the next few months promise to be the most consequential in at least a generation; it’s a political junky’s dream come true. The fate of three pieces of legislation hangs in the balance: healthcare reform, financial regulatory reform, and comprehensive climate change policy. It is hard to know which is most important, since they all have huge implications.

Politically, healthcare reform is probably the most important—because of the year that has already been invested, and because the Democratic base is so committed to its passage. Universal healthcare has been a goal of the Democratic Party for more than 50 years, and the activists who have worked so hard to get this close can almost taste it. Already defeat has been snatched from the jaws of victory, with the election of Scott Brown to Edward Kennedy’s Senate seat, but there’s been renewed Democratic momentum behind the scenes in the run-up to the upcoming televised healthcare summit.

The Democrats seem increasingly committed (including Senate Major Leader Harry Reid) to using the budget reconciliation option, which requires only 50 votes (plus VP Biden to break a tie), and therefore is immune from both a Republican filibuster and any “nays” from the Blue Dog Democrats. Ironically, a bill that passes using reconciliation might be more progressive since many concessions to the so-called centrists won’t have to be made. Equally ironic, an insurance company’s decision to raise premiums an average 39% for over 800,000 people in California helped galvanize President Obama and the Democrats to get the healthcare process moving again. Whether a final bill will actually make it to Obama’s desk is still unknown, but the odds are the best they’ve been since Brown’s victory.

The financial regulatory reform package may actually be the most important piece of domestic legislation: without new controls on banks, we could have a repeat of 2008 and another Great Depression. The fact that Republicans oppose almost all the provisions in the bill is simply astounding, and should be met with scorn and contempt. If necessary, as with healthcare, the bill should be passed through reconciliation; some provisions would require only an executive order. However the reform gets done, the details are too critical for half-measures. (It is interesting to note that former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, a staunch Republican, found the Congressional Republicans conspicuously uninformed when it came to the matters at hand; this may explain why their ideas are so bad).

An argument could be made that climate change legislation is in fact the most important of the three big issues; the future of human civilization may be at stake. With Obama’s recent $8.3 billion loan guarantee for two new nuclear plants in Georgia, it is clear that he is making overtures to Republicans (such as Senator Lindsey Graham) to get their agreement to a comprehensive bill that includes a cap and trade provision with serious emissions reductions. Whether any Republicans can be persuaded to vote for the bill (or even to vote against filibustering such a bill) is unclear, but I would say it’s unlikely. Of the three major pieces of legislation, this one in my view is least likely to pass.

The best hope is the CLEAR bill being pushed by Senators Susan Collins, a Republican, and Democrat Maria Cantwell. It’s a straightforward proposal that auctions off 100% of the allowances in the cap and trade system and refunds 75% of the money to consumers, so that 80% of Americans would suffer no net losses from higher energy prices. Their bill has gained a lot of attention recently in the environmental press, and it has a chance.

With the Republicans apparently poised to make significant gains in November, and with politicians loathe to make difficult decisions close to elections, the consensus is that votes on all three of these issues will take place by May, and that this may be their final chance at passage for years to come. Whether they pass or fail, these are going to be some of the landmark political moments of our lifetimes.

If ever there was a time to pay attention, to discuss the issues with friends, co-workers, and relatives, and most importantly, get involved by contacting your elected representatives, the time is now.

Jason Scorse

Populism has a long tradition in America and American politics. At this juncture it is completely understandable for people to be outraged at a) the Wall Street fat cats who almost brought down the financial system, and yet are rewarded with bonus packages completely unrelated to their horrific job performance, b) the rising economic inequality of the past decades, which continues to accelerate while median incomes remain relatively stagnant, and c) the politicians, including prominent Democrats, who put in place the policies that helped create problems (a) and (b).

Given these grievances it is both reasonable and rational to demand greater regulation and monitoring of the banking industry, policies to help decrease the gaps in wealth and income, and politicians who will put the public interest over corporate interests. (This is not to say that there aren’t legitimate arguments against doing these things, only that a populism which expresses itself in this manner is intellectually consistent). This strain of populism is largely the populism of the left and those who support President Obama and the Democrats. Unfortunately, because of Obama’s and the Congress’ inability to pass healthcare reform and financial regulatory reform, this group is currently deflated and is questioning whether everything they invested to get Democrats elected will ultimately be for naught (putting aside for now how much worse a McCain-Palin presidency would’ve been).

The populism emanating from the right is anything but deflated, as the Tea Party shouting matches on TV have repeatedly shown. Yet, at its core, this right-wing populism is inherently contradictory. While it includes anti-corporate rhetoric and anger directed at the bankers, as well as disdain for virtually all established politicians (including most Republicans), the remedies and demands expressed by this group make little sense. For example, according to many rightwing populists, the solution to the excesses of the bankers is more deregulation—because, somehow, it was government interference that made the bankers do all the bad and unwise things they did. This complete nonsense is exactly what Frank Lutz, a leading GOP strategist, is telling Republicans to say when they vote against Democratic proposals for financial regulatory reform: that they don’t want to bail out banks anymore (and the Republicans are listening). Whether the public is actually stupid enough to believe this remains to be seen.

But there is an even greater contradiction at the heart of rightwing populism, where the main grievance seems to be that government spending is out of control and must be reined in. But the fact is that most of our tax dollars go to just three things: the military, Social Security, and Medicare. While there is no doubt waste in the military, and there are sound arguments for reducing our global military footprint, the security challenges we face make it unlikely that the military budget can be pared down significantly.

That leaves the entitlement programs. Social Security is relatively solvent; not in great shape, but not terrible either. Long-term projections suggest a deficit of about 20-25% between income and outgo, which will need to be made up by higher taxes, a decrease in benefits, or both. Medicare on the other hand is in terrible shape, both because of skyrocketing healthcare costs and the demographic shift to a greater portion of older people in society.

Contrary to what most Americans think about government spending, these programs are not very wasteful. Social Security is simply a transfer payment system with extremely low overhead. While there is some fraud in Medicare, its efficiency is far greater than that of private insurers. Administrative expenses eat up about 20 percent of the income of private insurers; the comparable figure for Medicare is only 5 percent.

Since nothing angers rightwing populists more than higher taxes, there is little chance they would entertain raising them, even on the rich. This leaves only one choice: massive cuts in the very entitlement programs they rely on. In essence, the message of the Tea Party movement and the angry rightwing crowds is this: I demand massive cuts to my retirement and medical insurance! And I demand them now!

This is exactly what the ranking Republican on the House Committee on the Budget, Rep. Paul Ryan, has proposed (although he and other GOP leaders appear to be quickly backing off). The people who would be hit hardest and suffer the most are exactly the working class, non-college-educated Americans so heavily represented in the Tea Party anti-government crowd.

What is shocking is how little the Democrats have capitalized on this inherent contradiction. A plausible strategy would be to tell the American people that they too share their anger, and channel this into calls for hedge fund managers to have their income taxed at income tax rates instead of the 15% capital gains rate (a lower rate than their secretaries pay). Or to increase the cutoffs for Social Security and Medicare taxes so that those making $100 million a year don’t continue to pay exactly the same as those making $100,000.

Whether it’s fear of being accused of class warfare or being labeled as “tax and spend” Democrats, the party has let the rightwing populist anger go unchallenged. If they continue to be cowed, the Democrats could suffer massive defeats in the 2010 midterms and Obama could be a one-term president.

But the rightwing populists would then be in for a rude awakening: if they get what they say want, they’re going to be much worse off. It would be a classic example of the “winner’s curse”.

Jason Scorse

Anyone who missed Obama’s Q&A session with Republicans last week should check it out, if only for the laughs. Obama, cool and wry, crushes Republican talking point after talking point, and leaves the GOP wishing it had never agreed to allow the session to be nationally televised.

If this had occurred a year ago I might’ve been impressed. But not anymore. We all know that Obama is a masterful rhetorician, capable of making most people who challenge him look foolish. But in all honesty, running circles around the ignoramuses who currently populate the Republican Party is essentially child’s play.

The real test of Obama’s leadership is not whether he can win arguments, but whether he can win Congressional votes and get his agenda passed. And while there were some significant victories in his first year, none of his signature priorities—healthcare reform, financial reform, and cap and trade—have made it to his desk. There is a chance that all three could pass in some form, but it’s more likely that all three will fail. This would be catastrophic not only for the country, but for the Democratic Party.

I question whether Obama and his team are doing everything they can to push Congress to act, but all of us need to do our part as well. It’s time for letter writing, phone calls, and emails, in that order of importance.

Here’s a summary of the key players to contact:

For healthcare reform

1. Your two senators - urge them to fix the recently passed Senate bill through reconciliation so that the House can pass it

2. Your congressman/woman - urge them to pass the Senate bill as soon as the Senate makes the necessary fixes

3. Senator Harry Reid - urge him to push reconciliation as the solution to the healthcare impasse

4. Congressman Tom Perriello and Congresswoman Betsy Markey - applaud them for their bill to repeal the anti-trust exemption for health insurance companies, which is an attempt to get the process rolling again, and urge them to propose more bills in this vein

For Financial Regulatory Reform

1. Senator Chris Dodd - urge the senator not to water down his financial regulatory reform package and to force Republicans to go on record either for it or against it

2. Senator Harry Reid - urge him to bring the strongest possible bill to the floor

3. Your two senators - urge them not to accept anything but a strong bill

For Cap and Trade

1. Your two senators - urge them to vote only for a comprehensive energy bill that includes mandatory and significant greenhouse gas emissions reductions

2. Senators Graham, Lieberman, and Kerry - urge them to put forth their proposal in its entirety and not let it get watered down (this is an instance in which a Republican senator and a turncoat Democrat are actually playing a constructive role)

And contact your friends and family and urge them to do the same!

P.S. In the long-term this is what needs to happen.

Jason Scorse

A decent cap and trade bill.

A near universal healthcare plan with a strong public option.

Relatively strong financial regulatory reform with a new Consumer Protection Agency.

All these are center-left pieces of legislation. And all of them have passed….the House of Representatives, where majority rule operates. The House also best reflects the will of the people because its members face the voters every two years.

The Senate, undemocratic by design, is the reason none of the above bills has made it to President Obama’s desk. To get the Constitution ratified, the Founding Fathers gave small states the same number of senators as large states; it was not done for reasons of principle. A majority of 51 senators could easily represent 65% of the population if most of the large coastal and Midwestern states are included—which means, in fact, that a simple majority in the Senate can easily mean a supermajority of the American people. States like North Dakota have so few people that they have more senators (two) than representatives (one), and yet they hold tremendous sway over legislation affecting hundreds of millions.

But today’s situation, in which a filibuster-proof 60 senators are required to pass anything at all—the first time this has regularly been the case in U.S. history—means that a super supermajority is always needed: senators representing close to 75% of the population. Think how truly staggering this is: no other advanced democracy needs anything like this to pass legislation. No wonder we’re at a virtual standstill in the Senate.

We live in a center-left nation, but we’re stuck with institutions that allow reactionary forces to control the legislative process. While it can be argued that some supermajority requirements were built into the Constitution, there is no Constitutional requirement for 60 votes in the Senate; a simple majority of 51 should be able to pass all bills.

Which brings us to tradition.

The Constitution permits the Senate to make its own rules, and the filibuster was adopted in close to its current form in the first half of the 20th century (though it’s never been abused as it is today). The Founding Fathers would probably be aghast at the idea of filibuster, and would absolutely be aghast at how frequently it’s used.

While the Republicans deserve the contempt of the American people for abusing this procedural measure, their conduct is predictable; they’re no longer a serious political party, they’re a refuge for ideologues and fanatics completely divorced from reality.

Ultimately, the blame resides with the Democrats. They squandered many months of a filibuster-proof majority, and amazingly topped it off by losing Ted Kennedy’s senate seat.

Even now, with 59 senators, they have more seats than when Obama took office (58), and many avenues to pursue their agenda. They need only 51 votes to use reconciliation (the process Bush used for both of his tax cuts); this could be put to use quickly to modify the healthcare bill so that the House would pass the Senate’s version. This is simply a must. Anything short of this would be a political and moral disaster: the Democrats spent almost a year on healthcare reform, and the need grows every day. Failure to pass a comprehensive bill would be a betrayal of the American people, especially the Democratic base who worked so hard to get so many elected.

The Senate can also bring to the floor the rest of the House agenda, including stringent financial regulatory reform, and force the GOP legislators to vote against it (instead of watering it down to attract one or two stray Republicans). If the GOP filibusters, Democrats can bring the bill to the floor again and invite the news media in. Make headlines about how 59 Senators are trying to rein in the banks, combat global warming, and create a citizenship path for 12 million illegal immigrants, but 41 Republicans are standing in the way of an up or down vote. People need to see the abuse that’s going on.

In addition, the White House could do a lot better job messaging. It was excellent that the President addressed GOP obstructionism in his State of the Union speech, but the argument needs to be made more directly. The American people need to know that Obama’s agenda has already made it through one branch of the Congress, and is being held up by minorities who won’t let democracy work. People should be urged to call, email and write key senators who could overturn these roadblocks.

Institutions change only through struggle; they never evolve solely on their own. In this vein, some of the next pieces on VoR will point to contacts and initiatives that can help us break the gridlock.

It’s time for the center-left agenda that America voted for to be enacted. We tried the hard right agenda in the Bush years and it failed, miserably. It’s time for a new direction. If that direction fails, voters can once again choose a different course. First, it needs to be given a chance.

Jason Scorse

The nightmare happened: A Tea Party know-nothing who opposes national healthcare reform (but says he’s OK with Massachusetts’ near universal coverage) has replaced Ted Kennedy, who fought for healthcare all his life, in the bluest state in the nation.

There are two roads for the Democrats at this juncture.

One is to fall into panic mode, drop everything they’ve worked on all year, and play defense for the rest of 2010; basically, do whatever they can on jobs and the economy. This would be electoral suicide, plus a 100% betrayal of the people who worked so hard to get them elected. With huge majorities in Congress, holding the White House, to squander this opportunity would be unforgivable. Even more relevant: the policies they campaigned on and worked on all this time are centrist and pragmatic, and popular with the American people (when framed properly, and not subject to months of Republican lies).

