AAC Blog
Thu Mar 25, 2010 | Daily Kos
by billmon
For some years now, I’ve been morbidly fascinated by the political dark arts -- especially the very dark art of disinformation: the systematic creation and dissemination of false narratives designed to discredit your opponents and/or drive undecided audiences away from their cause.
The difference between disinformation and just plain lying is in the scope of the enterprise: A lie is intended to conceal a specific truth (e.g. "I did not have sex with that woman"). Disinformation, on the other hand, is aimed at constructing an entire alternative reality -- one in which the truth can find no foothold because it conflicts just not with a specific falsehood, but with the entire fabric of the false reality that has been created. It puts the "big" in big lie, in other words.
These basic disinformation techniques were first pioneered by the totalitarian movements of the 1930s, such as the [GODWIN REDACTION] and the Soviet KGB, but they’ve been brought to their full fruition by the modern advertising, public relations and political consulting industries. Proving once again that what communism can do, capitalism can do better.
One of the things that’s always impressed me about the modern conservative movement -- going back to when Newt Gringrich drew up his list of buzz words to be relentlessly associated with liberals ("corrupt," "degenerate," "depraved," etc.) -- has been the movement’s enthusiastic embrace of propaganda techniques developed by the same political regimes it claims to oppose with its life’s breath.
I guess they’re trying to proving that what totalitarians can do, modern conservatives can also do better.
Karl Rove’s White House was, in many ways, the Olympian ideal of a disinformation operation -- a propaganda achievement that will probably never be topped, at least in American politics (God willing). But it looks as if the House Republicans are giving it the old college try.
Thus the rather amazing press conference Minority Whip Eric Cantor held earlier today, in which the Virginia Republican in effect accused the Democrats of inciting violence against all those innocent teabaggers out there who are simply expressing their sacred constitutional right to spit on black people and fax pictures of hangman’s nooses to their elected representatives.
Others, such as Daily Kos’s Jed Lewison, have already noted the Rovian philosophy behind Cantor’s press conference -- i.e. "the best defense is a good offense." But what’s going on here is actually a good deal more subtle (as in, KGB-style subtle) than that.
The specific disinformation technique in play is one I call "mirror image" (or, when I’m in a Star Trek mood, "Spock with a beard"). It consists of charging the opposing side (i.e. the enemies of the people) with doing exactly what you yourself have been accused of doing, typically with a hell of a lot more justification.
"Mirror image" was Rove’s standard response on those relatively rare occasions when the Bush White House seemed to be losing control of the media narrative.
Thus, when Richard Clarke blew the whistle on the Bush White House sleepwalking past the CIA’s warnings about Al Qaeda in the summer of 2001, the White House quickly constructed a competing story line in which Clarke himself was the official responsible for flubbing the response.
Likewise, when the Democrats began making noises in early 2004 about using Bush’s somewhat, er, questionable, accounts of his National Guard service against him, the Republicans quickly rolled out counterclaims that John Kerry had lied about his war record.
But the example I recall most clearly came during the Valerie Plame investigation, when Fox News suddenly tried to argue that Rove was the aggrieved whistleblower, and Joe Wilson and his wife where the sleazy insiders who had leaked classified information:
Rove warned [a reporter] away from the idea that Wilson's trip had been authorized by CIA Director George Tenet or Vice President Dick Cheney. "He gave proper guidance to a reporter who got disinformation in a leak" meant to assign responsibility to Cheney, former Bush aide Ed Rogers told FOX News.
As I wrote at the time: "This is starting to resemble that famous Star Trek episode in which Captain Kirk winds up in a parallel universe where the Federation, not the Klingons, are the evil barbarians and Spock has a nasty beard." Thus my nickname for the technique -- and the title of this diary.
