Saturday, August 13, 2011

Rick Perry's Close Ties to Radical American Taliban and Self-Proclaimed Prophets










































Rick Perry's Close Ties to Radical American Taliban and Self-Proclaimed Prophets

AMY GOODMAN: Republican Governor Rick Perry of Texas is expected to announce Saturday he’ll be entering the presidential race. Perry will make the announcement at a conference in South Carolina organized by Erick Erickson’s RedState.com. Perry is then scheduled to travel to New Hampshire, site of the first 2012 presidential primary, and then on to Iowa.

In 2000, Perry succeeded then-Governor George W. Bush, who resigned to become president. Perry went on to win three gubernatorial terms, in 2002, 2006 and 2010. Early Perry backers, at least presidential backers, have heralded him as being behind the so-called Texas economic miracle. This TV ad has already begun airing in Iowa.

JOBS FOR IOWA AD: What if we had a candidate for president with a real record of creating jobs, a conservative with proven leadership in tough times, the leader of a state that created more jobs in the past two years than the other 49 states combined, with no state income tax and no deficit, a decade of balanced budgets? What if we had a better option for president? We do. Rick Perry. Jobs for Iowa is responsible for the content of this advertising.

AMY GOODMAN: But many have questioned Governor Perry’s economic claims in Texas. The Pulitzer Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman pointed out recent economic data suggest the Texas budget gap is worse than New York’s, about as bad as California’s, not quite up to New Jersey levels.

Questions have also arisen over Governor Perry’s close ties to the radical wing of the Christian evangelical movement. On Saturday, Perry helped organize and spoke at a controversial seven-hour Christian prayer rally in Houston called "The Response: A Call to Prayer for a Nation in Crisis."

GOV. RICK PERRY: Father, our heart breaks for America. We see discord at home. We see fear in the marketplace. We see anger in the halls of government. And as a nation, we have forgotten who made us, who protects us, who blesses us. And for that, we cry out for Your forgiveness.

AMY GOODMAN: Governor Perry, leading the prayer session. It drew 30,000 participants, received national press. Little attention was paid to the Christian evangelicals Perry worked with to organize the event.

The Texas Observer has just published an explosive new article titled "Rick Perry’s Army of God." It exposes how a group of radical Christians and self-proclaimed prophets from a little-known movement known as New Apostolic Reformation have been quietly pushing for Perry to run for president. The author of the article, Forrest Wilder, is a staff reporter at theTexas Observer. He’s joining us from Austin.

Welcome to Democracy Now!, Forrest. Talk about this event that took place. And you were there. Describe what it was like.

FORREST WILDER: Well, the response was patterned after what’s "TheCall," and TheCall are events that are put on by a group by the same name out of Kansas City. They’re day-long events of prayer and fasting. They’re usually laced with pretty hardcore anti-abortion and anti-gay messages. There was a call recently where the leader of it, Lou Engle, called for a generation of martyrs. So, The Response, in its programming and its feel, was very similar to TheCall, and that’s largely because the folks that were organizing The Response, some of the primary organizers work for TheCall. So it was an explicitly not just Christian, but explicitly evangelical or fundamentalist-type rally—same kind of music, same sort of tone, same kind of themes that ran throughout the event, and a lot of, really, the same people that move in a certain circle on the religious right.

AMY GOODMAN: Talk about the people that Perry organized this event with, who they were, what they said. This was characterized in the mainstream media as very much a non-political event. You had a very different take on it.

FORREST WILDER: Well, as I write about in the article, the organizers and the endorsers of the event largely come out of what’s called the New Apostolic Reformation movement. And the founder of this movement, the sort of intellectual godfather, is a guy named Peter Wagner, and he’s termed it "the most radical change in the way of doing Christianity since the Protestant Reformation." Little bit of a grandiose statement, but it is really this movement that’s happening at the bleeding edge of evangelical Christianity in this country. And it wasn’t—it’s not really widely known, although it does have growing influence.