The other option is for Democrats to answer this wake-up call by fighting even harder for what they believe in—to realize that weakness at this juncture would be the absolute worst message they could send to the electorate and to their base. The House could pass the Senate’s version of the healthcare bill right away and send it to the President to sign. Through budget reconciliation, which requires only 51 votes, the Senate could then make modifications in line with some House requests. Just like that, we would get a healthcare bill that includes a real public option and greater subsidies for those who need them.

On financial regulatory reform, the Senate could put together a strong bill and dare the Republicans to vote against it. It would include the Consumer Protection Agency and a tax on bank windfall profits. The framing would be perfect for the Democrats: since the Republicans have claimed the mantle of populist rage, a vote against reining in the bankers would yield huge political dividends. If Republicans succeed in killing the bill with a filibuster, parts of it could still be passed through reconciliation; in addition, Obama could use his powers as chief executive to do a lot through the Treasury Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

On the environmental front, Democratic senators are already saying that the cap and trade bill is dead. Obama has the authority through the EPA to enact tough greenhouse gas regulations, and he should exercise that authority. There are some in the academic community who think this is a better approach than a weak cap and trade bill.

The Democrats could also push immigration reform, again daring the Republicans to vote against it and further alienate the growing Hispanic communities in key swing states. On gay rights, Congress could repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and the President through executive order could strike down Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

Bottom line: If the Democrats show some fight they can turn this around. Their loss this past week would then turn into a blessing in disguise.

Unfortunately, the early word out of Washington seems to indicate that Democrats are inclined to show the country how spineless they are. If so, then the party from Obama on down does not deserve to govern and does not deserve the country’s support.

This is a moment of truth, a moment of reckoning, and the stakes couldn’t be higher. Democrats can choose to snatch defeat from the jaws of their 2008 victory, or show some fortitude and get the job done. It’s their choice.

P.S. I called every office of my senators and congressman and urged them to fight or that I would never give them a penny again or volunteer for Democratic campaigns. I urge people to do the same.

Jason Scorse

It could be a horror story for the Democrats: on Tuesday, within weeks of getting healthcare through the Senate, Ted Kennedy’s seat in Massachusetts might fall into the hands of a Tea Party Republican—putting not only healthcare reform in jeopardy, but everything on Obama’s agenda during this all-important election year. We’ll have political chaos if it comes to pass, emboldening the far right and throwing progressives into a prolonged era of soul-searching.

The question everyone should be asking is how we got to this point. I offer three reasons:

1. Obama and the Democratic leadership have not been aggressive enough.

Obama and the Democratic establishment have tried to play nice with Republicans, touting the benefits of bipartisanship and avoiding strong language to describe the GOP. Months were spent courting Olympia Snowe on healthcare, only to see her thumb her nose even when the bill met all her requirements. Obama rarely called out Republicans for their obstructionism and other outrageous antics.

This conciliatory posture has deflated rank and file Democratic voters, who fought hard for the 2008 mandate and want their leaders to stop making overtures to a party bent on their destruction. Obama and party leaders have also shied away from strong moral language, instead relying on more cerebral arguments. While they’re sensible and just, they don’t excite the passions. The enthusiasm gap between the parties is not hard to understand.

In addition, the priority given to healthcare pushed many other progressive issues aside, e.g., gay rights and immigration reform, disappointing large parts of the Democratic left.

2. The expectations of the Democratic base

While Obama and other party leaders are partly responsible for the deflated attitude among rank and file Democrats, these same activists can also blame their own unrealistic expectations. The notion that Obama would simply roll into Washington and usher in a new progressive era was naïve; change doesn’t happen that fast on the Beltway.

Similarly, there is a bizarre disconnect among many Democrats between the disappointment they feel and the reality of what Obama is on the edge of accomplishing. Getting healthcare reform through Congress would be such an achievement that if he never passed another significant piece of legislation, his presidency would be one of the most consequential ever.

But Obama has done more. He passed a major stimulus bill that brought us back from the economic brink and includes hundreds of billions for infrastructure and green energy. He passed the Fair Pay Act that bans gender pay discrimination. The House has passed significant financial regulatory reform and climate change legislation that the Senate will take up shortly. And through executive order, Obama has vastly improved government transparency and trimmed government waste. He also nominated the first Hispanic to the Supreme Court, and has been relatively successful on the foreign policy front.

So while there’s much to criticize and much left to do, the Democratic base should appreciate all that’s already been done. It should whet their appetite for the years ahead.

3. The media’s kid-glove treatment of the Tea Party movement

The so-called Tea Party movement has found a soft touch in the mainstream media. I’ve paid close attention these past couple of months, and it’s clear that the movement is a hodgepodge of misguided populism, white resentment, and a big dose of lunacy—all of which makes it incoherent, outrageous, and often despicable. What do the media do? They lap it up and let the Tea Partiers spew it out.

Many Tea Party leaders have no political background, little or no education, and are often used as pawns by established Republican figures (such as Dick Armey, whose group Freedomworks has been heavily involved in the Tea Party’s fight against healthcare reform).

The movement’s focus on deregulation as a cure for America’s economic woes is particularly striking. Tea Party activists make the populist argument that deregulation will lead to more competition, but the reality is just the opposite: there is nothing that big business would love more than a new wave of deregulation.

The media should be doing its job, exposing Tea Partiers for what they really are—a toxic threat to the body politic and the public interest. Instead, Tea Party activists get major and largely deferential coverage. In possibly the most egregious example, Tom Ashbrook (my favorite NPR commentator) devoted his entire hour-long show to the movement and never challenged numerous outrageous statements. For instance, after one leader likened Obama’s universal healthcare to Nazism, Ashbrook just cut to a commercial—never even questioning this vile claim.

As Paul Krugman notes, the media seems so cowed by charges of liberal bias that if a rightwinger should claim the earth is flat, the media will invite in another panelist to argue why the earth is round. This has got to stop.

In summary, the American body politic is in big trouble. Hopefully, Coakley will win in Massachusetts on Tuesday—and we’ll all have had a wake-up call to get more serious in the days and months ahead.

Jason Scorse

I have a confession to make: the rightwing demagogues who complain about liberal bias in the media are right.

How else to explain the fact that the traditional media outlets are packed each and every week with Republicans and so-called conservatives unleashing torrents of mindless nonsense?

Like Dana Perino, Bush’s former Press Secretary, and Rudy Giuliani, each claiming that no terrorist attacks occurred on Bush’s watch; like Dick Cheney and his minions in Congress, whose brilliant critique of Obama’s approach to terrorism is that he doesn’t use the word “terrorism” enough, or pound his chest and snarl into the camera.

And Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, must be a secret plant by the New York Times and the Nation magazine; no real GOPer could be so consistently stupid, and use his position for little more than personal enrichment and merriment. It’s obviously all part of a sinister liberal plot to make the Republicans look bad, as real Republicans would never vote for a Chairman who knows nothing about policy.

Of course, we can’t forget Sarah Palin. Only a liberal-leaning media would devote so much airtime to a person whose grasp of even the most basic issues is approximately at a first-grade level. By homing in on Palin, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh, the media is doing everything in its power to tarnish the reputation of the Grand Old Party. The media elites probably meet in back rooms every week, conspiring to pay attention only to the most depraved and ignore all the intelligent Republican voices. These victims of liberal bias must be plotting as we speak to retake the airwaves and show the country how serious and balanced real conservatives truly are.

So stay tuned. Today’s Sunday talk shows will surely be filled, as they are every Sunday, by disgraced former Republican office-holders, or by those currently in office who have little to no power, or maybe if we’re lucky, Dick Cheney’s daughter, who has never met a lie or distortion that she doesn’t like. They will utter nonsense and deception, all of which will go unchallenged by the talking heads, giving them every incentive to out-crazy themselves next week.

No doubt about it. It’s those sneaky liberals fault, force-feeding the American public a steady diet of propaganda from the far right that will forever sour them on the Republican brand.

Jason Scorse

Despite Barack Obama’s ability to win over independents and Republicans during the 2008 election, his efforts to create a less polarized political culture have proven futile. Paul Krugman, who witnessed the vicious partisanship aimed at Bill Clinton during the 1990s, was one of the first to recognize that no amount of Obama’s rhetoric, star power, or even common sense would compel Republicans to take the nation’s problems seriously. He saw that today’s GOP is wedded to a scorched earth strategy in which ideology trumps all.

He was right.

I thought, given Obama’s huge mandate, the Republicans would give him at least a six-month honeymoon period; they didn’t give him six minutes. On Inauguration Day the rightwing noise machine went into full gear, claiming that Obama wasn’t a citizen and that he was bent on marching America towards socialism. The same people who didn’t make a sound when Bush turned a trillion dollar surplus into a five trillion dollar deficit suddenly became concerned about government debt.

Who cares that the worst thing to do during a recession is to reduce government spending? Who cares that Obama’s healthcare reform will actually reduce the deficit and begin to control long term healthcare costs? In the fantasy world of today’s Republicans, white is black and up is down. Facts have no place, only death panels and forced abortions.

It is clear that one of the two major parties has given up any pretense at seriousness; it’s clear that we face a situation in which only more and better Democrats can get the job done.

We don’t have six months to waste trying to get Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins to vote for a bill they will ultimately find some lame excuse to oppose. We don’t have time to negotiate with people who deny the existence of global warming. And we certainly shouldn’t cut a deal with a Republican Party that thinks Wall Street and the financial system don’t need more regulation.

Obama brought into office the hope of a “post-partisan” America, but that dream has been dashed. Reality-based Republicans may one day regain control of their party from the know-nothings and fanatics, but that is a long way off at best.

While the spirit of cooperation has been integral to Obama’s message and brand, it would be best for him now to admit that he made a mistake—to admit that at this juncture bipartisanship is simply not possible. It would show the country that he’s more interested in outcomes than process, that his only priority is what’s best for the American people. He should distill his message to specific policy principles and values, and make clear that he will work with anyone who shares them. If this happens to be only Democrats, so be it.

Let’s make the next decade a true battle of ideas and values, pitting those of reason, fairness, and justice against those of deceit, religious zealotry, and cronyism. I am confident Americans will choose the former.

It will be easier for them to do so if we jettison the calls for bipartisanship, and make the distinctions between the parties as sharp as night and day—as sharp in fact as they really are.

P.S. It seems as if the Obama Administration is finally starting to make just the shift described above.

Jason Scorse

Politicians are among the most despised people in America, right behind Wall Street bankers and lawyers. While many live unscrupulous lives and/or abuse their political power, it is worth taking a moment to reflect on, and honor, the efforts of those who fight for the public interest. It is an opportune moment to do so: after months of wrangling, the Democrats have apparently arrived at a healthcare compromise that has the necessary 60 votes in the Senate and a good chance of winning final approval.

Senators like Chuck Schumer, Sherrod Brown and Ron Wyden, and Representatives like Nancy Pelosi and Anthony Weiner, have worked tirelessly to fashion a piece of legislation that has eluded previous Congresses and presidents for decades, including the last Democratic president. They battled powerful interest groups with hundreds of billions on the line. They weren’t able to win some big battles, and they produced a far from perfect bill; but with no room for error, they got the job done against an obstructionist Republican Party, fake populist outages, and religious zealots (to mention just some of the obstacles).

The bottom line is that these legislators (and dozens more unnamed) have overcome tough odds and deserve our respect. I am confident they will work hard to improve the bill once it finally passes, so that its final form more closely approaches the ideals the progressives have long championed.

I am sure that these Senators and Representatives enjoy their work, and they’re compensated fairly (the average salary is approximately $175,000 with great benefits), so they hardly need any praise from us. Nevertheless, it takes only a moment to recognize how extremely difficult politics is: while it’s unlikely that anybody in Congress understands everything that’s in the 1,300-page healthcare bill, it’s surprising how sophisticated and detailed their knowledge actually is. Some have been working on the issues for decades, have spent thousands of hours studying them, and really know what they’re talking about.

Which brings us to the GOP.

When it comes to healthcare, the Republicans morphed from the party of “no” to the party of know-nothing. From “death panels” to “forced abortion” to charges of socialism, the GOP did little more than lie and deceive throughout the healthcare debate. (Take a moment to watch this video of last week’s “prayer meeting,” in which top GOP politicians joined a right-wing group in asking god’s help to derail healthcare legislation; compare this, if you will, to the relentlessly serious efforts of the Democratic caucus.)

While a few Republican senators made reasonable suggestions to improve the bill, the GOP strategy by and large was a despicable display of politics at its most cynical. The GOP voted unanimously against the stimulus package, last week voted unanimously against a new jobs bill and financial regulatory reform (more on this next week), and now stands ready to vote unanimously against healthcare reform.

So while the healthcare bill gives progressives plenty of reasons to be disappointed and frustrated, they should take a moment to respect all that’s been achieved so far.

And everyone, regardless of political persuasion, should recognize that only one political party in America right now is actively addressing the real problems that America faces—the Democrats.

P.S. I was obviously wrong about the opt-out public option making it into the final healthcare bill. I underestimated how truly small a man Joe Lieberman is, and underestimated the intransigence of Ben Nelson. The opt-out was (and still is) brilliant politics and I thought it would be hard to argue against it since states were not compelled to participate. Again, I was wrong. But don’t be surprised in the coming months and years to see some form of public option re-emerge through the reconciliation process, and if so it will likely be stronger than the version once contained in the Senate bill.

Jason Scorse

While the success of most Administrations correlates highly with the unemployment rate, presidents, ironically, have relatively little control over the economy.

George W. Bush inherited a recession flowing from the dot.com bust of 2000, and the economy promptly took another major hit following 9/11. Bush’s Federal Reserve Chief Alan Greenspan then proceeded to lower interest rates and kept them low for way too long, oblivious to the gathering housing bubble. Bush also went wrong in stacking the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) with people enamored with deregulation, and either unable or uninterested in reining in the gross irregularities taking place in the derivatives market.

In addition, Bush’s signature domestic initiatives were tax cuts for the rich; these dramatically increased the deficit (which became Obama’s to deal with) and did little to stimulate the economy. Bush also failed to make any significant investments in green energy and prevented federal funds from being used for stem cell research, thus retarding these industries.

As a result President Obama inherited the worst economy since the recessions and stagflation of the 70s and early 80s. Unemployment would top 10% before the end of his first year in office. None of this was really his doing; nevertheless, as he predicted, in the public mind he’s become responsible for the current economic conditions.