I want to take a closer look at what Rep. Cantor actually said this morning. I’ll skip the gratuitous reference to his own religion (because we already know how much HCR supporters loathe the Jews), as well as his tardy revelation that a bullet was shot through the window of his campaign office two days ago (which is a completely accurate description of the incident, other than the fact that it wasn’t his campaign office, but rather a building in which a couple of his campaign consultants have offices -- and their windows weren’t the ones that were shot -- plus the fact that bullet had a downward trajectory, which means it was either a stray shot that happened to land in that particular window, or Rep. Cantor’s consultants were targeted by a sniper in a helicopter who decided to attack at 1 a.m. in the morning, when the building was completely empty, and who still couldn’t figure which window to shoot. And, of course, the alleged window shooting happened after the Democrats had won their big HCR victory -- which I suppose goes to show that those evil communists weren’t satisfied with destroying American constitutional liberty; they also wanted BLOOD.)
Anyway, if you ignore the utter nonsense of his specific allegations (which, of course, is what disinformation campaigns are all about) Cantor’s statement was brilliantly crafted –- evil, but nonetheless brilliant. This is the passage that really caught my eye:
DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen and DNC Chairman Tim Kaine in particular are dangerously fanning the flames by suggesting that these incidents be used as a political weapon. Security threats against members of Congress is not a partisan issue, and they should never be treated that way. To use such threats as political weapons is reprehensible. I'm not naive enough to think that letters, statements, or press releases will prevent anyone disturbed enough to commit violence from acting. But I do know that such letters, statements and press releases can very easily fan the flames by ratcheting up the rhetoric. Some will only inflame these situations to dangerous levels.
Considered as a rational argument, this is, of course, absurd -- bordering on incoherent. "I’m not naïve enough to think that letters, statements, or press releases will prevent anyone disturbed enough to commit violence from acting." What the fuck was that supposed to mean?
The correct answer is that it wasn’t supposed to mean anything. This isn’t about meaning. The real message of the statement is in the specific words and phrases Cantor uses -- and then repeats: "threats used as political weapons," "ratcheting up the rhetoric," "fanning the flames," "fan the flames," "inflame."
These are the sound bites Cantor’s operatives hope will make the evening news tonight. Why? Because they turn reality upside down. In Cantor’s alternate universe, it’s the Democrats who are using "threats" as "weapons," "ratcheting up the rhetoric" to "dangerous levels," and "fanning the flames" of violence.
The idea is to string those phrases together in such a way as to verbally associate the Democrats with the very same conduct the Republicans are actually guilty of (i.e. incitement) without ever making the accusation directly.
What makes this particular example so cunning are the specific words used. Liberals complain that conservative protestors have worn guns to teabagger rallies, or waved signs warning that if "Brown can’t stop this, a Browning can"? Well, now the Democrats also have been accused of using "weapons." Has the RNC stepped over the line by showing Nancy Pelosi burning in a sea of fire? Well, the Democrats are also "fanning the flames." Did the GOP House members encourage their followers to think of themselves as a revolutionary army by waving "Don’t Tread on Me" signs from the House balcony during the HCR vote? Well, the Democrats are also "ratcheting up the rhetoric."
This is pretty sophisticated stuff -- way beyond what I would expect from your typical hack GOP congressman. Which does make me wonder who’s writing Cantor’s stuff these days (Step on out from behind the curtain, Karl: We can see you.)
The basic objective of all this, as I wrote way back when, is very simple:
The goal is to confront the public with two sides hurling identical charges at each other -- the better to convince them that it's just another partisan mudfight and who the hell knows . . . anyway.
In that sense, the "mirror image" technique is a like a bomber scattering chaff behind it to try to fool enemy radar or deflect a heat-seeking missile from the real target. As I said, it’s one of the tricks Rove would use when Team Bush lost the news cycle, which suggests the past few days of coverage of the Great Teabagger Freakout have done some real damage –- or at least, that the Rovian high command thinks it has done some damage.
Will the ploy work this time? I don’t think so, or if so, only to a limited degree. The material may have been brilliant, but the performance sucked –- even Cantor couldn’t make himself sound like he actually believed it. Sure, Fox News is ready (as always) to take the baton and run with it, but I think the mainstream corporate media deadheads, brain dead as they may be, have finally picked up on the scam.