And I think one of the defining characteristics of it is this idea that there are modern-day prophets and apostles, that the prophets and apostles didn’t end in the Bible, and we have them now walking amongst us. And so, the leadership of the movement are self-proclaimed prophets and apostles. They hold themselves out as such, and they’re recognized as such by their followers. So this was, by and large, the set of individuals and organizations that were running The Response.

And, you know, another aspect of their sort of theology is this idea of the "Seven Mountains," and it’s a form of Christian dominionism. They’re not the only sort of tendency or movement within American Christianity that has a form of dominionism, but this one—this doctrine is kind of a little unusual. The Seven Mountains are basically the power centers of society, so government, family, media, arts and entertainment, education, and so on and so forth. And they believe that Christians, or a certain type of Christian, are to take control of the Seven Mountains and initiate, you know, godly government, biblical values, inject them into these institutions in preparation for the installation of the Kingdom of God on earth and Jesus’ return. So that’s kind of who Perry has thrown in with in this event.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to play another clip from the event. One official endorser of the Response prayer gathering was Cindy Jacobs, the self-declared Christian prophet. Earlier this year, she made headlines when she recorded a video declaring a connection between the repeal of "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" and the sudden death of thousands of blackbirds in Arkansas.

CINDY JACOBS: According to biblical principles, a marriage is between a man and a woman. So, we have to say, what happens when a nation makes a decision that is against God’s principles? Well, often what happens is the nature itself will begin to talk to us. For instance, violent storms, flooding. There’s something interesting we have been watching. Let’s talk about this Arkansas pattern and say, could it be a pattern? We’re going to watch and see. But the blackbirds fell to the ground in Beebe, Arkansas. Well, the governor of Arkansas’s name is Beebe. And also, there was something put out of Arkansas called "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell," by a former governor, this was proposed, Bill Clinton.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Cindy Jacobs. Who is she?

FORREST WILDER: Cindy Jacobs is sort of one of the kind of leading prophets within the movement. She’s based out of Dallas. She frequently issues these type of prophecies. And they’re taken very seriously by those who follow her and admire her. I mean, she is sort of, you know, a rock star in this sort of prophetic circuit. She endorsed—she was an endorser of The Response, although I did not see her appear on stage. She certainly didn’t say anything. I don’t know if she was actually there, though some of the other prophets and apostles were.

And some of their prophecies are very specific. I mean, she has also said that she predicted the tsunamis in Japan, and not just that, but that that happened because the Japanese hadn’t sufficiently come to Christianity, so, in essence, God was punishing them. Peter Wagner, the founder of the movement, for example, when he was in Germany in 2001, God acted through him to end mad cow disease in Germany. So they actually think that they have some supernatural abilities, at least as God works through them, to do things in what they call "the natural." The natural is basically the real world. So they—the supernatural and the natural, for them, are constantly interacting, and they’re kind of the bridge between the two.

AMY GOODMAN: Forrest Wilder, let me play another clip. It’s Governor Rick Perry speaking at The Response prayer gathering in Houston. And talk about, afterwards, the significance of Perry’s use of language.

GOV. RICK PERRY: Blow the trumpet in Zion. Declare a holy fast. Call a sacred assembly. Gather the people. Consecrate the assembly. Bring together the elders. Gather the children. Gather the mothers, nurturing their children at the breast.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s Governor Rick Perry, who will be announcing for president, we expect, on Saturday. Forrest Wilder, what exactly is he saying?

FORREST WILDER: He’s reading from the Book of Joel, and it’s a part of the Bible, Old Testament, that is very important to the New Apostolic Reformation movement. In fact, the basis for The Response comes straight out of Joel chapter 2. And the fundamental idea here is that, just as in—was described in the Book of Joel, they have an agricultural collapse, they have drought, they have economic woes. They have—they’re having all sorts of problems as a society, and the solution to that is to get on one’s knees and repent to God, who, if your repentance is sufficient enough, will act and, you know, restore the natural good order of things.