During the past year the Federal Reserve has kept interest rates at essentially zero percent and flooded the financial system with hundreds of billions in order to prevent a crisis and a repeat of the Great Depression. New financial regulations making their way through Congress could do a lot to prevent another crisis in the future, but they have nothing to do with today’s jobs picture.

Obama was able to pass a massive fiscal stimulus plan in his first weeks in office, and he’s now expected to announce new jobs initiatives in the coming weeks. From all estimates his policies have prevented the loss of around one million jobs, but they have not led to a net jobs increase. Obama has also laid the groundwork for long-term employment by investing in green technology and new infrastructure, and by easing restrictions on stem cell research.

Due to luck as much as anything, the jobs picture is apparently improving faster than anyone had predicted; last Friday’s surprising Labor Department report showed that the economy lost only 11,000 jobs this past November, reducing the unemployment rate from 10.2% to 10%. If the trend continues and job growth turns positive in the coming months, it would be a huge plus for American workers and a tremendous political boon for Obama and the Democrats.

The lesson, for all presidents, is that with so little direct influence over the economy, they had better use wisely what little leverage they have. While Bush was not responsible for the initial conditions during his first term, he did nothing to shore up the economy and wasted trillions on regressive fiscal policies. Obama inherited an economy that could easily consume his presidency and his ambitions, but he acted aggressively with all of the levers of his power and it may well be paying off.

Jason Scorse

The continuing fanfare surrounding Sarah Palin reminds us that even stupid and detestable individuals can capitalize on populist outrage, which always seeks scapegoats and soundbites. At the core of the rightwing narrative that feeds on this outrage is the notion that America’s “elites” are oblivious to the needs and values of “ordinary” Americans, who are hardworking, law-abiding, and god-fearing, in contrast to an intellectual class that is secular and aloof.

While there are racial, class, and coastal v. inland undertones to this narrative, the predominant theme is anti-intellectualism. People with advanced degrees are frowned upon in favor of those who act based on their “gut” and the moral absolutes of religion. The number of people who disbelieve in evolution, question climate change, and are suspicious of rational argumentation is highly correlated with the demographics of the rightwing.

Unfortunately, because of the conservatives’ power to influence the media and therefore our political discourse, this anti-intellectualism has crept further into the mainstream. While Obama’s election victory was in some sense a repudiation of anti-intellectualism, the crowds that continue to fawn over Palin, and the entire Tea Party movement, are evidence that this pernicious strand is alive and well. It’s a dangerous strand as well: without our elites, America would no longer be a first-rate power.

From the Founding Fathers to the creators of Google, from the profound political insights that inspired the Constitution to the scientific insights that developed and expanded the internet, America’s prosperity has always been a product of our elites. It is America’s dominance in higher education that has generated the technology, and the wealth, that have made our economy No. l in the world (and our military as well).

I often pose this simple question to my students: Why is it that a secretary in the U.S. can live a middle class life, with a decent home, a car, and some luxury goods, while a secretary in India will likely live in poverty? Since they both do the same thing, how is it that one leads a relatively affluent life while the other lives in poverty? The answer is simple, but holds a profound truth. The secretary in the U.S. lives in a wealthy country, with a high overall standard of living. And why is that? It’s largely because of our elites, whose innovations have propelled our economy and our prosperity for decades.

Being able to produce elite thinkers and innovators, and to attract them from around the world, will only become more important as the new century progresses. Whereas much of America’s prosperity was once tied to our abundant natural resources, the share of our wealth that’s linked to this base is fast diminishing. As the economies of emerging powers like China, India, and Brazil continue to grow, America’s need to remain competitive and technologically “ahead of the curve” will be paramount.

Those who live in almost all of the “red states” (e.g., Palin’s Alaska) are net recipients of federal income from the “blue states”; similarly, they are huge net recipients of the fruits of the intellectual capital that is concentrated on America’s East and West Coasts (e.g., Silicon Valley and the Northeast Corridor). Instead of disparaging those at the forefront of U.S. science and technology, the rightwing should be trying to emulate them.

Ironically, if Middle America is going to remain prosperous in the future, it will be because the inland communities become hubs for new technology and manufacturing (like North Carolina’s Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Research Triangle); clinging to romantic, pastoral, and illusory notions of what constitutes the “real America” may draw in the crowds for Palin rallies and Tea Parties, but it’s ultimately bad for the region and bad for America.

Jason Scorse

The stakes couldn’t be any higher than they are right now in the U.S. Congress. On the docket are healthcare reform, financial regulatory reform, climate change legislation, immigration reform, gay rights, and more. These issues impact the welfare of not only tens of millions of Americans but arguably the whole world (in the case of environmental policy and financial regulation).

Yet, we have an opposition party that has essentially taken itself out of any serious discussions and has decided to try to block any progress on any front. The GOP has become an extreme obstructionist party, threatening to filibuster every major piece of legislation; in addition the entire Republican apparatus, from the grassroots to the Congressional leadership to Fox News, is spreading lies, deception, and fear in an all-out effort to confuse American citizens and whip up extremists (the better to create sensationalist media coverage).

It is time for the reality-based community, for all who care deeply about the issues, to say enough is enough. It is time to forego the political correctness that says it’s impolitic to call a lie a lie in politics, time to deny even a hint of deference to those who resist all progress. As Obama has said, those who use falsehoods and deception to derail America’s efforts to move ahead must be “called out”.

All of us have a relative, colleague, or friend who denies global warming, or throws the word socialism at any government program they disagree with, or refers to gays or immigrants with hateful rhetoric; they belong to the know-nothing crowd that is coarsening our body politic and seems intent on keeping us from even beginning to attack the real issues of the day.

It takes courage to stand up to these people, whether at the water cooler, a staff meeting, or even at the dinner table; but this holiday season, ignorance should not go unchallenged. It is often said that progressives are simply too polite, too weak-kneed to stand up for what they believe—which helps explains why rightwing extremists too often prevail in public discourse. This must end. Those who stand idly by while others spout nonsense and propaganda only empower them.

It’s critical at this juncture, with so many important issues hanging in the balance, that we all directly confront those who don’t have the facts on their side. We must politely, but firmly, correct them. We need to make it clear that shouting and hyperbolic pronunciations are not going to win the debates of the day. Not anymore.

Standing up for reason can often be uncomfortable, but it is the right thing to do.

If not now, when?

If not you, who?

Just say no to the forces of ignorance, and never look back.

Jason Scorse

On Election Day voters in Maine approved a referendum overturning the state’s gay marriage law, making it 31 straight victories in statewide elections for opponents of gay marriage. This is sobering for those who favor equal rights for gays, but not all is gloomy. In Washington State voters passed a law giving full civil union rights to gays; similar laws have also passed in other states.

Public acceptance of gays increases as each year passes, and no doubt one day there will be majorities in favor of gay marriage. But for now too many Americans can’t seem to get past the word “marriage”; they’re willing to grant full marriage rights to gays, but not allow them to use the term. Some may argue that it’s purely a semantic issue; but separate is not equal, and there can be no real equality for gays until they can actually “get married.”

However, the issue of civil unions versus marriage brings up political choices that are at the core of a liberal democratic society.

As I have mentioned in earlier pieces, couples in Europe typically go through two marriage ceremonies—one in which the government grants civil unions, the other a separate and more traditional ceremony, often religious. This, it seems to me, is the appropriate model. In the U.S. we let the state sanction religious ceremonies. This is a clear violation of the Constitutional separation of church and state, and it should be challenged. Gay civil unions provide a way to break this link, and restrict the state to its proper secular role.

If the gay rights community would focus (for the time being) strictly on promoting civil union rights in individual states, they would likely win. They should also focus on the long-term prize of federal civil union legislation, making it illegal for any state to deny civil unions to gay couples. This is something that Obama has hinted that he would support, and for which there very well may be national support.

The arguments against gay marriage make no sense, and are often little more than masks for various forms of bigotry; the arguments against civil unions are even more transparently unjust. Ensuring equal marriage rights for gays in all 50 states, equivalent to those enjoyed by married heterosexual couples, would be a huge victory.

And it could have the added benefit of moving the United States toward the European model, and getting the state out of the marriage business altogether. This should certainly resonate with the more libertarian-leaning Republicans and conservatives. At the same time, religious groups could follow their own consciences and either permit or disallow gay marriages.

To sum up, breaking the connection between the state and marriage would be a big step forward for liberal democracy. And as time passed, more and more religious groups would likely begin to accept gay marriages, mirroring their increased acceptance in the larger society.

Jason Scorse

Every since the opt-out public option was introduced, I have predicted that it will make it into the final healthcare bill. The reason is simple: it will ultimately achieve what a robust public option would, and it is a winning political strategy that could propel Democrats to even greater majorities.

Republicans have misrepresented the public option—labeling it as socialism or government-run insurance—but it improves consumer choice and would give many American citizens essentially the same type of policy that members of Congress and the federal government already have. With an opt-out system, in which states could vote not to have a public option, the case against reform becomes significantly weaker; not only can individuals choose whether to join a government-managed plan or go with private insurance, but states would not be obligated to participate at all.

Since Americans by significant majorities favor a public option, it would be very difficult for many states to actually opt-out; in the end, a national (or near national) system would become almost inevitable. The argument could be made that citizens in the opt-out states would be unfairly disadvantaged. But those citizens would get the chance to vote out their legislators and replace them with those who support a public option, or they could move to a state that already had one. Either way, the choice would be theirs.

It is clear that such a system would greatly benefit Democrats and progressive politicians. While the GOP misrepresents the facts and yells “big government” at every Democratic proposal, once healthcare passes the American people will not quickly forget (or forgive) the GOP’s relentless obstructionism. Thousands of Americans have been driven into bankruptcy by health issues, and hardly any are satisfied with the healthcare status quo.

This is why the GOP is getting increasingly desperate as they read the writing on the wall. The Democrats are only months away from passing the kind of healthcare legislation that reformers have tried to enact since FDR’s day; once it happens, public support for the Democratic Party is almost certain to grow. With no positive agenda to speak of, the GOP is in dire straits.

The opt-out public option will one day be looked back on as one of the most brilliant moves a political party ever made.

Side note: Given both the substance and the politics of the opt-out public option, it is extremely discouraging to see news reports which suggest that the Obama Administration is in fact pushing the much weaker “trigger” option. I find it hard to believe that Obama could be this cowardly and foolish, so I will wait to see how this plays out. Please call as many Senators and Representatives as you can and voice your support for a strong public option and no trigger substitute.

Jason Scorse

It’s increasingly likely that serious healthcare reform will pass by the end of the year, and even include some form of public option. This is great news for America, but bad news for Republicans who have been pinning their hopes on defeating the measure.

Yet many problems will remain, primarily healthcare’s ever-increasing costs. The final bill will likely improve efficiency, increase and improve preventive care, and decrease abuse and fraud. Nevertheless, costs will continue to rise if Americans don’t radically improve their health. Obesity and diabetes are skyrocketing, and preventable deaths from cancer and heart disease are still near historic highs.

If people were truly rational and not as susceptible to addictions and misinformation, the disincentives associated with sickness—pain and suffering, lost wages, shorter lifespans—would be sufficient to encourage Americans to stay in relatively good health. Unfortunately, in areas related to health, people are often highly irrational, cravings and addictions are extremely powerful, and knowledge is abysmally low.

If government is going to either provide healthcare for free or highly subsidize it, then it’s only right that it enact policies that try to incentivize good behavior and minimize long-term costs.

Some of the policy options in this regard are non-objectionable: better prenatal and early childhood care and nutrition, healthier school lunches, and a ban on candy and sodas in school vending machines. Other policies, such as “end of life” counseling, have stirred up a great deal of controversy. Such counseling could save lots of money, since a disproportionate share of healthcare dollars are spent in the waning months of life; yet, if consulted beforehand, many people would prefer not to have many of these procedures. Unfortunately, when they’re old and infirm, people are often incapacitated and unable to inform their healthcare providers of their true preferences. It’s one of the great scandals of the healthcare debate that a reasonable and sensible “end of life” policy was portrayed as a diabolical scheme and labeled “death panels” by unscrupulous Republicans.

Another policy that would go a long way towards promoting healthier lifestyles would be an end to agricultural subsidies for commodity crops, which act to artificially deflate the price of corn syrup, meat and dairy products. Unfortunately the agribusiness lobby backs many powerful legislators, both Republicans and Democrats; they hold tremendous sway, particularly in the Senate, despite the relatively low populations of the states they represent.

Better healthcare could also be encouraged by charging different premiums based on individual behaviors, e.g., diet, alcohol and cigarette consumption, and exercise. If people were charged higher premiums for engaging in unhealthy lifestyles, this would likely be viewed as too harsh by a majority of the public. But the same outcomes could be achieved by rewarding people who engage in healthy lifestyles with lower premiums, which is intuitively appealing.

Even with all of these policies in place, there may still be a need for either higher taxes or additional healthcare rationing. But those tough choices can at least be minimized, and the overall population will be a lot healthier, the sooner policies along these lines are put into effect.

Jason Scorse

One of the centerpieces of the healthcare bills currently being debated in Congress is an individual mandate, which would require everyone to buy insurance or face a penalty. A similar mandate would apply to businesses, requiring them to either offer insurance or pay a penalty.

Varying levels of subsidies and assistance are being proposed, including hardship exemptions, to help lower and middle income Americans and small businesses offset a significant new expense.

There is an even more basic argument as to whether anyone should be forced to buy health insurance at all. From a libertarian standpoint, such a mandate is an infringement of the first order.

Proponents have likened the mandate to car insurance, which everyone is required to buy if they own a car. But this is a specious argument: people are required to buy car insurance because of the harm they might inflict on others. The liability insurance that everyone must carry makes sure that drivers can’t impose costs on someone else without being able to compensate them.

Libertarians claim that no such externality exists in healthcare. If a person chooses not to buy health insurance, the argument goes, the risk will fall only on that person; ergo, it’s each individual’s right to decide whether health insurance is worth it.

But this argument too is specious.

For one, we as a society are not willing to let people go without care when they get sick. People are not turned away at emergency rooms if they don’t have coverage, even if they could have afforded it. It’s inhumane to let people suffer and possibly die because they miscalculate whether they’re going to stay healthy (like the law student in this article, who thought he could go without insurance in his early 20s but instead got a rare form of cancer). In addition, when a mother or father gets sick and does not have insurance, their children can become innocent victims. Last but not least, the costs of treating the uninsured are in fact picked up, in the form of higher premiums, by all those who already have insurance.