On the other hand, the headline from that Atlantic blogpost I linked to earlier suggests I may be the one who's brain dead here:
Cantor Accuses Democrats of Using Threats, Violence to Score Points
Perhaps that was written strictly tongue in cheek, but I doubt it.
You know, for the disinformation professional who wrote Cantor’s statement, it must be tough to craft such a masterpiece of the art, only to realize you’ve thrown your very best pearls down before a pack of journalistic swine.—
Update 3/26/10, 1:45 am ET:
Me, above:
The goal is to confront the public with two sides hurling identical charges at each other -- the better to convince them that it's just another partisan mudfight and who the hell knows...anyway.
The New York Times, tonight:
Accusations Fly Between Parties Over Threats and Vandalism
Eric Cantor, in my imagination:
"Mission accomplished, baby. Mission accomplished."
--at 03:07:23 PM PDT
FROM: The Andy Borowitz Report
http://www.borowitzreport.com
3/26/2010
Little Heard Since Carter Presidency, Historians Say
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) – In what some are calling the boldest move of his Presidency, Barack Obama broke with a time-honored tradition observed by several U.S. Presidents including George W. Bush by pronouncing the word “nuclear” as it appears in the dictionary.
Announcing the new weapons pact with Russia today, Mr. Obama repeatedly pronounced the word “nuclear” in a way that has rarely been used by a U.S. President since Jimmy Carter was in the White House.
But according to Davis Logsdon, a professor of international relations at the University of Minnesota, Mr. Obama’s pronunciation of “nuclear” may have been key to the diplomatic breakthrough: “The Russians have heard Presidents pronounce it “nucular” for so long, they may have thought he was offering something new.”
Mr. Obama’s obscure pronunciation of “nuclear” drew harsh reactions from members of the Tea Party movement, who see the President’s obsession with correct English usage as an attempt to make the nation more European.
A sign at a recent Teabagger rally read, “Obama Wants to Disconnect Your Granma (sic) and Correct Your Gramar (sic).”
Elsewhere, Sarah Palin campaigned for John McCain today in a bid to shore up his support among morons.
The Republicans do it again ..........................................
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/719321
March 26, 2010 | Medscape Medical News
Massive Medicare Pay Cut Will Take Effect April 1
Robert Lowes
A 21.2% Medicare pay cut will take effect April 1 after the Senate today failed to pass a bill extending the effective date to May 1 before lawmakers recessed for 2 weeks.
The Senate was poised to vote on the Democrat-sponsored legislation this week, but Sen. Tom Coburn, MD (R-OK), put a procedural block on it, saying Democrats were engaged in a harmful exercise in deficit spending. Sen. Coburn said they should find a way to pay for the bill, which also would have extended expired unemployment compensation benefits, subsidies for health insurance premiums for the out-of-work under the COBRA program, and various tax breaks.
The 21.2% reduction in reimbursement taking effect on April Fool's Day does not necessarily mean that physicians will experience the Medicare meltdown everyone has dreaded. When Congress goes back to work on April 12, Senate Democrats will try to pass the 1-month extension again and make it retroactive to April 1. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has announced that it will freeze payments on physician Medicare claims for the first 10 business days of April and then pay the full amount — as if the reduction never occurred — once the 1-month extension passes in the Senate.
That very scenario played out just weeks ago when the pay cut took effect on March 1, and the Senate voted the next day to delay it until April 1 (the House had approved that measure the week before). The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services did not process physician claims for the first 10 business days of the month to spare physicians the impact of smaller checks.
Congress had tried to extend the effective date to April 1 in that earlier episode of the pay-cut melodrama before March 1 rolled around, but Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) — setting an example for Sen. Coburn — blocked the bill in the Senate because it added to the deficit.
AMA Wants Repeal, Not Delay
J. James Rohack, MD, the president of the American Medical Association (AMA), said in a press release today that a 21.2% pay cut would force physicians to turn away not only seniors, but also military families whose TRICARE coverage is based on Medicare rates. Dr. Rohack denounced the Senate's failure to avert the day of reckoning on April 1.