There’s a lot of things actually going on in that particular clip that you played, of—one, note that people are, you know, sort of cheering, cheering it on, just this reading of Scripture, very energetically, because there’s all sorts of meaning that’s loaded up into that, into Joel and those particular verses. For example, "Blow the trumpet in Zion." This is a Christian Zionist—a phrase that’s very important to them. For example, John Hagee—he’s one of the leading Christian Zionists, he has a megachurch down in San Antonio—is very involved in, you know, sort of right-wing foreign policy stuff around Israel. That’s a verse that you hear a lot at their events, at their church services, at their political events. And it’s also a popular song. It’s kind of the main—I don’t know if it’s the name of the song, but that’s the theme that runs throughout the song, "Blow the trumpet in Zion." And it’s about—you know, it’s about the role that Israel plays in their End Times eschatology and the role that the Jews play in fulfilling biblical prophecy and ultimately the return of Christ and a thousand-year reign.
Unlike most governments of the past, the American Founding Fathers set up a government divorced from any religion. Their establishment of a secular government did not require a reflection to themselves of its origin; they knew this as a ubiquitous unspoken given. However, as the United States delved into international affairs, few foreign nations knew about the intentions of the U.S. For this reason, an insight from at a little known but legal document written in the late 1700s explicitly reveals the secular nature of the U.S. goverenment to a foreign nation. Officially called the "Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary," most refer to it as simply the Treaty of Tripoli. In Article 11, it states:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."


The preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the end of George Washington's last term as president). Joel Barlow, the American diplomat served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility for the treaty negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington as a chaplain in the revolutionary army. He became good friends with Paine, Jefferson, and read Enlightenment literature. Later he abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate of secular government.

Friday, August 12, 2011

America Will Suffer for a Generation Because of Conservative Economic Policies. Thus Anti-America Fox News Whitewashes Conservative History




































America Will Suffer for a Generation Because of Conservative Economic Policies. Thus Anti-America Fox News Whitewashes Conservative History

Reporting on the lawmakers selected to negotiate deficit reduction, Fox News' Mike Emanuel touted Sen. Rob Portman's (R-OH) "interesting background," saying that not only does he have legislative experience, but "he's done the budget from the administration side of things." But Portman's "interesting background" was serving as director of the Office of Management and Budget during the Bush administration when federal deficits more than doubled.

Fox's Emanuel Lauded Rob Portman's "Interesting Background" Overseeing Federal Budget

Fox's Emanuel: Portman Has "Done The Budget From The Administration Side Of Things." On Fox News' Happening Now, chief congressional correspondent Mike Emanuel discussed lawmakers selected to sit on a congressional committee charged with reducing future deficits and said:

EMANUEL: And then you have Senator Rob Portman from Ohio. He has an interesting background, because he served as the head of the Office of Management and Budget under President George W. Bush. So he has not only legislative experience, but he's done the budget from the administration side of things. [Fox News, Happening Now, 8/10/11]

But Under Portman's Watch, The Federal Deficit More Than Doubled

PolitiFact: Fiscal Deficit More Than Doubled While Portman Was At OMB. Assessing criticism of Portman during the 2010 Ohio Senate race, PolitiFact determined that it was "fair game" to point out that the deficit more than doubled while Portman was OMB director during the Bush administration:

As for the deficit, we turned to OMB historical tables. As OMB director from May 26, 2006, to August 3, 2007, Portman was deeply involved in the fiscal year 2008 budget process. (The fiscal 2007 budget would have been handled by his predecessor.)

The fiscal 2008 deficit of nearly $459 billion was more than twice the fiscal 2007 deficit, which approached $161 billion.[PolitiFact, 9/7/10]
Conservatives do not just practice voodoo economics, they practice voodoo reality. As obviously disastrous as those policies are one still has to wonder why a good third of the population votes against their best interests and the future of their families.

Thursday, August 11, 2011

Rupert Murdoch's Puppet Bill O'Reilly Keeps Lying About Taxes
























































Rupert Murdoch's Puppet Bill O'Reilly Keeps Lying About TaxesLink

Fox host Bill O'Reilly laughs off any calls for increasing government spending to help create jobs. Last week he derided Paul Krugman for

demanding more stimulus spending. And this guy teaches economics at Princeton University? Unbelievable.