The bottom line is that most people who don’t have insurance are either too poor to afford it or are gambling in a foolish way. Since most Americans find it unconscionable to refuse treatment to sick people, the most obvious and efficient solution is to make sure everyone has at least basic health insurance.

A sizeable percentage of the people currently without insurance are young and healthy, and their premiums will be relatively low. Their numbers are large enough, however, that the income from their policies can help subsidize care for everyone else. Remember: It is only because insurers are poised to gain up to 45 million new customers that they’ve agreed not to turn people away due to preexisting conditions, and to accept caps on individuals’ total out-of-pocket expenses.

If we lived in a world in which personal responsibility was taken to the extreme, and people were left to die if they got sick or in accidents and either didn’t have insurance or couldn’t afford treatment, then a mandate wouldn’t be necessary. Fortunately we don’t live in such a world, and a mandate is a necessary component of good public policy.

All the same, there is an urgent need for more personal responsibility in healthcare, and for incentives that match behaviors to outcomes. I’ll address these issues in a future piece. First, by mandate, let’s make sure that everyone has at least a basic level of insurance.

Jason Scorse

The Republicans have all but given up offering any substantive ideas for healthcare reform; they simply want to kill it and harm President Obama and the Democrats. At the same time, there are critical areas of disagreement among those who sincerely want to get the job done. Let’s explore some of those areas.

1. Level of subsidies

A main provision of healthcare reform is likely to be an individual mandate, requiring everyone who doesn’t have insurance to purchase it. Since healthcare is extremely expensive, this could cause serious economic hardship to low and middle-income persons unless they’re given sufficient financial assistance. Nothing would be worse than instituting a mandate only to force tens of millions of people into spending almost all of what little disposable income they have on healthcare. Olympia Snowe, one of two Republican senators actually negotiating in good faith with the Democrats, has made it clear that she will not support any package that doesn’t include generous subsidies. House Democrats are in almost universal agreement with this position; with midterm elections coming up in 2010, nothing would be more politically damaging than passing healthcare reform without adequate funding. However, the bill reported out of the Senate Finance Committee last week contained notably less generous subsidies than those in the House bill; the differences will have to be reconciled.

I would err on the side of generosity, both because of the equity issue and the politics; middle-class families should not be burdened with a new mandate that doesn’t come with completely, or almost completely, offsetting government assistance.

2. Total cost

Various numbers have been floated, ranging from $700 billion to $1.2 trillion over 10 years; but, as I have noted earlier, the cost issue is largely a sideshow. The difference between generous proposals and those that would seriously harm the purchasing power of tens of millions of Americans is in the range of $30-$40 billion a year, which is little more than a rounding error in the federal budget. Compared to the cost of the Iraq War, Bush’s tax cuts for the rich, and the Medicare prescription drug bill, the cost of insuring all Americans is cheap, and certainly reasonable. Those who, after the last eight years of profligate spending, have suddenly become “deficit hawks” only want to derail President Obama and the Democrats. Instead of complaining about the costs, they should be applauding how relatively inexpensive the proposals actually are (and the extent to which Obama intends to pay for most of it through cost-saving measures).

3. Competition across states

This issue doesn’t get as much attention as it deserves. As the law currently stands, states are in charge of regulating private healthcare insurance markets and residents are not allowed to shop across state lines. This has created a large number of state insurance markets that are highly concentrated, and in which residents have only one or two providers to choose from. The results are predictable: high insurance rates driven by monopolies and an inability to create large pools with greater bargaining power. Any serious effort at reform must include national pooling so that an individual in, say, California can buy a policy from any market in the country; this would go a long way towards increasing competition and bringing down costs. It is unclear whether such a provision will make it into a final Democratic bill, but it should.

4. The public option

No issue is more contentious than whether to allow the government to offer a Medicare-like policy which citizens could choose instead of the private insurance options. Proponents contend that a public option is the only way to keep private insurance companies honest, force them to reduce administrative and overhead costs, and ultimately “bend the long-term cost curve downwards”. The logic is compelling: public programs like Medicare and Medicaid have far lower administrative costs than private insurers, and can use their leverage to negotiate lower prices with hospitals and pharmaceutical companies (though Medicare is specifically prohibited from the latter under the terms of the prescription drug benefit).

Opponents of the public option view it as a “Trojan Horse” on the way to a single-payer, Medicare-for-all system; they contend that a government-run plan would undercut private insurance because it wouldn’t have to operate at a profit, and would therefore drive private insurers out of business. Proponents counter that a public option that must operate strictly based on fees collected, absent government funding, would create a level playing field and would not have any unfair advantage.

Not all industrialized countries with universal coverage have a public option—some are single payer (Canada and the U.K.) while others (such as Switzerland) rely solely on competing private insurers. If private insurers are strictly regulated, almost like public utilities, a public option is not necessary to bring down costs. Without such regulation, however, a public option is necessary; private insurers have every incentive to maximize profits and find every means to keep costs soaring. Since it is unlikely that the Congress has the will to enact robust private insurance regulation, a public option will ultimately be necessary in the U.S. to bring down long-term costs.

Aside from the above issues, there is widespread agreement (even among many Republicans) on some core elements of healthcare reform—the elimination of exclusions for pre-existing conditions, the decoupling of insurance from jobs (i.e., a job loss would not mean the loss of insurance), hardship exemptions for the very poor and small businesses, caps on both the percentage of one’s income and total payments to insurance companies, and the need for universal coverage.

Reaching agreement on the last 20% will be difficult, but this is what politicians are elected to do. By Thanksgiving, probably, we will know if they are up to the task.

Jason Scorse

It’s easy to mock the Republican Party, which has sunk into a morass of ignorance, intolerance, hypocrisy, and downright lunacy. But that would be too simple. The modern GOP is actually composed of two separate strands: those who truly believe the craziness, and those who know it’s all nonsense but nonetheless whip up hysteria to advance their own interests.

It is easier to forgive those who actually believe the likes of Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and even RNC Chairman Michael Steele; it’s harder to do likewise when major Republican figures such as Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, Minority Leader John Boehner, and former Speaker Newt Gingrich peddle the lies and delusions that spread confusion, stir national divisions, and breed hatred.

Pawlenty, once considered a moderate, came out against Obama’s speech to schoolchildren and now espouses a bizarre strand of rightwing nuttiness that says state governments can refuse to enact specific pieces of federal legislation (in particular, Pawlenty says that Minnesota could opt out of any federal healthcare reform legislation). He and other so-called “tenthers” believe that the 10th Amendment to the Constitution grants states this right, though the idea has been discredited for more than a century.

The day after Obama’s healthcare speech, Congressman Boehner spoke at a conference sponsored by the Family Research Council, one of the most extreme rightwing depositories of misinformation and incubators of rage. There is no commensurate left-wing organization, and if there were no major Democratic figure who would dare speak to such a group.

Then we have South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson, who screamed “you lie” during Obama’s speech, demonstrating that the tactics of the teabaggers and Limbaugh are becoming more and more mainstream GOP. I don’t know what to say about Sarah Palin, who seems to grow more unhinged by the day and proves that John McCain disqualified himself from ever being taken seriously again by nominating her to a position a heartbeat from the presidency.

The bottom line is that the far-right fringe of the Republican/conservative movement has now infiltrated what is left of the modern GOP establishment; it is now impossible to tell where the fringe ends and the actual party establishment begins.

It’s best to ignore the true believers: those who, through indoctrination, lack of education, peer pressure, or too much time spent on crazy websites, actually believe the messages being propagated by the rightwing noise machine. They represent no more than 10-20% of the country; as long as Obama and the Democrats can help revive the economy and enact policies to help the middle class, their voices will eventually die down.

But the ringleaders of this crazy circus are in another category altogether. To purposefully manipulate people’s ignorance and fear in order to stoke rage and block progress on key issues that affect the majority of Americans is an evil thing to do. It’s intentional, it’s coordinated, and it serves no purpose other than personal and political advancement.

In other words, today’s GOP has become so depraved I no longer know what to call it.

Jason Scorse

It may come as a surprise, but the healthcare debate is not about healthcare. And it never was. The debate is little more than the last throes of a dying party wedded to a version of America that is going the way of the dinosaur. The majority of people who oppose healthcare reform are elderly whites, mostly in the Southern and Western states. They are watching the country they have known all their lives change into a more multicultural and tolerant America, and their generation no longer calls the shots.

Charges of socialism, fascism, and government takeover are nothing more than proxies for an intense fear of change and the end of an era in which white males dominated American life. As Paul Krugman has noted, it doesn’t really matter what Obama or the Democrats say or propose about healthcare reform; the enraged minority of birthers, teabaggers, and fringe rightwing loonies will strenuously oppose it. They are not opposed to particular policies, but to the new ruling class and the new generation of Americans. It’s a generation that increasingly doesn’t look like them, talk like them, or share many of their values.

This is why progressives have been understandably distressed that Obama and the Democrats have been watering down healthcare legislation in order to placate a group that is not amenable to reason. There is literally nothing short of scrapping any meaningful healthcare reform that will garner more than one or two Republican votes. At a time when one party has gone off the deep end, bipartisanship is a fool’s errand.

And like a rabid animal, cornered and weak, the GOP knows all too well what is at stake. If comprehensive healthcare reform passes, it is the end of the modern Republican Party. If even a tiny fraction of the nearly 50 million people who are currently uninsured are happy with their new coverage and decide to vote Democratic, or the more than 200 million who are currently insured realize the protections they have just been granted by Democratic legislation, the GOP could be in the political wilderness for a generation. No wonder Republicans are throwing everything they have into trying to prevent reform; no wonder they’re getting more desperate by the moment.

These reactionary forces must be defeated because healthcare reform is so crucial.

Two people close to me are suffering under a system that crushes tens of thousands of Americans every year. One friend was required to get a tooth implant to prevent his jawbone from deteriorating. His insurance wouldn’t cover it because implants are considered cosmetic, even for an infected molar. He is now broke. Another friend is suffering from serious headaches and had to have an MRI. She now has a “preexisting condition” and can’t get coverage, so she will be forced to spend thousands she doesn’t have just to try to get some relief from an illness that is literally incapacitating her.

These are the stakes. On one side are the forces of the status quo, with all their misguided rage and intolerance; on the other are hard-working Americans who simply want a system that gives them the security of knowing that their health issues and medical expenses won’t put them in the poor house.

Now is the time for Obama and the Democrats to get the job done.

Jason Scorse

In a piece two weeks ago I mentioned that income inequality in the U.S. is at its highest in almost a century. The question naturally arises: Does this matter? I think it does, but not because inequality in and of itself is a bad thing.

Equality of opportunity is a core American value, holding that all citizens deserve the chance to achieve their full potential. Some will become doctors, some will enter the law and business, others will become car mechanics or retail workers. The “American dream” and basic conceptions of liberty in no way require that people’s wealth and status be even roughly equal. An America that lives up to its ideals will be an America with an unequal distribution of wealth and income.

But this inequality has limits, and I think the current levels of inequality point to a larger failure in American society and the body politic.

It is hard to make the case that if everyone in America were truly able to live up to their potential, we would have the rising levels of inequality that now confront us. There are many causes for this increasing gap, among them higher returns to education, the fact that you need money to make money, and the decline of unions. At the same time, public policies have contributed to widening disparities: decreases in tax rates have disproportionately favored the wealthy, while rising healthcare and education costs and relatively stagnant incomes have chipped away at middle-class prosperity.

In addition, the higher returns to education that account for a significant portion of the income gap are driven in large part by an education system that does a great job of serving the needs of the top 10% but a poor job at serving much of the rest. Some states, like California, have an excellent system of community colleges and top-notch state universities, but also have a dismal pre-college education system. Some states, particularly in the South, have mediocre education systems at all levels.

Inequality doesn’t just happen in a vacuum; the levels of inequality we are now experiencing have their roots in bad policies, including our failure to stem the costs of medical care and cover all Americans. Tens of thousands of our fellow citizens go bankrupt every year due to medical bills, and the insecurity bred by the fear of losing health insurance prevents thousands more from looking for better jobs and richer opportunities.

In rich countries like ours, inequality is admittedly less of an issue because relatively few people are starving or out on the street; it is a much bigger concern in developing countries, where so many people don’t even have their basic needs met. Nonetheless, the current levels of income inequality in America are signs of a collective failure that requires sustained effort at the national and state levels, and better policies focused on providing equal opportunity and more reliable safety nets.

Jason Scorse

The Framers of the Constitution created an incredibly elegant and powerful document that has withstood the test of time. In order to reach consensus, however, the Framers had to placate the small states that were worried that their voices would be drowned out by the majority; hence the creation of the Senate in which every state gets two senators regardless of population.

From its inception, the Senate has been the least democratic institution in the U.S. and demographic changes have only increased its undemocratic character. Wyoming, with little over 500,000 people gets the same Senate representation as California, with its population of almost 37 million; this means that each California Senator represent 75 times more people than the Senators from Wyoming. It doesn’t get much more unequal than this. This undemocratic trend will only continue as population growth continues to shift to the more populous coastal states.

On top of the radically unequal distribution of political power, the Senate’s filibuster provision allows only 40 members to block legislation. If those 40 members come disproportionately from smaller states this can present a situation where Senators representing no more than one fifth of the electorate can block legislation favored by the other four-fifths.

How this imbalance warps legislation is clear in the contrasting healthcare bills being put forth by the House of Representatives and the Senate committees. In the House, where members are allotted proportional to population, the bill being proposed includes a strong public option and taxes on the super-wealthy, both of which are supported by wide majorities of the public. In the Senate it is unclear whether either of these provisions will make it to the final bill despite widespread public approval, largely because of the intransigence of a few rural senators representing a few million people.

There are some who argue that the Senate’s arcane structure helps to slow the pace of legislation in good ways, allowing for greater discussion and debate, and preventing major new bills from being enacted without sizeable majorities. This may be the case when both political parties are serious about reform and take the issues seriously, but it can be paralyzing when one party is interested only in obstruction and not the public interest. This is the case we face today, with a Republican Party increasingly catering to its lunatic fringe, peddling lies and misinformation, and bent on inflicting serious damage on Obama’s presidency.

