Author: Greg Saunders

Want a good example of how out-of-touch the President is? Well, here’s a preview of his State of the Union address :

President Bush is expected to promote a series of health care initiatives in his State of the Union address tonight, including new incentives for workers to choose coverage that gives them more control over their medical spending.

Bush’s proposals will center on health savings accounts, which allow people to set aside tax-free dollars to cover medical expenses. These accounts, which were established under the Medicare Modernization Act passed in late 2003, are tied to high-deductible health insurance policies.

This concept is designed to make people more prudent health care consumers because they spend more of their own money. The accounts reflect Bush’s philosophy of an “ownership society” in which individuals take greater control over their personal health and wealth.

Only a rich kid like the King George would ever think up something like health savings accounts. In his world, it makes perfect sense for Americans to save up for something they can’t afford. Hell, he’s never had to worry about money, why should we? Well, here’s a good reason to worry :

Americans spent $42bn (£24bn) more than they earned last year, turning the annual US savings ratio negative for the first time since the Great Depression.
. . .
The savings ratio fell to minus 0.5 per cent last year, meaning Americans not only spent all of their after-tax income but also had to increase their borrowings or plunder their savings. This is the first time theratio has gone negative for an entire year since 1932 and 1933, when the US was struggling to cope with the Great Depression.

The savings ratio is seen as a key economic indicator as it shows how vulnerable households are to a sudden shock such as a surge in interest rates or unexpected redundancy.

Since our trust fund baby-in-chief is fond of recycling the same crappy proposals over and over again, I hope you’ll forgive me for doing the same by reposting part of what I wrote the last time he tried to sell this utopian garbage :

I wonder if Bush has ever had to lay all his bills out on the kitchen table and figure out which ones he can pay immediately and which ones can wait until the next paycheck? Or if he’s ever lived in an overcrowded apartment with hand-me-down furniture, eating the same thing six days a week because it’s cheaper? Or if he’s ever had to settle for a job slightly less shitty than the one he had in high school because there weren’t any jobs in the field he majored in? Of if he’s gone through the process of figuring out which generic brand products at the grocery store are as good as the name brands and which ones aren’t?

As most of you know, I’m not just describing poverty here. This is normal life for many Americans. Some live paycheck to paycheck, while others are able to pinch enough pennies to save a few bucks. Either way, most people don’t have thousands of dollars to spare.

Practically speaking, savings accounts for retirement and heath care a huge mistake, but for entirely separate reasons. With the latter, the rub is that health care is expensive. Let’s say you have an medical emergency with costs in the $20-30K range. How long would it take you to save that much? A few years? Even with the vague incentives, we’re still looking at a plan that’s the equivalent of asking every American to buy a new car that he/she may never drive.

That same principle holds true with Republican proposals for education and retirement savings. Do they honestly believe we’ve all got extra income sitting around that we can throw in the bank? It must be nice to grow up in the GOP world of disposable income and “personal responsibility”…

David Sirota wrote this great piece about the beltway babies who are are responsible for the Democrats near-permanent minority status :

Just look at yesterday’s piece in Roll Call where you had this same Democratic cabal saying the party shouldn’t mount an aggressive lobbying/ethics crackdown, or look back at the Iraq War where you had the Democratic strategic class saying it was good politics to just blindly follow the Bush administration’s lies (incredibly, they are still preaching this kind of acquiescence on Iraq even today). These “strategists” are the Washington, D.C. parasites who are far more concerned about protecting their own tiny rackets of DCCC contracts and candidate consulting gigs than actually helping the party take back the majority.

Today, these “strategists” are publicly worrying that Democrats challenging the President’s illegal behavior “could threaten the party in this year’s elections.” The first quote in the piece goes to an unnamed Democratic “strategist” who says “If Democrats want to be the party of people who think [the government] is too tough and the Republicans are the party of people who are tough, I don’t see how that helps us.”