People like Bill O'Reilly don't pay any mind to the fancy pants Nobel Prize committee that gave Krugman one of their liberal awards. Why should he? He knows how the economy really works, as he explained last night (8/8/11):

Raising income taxes is not the way out of this. In 2001 and again in 2003, President Bush cut individual tax rates. And what happened? Well, from 2004 until 2008, tax revenue increased from about $800 billion to almost $1.2 trillion. That blows away the liberal argument that tax cuts starve the government of revenue. They don't.

This has been, at times, a talking point among conservatives. But you don't really get a sense of tax revenue without comparing it to something-- as FactCheck.org noted in a piece in 2007 (when John McCain was saying much the same about the Bush tax cuts), revenues tend to increase every year as the economy grows.

A more useful measure would be how tax revenue looks relative to the size of the economy. As the Economic Policy Institute put it in a recent report (6/1/11) on the 10-year anniversary of the Bush cuts:

• Federal tax revenue fell from 20.6 percent of GDP in FY2000 (the last year of the 1991-2000 expansion and reflective of
Clinton-era tax rates) to 18.5 percent of GDP in FY2007 (the last year of the Bush economic expansion and reflective of
Bush-era tax rates).

• From 2001 through 2010, the cuts added $2.6 trillion to the public debt, nearly 50 percent of the total debt accrued
during this period.

• The decade of the Bush tax cuts had, on average, lower revenue levels as a share of the economy than any previous
decade since the 1950s.

That would be (part of) the "liberal argument" against the Bush tax cuts--and it doesn't appear to be "blown away" by O'Reilly's too-good-for-Princeton economic analysis.


Peter Hart is the activism director at FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting).
Where is O'Reilly's degree in economics or his Nobel prize? O'Liely loves a good spin. That way he can leave out the fact that taxes are the lowest they have been since 1950. O'Liely can leave out that the richest 1% of Americans get 24% of its wealth - anyone want to make the case that 1% does 24% of the work that produces our Gross National Product. You have to go back to 1922 to find a time is history where wealth was so obscenely rewarded and work was punished. It is no wonder that O'Liely likes the way things are - between TV show and radio show he pulls in a reported $3 million a year. he plays the average guy on TV, he is not the average guy in real life. If you're a clerk, a mechanic, a teacher or a nurse O'Liely is trying to convince you that most of the nation's wealth should go to the richest and laziest.

Tuesday, August 9, 2011

State Sen. Kris Jordan (R-OH) Violent Drunk Republican of the Week










































State Sen. Kris Jordan (R-OH) Violent Drunk Republican of the Week

Turns out State Sen. Kris Jordan won’t be facing criminal charges. And just who is Kris Jordan, you ask? He's a Republican state senator in Ohio. He hates taxes, loves the NRA, and, oh yeah, seems to have a little drinking-and-getting-violent-with-his-wife problem.

Sen. Jordan, a Republican from Powell, told deputies that he and his wife had argued over his not cleaning their condo. Cruiser dashboard camera recordings released yesterday detail the deputies’ conversations with the Jordans.

“She got a little upset,” Sen. Jordan told a deputy on the recording. “Girls do that.”

The 34-year-old senator went on to say the incident was “90 percent emotion.”

“I threw some things on the ground, but I didn’t hit her or anything,” he said. “So she’s all worked up about who knows.”

Oh, those gosh darned girls, getting all emotional, the way they do. No wonder the esteemed state senator from Powell has to drink and get violent sometimes.

[His wife] also was recorded as saying violent incidents with her husband began about two years ago, sometimes after he had been drinking. She said her husband had been drinking that night but not to excess.

“This is not new,” Mrs. Jordan, 31, said. “He’s done this numerous times, and I just got sick of it and I just had to call.”

Imagine, a wife getting sick of her husband's drunken violence and finally calling the cops on him. The way girls do. But hey, at least he didn't hit her this time. Quick, someone give this guy a medal!