"Members of Congress eager to spend a two-week holiday with their families have left America's military families and seniors to fend for themselves through their inaction on a known threat to the Medicare and TRICARE programs," he said. "It is unconscionable for elected officials to play politics with seniors and military families."
The AMA wants Congress not just to delay the cut, but repeal its cause — the sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula that Medicare uses to determine physician reimbursement. The formula sets a target for Medicare spending on physician services based in part on growth in the gross domestic product. If actual spending exceeds the target, Medicare is supposed to lower physician reimbursements the next year to recoup the difference.
Because Congress has called off annual SGR-mandated cuts going back to 2003, the gap between actual and targeted spending on physician services has continued to expand, resulting in the 21.2% reduction for 2010. It was originally set to go live on January 1, but Congress postponed the effective date until March 1 and then again until April 1.
Postponement of Pay Cut to October 1 Still in the Works
Organized medicine has strenuously lobbied Congress to replace the SGR formula with one that would set reimbursement rates more in line with practice expenses. However, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that doing so would cost more than $200 billion, an amount that scares Democratic and Republican lawmakers mindful of an enormous federal budget deficit. Consequently, lawmakers have turned to more short-term, makeshift solutions.
One such temporary solution was in the works earlier this month. The Senate passed a bill that would postpone the cut from April 1 to October 1 at a cost of $6.3 billion in addition to extending other federal benefits on a more long-term basis. The House was expected to approve it as well, with the signature of President Barack Obama sealing the deal.
Then lawmakers discovered a problem. The Senate measure contained some "pay-fors" — revenue-raising provisions that offset some of a bill's cost — that Democrats also had inserted in the healthcare reform legislation just passed by Congress. Democrats then stripped these "pay-fors" out of the Medicare pay-cut bill to make sure their reform bill looked as fiscally fit as possible.
While Democrats searched for new "pay-fors" to fix the long-term extension bill, physicians were still facing a Medicare meltdown on April 1. Consequently, the House passed a 1-month delay to May 1 — the same delay that the Senate failed to vote on today.
If the Senate approves the 1-month delay when it reconvenes on April 12, congressional Democrats will have some breathing room to perfect and pass the bill authorizing the extension to October 1. That will buy them additional time — if not courage — to devise the permanent SGR fix that physicians have been seeking.—
By John McArdle | March 15, 2010 3:57 PM |
North Carolina Secretary of State Elaine Marshall on Monday released the results of an internal poll showing her with a 26 point lead over her closest competitor in the crowded Democratic Senate primary.The poll, conducted in mid-February, also found that more than half of likely Democratic primary voters haven't decided who to back in the May 4 primary.
In an initial head-to head-matchup, Marshall took 31 percent while former state Sen. Cal Cunningham took 5 percent, attorney Ken Lewis took 4 percent and 56 percent were undecided. The survey of 600 likely Democratic primary voters was conducted by Lake Research Partners for Marshall's campaign Feb. 11 to 15 and had a 4.4 point margin of error.
North Carolina-based firm Public Policy Polling was in the field at the same time and came up with slightly different numbers: Marshall was favored by 29 percent of Democrats in that survey, with Cunningham polling at 12 percent, Lewis at 5 percent and 51 percent undecided. That survey had a 4.9-point margin of error.
With so many undecided primary voters, a better barometer on the race may come when first-quarter fundraising reports are filed in a month.
The winner of the primary will face Sen. Richard Burr (R) in November.
CQ Politics currently rates the general election race Leans Republican.
THE FIX
by Chris Cillizza, March 16, 2010; 5:38
1. There is only one thing that matters this week in the political world: whether or not House Democrats can find the 216 votes they need to pass the health care bill before President Obama heads out of the country on Sunday. The original House bill passed by the narrowest of margins -- 220 votes -- meaning that every vote counts this time around.
We spoke to a handful of Republican and Democratic strategists and here are the five members likely to come under the most intense pressure from both sides in this final week of lobbying.