This supposed “strategist,” of course, is dishonestly spinning the situation to benefit his opponents – not exactly “strategic.” The debate over the domestic surveillance is not a debate over spying on terrorists vs. not spying on terrorists, as this “strategist” – and then Brownstein – assert. Oh sure, as I documented earlier, the media has done everything it can to try to force the scandal into that frame – reporters behavior in this has been nothing short of disgusting. But that’s not what this is about. This is about whether this president – or any president – can ignore the Constitution and federal laws to order any kind of spying he wants without a court order. And the fact that these “strategists” aren’t even mentioning the fact that the President broke the law – even with Republican Senators admitting he did break the law – should indicate exactly why the Democratic Party today seems so rudderless and poorly run: because the “strategists” running it are morons.

I agree with everything Sirota wrote, but I’ve got to take issue with that last bit. Democratic strategists aren’t morons, they’re geniuses.

After all, these guys have found a way to make a killing on the Democratic “woe is me” mentality without ever having to accomplish the task they claim to be good at : winning elections. It’s a pretty damn good racket they’ve got going. Mix equal parts harsh reality (“Republicans are unbeatable”) and flattery (“Americans agree with Democrats”) which naturally lead your mark to the solutions that you’re about to sell (“I can help you craft the perfect message”). Like any good con, the last thing you want is for your victim to get the self-confidence they need to see they’re getting played, so every time there’s some good news, you’ve gotta make sure to use it to beat down your “client’s” self-esteem even more. (“We shouldn’t politicize this issue”) And as long as you can safely straddle that line between “We’re doomed” and “We’re doing great”, you can lose all the elections you want and still get hired again.

The point here, of course, isn’t that Democrats shouldn’t get advice from strategists but that they shouldn’t keep hiring the same losers over and over again. For those of us on the outside looking in, it’s heartbreaking to see that the incestuous circles of politicos in D.C. exist more to keep friends and relatives employed than advancing some meaningful public policy. I know you guys vacation in Martha’s Vineyard together and your kids attend the same private school, but being cool isn’t enough to undo the fact that a lot of these guys really suck at their jobs. What’s worse though is that even the wannabe Dems who aren’t invited to all the cool parties are often so starstruck that they’ll hire anybody with some big names on their resume. (“Wow, you worked for Tom Daschle and Wes Clark? You’re hired!”) It’s bad enough to see this shit go on in the business world, where a CEO can hop from bankrupt company to bankrupt company without ever taking pay cut, but the lack of accountability in Washington is enough to make you wonder if we’ll ever get something like universal healthcare or a minimum wage that doesn’t keep people in poverty.

…but I don’t see this Kerry filibuster promise going anywhere. Especially when the filibuster news is followed with crap like this :

Senator Harry Reid opposes Samuel Alito but the Democratic leader is signaling he will NOT back a filibuster to keep him off the Supreme Court.

Massachusetts Democrats John Kerry and Ted Kennedy are among members of the rank-and-file who are threatening a filibuster in an attempt to block Alito’s confirmation vote.

But so far, Reid is offering them no support.

The Nevada Democrat told reporters yesterday, quoting now, “There’s been adequate time for people to debate.”

When was the last time you got the feeling that the Democrats were willing to risk going down in flames on principle? Okay, lemme rephrase that. Have the Democrats ever given any indications that they care more about fighting the good fight than their own job security?

Given the one-two punch of announcements from Sens. Kerry and Reid, one of two things is going on here. One, the Democratic caucus is so poorly managed that they still can’t bother to coordinate with each other and send a unified message on something as important as the confirmation of a man who will completely shake up the Supreme Court. Two, the Democrats have a “good cop / bad cop” strategy going on by having their highest profile member (with the safest seat) rile up the base and have all the bloggers shouting “Give ’em hell, Kerry”, while their leader does the only thing Democrats seem especially good at : kissing moderate ass. Either way, it’s a sad, pathetic spectacle for a party that’s actually convinced itself they can win back the Congress this year. Convincing people to vote against Republicans isn’t the same as convincing them to vote for you.

Alito is clearly hostile to the concept of personal liberty, has proven himself to be a willing shill for the government and big business, openly admitted to lying about his past views, and supports the “just a theory” that the President can write his own laws and ignore the ones he doesn’t like. If this isn’t reason enough to oppose Alito’s confirmation with every tool at your disposal, then where do you draw the line in the sand? The fact that there is even debate about whether or not the Democrats are willing to filibuster this guy should bring a tear to your eye. Aren’t the big fights like this the reason you devoted your life to public service in the first place?