After all, according to his own press releases, he is a "proven advocate for family values." By which he means, apparently, that he's great at knocking back a few and then knocking around his wife. Because, you know, hypocritical Republican "family values" advocates do that.
Kris Jordan is your typical candy-ass conservative. Of course he stays home in his castle and makes the family fell like they're trapped with a mad man. If Jordan put on shows like that in a cocktail lounge or restaurant his fake family values ass would get smacked down in a heartbeat.

Forbes Columnist Suggests Public Servants, Welfare Recipients Should Lose “Voting Privileges”


In an August 4 post titled “If On The Dole Why Do You Still Get To Go To The Poll?” Forbes columnist Bill Flax wrote, “Before we devolve into a Third World dictatorship where the mob denies the liberties of losing minorities we ought to ponder several potential solutions.” His list of suggestions:

A basic literacy assessment;

A non-partisan test ensuring competency of basic constitutional principles;

A stake in the community reflected by property, employment or other measures;

Restrict the franchise to lessen conflicts of interest regarding state employees, lobbyists, contractors, etc.;

Surrender one’s voting privileges when seeking public assistance.

The rest of Flax’s post touched on familiar right-wing falsehoods: half of Americans don’t pay taxes; fighting poverty is a waste of money; the poor in America aren’t really poor because they can buy appliances.

As a reminder, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 banned the institution of “basic literacy assessment[s]” and other “voting qualifications or prerequisites” based on race. Apparently, Flax thinks it’s OK to discriminate against people based on their jobs -- public employees -- or economic status -- the recipients of “public assistance” -- by removing their ability to vote.

Though Flax’s suggestion that voting rights should be rolled back came in a blog post, his writing is also published in Forbes magazine.

Flax’s bio says he “live[s] in Cincinnati, Ohio and work[s] in the banking industry.” Last year, he had a book published called The Courage to Do Nothing: A Moral Defense of Markets and Freedom. The back cover says, “Read The Courage to do Nothing to learn economic truths ignored by the cultural elites determined to change America into a European-style socialist boondoggle.”
Fall on hard time, I don't know, maybe because Wall St played with the nation's wealth like drunken gamblers, ask for food stamps, lose your voting rights. Only a conservative could dream up new excuses for pushing America back to the days when only rich white land owners could vote.

Monday, August 8, 2011

Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) Puppet on a String Pushes Radical Group's Policies To Turn Texas Universities Into Businesses



















Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) Puppet on a String Pushes Radical Group's Policies To Turn Texas Universities Into Businesses

Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), a potential presidential candidate, has been quietly pushing initiatives that would transform the state’s public university system into a business-style model driven by “efficiency and profitability,” The Washington Post reported today. The reforms Perry is seeking to implement are favored by one of his top campaign donors and the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), an affiliate of the American Legislative Exchange Council.

ALEC is a conservative public policy organization that often drafts model legislation for use in state legislatures across the country, and Republicans in several states have used its model legislation directly.

Perry’s push to turn the university system into profit-driven business centers began in 2008 with a higher-education summit led by oilman Jeff Sandefer — a long-time Perry family friend, a consistent top contributor to his campaigns and a TPPF board member. The proposals, based on “Seven Breakthrough Solutions” offered by TPPF, including measuring professors as “profit or loss centers,” separating research and teachers budgets to avoid wasting time on “esoteric, unproductive research” and basing professor pay, in part, on anonymous student evaluations. Perry’s alma mater, in fact, has already begun implementing some of these policies, the Post reports:

The initiative stayed pretty much under the radar until last fall, when it became public that Perry’s alma mater, Texas A&M University, had compiled a spreadsheet ranking faculty members according to whether they were earning their keep or costing the school money. The university already had rankled professors with a program that paid bonuses based on anonymous student evaluations.