1) John Boccieri: The Ohio freshman, who voted "no" on the bill in November, has two competing (and large) constituencies to consider -- older voters who are wary about any changes to the health care bill and working class families who would likely feel the most positive impact from the bill. He also faces a serious reelection fight from businessman Jim Renacci (R).
2) Scott Murphy: Murphy, elected in a 2009 special election in the Albany-area 20th district, ran -- and won -- on a promise to work for the president's agenda in Washington. As a result, his initial "no" vote baffled many party strategists.
3) Jason Altmire: The sophomore Democrat from western Pennsylvania publicly hemmed and hawed for weeks before eventually deciding not to vote for the bill. That initial uncertainty has Democratic leaders convinced they can turn him around although Republicans have recruited a former U.S. attorney to challenge him in the fall.
4) Kathy Dahlkemper (Pa.): Dahlkemper's personal circumstances could well affect her vote as she has lost both of her parents in the last two months and, as a result, end-of-life issues are very much on her mind, according to knowledgeable sources. But, Dahlkemper is pro-life and remains skeptical about voting for the abortion language in the Senate bill.
5) Tom Perriello (Va.): Perriello has gained a reputation as one of the White House's favorite new members thanks to his willingness to back not only cap and trade but also health care despite the swing nature of his 5th district. Given the reelection storm that appears to be building against Democrats, Perriello could well switch to "no" but in doing so he would need to find a way to explain to voters what would look like an open and shut case of political flip-floppery.
ALSO READ: Pollster Doug Schoen's piece on the political impact of switching from "no" to "yes".
2. Liberal groups will spend approximately $11 million on television ads in 45 Democratic-held districts between today and the expected House vote on health care this weekend, according to a source familiar with the strategy. The effort is an attempt to combat the heavy spending by a slew of conservative-aligned groups urging members of Congress to scrap the bill and start over.
"Members should know that when they are attacked by hack inside-the-Beltway rackets like Americans for Prosperity, and when they do the right thing, we will have their backs," said a Democratic operative close to the health care effort.
There will be two major thrusts of advertising. The first will come from Americans for Stable and Quality Care -- a broad coalition of groups that includes PhRMA and the liberal Families United among others. The group will sponsor two basic ads -- both positive in nature -- in a total of 45 districts. One, which will run in districts represented by Democrats who voted for the original legislation, will tout the immediate positive changes (pre-existing conditions etc.) in the bill. The other, running in seats held by Democrats who voted against the bill in November, will include language that many Democrats say encapsulates their best argument -- that the public will be eligible for the same care as members of Congress.
The other major player will be a group led by Health Care for America Now (HCAN) as well as two major labor unions -- Service Employees International Union and the American Federation for State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). That coalition will run ads in 16 Democratic-districts hammering insurance companies and urging Members not to give in to them by voting against the bill.
3. In the last four days, two new polls have come out that paint VERY different pictures of Sen. Arlen Specter's (D) relative vulnerability this fall. On Monday came a poll from Susquehanna Polling and Research that showed former Rep. Pat Toomey (R) leading Specter 42 percent to 36 percent. Those results come close to directly contradicting a Research 2000 survey sponsored by the liberal Daily Kos blog released last Friday that showed Specter ahead 47 percent to 41 percent. Those numbers come on top of a Quinnipiac University poll released earlier this month that put Specter ahead of Toomey by a 49 percent to 42 percent margin. What gives?
Polling, as we have often written in this space, is part science and part art. Figuring out what the electorate will look like this November is a guessing game particularly given the huge surge in Democratic registration in the 2008 presidential election. Given that, the best way to assess the state of the race is to take one BIG step back and look at a collection of all the data on the race. That process shows Toomey with a lead of about two points on Specter, which seems about right to us. (Thanks to Real Clear Politics for their great polling aggregation tool!) The simple fact is that the race -- either the primary between Specter and Rep. Joe Sestak or the general election -- doesn't exist in the minds of most voters yet because neither candidate is on television or directly communicating with voters in any meaningful way. It's hard to imagine then that Specter has moved his number upwards in any significant way. Specter looks like a favorite -- albeit it a slight one -- in the primary but it's far too early to draw conclusions about the race in November.