But even with the high hurdles posed by the Senate rules and its undemocratic character, Obama and the Democrats have both the votes to overcome a filibuster and pass whatever legislation they want without the help of any Republicans. This is what people interested in real healthcare reform have been urging the President to do for months, knowing full well that the Republicans would not negotiate in good faith.

At long last, it seems as if the White House has finally come to realize that this is the right strategy to pursue. Hopefully, come September they will show the country that they mean business, and pass comprehensive reform.

Jason Scorse

Now that the lunatic fringe of the far right has taken over the Republican Party, it’s clear that nothing constructive will come from the GOP for the foreseeable future. Even so-called “moderates” like Chuck Grassley now spread lies and misinformation, and brag about being obstructionists. Only the Democrats can pass meaningful domestic legislation, and nothing is more pressing than healthcare reform.

The Democrats have the power to enact a package that conforms to the three basic principles Obama has laid out: near-universal coverage and lower long-term costs, combined with continued choice. There are legitimate debates about how to achieve these goals, but the outlines are clear and the Democrats already have many good ideas on the table or in Congressional Committees.

The American people voted for and deserve the type of healthcare reform that is currently being debated in Democratic circles. Sadly, consensus has been elusive due to concerns over bipartisanship and the tendency of “Blue Dog” Democrats to act like Republicans.

One only has to look at the past eight years to know that if the GOP had the Congressional majorities the Democrats now have, there would be no talk of bipartisanship and compromise. During the Bush years, with much smaller majorities, the GOP pushed through highly regressive tax cuts, huge giveaways to the energy companies, and a trillion-dollar giveaway to the pharmaceutical companies. The results: trillions in new debt, and an America more unequal than at any time since the age of the robber barons.

There is still plenty of time for Democrats to coalesce and pass a decent healthcare reform package this year. I am confident they will, given that the alternative is so dire: a huge setback for Obama, possibly an effective end to his presidency in its first year.

But if the Democrats fail on what should be a win-win situation for the country and the party, I will no longer support them. Instead I’ll begin investigating potential third parties; I would also consider voting for any Republican who adhered to true conservative principles and was not beholden to the religious right.

Until the ink is dry on a healthcare bill, I’m going to cross my fingers, send emails, and make lots of phone calls. I sincerely hope that the Democrats come to their senses and pass this crucial test.

Jason Scorse

Many elements of the healthcare debate have been frustrating—the media’s continued attempt to trivialize the key issues and dumb down the dialogue (some commentators have gone so far as to criticize Obama’s recent press conference for being too serious), the depravity of Republicans who couldn’t care less whether the status quo persists, and the “Blue Dog” Democrats who continue to side with GOP obstructionists to stall reform—but the most ridiculous arguments have been over the cost.

Major reform that gets us close to universal healthcare will apparently cost taxpayers about $100 billion a year more than we currently pay; this is a 10% increase over the $1 trillion the government already spends annually on healthcare. Obama has identified cost-savings that can pay for about two-thirds of this $100 billion, leaving around $35 billion a year in new revenue that needs to be raised.

Bottom line: this is peanuts.

I have no idea why the Obama Administration, usually so adept at managing the narrative, has let the issue of cost become so contentious when it’s really a non-issue. The notion that Republicans, after squandering a major surplus and turning it into an almost $8 trillion deficit, now care about fiscal responsibility is simply not credible. Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy would cost more than $2 trillion over a decade; they passed with no offsetting savings, and were added 100% to the deficit. The Iraq War has cost more than a trillion dollars and counting, to say nothing of the stepped-up war in Afghanistan.

It’s admirable for Obama to insist that healthcare reform be revenue neutral, yet instead of being applauded for this he gets criticized for needing to raise a modest amount of new revenue? And this to cover almost 50 million Americans who now lack any coverage whatever? It’s simply insane, but sadly it’s also indicative of contemporary political discourse and the media’s inability to focus on substance over spin.

But again, much of the fault lies with the Obama Administration for not doing a better job of putting into perspective how little the healthcare proposals cost, especially compared to the benefits. I am baffled at this lapse. Maybe the Administration knows something I don’t. The way I see it, it’s time to end the sideshow over cost and make the case loud and clear.

Jason Scorse

I just returned from Rwanda a few days ago and am still processing the experience; it is hard to express how impressed I was by the turnaround this country has made. After being engulfed in arguably the most brutal genocide in human history only 15 years ago, Rwanda is now the shining star of central Africa. The capital, Kigali, is one of the cleanest and safest cities I have ever been in despite the immense poverty that still grips the country.

The success of Rwanda is truly miraculous and much of it can be attributed to President Kagame. While it is often true that we overrate the contributions of individuals to historic events, it is hard to overstate Kagame’s influence. Without this one man, Rwanda could still be embroiled in bitter conflict that would threaten to tear the country apart.

Kagame is in effect a benign dictator, but it is hard to argue that what he has brought to the country has not been worth at least a temporary dimunition of political rights. Kagame has instated term limits that impose a maximum 14-year reign for the presidency, and if he sticks by this there will be plenty of time for Rwanda to develop a healthy democratic system.

After the genocide in 1994, the World Bank determined that Rwanda was a “non-viable” country, and yet today it attracts significant foreign investment, tourism, and compared to the turmoil in neighboring Kenya, the country remains extremely calm. While tensions remain beneath the surface it is amazing that after so much bloodshed reconciliation has been possible, such that the murderers and their victims coexist side by side.

After traveling in many parts of the developing world, what is so striking about Rwanda is how clearly it demonstrates that order, cleanliness, and an extremely low tolerance for corruption need not be accompanied by high standards of material wealth. Sometimes major changes can come through little more than the force of will of extremely powerful leaders. When used for ill this power can lead to atrocities and even genocide, but when used for good a single individual can initiate the regeneration of an entire society.

Here’s hoping that Rwanda can continue on its amazing path towards a brighter future.

Jason Scorse

Obama’s press conference on June 23rd was extremely impressive; this is a man who is in command, and can make people who challenge him look very foolish. Case in point was Chuck Todd, who tried to pin Obama down to specific actions the Administration would take against Iran. Obama scolded Todd, saying that while the media is on a 24-hour news cycle the president is not. Asked whether John McCain and Lindsey Graham had “scared” him into getting tougher on Iran, Obama responded, with his trademark grin, “What do you think?”

The president is that rare politician who can demonstrate that words do matter, a lot. He and his team are meticulous not only about what they say, but how and when they say it. Every word in an Obama speech or press conference is aimed at the larger picture; like a chess master, he’s always thinking five moves ahead.

What surprises me is that people continue to underestimate him, and think they can bring him down with cheap shots. He was the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review, cut his teeth in the rough and tumble of Chicago politics, defeated a Clinton in the Democratic primary, and went on to win the White House, over a war hero, in the biggest landslide for Democrats in a generation. It’s almost as if the smile, the slim frame, and the talk of bipartisanship and cooperation casts a spell that makes people forget what a ruthless—and effective—politician Obama truly is.

But even many on the left are complaining that Obama has retreated on many campaign promises, and that he is just another “centrist” trying to triangulate and take the path of least resistance.

It’s way too early to reach this judgment. In only five months in office, Obama has already racked up impressive achievements: a major expansion of children’s healthcare, the equal pay for women legislation, and the biggest stimulus package in history, including hundreds of billions for renewable energy and education. He’s also proclaimed his commitment to closing Guantanamo and ending torture.

The biggest challenges await: healthcare reform, climate change legislation, an overhaul of the financial industry, and comprehensive immigration reform. If Obama makes meaningful progress on even one of these, he will have had an incredible first year; if he manages to succeed on multiple fronts, it will be stunning. Those who would judge Obama need to wait at least another six months to see how these issues play out. If Tuesday’s press conference is any indication, Obama will spend his political capital judiciously to further his agenda.

His best rhetorical skill may be his ability to make his opponents seem ridiculous, as if they must be joking. For example, asked about his insistence on a public option for healthcare, Obama mocked those who claim that the government can’t do anything right and at the same time say that private insurers won’t be able to compete with a public plan. In seconds, he shot down an argument that had begun to worry many Congressional Democrats.

I don’t worship Obama. Still it’s a thing of beauty to watch someone so skilled at dismantling opponents with so little effort. As they say in boxing, you can’t win on points against the champ—you have to score a knockout. No one so far seems even remotely capable; if Congressional Democrats show enough spine (a big if), the next legislation session could be very fruitful for Obama’s agenda.

Jason Scorse

The scope of the irresponsibility and lack of accountability during the Bush years is legendary, and will only grow over time. It is both sad and maddening to see the airwaves full of the enablers of this legacy (e.g., Dick Cheney and Karl Rove, joined these days by the uber-hypocrite Newt Gingrich). The same for the intellectual architects of these failures, most notably neoconWilliam Kristol, who bounces from one major outlet to the other, from the pages of the New York Times to the Washington Post.

Ours is a culture that preaches accountability and responsibility, yet no longer practices it. This is probably our greatest national weakness; I have always contended that we get the government (and the media) that we deserve.

This culture of disregard for the consequence of one’s actions is nowhere more evident than in the public response to the housing and credit bust, and most recently in legislation aimed at improving the fuel efficiency of the cars Americans drive.

Millions of people who bought homes during the bubble now owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth (referred to as being “underwater”). To hear them, you might think there is a god-given right that their homes would appreciate at double digits forever. If they were speculating, the downturn was simply the price of making a bad bet; if they bought their home to live in and could afford the mortgage, there should be no change in their behavior; if they bought a home they couldn’t afford, that was their mistake (and whoever gave them their mortgage).

But now tens of thousands are simply walking away from their homes and refusing to pay. This weakens the communities that have to deal with the abandoned houses, further weakens the banks, and helped lead to government bailouts that cost taxpayers tens of billions. The bailouts largely reward the most irresponsible; those who were prudent and resisted the housing hysteria are now subsidizing the foolish.

The same goes for credit cards. After running up huge debts, mainly on goods that are by no means a necessity, millions are now defaulting—and getting great deals in the process. They’re wiping out their debts by paying as little as 50 cents on the dollar. Wonderful for them, but it raises interests rates for everyone else (and depresses share prices for people like myself, who have banks in their retirement portfolios).

Perhaps most egregious, since it comes from a Democratic Congress under President Obama, is the new $1 billion “cash for clunkers” program. Owners of SUVs or trucks that get less than 18 mpg will be able to get up to $4,500 from the government to trade their old vehicle in as long as they buy one that gets at least 2 mpg more. People who own cars with less than 18 mpg get the money if they buy new cars that get at least 4 mpg more. This is another giveaway to the auto industry, it does almost nothing to improve fuel efficiency, and it actually penalizes the people who had the sense to buy fuel-efficient cars in the first place: if you have a car that gets 25 or 30 mpg, you’re not eligible for a single penny from the program.

There are serious problems when society views the government as little more than a trough at which to engorge themselves. This parasitic relationship reached its apex during the Bush Administration: lobbyists wrote legislation, jobs went to political cronies instead of the competent, the public was told they could have lower taxes and still fight two wars.

With Obama we were supposed to get “tough love” and a return to the true conservative principle of personal responsibility. Given the severity of the economic crisis, and the need to bail out the banks and the car companies, the president obviously feels he has to hold up on this message; one can only hope that it ultimately becomes central to his governing philosophy.

When those who play by the rules see irresponsibility being rewarded, they ultimately become dispirited and no longer believe in the system. They can easily become disengaged, leaving the system even more vulnerable to manipulation by those who are unaccountable and irresponsible. This is a cycle that America must avoid if it is to remain a great power.

Jason Scorse

Just as nations and empires in their waning days are prone to violence, just as wounded animals are the most dangerous, so can a political party in its death throes pose a threat to society.

Such is the case with the Republican Party in America today.

Thoroughly discredited, representing an ever smaller and less diverse portion of the American electorate, the modern GOP is not only bankrupt of ideas but increasingly given to outbursts of ignorance, stupidity, and dangerous rhetoric. It happens regularly, on a scale that is hard to square with a mature political party.

Many of the worst offenders are not elected Republicans but ex-office-holders (such as Newt Gingrich, Tom Tancredo, Dick Cheney, and Mitt Romney), shock jocks such as Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh, and almost the entire crew of Fox News. But even from Republicans currently serving in government, there is no shortage of foolishness and even vitriol; consider, just for instance, recent statements from Senator Jim Inhofe and Governors Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, and Mark Sanford, along with the head of the RNC, Michael Steele.

Even so-called Republican “moderates” such as Congressman Eric Cantor and Governor Tim Pawlenty have joined the chorus of irresponsibility that now is the norm, not the exception, from Republicans.

These last gasps of the party that rose to ascendancy under George W. Bush are causing serious damage to society, both to the political process and concretely; the murders of Dr. George Tiller in Kansas and the guard at the Holocaust Museum in the Capitol are only the most recent examples. As much as the right and the GOP want to distance themselves from violent extremists, there is no denying the link. The killers share the rhetoric and conspiracy theories that are all-too-common in rightwing commentary, and often endorsed explicitly or implicitly by high-ranking Republicans (Dick Cheney recently said that he favors Rush Limbaugh over Colin Powell, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell endorsed actor Jon Voight’s comment that Obama is a “false prophet” who will bring down America).

On the policy side the damage is even greater. The Republicans watered down the stimulus bill to reduce benefits to the unemployed and deny lower taxes to low-income Americans. On energy policy, they offer no solutions for global warming; in fact, their latest attempt at energy legislation expressly ignores the topic and calls instead for two new nuclear reactors in each of the 50 states. And on healthcare, while the outcome is far from certain, Republicans are working hard to block a public option and to maintain the private insurance industry’s grip on the market.

One can only hope, as in 2006 and 2008, that the American public recognizes the danger and continues to hand the Republicans decisive defeats. The more it’s marginalized into irrelevancy, the greater the chance that the GOP will have to significantly rethink its positions.

On a positive note, the 20% or so of America that leans far-right (most of whom call themselves Republicans) holds views that are well out of the mainstream; many are illiberal and bigoted older Americans, who will die off over the next 20-30 years (e.g. almost 60% of Bill O’Reilly’s audience is over 50 years old). The younger generation, both Democrats and Republicans, is more tolerant and open-minded. Here’s hoping we can minimize the damage that the fringe is still able to inflict before they all pass away.