Both ALEC and TPPF have established a close working relationship with Perry, donating around $2 million and $1.5 million, respectively, to his campaigns. Perry, who accepted ALEC’s highest award last August and spoke at its December conference, has benefited “far and away the most of any candidate” from its corporate donations. In turn, he donates the proceeds from his latest book to TPPF, which he describes as “a quality outlet.” Since becoming governor, Perry has appointed three TPPF board members to high-profile positions and can count on TPPF’s president as his former Deputy General Counsel and Policy Director.

But while Perry follows the legislative outline provided for him by ALEC and TPPF, higher education leaders have criticized the policies roundly. Distinguished Texas A&M alumni, the American Association of Universities (AAU), the chair of the state Senate Higher Education Committee, and other higher education groups urged Texas A&M and Perry to resist the “ill-conceived reforms,” and AAU president Robert Berdahl, a former president of the University of Texas-Austin, called the reforms “a crazy set of proposals.” Upon receiving a letter from Berdahl asking him to reconsider the policies, Texas A&M Chancellor Michael D. McKinney — Perry’s former chief of staff — threw it in the trash.

The perils of running higher education like a business, meanwhile, are well-known. The nation’s for-profit college system — which targets efficiency and profits the way Perry hopes Texas’ universities will — is rife with fraud and abuse of students, promising quick degrees and quality job opportunities at low prices. In reality, they more often leave students with “crushing debt and bleak job prospects,” hardly the situation one finds in the current Texas university system, which is regarded as one of the nation’s top statewide university systems.


Like so many modern conservative puppet politicians, Perry has no ideas of his own, he is a tool for shadowy organizations like ALEC who write the agenda and Perry sells it to the publc like modern snake oil. Just like the old snake oil the new snake oil promises to cure everything. In reality it just makes everything it touches worse.

Remember Wisconsin governor Scott Walkers' attack on basic worker rights. Like several other radical conservative governors that legislation was pushed by the notorious ant-American Koch brothers and ALEC.






Saturday, August 6, 2011

What Caused The Deficit? In Short, Conservatism




























What Caused The Deficit? See Chart.

One of the most effective Republican themes of the last two years has been blaming President Obama for the explosive growth in the budget deficit since 2009. The accusation that "Obama's spending binge" has blown up the deficit has discredited any further fiscal stimulus, and helped encourage Republicans to use the debt ceiling as a hostage. The White House fought back with a chart showing that its policy changes contributed only a small fraction to the worsening deficit picture:



Megan McArdle dismissively responds, "The duck starts here." Her rebuttals are extraordinarily weak. McArdle begins:

this graph attributes decisions made by Obama and an all-Democratic Congress--like doubling down in Afghanistan--to Bush, while taking responsibility for basically nothing except the stimulus. When Obama extends the Bush tax cuts for the rich under pressure from Congressional Republicans, that disappears from his side of the ledger, because after all, he didn't want to do it. When Bush enacts Medicare Part D under pressure from Congressional Democrats, the full cost is charged against his presidency. The list of such silliness goes on.

The notion that Bush passed his prescription drug bill "under pressure from Congressional Democrats" is bizarre. Republicans controlled both houses of Congress at the time, and exerted massive pressure to pass the bill. The coalition that squeezed the bill through after the vote was held open for hours consisted of 207 Republicans and 9 Democrats. Some pressure!

McArdle is probably correct that Bush only endorsed the concept of extending Medicare coverage to prescription drugs in order to avoid being outflanked on a popular issue, just as Obama did on middle class tax cuts. But Bush did not have to design the bill so as to maximize profits for the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, rather than to maximize value for taxpayers. The Republicans also suspended the pay-as-you-go rules, which, had they remained in place, would have forced them to offset the cost of providing prescription drug coverage. When Democrats won back the House, they reinstated those rules, forcing them to offset the cost of the Affordable Care Act, which as a result was far more painful and less popular than if they had simply put the whole thing on the credit card as Bush's Republicans did.

