Dissecting Lies

The GOP/Tea Party line is that: Obama (A socialist) has, much like a dictator, taken a hold of the federal government and massively increased spending.  I don't think I'm embellishing.  I've heard this repeated by respected members of the GOP, in newspapers, on Fox News, and on right-wing blogs.

Paul Krugman has a fantastic post taking this lie apart (here).

Rather than just cut-and paste the entire blog post, here are a few key charts that really take apart what's going on with government spending.

So, what's going-on here?  Simple.  We have RECORD unemployment.  This isn't a 'government take-over' of the economy.  This isn't a massive spending designed to implement an agenda of socialism.  I know that I'm supposed to balance my thinking with the idea that my side spreads an equal number of falsehoods.  But seriously, the nonsense from the 'ring-wing noise machine' is tedious, loud, and wrong.  Here's to Krugman finding another way to point that out.  Cheers!

The day the deficit didn't die.

I try to keep a little hope that any bipartisan deficit commission will actually end up being a useful exercise, rather then the policy punt it so obviously is. Well, even a little hope is probably too much. Here's Krugman (link):

Specifically, Simpson has resurrected the old nonsense about how Social Security will be bankrupt as soon as payroll tax revenues fall short of benefit payments, never mind the quarter century of surpluses that came first.

...

here’s what you can’t do: you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that for the last 25 years, when Social Security ran surpluses, well, that didn’t mean anything, because it’s just part of the federal government — but when payroll taxes fall short of benefits, even though there’s lots of money in the trust fund, Social Security is broke.

So, it looks like another meaningless deficit commission. It's my belief that fear-mongering on the deficit is too useful a political weapon for the GOP to seriously engage in substantive discussions with their opposition.  So, guess what? The quickest way to end meaningful policy discussions is to start making up 'facts' that are politically expedient but easily disproved by anyone paying attention to the numbers.

Nice.

UPDATE:  Great post on the deficit commission from Jonathan Bernstein (link).

Sometimes, when you put your foot in your mouth, it's best to just keep on talking.

Here's David Frum on what has to be his favorite topic (link):

This story is another example of the harm done by allowing talk radio & Fox – rather than elected officials and aspiring candidates – to define the GOP. Anybody heard any objection to the escrow fund from Mitt Romney? Has Mitch Daniels termed it a “shakedown”? Bobby Jindal seems cool with the idea, ditto Mitch McConnell. But these real leaders are crowded out by people trying to bump ratings a point or two by inciting another prime time hour’s worth of anti-Obama indignation.

And here's the video he's reacting to:

That didn't take long.

Here's the GOP representative from Arlington Texas, Joe Barton (link):

"BP should bear the full financial responsibility for the accident on their lease in the Gulf of Mexico," Barton said in a written statement. "BP should fully compensate those families and businesses that have been hurt by this accident. BP and the federal government need to stop the leak, clean up the damage, and take whatever steps necessary to prevent a similar accident in the future." 

He added: “I regret the impact that my statement this morning implied that BP should not pay for the consequences of their decisions and actions in this incident."

Apologizing to BP was such a ridiculous stunt.  I'm not surprised to see Barton backing away from his statement.  As as aside, its pretty clear why he made the statement.  Here's 538 on his campaign contributors (link).

UPDATE:  The walk back is only a walk back from the words, not the intent of the statement.  Here's from Sullivan's blog (link).

Yes. They will attack anything.

So we all know that Obama got BP to agree to cut it's $10.5 billion annual dividend and set up a $20.0 billion fund to start paying out claims (link, link).  Apparently, this was a bad thing to do (Per TPM).

BP is ponying up $20 billion for Gulf Spill oil damages. And quite a few Republicans don't like it one bit.

Here is the usual list of suspects: link, link, link, link.  These guys are the leaders of party poised to win the next election.  Really.

Nothing to see here, move along...

Great quote (link) from Haley Barbour (GOP governor of Mississippi):

He's exactly right to call for continued drilling. Let me — let me say a couple things. In the last 50 years, the four states that allow offshore drilling on the gulf, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas and Alabama — more than 30,000 wells have been drilled in the Gulf of Mexico.

This is the first time in that more than 30,000 we have ever had anything like this happen. About 30 percent of America's production of oil and gas coming out of the Gulf of Mexico. If you shut this down, don't kid yourself, you're not shutting it down for six months. These big oil rigs — by the way, B.P. and Transocean are not even American companies.

In six months, these oil rigs aren't going to be sitting around the gulf waiting. They're going to be in west Africa. They'll be in Indonesia. They're going to be in China. They're going to be drilling oil wells elsewhere in the world.

And the loss of production that we're going to suffer will make us even more dependent on the Middle East, on Venezuela, on people that aren't our friends.

And let me tell you one other little thing environmentalists ought to think about. Of the 10 worst oil spills in American history, seven of them were from ships. Seven of them were from ships.

So we had a big disaster.  Caused by deep sea drilling.  And we're not entirely sure why.  Oh, and the disaster isn't over yet.  Whatever.  Business should go on as usual.  I mean this has only happened badly a few times.  Most of the time when things go wrong its the ship's fault anyway.  You're getting all worked up over something that probably won't even happen.  Again.

Oh yea.  And get off my land, you hippie.

(Hat Tip: Doonesbury)

Ding Ding Ding

Ezra has it right (link).  The 'lone Republican' strategy has worked very well for the GOP.

It's further evidence that the "lone Republican" strategy doesn't work. Time and again, Democrats have ended up in a room with a single Republican who seemed willing to cut a deal. It was Olympia Snowe on health care, Bob Corker on financial regulation and Lindsey Graham on climate change. In every case, the final bill looked a lot like what that Republican helped negotiate. And in every single case, the Republican realized that he or she couldn't get more support from their party and so they eventually bolted the effort.

If you think this has all been a cynical strategy, it's been brilliantly successful. On the one hand, Republicans have had a major role in shaping these bills. On the other hand, they haven't had to vote for these bills, and so they could cleanly campaign against legislation that a member of their party helped write. And as an added bonus, Democrats are stuck trying to defend a bill that their base doesn't like very much and that's thick with compromises that annoy political elites.

It has to be a cynical strategy, right?   If I was in the minority and I thought it would trip up the ruling party, I'd give it a shot.

Maybe Obama Isn't Like Carter Afterall

You should click on this link, just to see the other covers of Obama on The Weekly Standard.  Here's the key quote from Jonathan Chait:

Now that Obama has won his biggest legislative priority and is closing in on at least one other important win, the tone is change. The hapless patsy has become the snarling bully. The lack of Republican support for Obama's agenda, once a credit to Republican tough-mindedness, is now blamed upon Obama's stubbornness. Here is a recent cover of Obama--the nefarious, but powerful, overseer:




The Standard is a reliable reflection of Republican propaganda tropes. The shift in tone from gloating at Obama's weakness to complaining at the unfairness of his strength is the clearest signal Obama seems to be escaping the worst fate -- to be a Jimmy Carter or a Bill Clinton circa 1994 or 1995.

Anybody Get the Logic of this Little Tidbit

From the analysis of a poll by PPP:

28% of Republicans said the recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico made them more likely to support drilling off the coast

What?  I'll assume they were joking.