Jason Scorse

The New York Times says that Obama plans to take a more active role in the upcoming healthcare debate because he’s worried that if he leaves the legislation solely to Congress, it will become too watered down. Supposedly, in a conversation with Senate Republicans, he stated that he’d rather compromise and get 85% of what he wants with some Republican votes than get 100% of what he wants with only Democratic support.

This is troubling and yet understandable, and underlines the great test that Obama will face in this debate.

Congressional Democrats have already agreed to use the reconciliation process for the healthcare vote, which means that it will only require a simple majority and cannot be filibustered. This almost guarantees that Obama could get everything he wants; even if he loses a few “moderate” Democrats, there’s little chance he would get fewer than the necessary 51. He could even go as low as 50 and count on Vice-President Biden for the tie-breaker.

But Obama is making a calculated judgment that in order for healthcare reform to truly be sustainable, both economically and politically, he needs Republican support; otherwise, any reform might be reversed by a future Congress or presidential administration.

The question is what Obama will have to give up to attract Republican support, and whether it will be worth the trade-off. The main element that Republicans oppose is the “public option,” which would allow a government-run plan similar to Medicare to compete with private plans. Republicans fear that this would open the door to single-payer insurance, and that the government plan would have an unfair advantage over private-sector plans.

While in theory there is some merit to this argument, in reality it is largely fallacious. Many nations have both private and public health insurance, and the systems can be structured to compete fairly. Without a public option, which typically has low overhead costs, private insurance companies have little incentive to cut costs—and cost-cutting is ultimately the key to successful healthcare reform. By resisting a public option, Republican lawmakers seem more intent on protecting the profits of big insurance companies than on improving healthcare access and affordability for all Americans.

If Obama were to compromise on the public option, it would represent a tremendous failure of leadership; he would be capitulating to the GOP, and severely damaging the prospects for real reform. As Obama has already stated, if genuine healthcare reform can’t be passed now it will likely never pass.

I would like to assume that Obama’s reputed statement to Republicans (that he’d rather get most of what he wants with some Republican support than all of what he wants with Democrats alone) is simply, at this point, good politics; I would like to assume that he plans to stand firmly behind a public option, even if this leads in the end to little or no Republican support.

If substantive healthcare reform passes and proves successful, its popularity would likely generate the political will necessary to sustain it; at the same time, it would represent an additional political advantage for the Democrats.

To my mind, that’s a risk worth taking.

Jason Scorse

With the retirement of David Souter from the Court, Obama has the chance to nominate his first Justice. While his choice won’t dramatically alter the ideology of the Court, since Souter is strongly liberal, it does give him the opportunity to appoint a fresh face and begin to counter the right wing tilt that was bolstered by Bush’s additions of John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

Odds are that Obama is going to pick a woman, and fortunately there are many capable women both in the court system and outside it. Speculation is also mounting as to whether Obama will try to pick a Hispanic or a woman from another minority group, thus further diversifying the Court, strengthening his ties with the chosen community, and scoring political points in the bargain.

The best choice Obama could make would be Constitutional scholar Pam Karlan of Stanford University, who is openly gay.

Professor Karlan is extremely bright; she was one of the main commentators on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer back in 2000 during the Florida recount battles, and consistently proved to have the most coherent arguments. She is extremely confident and does not shy away from controversy. At 50 she is relatively young, and she has the intellectual heft to help build a serious alternative to the rightwing narrative that has recently dominated the Court and the public’s perception of it. She is just the type of Justice who could persuade other Justices and move the Court, even if only incrementally, in a direction in which every citizen’s rights are better protected.

In an ideal world, the fact that Karlan is gay wouldn’t be an issue. But of course it is. Nominating the first openly gay Justice to the Court would be certain to galvanize the right wing and guarantee a bruising confirmation battle. But it could also do more to advance civil rights and educate the public than almost any other decision Obama could make.

Professor Karlan has one of the best minds in the country; during the confirmation hearings, she would make quick work of anyone who tried to challenge her integrity or her commitment to the rule of law. When pressed whether she would have a “pro-gay” bias, she could easily counter that no one ever asked Catholic males (e.g., Scalia and Alito) whether they had a “pro-male, pro-religious” bias; so much for the notion that being gay has anything to do with following the letter of the law or being impartial.

An openly gay person on the Court would be a huge victory for civil rights, and establish Obama as a President who doesn’t shy away from pushing the envelope. Given his opposition to gay marriage and his hesitancy to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” it would also go a long way towards answering his critics in the LGBT community and on the Left.

Unfortunately, I don’t think Obama is going to make this pick even though I think he would like to; he doesn’t want to distract from his larger domestic agenda, especially health care, and already the torture issue is threatening to do just that.

Here's hoping that Obama does the courageous thing and nominates Karlan to the Court.

Jason Scorse

Friday’s economic data point to a continuing recession, but one in which the worst may be over: job losses are beginning to decelerate, there are moderately encouraging signs in retail spending and consumer confidence, and some of the hardest-hit home markets are showing sales upticks. The stock market, a leading indicator typically six months ahead of employment and GDP swings, has shown the largest percentage gains in years over the last two months.

Whether the worst is really over is hard to tell. Still, since much of the nearly $800 billion in stimulus spending will only begin to impact the economy in the coming months, it’s reasonable to expect that things should get better; in that case, the country may be officially out of recession by the end of the year. Much rests on the health of the financial system, which is still shaky, but there have been encouraging signs in the banking sector as well; banks currently don’t need as much new capital as once feared, and a serious financial collapse now seems a remote possibility.

If there is reason for cautious optimism for the country’s economic health, there is no such (even qualified) good news for the GOP. In the opening weeks of the Obama Administration, the Republican Party appeared to stake its political future on the hope that Obama (and the country) would fail, and that they would be able to put the blame squarely on the President and the Democrats. This was always a risky proposition, made even riskier by the timing; the likelihood that the recession would continue through the 2010 mid-term elections was always dubious.

By voting nearly unanimously against virtually all of Obama’s major spending initiatives, the GOP has put itself in a lose-lose position. If the economy turns around, Obama and the Democrats will be able to take all the credit; if things get worse, Democrats can make the case that things would have been far worse had we followed the GOP’s advice. While the government is running record deficits, federal red ink has never been a hugely motivating political force. In the midst of the worse recession since the 1930s, it won’t matter this time, either.

People vote their pocketbooks more than anything. By painting themselves into a corner on all matters economic, the GOP will have nothing left to fall back on but the culture war issues that have less and less resonance. The country is becoming increasingly tolerant of gays, and the stridently anti-abortion forces represent no more than 20% of the country.

To compound its problems even more, the face of today’s GOP consists of a discredited old guard (e.g., Cheney, Gingrich, and McCain) and a new guard (Rush Limbaugh, Michael Steele, and Sean Hannity) which speaks only to a sliver of angry, bitter voters: those not guided by reason, and who totally turn off independents and moderates. As many on the blogosphere have noted, the current spokespeople for the GOP are almost a dream come true for Democratic activists.

In the end, America needs a robust multi-party democracy. With the GOP seemingly bent on political irrelevance, perhaps it’s the time for the emergence of a new national party. Either way, as long as Obama and the Democrats don’t make any major missteps, the country appears to be theirs to govern for a long time to come.

Jason Scorse

By any reasonable standards, President Obama is confronting an excess of serious issues: the global financial meltdown, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, growing threats in Iran and Pakistan, the Israeli-Palestinian issue, health care reform, the climate crisis, immigration reform, and on and on.

Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to embark on many new initiatives at once. This is especially true in our media-driven culture, which tends to focus on the trivial, blow things out of proportion, and make it difficult to carry out sustained rational discourse. Obama’s political capital has so far allowed him to take on much more than earlier presidents, but he too has limits.

There is no doubt a heated and ongoing discussion in the White House over what issues to prioritize and which to put on the back burner or shelve, perhaps permanently, in the effort to succeed on a few key fronts.

There is likewise no doubt that healthcare reform is at the top of Obama’s agenda, and that he is preparing to expend significant political capital to make it happen. Democrats have already signaled that they are willing to use the reconciliation process to get this passed, which will require only a simple majority vote instead of the 60 needed to prevent a Senate filibuster.

But there are some issues that the Administration has signaled it does not intend to pursue, and in an ideal world these issues would not be brushed aside: notably gay rights, the prosecution of former Bush officials for their role in the torture of detainees, and gun control. Federal legislation mandating civil unions would be a huge step forward. Those who ordered the torture of detainees committed war crimes and should be brought to justice, reaffirming U.S. moral legitimacy and the rule of law in America. Closing the loophole that allows gun purchases without background checks and reaffirming the assault weapons ban are common-sense steps; taking them would prevent tremendous violence both in the U.S. and Mexico.

And there’s the question of how far the Obama Administration is prepared to go to enact serious climate change legislation. The House of Representatives will likely approve the Waxman-Markey Bill, but Democrats lack the 60 votes needed in the Senate to avoid a filibuster. It remains to be seen whether they’re willing to use the reconciliation process here, as in healthcare reform, to get a deal done. If the U.S. doesn’t pass serious environmental legislation before the Copenhagen meetings in December, it could signal the beginning of the end of any meaningful international effort to address global warming--with potentially devastating consequences.

Obama is under tremendous pressure, and will only go to the mat for issues which he is convinced the public cares most about (which may make him change his mind about the torture prosecutions). We need to make sure our voices are heard on a wide range of issues; unless we speak up, they will not get the attention they deserve. Our politicians will only make things a priority if we do.

Jason Scorse

The Bush years will be remembered for many things, but above all they represent a lost decade during which American economic might was squandered. The wealth that was generated during the first decade of the millennium was essentially illusory; except for some advances in computing and electronics technology, increases in the value of assets were strictly on paper, based on speculation and, as we’ve discovered, Ponzi schemes.

It didn’t have to be this way. Our current problems are the result of specific policy decisions made by the Bush Administration, and a public that let them get away with it.

The Administration’s all out disregard for scientific inquiry is legendary, and particularly damaging in the areas of stem cell research and energy technology. Some on the right argue that no major advances have come from embryonic stem cell research, and that if anything, Bush’s refusal to allow federal funding has led to advances in the less morally problematic realm of adult stem cells. This is wrong. With a federal moratorium in place for eight years, we have no real idea how much stem cell research may have been retarded. Many of the world’s top scientists in biotechnology have moved to other countries, and many competitor nations have used the past decade to catch or surpass us in this critical 21st century technology.

In addition, by deciding to make it harder to obtain student and work visas, the Bush Administration has significantly decreased the number of top students and researchers who come to the U.S. to study and work. At a time when America should have increased its outreach, we made the world’s best and brightest feel unwanted and unwelcome.

On the energy front, Bush’s reversal of his campaign promise to regulate carbon dioxide (and his all-out efforts to block states from doing so on their own) has led to another decade in which American dependence on Mideast oil has increased. As a result we continued our direct financial support of terrorist-sponsoring states, and lost precious time to confront climate change. China is now the leading solar panel producer in the world; while Silicon Valley is finally beginning to invest in green technology, a tremendous opportunity for America to take the lead in energy innovation was wasted.

The state of America’s infrastructure is appalling by industrialized standards, as anyone who drives on our major highways or visits our airports can attest. It will take many years and hundreds of billions of dollars just to make repairs, let alone major improvements.

The costs of education and health care have far outstripped the nominal increase in wages over the past decade. This has hampered productivity because many workers stay in jobs solely for the healthcare benefits, and many businesses are hiring fewer workers because of the burden of healthcare premiums. Many younger Americans are being dissuaded from pursuing advanced degrees at just the time when the premium on education is getting even higher. There is simply no way America can remain a major economic power if education participation rates continue to slip relative to other major powers.

The bottom line: in too many important ways, America is a poorer place than it was in 2000.

Fortunately, in only a little over two months, Obama has begun to put in place policies that will not only help us dig our way out of the mess we’ve made, but rebuild our human and physical capital for the long-term.

We’ve lost a lot of time, and it may take at least a year or two to get unemployment down to a reasonable level and growth rates up to a modest 2-3 percent. At least we’re now pointing in the right direction, away from the policies of Bush’s lost decade.

Jason Scorse

Anyone who doubted Obama’s commitment to a paradigm-shifting agenda should have had their fears allayed by now. Make no mistake: Obama is the real deal, a New Deal for the 21st century. He is that rare politician who is actually following through on his campaign promises: from health care to the Iraq War, from tax reform to ethics reform, to even serious climate change legislation.

Obama’s agenda is so far-reaching that I think many on the Left have yet to realize what an amazing opportunity this is to reshape the country. While there are things to criticize about some of his cabinet choices, aspects of his bank bailout plan, and his foreign policy, Obama is a man on a mission who has thrown incrementalism to the wind.

Included in his recent budget is the most progressive redistribution of wealth in decades. By letting Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy expire in 2010, reducing the value of itemized deductions for those making over $250,000, and closing many corporate loopholes, Obama is telling the elites that it is time for them to contribute more to the greater good that is the foundation of their prosperity. Much of the additional revenue from these steps will be used to put a significant down payment on universal healthcare.

On the climate change front, Obama’s plan is an economist’s dream. Instead of giving away the pollution permits for greenhouse gases he is going to make companies pay for them; this will create a revenue stream which Obama plans to use to permanently reduce tax rates for low-income Americans and to fund renewable energy projects. This will help mitigate the regressive nature of higher energy prices, and help transition the economy to less carbon-intensive technologies.

Obama has also been extremely savvy by including in his budget all the costs of war and the annual fixes to the alternative minimum tax. This will not only make it easier for him to demonstrate progress on cutting the budget deficit, it provides a more sober and reality-based assessment of the country’s long-term fiscal needs.

The next phase of Obama’s plan is entitlement reform. The elephant in the room is Medicare, which by some projections is headed for deficits in the tens of trillions. Obama, of course, hopes that some sort of universal healthcare system will bring down costs and enable the country to get the problem under control.

Doing even half of what he proposes would make him Obama a great president. If he can pull off his entire agenda, he will truly be a once-in-a-lifetime figure.

Elections have consequences.

Jason Scorse

On the heels of the stimulus package victory, the Obama Administration quickly unveiled its new bank bailout strategy and home foreclosure plan. The host of economic challenges that Obama faces is unprecedented in the modern era, let alone the foreign policy challenges that seem to grow more difficult every day (see Iran, Pakistan, Russia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Israel).