McArdle ends this passage by asserting, "The list of such silliness goes on," but she does not continue the list. If Medicare prescription drugs is her best example, I suspect the list does not go on at all. Instead, she turns to her next point, which is to point out that budget deficits have in fact been higher under Obama than under Bush:

It's not really very easy to look at these graphs and tell a story where the deficit is 1.6% under George Bush in 2007, and then suddenly balloons to 10% under Obama a few years later--and does so almost entirely as a result of policies initiated under George W. Bush, and only those initiated under George W. Bush. (Not because of say, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.) What changed about Bush policies that made them so much more expensive once Barack Obama took office?
Nor is it exactly obvious to look at the $2.4 trillion in additional debt incurred during Bush's eight-year presidency, and say that he is nonetheless actually responsible for $7 trillion of our current debt load--and then turn to the $3.1 trillion of debt incurred during Barack Obama's three-year presidency, and declare that his policies are actually responsible for only $1.4 trillion.
What changed about the Bush policies that made them more expensive when Obama took office? What changed is that the economy underwent its deepest crisis since the Great Depression. Bush inherited a budget that was structurally balanced, which became a large surplus at the peak of the business cycle. His policies turned it into a budget that was structurally in deficit even at the peak of the business cycle. And then when the economy collapsed, those structural deficits became massive.

McArdle is implying, without quite openly arguing, that presidents should be judged on the deficits that occur under their watch, not on whether their policies increase or decrease the deficit. This ignores the reality that the business cycle plays a huge role in year-to-year deficits. Take George H.W. Bush. His policies significantly reduced the deficit. But the deficit ran at extraordinarily high levels under his presidency, and McArdle's data would suggest he was a massively irresponsible president. In reality, what happened is that he presided over a recession and the necessary bailout from the Savings and Loan crisis, which bloated the deficit despite his (eventually successful) efforts to tame it.

It also ignores the reality that the U.S. political system makes significant policy change hard, and that raising taxes or reducing spending tends to be unpopular. Status quo bias is enormous. It's bizarre and unrealistic to treat the federal budget as a kind of blank slate for which a president bears responsibility once he assumes office. If George W. Bush had not cut taxes, does McArdle think Obama would have set tax rates at the current level? Of course not. But, once established, that policy requires immense political capital to overturn.

Finally, McArdle turns to a theme she's explicated before -- she's tired of hearing excuses about who caused the deficit. She wants Obama to take responsibility and fix it:

Settling whether "Bush policies" or "Obama policies" were the "cause" of the deficit wouldn't tell us a damn thing about what we should do--unless you're the sort of person who thinks that the most important fact about a policy is who was president when that policy was enacted. ...
These seem like more important questions than which items to put in the "Bush" ledger and which items to put on the "Obama" side. And I'm afraid that the White House graphic doesn't offer any answers.

McArdle is insisting here that we shouldn't care who caused the deficit, we should care about fixing it. That is a strange case to make immediately after trying to affix Obama with the blame for the deficit. It seems also to assume that understanding which policies caused the deficit interfered with the task of reducing the deficit. I don't understand the logic of this. It might make sense of Obama were arguing that the fact that he inherited the deficit absolves him of any responsibility to address it, but in fact Obama is arguing the exact opposite of that.

Indeed, Republicans are the the party determined to attach the questions of "who is responsible" and "what should we do." The Republicans have proceeded from the erroneous premise that Obama's spending caused the explosion of the deficit to their syllogistic assertion that "we have a deficit because the government spends too much, not because it taxes too little." Given that they have done so, Obama's effort to recontextualize the cause of the deficit is highly relevant to the solution.

McArdle's item contains a great deal of signalling about her lack of interest in partisan finger-pointing, such as disdaining "the sort of person who thinks that the most important fact about a policy is who was president when that policy was enacted." Obviously, you can care about both long-term fiscal re-balancing and determining which policies led to the deficit. Elected officials often enact policies whose effects, good or will, are felt long after they depart office, complicating the ability of voters to assign responsibility, and giving the officials an incentive to take short-term benefits and long-term costs. Determining which policies led to what outcomes seems like an important function in an electoral democracy.


In so many words McArdle's argument is that conservatives and libertarians are never responsible for anything. If that is true shouldn't it also be the case that if by some miracle they do something good, they should not get credit for that either.