4. Appointed Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet's (D) first electoral test comes later today when Democrats gather at their precinct caucuses to choose their preferred candidate. While the caucuses are non-binding -- the only thing they govern is whose name appears first on the ballot -- the Bennet forces were already downplaying expectations in advance of the vote, noting that former House speaker Andrew Romanoff, who is challenging the incumbent, has spent more than a decade assiduously courting the very people who will attend the caucuses.
And, they rightly note, that winning the Colorado caucuses have been a poor indicator of primary winners for decades. In 2004, then state Attorney General Ken Salazar (D) lost the caucuses to Mike Miles but swamped Miles in the primary; ditto on the Republican side where beer magnate Pete Coors lost the caucuses to former representative Bob Schaffer but crushed the former congressman in the primary.
Still, a convincing caucus win by Romanoff would likely draw significant national attention as it would feed into two existing media narratives: the anti-incumbent sentiment in the country and the waning political power of the Obama White House. Republicans, too, will head to the caucuses tonight to choose between a handful of potential Senate nominees led by former lieutenant governor Jane Norton and former state senator Tom Wiens.
5. A new poll conducted for North Carolina Secretary of State Elaine Marshall's (D) Senate campaign casts her as the clear frontrunner in the May 4 primary fight. Marshall takes 31 percent as compared to five percent for former state senator Cal Cunningham and four percent for attorney Ken Lewis in the survey, which was done by Celinda Lake.
Some (most?) of that lead is rightly ascribed to name identification. Marshall has been in her current post since the mid 1990s and ran unsuccessfully for Senate in 2002 while Cunningham and Lewis are newer to the political scene in the Tarheel State. Roughly seven in ten Democratic primary voters knew enough about Marshall to offer an opinion -- her favorable rating outstripped her unfavorable one by 29 points, according to Lake -- while just half of the primary electorate recognized Cunningham.
"Cunningham would need to use most of his campaign contributions just to catch up to Marshall in name identification alone," concludes Lake in a memo detailing the poll results. Cunningham, who opted out of the race against Sen. Richard Burr (R) before ultimately reconsidering, is regarded as the favorite of the national party establishment but it remains unclear whether he can make up enough ground on Marshall to win the nod.
Burr started the 2010 election as one of Democrats' top targets but the party has struggled to find a top-tier candidate while the political climate has tilted against them.
N.C. senator opposed unemployment benefit extension, citing impact on the federal deficit.
By Jim Morrill
jmorrill@charlotteobserver.com
Posted: Friday, Mar. 05, 2010
Democrats continued to lash out at Republican U.S. Sen. Richard Burr on Thursday for voting against extending unemployment benefits to 200,000 people, including 6,500 North Carolinians.
Burr voted with 18 other Senate Republicans against the extension. Among them was Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky, who set off a firestorm when he single-handedly blocked a vote on the measure for five days.
Bunning's action allowed some benefits to expire and led to furloughs of 2,000 federal highway workers. When he finally relented on Tuesday, the Senate passed the $10 billion extension 78-19.
Burr spokesman David Ward said the senator objected to passing the spending bill without including a way to pay for it. He voted for Bunning's amendment to finance the extension by closing a tax loophole. That was shot down.
"Sen. Burr supports extending unemployment insurance, COBRA, and other important programs, but he believes we ought to pay for these spending increases rather than just add them to the debt," Ward said.
Among Carolina senators, Burr and Republican Jim DeMint of South Carolina voted against the extension. N.C. Democrat Kay Hagan and S.C. Republican Lindsey Graham voted in favor.
North Carolina's unemployment rate was 10.9 percent in December, according to the state's Employment Security Commission. Around 250,000 North Carolinians currently collect unemployment.
One is Mark Gaskey of Concord, who lost his job as service manager for a rental company in November 2008.
"We all have to live within our means, and I expect my government to do the same," he said. "But desperate times call for desperate measures. And these are definitely desperate times."
Burr's vote gave ammunition to Democratic Senate candidates.