But looming ahead is what will likely be Obama’s toughest challenge: enacting meaningful climate change legislation.

With oil prices back down to near-record lows (in real dollars), with the economy in a tailspin, and with environmentalism near the bottom of the public’s priority list, passing such legislation is going to be extremely difficult. It has not been made any easier by Energy Secretary Chu’s recent statement that he is unsure whether the political climate is right.

The signature legislation being considered is a national cap and trade system that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 20% of 1990 levels by 2050. This would require a major restructuring of American industry (and the entire economy), and would likely lead to significantly higher energy costs in the short to medium term. Because demand for energy is relatively insensitive to price, much of the cost would be passed on to consumers. Rebates could mitigate these higher prices, but this too would cost money and the question is where to get it.

Enter the contentious issue of giving away or auctioning the greenhouse gas permits.

Government auctions of permits could generate huge amounts of revenue, perhaps trillions; the monies could be used not only to decrease taxes in other sectors, but for additional investments in green technology or technology transfers to the developing world. But industry is going to lobby hard for free permits. Obama has pledged to auction the permits, but it’s an open question whether this will make it into the final bill. Either way, look for a massive battle.

In addition to the permit issue, fossil fuel industries (particularly the coal industry) would be hit hard by any binding greenhouse limits. Legislator in the affected states will lobby intensely to weaken any legislation, and create escape clauses that go easy on the coal industry.

Even more fundamentally, the remnants of the Republican Party in Congress are comprised mostly of extremists, many of whom continue to deny the reality of climate change. Arguments that Obama is kowtowing to the “extreme left,” and that he wants to put the interests of polar bears over those of American workers, are sure to fill rightwing airwaves when legislation is finally proposed.

Whether Obama and Congressional Democratic leaders have the will to overcome these objections (which unfortunately may be joined in by some of the “Blue Dog” Democrats), will likely determine whether America, and the world community, make a serious effort to address climate change. If we wait another eight years, there will be almost no real chance of reining in the emissions trajectory.

Initial signs are promising. Henry Waxman won out over John Dingell for the chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce Committee, replacing a shill for the automakers with a staunch environmentalist. Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency has already signaled that it will make recommendations for regulating CO2, and Obama himself has not backed down in his aggressive call for the U.S. to be a willing partner in tough and substantive international climate negotiations scheduled for Copenhagen this December.

But a lot can happen in 10 months, and great political battles often hinge on factors beyond the President’s control. The state of the economy and foreign affairs toward the end of 2009 may have as much to do with whether we try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as the best-laid plans of environmental advocates.

Jason Scorse

This past week saw an amazing episode of brinkmanship between the discredited Republican Congressional minority and the new president, with the outcome of the stimulus bill still in doubt.

I’ll put my money on President Obama.

He bent over backwards to please House Republicans, replacing 10-20 percent of the bill’s spending portion with business and corporate tax cuts that have little stimulus merit. It upset many progressives (myself included) to see Obama water down such a potentially good bill simply for the sake of bipartisanship.

Not only was he rewarded with exactly zero House votes; even more, right wing pundits and GOP leaders (including Senator McCain) chided the president none too subtly for not doing more to appease them.

I keep reminding myself that Obama is a master politician, and I am convinced that he has a larger plan in the works. Now that Republicans have made clear that they have no intention of negotiating in good faith, Obama and Congressional Democrats may be able to weaken the GOP provisions, add more progressive elements, and pass an improved bill.

If the GOP complains, it will be easy for Obama to say that he tried to bring them into the process and that they have no right to feel slighted. With his sky-high approval ratings, the public will likely side with him over the GOP—and when the economy ultimately turns around, Obama and the Democrats will get all the credit. This will likely happen before the 2010 midterm elections, putting the Democrats in an extremely strong position to make further gains.

But perhaps I’m giving Obama too much credit, and he was naïve enough to believe that the GOP wanted real negotiation. I doubt it. While some elements of the stimulus bill are little more than Democratic-wish list items, the GOP’s relentless emphasis on tax cuts is patently ludicrous; few economists still peddle this voodoo.

Sadly, what remains of the GOP is mostly an extremist Southern wing that is well out of the mainstream. While Republicans still control 40 percent of the votes in the Senate, the states they represent account for less than 30 percent of the population. With Rush Limbaugh seemingly calling the shots, we are witnessing the death throes of a loud and vocal minority.

And we should be happy we are.

Listening to GOP “leaders” and “thinkers” is like listening in on a parallel universe where black is white and up is down. Their ideas have been discredited, and they seem tone-deaf to the direction this country (and the world) is going. They continue to spread misogynistic nonsense (notice how many voted for the Liddy Ledbetter Fair Pay Act), have overtly racist leanings (i.e. RNC candidate chair Saltsman sending out CDs with the “Barack the Magic Negro” song), and they still cling to “culture war" crusades that are being drowned out by a collapsing economy and other truly serious issues. Americans know that it was Republican rule that landed us in the mess we are in, and that capitalism has been been brought to its knees not by “socialism” but by the GOP.

The bottom line is that bipartisanship for its own sake is a fool’s errand. The Republicans are so opposed to all that the Democrats and Obama stand for that the best strategy will be to largely ignore them. The public wants more social spending, a more progressive tax code, a more diplomatic and even-handed foreign policy; it wants science elevated to its rightful place, and it wants America to get serious about an energy policy.

Obama is the rare politician who is smart enough to have it both ways: appearing to reach out to those who disapprove of his policies, but not backing down from his core principles.

It’s up to us to make sure this is how he governs for the next eight years.

Jason Scorse

The American experiment is premised on the beautiful, radical, ultimately illusory proposition that all people are created equal. In reality, people are inherently unequal; even more, research suggests there are genetic markers for qualities as far-reaching as will power and discipline that severely limit the ability of people to improve their lot.

This seeming contradiction at the heart of the American ideal (and the ideals of liberal democracies worldwide) presents us with an immense challenge: despite the inequalities that we inherit by chance at birth, how much can and should society do to move toward greater equality, both in terms of opportunity and outcomes? It’s a question that has bedeviled presidents throughout our history, and it’s particularly poignant at this moment when we have a president as committed to change as Barack Hussein Obama. It doesn’t help that the current financial crisis is only exacerbating inequalities, and making it even harder to address the mess we are in.

Here are some thoughts on this question, a mixture of Obama’s and my own:

1. Greatly expand early childhood education (starting from pre-natal)

An increasing body of research says that the years from conception to the age of four or five are the time when the most intense and rapid cognitive development takes place; this means that a child’s capacity to learn and grow is largely determined before they ever enter kindergarten.

Some amazing programs, such as the Harlem Children’s Zone, have caught the attention of top educational researchers and Obama as well. These programs focus on the crucial early years in a child’s development. Obama has stated that he hopes to fund 20 such zones around the country. In terms of results per-dollar, programs like this are one of the best investments a country can make, with returns orders of magnitude greater than for many other types of social investments.

2. Lift the ban on embryonic stem cell research and increase federal funding for medical research

Innovations in health technology have the potential to diminish and even eliminate the genetic inequality that some of us inherit. If we can find cures for crippling diseases, we can help not only those people but others as well. We may be able to determine the genetic precursors to various diseases, screen for them at the earliest possible time, devise interventions, and perhaps even eliminate them from the human gene pool.

3. Create a culture of responsibility and accountability

Even though our genetic inheritance can dramatically shape our destiny, genes are far from a 100 percent determining factor. While we may not have as much agency or free will as once believed, we can create environments that nurture certain behaviors over others.

Obama had this in mind when he pledged to create a government that was more transparent and accountable, and an America in which people take greater responsibility for their actions and the impact of those actions on others. Already, he has signed into law paradigm-shifting ethics and transparency rules whose full impact we will only experience as the Obama Administration unfolds.

4. Elevate science to its rightful place

The Republican “war on science” has been one of the most damaging legacies of the Bush years. Not only did Bush substitute ideology for facts, many times he injected religious dogma into the process as well.

Restoring scientific inquiry and empiricism to its rightful place is central to Obama’s mission, and he is clearly intent on carrying this out. This will have particular relevance in issues such as environmental standards, healthcare and education policy, all of which touch directly on people’s lives.

5. Draw sharper lines between abhorrent criminals and non-violent offenders

One of the tragedies of the American justice system is how often criminals such as murderers, rapists, and pedophiles are lumped together in jails with non-violent offenders such as drug users (who sometimes receive harsher sentences). This is unfair, inefficient, and often creates worse criminals as well.

There are clearly people whose past and potential actions require that they be locked up. At the same time, our jails are full of individuals whose real problems are addiction and mental illness, not an inclination to criminal behavior. I hope that President Obama can shift the terms of the debate so that the latter group receives more treatment and preventative resources, and is isolated from the hardened criminals who truly deserve incarceration.

Summing up, it will never be true that people are created equal. But the great beauty of America is our attempt to forge a “more perfect union” in which we move ever closer to this ideal.

Jason Scorse

Recent polls suggest that Americans not only have faith that Obama will be able to turn the country around, but they are also willing to give him significant time to do so. While their patience is not unlimited, they recognize that Obama is inheriting problems not of his own making and not amenable to quick fixes. This (rare) display of maturity on the part of the American people is refreshing, and it gives Obama greater political capital than any new president in the past 20+ years.

While making political predictions is always dicey, here are mine for 2009:

1. The Economy

Obama will sign a stimulus package in the range of $1 trillion. It will be largely free of pork, but it will include provisions to entice tax-cutting Republicans that should have been left out. The emphasis will be on public works, especially green energy. As a result, we’ll see the economy start to turn around by the second half of the year. Obama will get credit for the turnaround (though much of it will actually be due to central bankers around the world), which will only increase his standing among the American people.

2. Healthcare

The dire fiscal situation will keep Obama from passing universal healthcare in his first year. But he’ll greatly expand coverage for poor children, and will lay the groundwork for a major initiative once the economy picks up. He will build a coalition for universal coverage with big business by telling them that their support is not only in their best interests, but is a necessary trade-off if business wants additional financial help from the White House.

3. Climate Change

There is great uncertainty about what Obama will do on this front. On one hand he has expressed strongly his intention to curb greenhouse gasses, but so far has been unwilling to ask for the necessary sacrifices (e.g., a greenhouse gas tax). A major international meeting in December will likely determine the fate of the post-Kyoto framework. While I expect the Obama Administration to make significant commitments, I suspect (unfortunately) that they will not go far enough toward reaching the goal of slashing emissions by 80% by 2050.

4. Education

Obama will expand early childhood education (perhaps as part of the stimulus package) and make some minor reforms in linking federal money to more flexible hiring practices and promoting charter schools. I don’t expect anything radical on this front in the first year.

5. Gay Rights

Obama will end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the military, and will begin to craft federal legislation mandating universal civil unions for gay couples. This will be a major development, and it won’t actually take place until after the economy rebounds.

6. The Supreme Court

If a vacancy arises Obama will nominate a woman or a Hispanic. Based on obvious political calculations, the nominee will be sufficiently liberal to satisfy the Democratic left.

7. Iraq

As promised, Obama will begin a phased withdrawal that will essentially end major U.S. combat operations by 2010. He will leave a residual force of 30,000+ that will still take part in combat operations, especially to weed out any remaining Al Qaeda. Iraq will continue to teeter on the brink, but be reasonably stable in 2009.

8. Afghanistan/Pakistan

These countries are linked in terrorism since the border between the countries is essentially porous. Obama will increase U.S. forces in Afghanistan, and will also ask his generals to begin bribing the less extreme Taliban elements in an effort to divide the group. He will increase foreign aid to both countries, making the case that America must offer their peoples an attractive alternative to the extremists.

Obama will also significantly increase pressure on Pakistan to crack down on militants, and will increase covert American operations aimed at taking out key Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders. Pakistan remains mired in internal strife and has yet to admit the full extent of its terrorist problem, but pressure from both India and the U.S. will force the Pakistani government to clamp down on the militants who threaten its own survival.

9. Iran

Obama will begin diplomatic initiatives leading to a “grand bargain”: the Iranians will be offered increased entry into the world community in exchange for abolishing their nuclear weapons program and decreasing their support for global terrorism. If this diplomatic effort fails, Obama will authorize military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities by the end of 2009.

Happy Inauguration Day!!!

Jason Scorse

When I first heard that the “Big Three” automakers were teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, my reaction was good riddance. The automakers, in conjunction with the United Autoworkers Union (UAW), have blocked environmental legislation for decades because cheap oil spelled big profits with gas-guzzling SUVs. There’s something to be said for allowing market forces to weed out inefficient producers and reward the Asian car manufacturers who had the foresight to develop fuel-efficient fleets.

But after some reflection I realized that this was too simplistic. Part of the reason the Big Three are so close to insolvency is because of the credit crisis, which is no fault of theirs. Currently it is simply difficult to get car loans, and even Toyota and Honda are experiencing huge sales downturns. In addition, because the U.S. is the only major industrialized nation without universal healthcare, U.S. automakers are at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis their overseas rivals.

Bailing out Detroit might not be a great option, but it appears to be the lesser of bad options; letting the mainstay of U.S. manufacturing go down in the middle of a major recession would reverberate throughout the economy, and make things significantly worse. In comparison to the $700 billion so far pledged to bail out the financial sector, the $15-$34 billion that is being discussed for the Big Three is a relative pittance; there’s also a good chance that the government (aka we taxpayers) will eventually recoup the investment, which happened when Chrysler was bailed out years ago.

Enter the Senate Republicans.

At the weekend the GOP, in yet another show of class warfare and ideology trumping the public good, seemed intent on derailing any auto bailout because the UAW would not agree to immediate and major cuts in wages. That the GOP’s anti-union stance would blind them to the repercussions of letting this modest proposal fail shows all too well that when it comes to the middle class and blue collar workers, the Republicans could care less. Where is their outrage over the compensation of corporate CEOs and investment bankers who pull down more in a year than autoworkers make in a lifetime? Their companies have already received tens of billions of dollars, many times more than the Big Three are asking for.

I hold no love for GM, Ford, and Chrysler and I’ve never owned an American-made car, but I never imagined the day might come when these companies went out of business. There is still time for emergency measures, but the window of opportunity may be about to close for good.