So…what are you waiting for?

In the discussion about the Abramoff scandal, people have mentioned the K-Street Project’s goals of funneling money to Republican candidates and providing golden parachutes for ex-GOP congressmen and their staffers, but amid the outrage about media outlets repeatedly making the false claim that this is a bipartisan scandal one important point is being missed. The key point of the K-Street Project wasn’t just its boosting of Republicans, but its insistence that Democrats not be allowed to share in the spoils. In short, this is a Republican scandal because the GOP insisted that Democrats not be allowed to sit at the grownup’s table. That’s not to say that Democrats are above corruption by any means, just that in this case the Republicans went out of their way to ensure that these avenues to bribery were only available to Republicans.

I’m really, really tired of getting jerked around by Democrats. Last week, Harry Reid wrote a great op-ed that justifiably compared the Republican bribery scandal to organized crime, but yesterday he apologized to the mob (via TPM) :

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid on Thursday apologized to 33 Republican senators singled out for ethics criticism in a report from his office titled “Republican Abuse of Power.”

“The document released by my office yesterday went too far and I want to convey to you my personal regrets,” Reid said in a letter.

“I am writing to apologize for the tone of this document and the decision to single out individual senators for criticism in it.”

This seems to be the endless cycle for the Democratic elites. First they say something tough to get the base all riled up, but then they turn into shrinking violets at the first appearance of GOP dissent. Is this how you took down organized crime in Vegas, Harry? By sending little apology notes to mob bosses when you hurt their feelings? Real tough guys don’t apologize for being right.

And while I’m on the subject of weak-ass Democratic responses to Republican corruption, as much as I like Rep. Louise Slaughter, I’ve gotta take issue with her post over at DailyKos “Democrats Come Out Swinging for Honest Leadership in Washington”. I know a politician’s greatest skill is the ability to pat himself/herself on the back, but this is too much. When it came to proposing solutions to the Republican bribery scandal, you guys were beaten to the punch by Republicans! Do you have any idea how lame that looks? It sends the message that Republicans can do a better job policing themselves than the Democrats can. You guys didn’t come out swinging, you came out blocking.

When you get to the meat of the proposals, the Democratic plan is a slightly tougher laundry list of proposals that bears a striking resemblance to the GOP plan. When are you guys going to realize that “Me too!” isn’t a message that’s going to help you win elections? Sure, if you get into the meat of both proposals, the Democratic plan is much better, but who gives a shit at that point? Congratulations, you’ve won the confidence of a few hundred policy wonks. The rest of the country still thinks you’re wimps.

I can’t believe I’m actually saying this, but you guys really need to stop worrying about policy and start worrying about politics. No matter how great the Democratic plan is, it doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of actually getting through a GOP-run legislature. So instead of boring people with a wonkish list of “reforms”, why not counter with something bold and simple that actually has a chance of convincing people that the Democratic party represents a viable alternative to GOP leadership? It doesn’t have to be realistic, it just has to get attention.

For example, instead of a byzantine list of regulations on what lobbyists can and can’t do, you should just come out of the gate proposing a ban on all lobbying. Send a message that under Democrats, the rich and powerful don’t get more access to the halls of Congress than Joe and Jane Sixpack. You want to “petition the government”, then use the “Contact Us” form on a Senator’s webpage just like everyone else. Sure, the proposal is simple-minded and would never make it through committee, but that’s not the point. If you ever want to get into a position in which you can govern, you need to address the problems that voters are concerned about. Americans are sick and tired of the government working on behalf of professional ass-kissers.

It doesn’t help that those same Americans also think Democrats are a buch of weenies without moral compasses. When you’re alternately stuck in the GOP’s shadow and begging their forgiveness, that only adds to the misconception. So throw something out there to let everyone know that you’re not just a bunch of neutered shills that are afraid to defend your values. Offer big proposals that draw a stark difference between the GOP and Democratic agendas. With a track record as horrible as yours, the last thing you need to worry about is how you’re actually going to fulfill your promises. Besides, if you accidentally win an election, there’s nothing to stop you from taking a cue from the Contract with America crowd by watering down the proposals and later declaring victory. You’re politicians, remember?