"For many of these people and their families, the extension was a lifeline," Secretary of State Elaine Marshall said in a statement. "Sen. Burr has shown a disturbing lack of compassion for his fellow citizens. He is clearly out of touch with the people he represents."
To Chapel Hill attorney Ken Lewis, Burr showed that he is "alarmingly out of touch with the interests of the people."
And former state Sen. Cal Cunningham of Lexington said Burr's vote "hurts North Carolinians who need emergency support in the toughest economy in generations."
Bunning's amendment, which Burr supported, would have saved $2.5 billion a year by ending a tax credit used by paper companies. The credit allows them to generate power with a wood pulp byproduct called "black liquor." President Barack Obama also has proposed eliminating it.
How would the Democrats pay for the $10 billion extension?
Cunningham spokeswoman Angela Guyadeen said he would end tax breaks for companies that outsource jobs overseas, but the Bunning amendment "hurts companies that use renewable fuels."
Lewis spokesman Ryan Tures said his candidate believes the unemployment extension would speed economic recovery.
Marshall consultant Thomas Mills said, "Right now we've got to put people first."
"The deficit is a huge concern," he said. "But we can't just leave people out in the cold."
Jim Morrill: 704-358-5059
March 04, 2010
The Rhinotimes.com
It's hard for me to believe that North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr has been in the Senate for over five years, but he must have been because he is up for reelection this year.
Burr was elected to the US House in 1994, so he has been working in Washington, DC, for 15 years. But he only works in Washington; unlike many of his colleagues he still lives in his home state. He's home in Winston-Salem, or to be found somewhere else in North Carolina, just about any time the Senate is not in session. He knows what's going on in North Carolina, not because somebody tells him about it but because he's here, living it.
This year is turning into a bumper year for political candidates, and the race for the Senate seat currently held by Burr is no exception. Running against Burr in the Republican primary in May are Larry Linney of Charlotte, Brad Jones of Lake Toxaway, and Eddie Burks of Asheboro.
The winner of that primary will face the winner of the Democratic primary, where North Carolina Secretary of State Elaine Marshall has to be considered the front-runner. Marshall is facing Marcus Williams of Lumberton, Ann Worthy of Gastonia, Ken Lewis of Chapel Hill, Susan Harris of Old Fort and Cal Cunningham of Lexington.
It's hard to imagine a senator who is personally more fiscally conservative than Burr. When I talked to him Thursday, Feb. 25, before we got down to the serious business of the current situation in Washington, I asked what he was doing for transportation in DC with all the snow since his normal vehicle is an old Volkswagen Thing. He said he drove the Thing all winter, but he said after shoveling the snow out of it he has started putting it in the garage when snow was forecast. He also said he had gotten tired of cold weather. Washington has had a bunch of it this year.
Burr said he didn't think there was any doubt that the Democrats were willing to use what used to be called the nuclear option to get the health care reform bill through the Senate. The nuclear option is actually intended for budget reconciliation. Normally for a bill to get out of the Senate it needs a 60-vote majority to end debate. But budget reconciliation bills can be passed with a simple majority, or 51 votes.
Burr said he thought they would do it if they could get the bill through the House, even though 57 percent of the American people are opposed to the bill and that changing one sixth of the American economy by partisan votes of the thinnest majority was "political suicide." But he expected the Democrats to do it.
Burr said the bill he expected to get through was being called "health care light," but that since 60 percent of the country was on some kind of government health care, the Democrats realized that all they need to do is tip the balance and over time private health care will become unaffordable.
As usual Burr has some plans that aren't being discussed by the Democrats. He said that one reason so many young people don't have health care is because none of the products being offered make sense for them. He said, "some of the products are asinine." He added that developing an insurance product for healthy 22 to 30 year olds who aren't going to the doctor and really only need some kind of catastrophic care, and then at "50 years old they'd be able to roll it over into a retirement account," would put a lot of young people who currently have no insurance in the system.
He said he thought Congress would wrap up the health care bill by the end of March, and after the Easter break they would come back and get to work on the economy. He said, "we have not had an economic turnaround. We've got a long way to go before we see any rational change in unemployment numbers."