Jason Scorse

My hunch is that Barack Obama is an atheist, or at minimum an agnostic. I doubt that he believes in heaven and hell, that Jesus was born of a virgin, or that a supernatural being is preparing to wipe away our sins and redeem the world.

But Obama wanted a career in national politics. In America this requires membership in a church, and at the least a modest display of piety. (You don’t believe it? Polls show that Americans would sooner vote for a black lesbian for president than for an atheist.)

So am I accusing Obama of being an opportunist and somewhat dishonest? Yes, but I forgive him; pretending to be religious is a tried and true American tradition, and he had no choice but to feign devotion if he wanted a future in national politics. I think he has a genuine affection for much of Jesus’s philosophy and the role that it played in the Civil Rights Movement, and I believe this helps him to justify his own professions of Christianity.

But make no mistake about it: Barack Obama is not a deeply religious man, if religious at all (the same can be said for John McCain, which is one of the reasons the far right despises him).

This is a good thing. It is time for America to reverse the creeping intrusion of religion into politics and the public square. Obama is just the person to elevate rational discourse to its rightful place in national politics, and to return religion to the private sphere where it belongs.

I am sure every now and then Obama will make a speech that highlights religion, and he will routinely end his talks with “god bless America”—he wants to be re-elected after all—but I predict that his administration will be one of the least overtly religious in the modern era. Above all, Obama is a pragmatist who understands that the role of government is to protect the public interest and get things done.

By couching issues in terms of basic fairness, common sense, and effectiveness, Obama will demonstrate that America does not need religious dictums to do the right thing; that our inherent moral intuition, combined with reason, is up to the task of crafting sound government policy. With Obama, intellectualism will be back in vogue and the United States can get back to leading the world in many areas of scientific inquiry.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution created just about the perfect balance between religion and the public sphere; in contrast to the last eight years of attempts to upset this balance, Obama is poised to solidify the wall that separates church and state.

And we will all be better off.

Jason Scorse

A curious thing has happened in the weeks since Obama’s momentous victory: many on the Left are complaining that the President-Elect isn’t being progressive enough. On popular cables shows such as Rachel Maddow, in the pages of liberal blogs and websites like Truthdig and MyDD, and in the columns of established liberal publications such as The Nation, commentators are declaring Obama too centrist.

I don’t know what planet these people are on.

Obama has maintained a remarkably consistent set of principles and policy goals ever since he began campaigning almost two years ago, and they include some of the most progressive U.S. policies in over a generation. Obama is set to put forth a plan for universal or near-universal healthcare coverage; to enact major tax reform that increases taxes on the wealthy and gives cuts to the middle and lower classes (the definition of progressive); and to embark on a massive public works stimulus program that will create millions of jobs and focus on green energy.

He’s also committed to regulating greenhouse gases and reversing the Bush Administration’s environmental legacy, and to expanding preschool education and federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. Taken together, we have the makings of the most progressive administration of our lifetimes.

It seems clear that Obama’s critics have yet to realize that what is considered “centrist” these days is actually progressive. They should be celebrating the fact that the policies which progressives have long fought for are now embraced by a majority of the American people, and are on the verge of being enacted by one of the most skilled politicians in American history (and one who takes office with a significant mandate as well). Instead, too many progressives seem stuck in their role as outliers who need to “take on the system”.

In particular, the appointment of many former Clinton Administration officials and prominent classical economists has some prominent progressives confusing personality with policy. As Obama made clear at a recent press conference, he is the one who will provide the vision for where he wants to take the country, and his team will be tasked with implementing it.

I can understand why progressives are nervous; they are so close to realizing many of their dreams, and they don’t want the opportunity to slip away. But it would be nice if everyone could take a deep breath and give Obama the benefit of the doubt. He has earned it and until he proves otherwise, I am going to trust him to carry out the progressive policies that he has promised.

Jason Scorse

Aside from all the speculation about Obama’s cabinet picks this past week, the most significant political development may have been the victory of Henry Waxman over John Dingell for the chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce Committee in the House of Representatives. Dingell, a Michigan Democrat, has chaired this powerful committee for nearly three decades. He has consistently undermined sound environmental policy by kowtowing to the Detroit automakers, scuttling efforts to raise fuel efficiency standards and to otherwise address climate change.

Few believed that Waxman would succeed in ousting Dingell before the chairmanship came up for a vote, and Waxman ended up winning by only a slim margin. His victory is significant because it means that Democrats are serious about energy policy. Obama released a short YouTube video on climate change last week, in which he made clear to both domestic leaders and the international community that America will take a leadership role in reducing greenhouse gases.

In addition, a large portion of Obama’s planned stimulus package (which will be his first priority after taking office) centers on building new green infrastructure, including transmission lines to support electric cars, smart grids to allow much more efficient use of energy, and major new renewable energy projects across the country.

As someone who has waited decades for the United States to get serious about energy issues, and not simply react to the ebb and flow of the oil market, the prospect of comprehensive reform is truly exciting.

Obama is benefitting from a political climate in which there is now bipartisan consensus that government must make up for the spending slack caused by falling consumer demand. Add to this the fact that most jobs in alternative energy cannot be outsourced, and you have a potent recipe for action.

Another aspect of a major progressive energy policy is its security component, i.e., what’s best for the environment and job growth is also best for our national security: as one of my bumper stickers proclaims, “Renewable Energy is Homeland Security”.

With this in mind, look for James Woolsey, former head of the CIA and energy advisor to John McCain’s presidential campaign, to have a role in the Obama Administration. Since Obama has yet to name a (promised) Republican to his cabinet, I wouldn’t be surprised if Woolsey became at least a senior advisor. This would be politically shrewd; Woolsey is highly respected in both parties, and could help cement support from the military and those who are security-minded, but less persuaded by environmental concerns.

Jason Scorse

Today, I jump into the media buzz concerning Obama’s first-term priorities. One thing I think is certain: Obama is not going to be an incrementalist. He won a large mandate based on bold campaign promises, and I expect him to quickly put forth major initiatives such as universal healthcare, energy independence, and progressive tax reform.

All three will be difficult to enact given the vested interests and the costs, not to mention the GOP’s aversion to raising taxes on the rich. Nevertheless I think Obama will make these the centerpiece of his first year in office, and that he will succeed in all three areas. The reason is simple: a significant majority of Americans want them. Their enactment will not only help us out of the current economic slump, it will lay the foundation for strong economic growth in the future.

Obama promises a new “New Deal” that progressives have been awaiting for decades, yet which has eluded past Democratic presidents. The confluence of factors at Obama’s back make it likely that this time will be different.

In other critical areas as well, I think Obama’s presidency will have a profound effect almost immediately.

We are likely to see major election reform within the first year. This may include a national registration program, extended early voting, mandatory paper trails, perhaps even shifting Election Day to a weekend or holiday. All of these changes would benefit not only American democracy, but the Democratic Party; since its base is growing, anything that increases turnout bodes well for the Party’s prospects.

On the issue of gay rights, Obama could move the country closer to the European model of civil unions. If Obama can pass a law mandating civil union rights for all gay couples, at the same time making it clear that no religion will be forced to perform ceremonies for gays, this should reassure those who remain concerned about infringements on their view of marriage. With a national civil union statute, the state wouldn’t be allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation; religions could marry whomever they wished, straight or gay.

On the abortion issue, Obama has another opportunity to quell the culture wars by pressing for major initiatives to decrease unwanted pregnancies. If he can achieve a reduction in abortions through sound government policy, and not ideology, that would be a huge victory for the progressive approach to reproductive issues.

Obama is likely to face his greatest challenges in foreign policy. Here, I think he will very likely disappoint and anger many of the left, which may result in some of the fiercest opposition to his presidency.

He is not going to be a pacifist. There is little doubt that he will not only ratchet up troop strength in Afghanistan, he may very well ratchet up cross-border raids into Pakistan too. In addition, if he remains true to his commitment to stop the genocide in Sudan, this will require putting U.S. troops into the midst of a volatile, chaotic conflict. The same logic that says we should intervene in Sudan may also be applied to the Congo, where war is once again raging and hundreds of thousands are being displaced. I would not be surprised to see U.S. troops take a more active role in more conflicts under an Obama Administration (a role which I wholeheartedly support).

With respect to Iran, Obama will no doubt make diplomatic overtures and perhaps offer the Iranians some sort of “grand bargain” in which in exchange for inclusion in the international community the Iranians must give up their nuclear ambitions. But make no mistake: one of the reasons Obama wants to negotiate with Iran is because if they refuse an American deal this will make the case for military action that much stronger. I strongly doubt that Obama will allow Iran to go nuclear on his watch; if military action is required to stop them, I think he will opt for that choice.

Obama gives us a better chance at non-violent solutions to the world’s thorniest problems. At the same time, anyone who thinks an Obama Administration automatically means a de-escalation of conflict is naïve.

Jason Scorse

Above all, Barack Obama’s landslide victory last Tuesday was a victory of reason over ignorance. His opponents tried to tarnish him with every kind of mindless smear, but they all backfired; the American electorate by large margins is not only comfortable with Obama, they say that he shares their values. With Obama’s poise and intellect, plus a little luck, America may finally have turned its back on the anti-intellectual fear tactics of the modern Republican Party.

What is so striking about Obama’s victory is the way he managed to defeat the agents of intolerance and anti-intellectualism: he either ignored or belittled them. Instead of fighting fire with fire and responding with anger and indignation, Obama mocked his attackers and made them look petty. In many of his speeches he would mention a recent smear and essentially say to the crowd, “can you believe these people?” In these moments he always maintained a sense of humor that put him above the fray.

When McCain made fun of his comment that Americans should inflate their tires (which would save more oil than any amount of offshore oil drilling), Obama said that the right seems “proud of its ignorance.”

When the right began calling him a radical and a socialist, Obama asked whether sharing his toys in kindergarten was part of the evidence against him.

And in his acceptance speech Tuesday night, Obama injected a word that he hadn’t used before on the campaign trail to characterize the divisive politics of the last couple of decades: immature.

Obama clearly represents a return of seriousness to politics, a recognition that we simply cannot allow ourselves to be distracted from the major issues that we face.

It will be fascinating to watch the team Obama assembles: he has the best and the brightest lining up to offer themselves, from Nobel Laureates to leaders of business and finance to the world’s top statesmen (and women). In just his first few days as president-elect, he has set a tone indicating that he means to put competence above loyalty, pragmatism above ideology (including making clear that he intends to fill some senior positions with Republicans). The main message from the Obama camp is that the adults are back in charge.

For the most part, the Republican Party seems to have taken exactly the wrong lessons from their defeat. Listening to leading Republicans this past week, I couldn’t help but wonder whether they live in the same country. There were claims that Obama doesn’t have a mandate, claims that the country remains “center-right,” suggestions that the GOP needs to focus on culture war issues and limiting government spending; there was almost nothing to indicate that the party has any sense of the political realignment that’s taking place.

Obama and the Democrats won in all of the demographic groups that are growing in America, while the GOP won in only the groups that are shrinking. If this isn’t a recipe for permanent political irrelevance for the GOP, I don’t know what is.

While political fortunes can change very quickly, my hunch is that Obama and his administration will not make the same mistakes as Karl Rove and George Bush and blow the political capital they have. Unlike Rove and Bush, who lied about their agenda in order to get elected (promoting a non-existent “compassionate conservatism”), Obama earned his mandate by telling the voters precisely what he intends to carry out. This is a huge advantage that should not be underestimated.

There is a case to be made that it’s a good thing the Republicans are clueless and in disarray, perhaps even enough to nominate Palin in 2012, because this would only extend their minority status.

But one-party rule is ultimately not good for a democracy, and a robust and inclusive Republican Party is something we should all wish for. Let us hope that thoughtful and reasonable Republicans will be able to recapture their party, sooner rather than later.

Jason Scorse

This campaign has been an amazing journey. We have witnessed the rise of the biggest star in American politics since JFK, who has run a masterful campaign that will be studied for generations to come. Against incredible odds and in the midst of world financial crisis, Barack Obama has maintained his composure and demonstrated a fortitude and commitment to reason that has been astounding.

As epic has been the rise of Obama, John McCain’s fall has been equally dramatic. A once proud man, who championed many controversial positions, has been reduced to making baseless claims and spreading lies. His choice of Sarah Palin, a know-nothing religious fundamentalist brazenly proud of her provincialism and ignorance, will go down in history as the one of the worst vice-presidential picks of all time. Choosing Palin demonstrated without question that McCain put his election prospects first, not the interests of the country, while completely undermining his argument about Obama’s relative inexperience.

But the election is not over yet.

Even though McCain has not led in a single national poll in over six weeks, and every single electoral analysis has Obama winning comfortably, there is still a slight chance that America will give in to fear and swing for McCain in the last days. Undoubtedly, if McCain were to win racism would be a huge factor since there would be simply no way to explain such a shift in such a short period of time (absent world-changing events).

If this happens it will demonstrate that despite all of the terrible lessons of the past eight years, America has still not regained its bearings. This would be a terrible blow against the forces of reason that I shudder to contemplate.

To make sure the unthinkable doesn’t occur, I urge everyone to do what they can in these last hours to make sure that on November 4th America chooses light instead of darkness, hope over fear, reason over ignorance, and unity over division.

It will be an amazing and historic moment to wake up on November 5th and see that America emphatically rejected the politics of the extremist right and turned the page on one of the darkest chapters of our modern history.

And it will be with great pleasure that I can begin to devote the pages of VoR to discussing how an Obama Administration plans to rebuild the country and make a more prosperous, more just, and safer world.

Jason Scorse

One of the things I am most hopeful about in a potential Obama Administration is the chance to finally strike the right balance between personal responsibility and government assistance. For too long America’s political landscape has been polarized by two unhealthy extremes that have dominated both government policy and our national conversation.

Many on the Left and in Democratic circles, while rightly focused on some of the key structural inequities in American society, have often been too quick to view government as the solution to all problems, and too quick to believe that those who find themselves in hard times are necessarily victims of some injustice. Many Americans simply make bad choices—taking too much credit, investing too little in education, saving too little for retirement, and taking too little time to invest in their children—and they and their families suffer for it. One doesn’t have to be insensitive to the racism that still lingers in society or the stagnating median wages of the past decades, to also acknowledge that many Americans would be