Friday, August 5, 2011

Republican Lying Puppet of the Week - American Legislative Exchange Council Pulls the Strings and Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) Dances




















Republican Lying Puppet of the Week - American Legislative Exchange Council Pulls the Strings and Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) Dances

Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) is pushing a medley of policies closely correlated with the American Legislative Exchange Council, a “corporate front-group” that represents the interests of big-name corporations by drafting legislation for state lawmakers. ALEC, which has the support of conservative heavy-hitters like Koch Industries, Walmart, and ExxonMobil, has written close to 800 model bills as templates for legislators on a wide range of issues.

A ThinkProgress analysis of documents recently released by the Center for Media and Democracy show that ten of Perry’s recent initiatives mirror either ALEC model legislation or policy recommendations from ALEC’s state affiliate, the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation.

Four bills he designated “emergency” legislation in the 2011 session — all of which became law. Here are two (more below):

Bill: Voter Photo-ID Act
Perry’s Involvement: emergency item—regular session
Authors: Eight ALEC senators, including ALEC state chairman Sen. Kel Seliger and Sen. Troy Fraser, the recipient of $314,000 from its corporate members
Sponsors: Four ALEC representatives
Co-Sponsors: 28 ALEC representatives, including two ALEC state chairmen
ALEC Model Legislation: Voter ID Act
Similarities: requires a valid photo ID to vote; sets a strict six-day statute of limitations on provisional voters
Outcome: Perry signed into law on May 27

Bill: Tort Reform Act
Perry’s Involvement: emergency item—regular session
Authors: Two ALEC representatives, including state chairman Rep. Jim Jackson
Co-Authors: 30 ALEC representatives
Model Legislation: Litigation Accountability Act
Similarities: creates disincentives for citizens suing corporations by assigning all litigation costs to the claimant when a court dismisses a case as “groundless in fact or in law”
Outcome: Perry signed into law on May 30.

Perry has recently used his political capital to push policy positions strictly out of the ALEC playbook, even though his state faced a staggering budget shortfall, struggles with the highest percentage of residents without health insurance in the nation and ranks as the worst state for carbon pollution. His close financial and personal relationships with both ALEC and TPPF, however, shed some light on his legislative priorities.

Out of the 2,000 state lawmakers included among ALEC’s members, Perry has benefited “far and away the most of any candidate in the decade of data analyzed,” taking in more than $2 million in donations from 50 of its corporations. Just last August, he accepted the group’s highest honor, The Thomas Jefferson Freedom Award, which includes among its previous recipients the Koch brothers. Perry even spoke at ALEC’s Dec. 2010 conference.

Furthermore, he has nurtured strong working ties with TPPF, which Perry has described as “a quality outlet.” The ALEC state affiliate has also donated extravagantly to Perry’s campaigns over the years, with its 14 board members responsible for nearly $1.5 million in funds. He has reimbursed the conservative group’s investment by giving them all the proceeds from his latest book–and by appointing its members to important positions.

TPPF President Brooke Rollins used to serve as Perry’s Deputy General Counsel and as his Policy Director, and Perry has appointed three of the other board members to high-profile seats on the Regents Boards for Texas state university systems. Through those appointments, he has not been shy about pushing TPPF’s outcomes-based education policies, starting back in 2008 when he summoned all of the Texas regents to a TPPF seminar introducing seven “breakthrough” education initiatives.

But the biggest concern should be that, if Perry does end up throwing his hat in the ring for the GOP presidential nomination, his legislative agenda–and its ties to corporate America and ALEC–could impact more than just Texas.
ALEC's agenda is staunchly anti-American. They have done their best to undermine the rights of average working Americans, they have repeatedly pushed legislation that threatens children and those already suffering from health problems with laws that make it easier to poison our water and air. ALEC has made a mockery of the democratic process by working behind the scenes, in the shadows of the legislative process. They have weakened democracy by weakening voter rights. So no wonder that smiley-faced fascist Rick Perry is their puppet.