The good news is that Burr said he thought the country may have reached the critical mass where Congress would do something about the tax code because so many people are paying attention to government right now. Burr said he believed that having the second highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world was not helping the US compete in the world economy, and that the current political climate might "allow them to do away with the IRS." He said a flat tax, the fair tax or some kind of value-added tax are all possibilities.
One benefit of doing away with the current Internal Revenue System according to Burr is that it would eliminate the need for 80 percent of the lobbyists in Washington. He said people don't realize it but most lobbyists are there to try and get something in or out of the tax code or protect what they have.
He said, "Something I thought of last night is a three-week sales tax holiday." Burr said that the federal government would have to make the revenue up to the jurisdictions that were losing it, but that it would be a huge boost to the economy.
After saying that he said, "I'm no longer focused on things around the edge. I'm looking for game-changers."
He said he'd had plenty of time to think of game-changers because "we haven't had the opportunity in 14 months to offer an amendment to anything." Burr said that when the Democrats had the 60-seat majority they just cut the Republicans out of the process entirely and wouldn't even allow them to offer amendments that they could then vote down.
Burr said, "All of the focus is on how to make government bigger and more dominant."
I always ask Burr when he is going to announce that he has formed an exploratory committee to look at running for president. He said he had really gotten so he didn't like cold weather and he understands it gets awfully cold in New Hampshire, where candidates spend an inordinate amount of time.
I think in the past he has said never, so he might be softening a bit.
Published - Mar 08 2010 10:46PM EST
By DAN JOLING - Associated Press Writer
ANCHORAGE, Alaska— Sarah Palin has been no friend lately of socialized health care.
She has criticized Canada's system, saying it should be dismantled in favor of free enterprise. And she has denounced President Barack Obama's health plan as being socialized medicine.
But during a weekend speech in Calgary, the former Republican vice presidential candidate acknowledged her family used medical care in Whitehorse, the capital of Canada's Yukon Territory, decades ago.
Palin was born in 1964 in Idaho and moved to the rural southeast Alaska town of Skagway as an infant.
"My first five years of life we spent in Skagway, Alaska, right there by Whitehorse," Palin said during her Saturday night speech at Calgary's BMO Centre, part of the Fraser institute's influential speakers program.
"Believe it or not _ this was in the '60s _ we used to hustle on over the border for health care that we would receive in Whitehorse. I remember my brother, he burned his ankle in some little kid accident thing, and my parents had to put him on a train and rush him over to Whitehorse, and I think, isn't that kind of ironic now. Zooming over the border, getting health care from Canada."
Palin's father said Monday they had little choice, given their location in Skagway.
"There was no road out of there at that time," said retired teacher Chuck Heath, reached by phone in Wasilla. "The ferry schedule was very erratic. We had no doctor in Skagway. The plane schedule was very erratic. The winds dictated whether the planes could come in or not."
Palin's health care history, even when she was a child, is of interest because of her criticism of Obama and other Democrats working on U.S. health care.
Palin has been a frequent critic of big government and socialized health care, a seeming contradiction for someone whose family once took advantage of it in Whitehorse.
Palin in August called Obama's health plan "downright evil" in a Facebook posting and said he would create a "death panel" that would deny care to the neediest Americans. Democrats including Obama have dismissed that as a distortion.
Palin's father said his family probably boarded the train for the Whitehorse hospital only twice _ once when a daughter had rheumatic fever, and once when his son, also named Chuck, severely burned his leg and an infection set in.
"We much preferred to use our facilities because my insurance didn't cover anything in Whitehorse. And even though they have socialized medicine, I still had to pay the bill, being an American citizen," Heath said.
Heath worked part-time for the White Pass & Yukon Railroad and had a pass allowing him and his family to ride for free.
The train in the 1960s often was the only option for getting to a doctor, Skagway Mayor Tom Cochran said.
There's now a road to Whitehorse about 112 miles away, but people still take advantage of Whitehorse dentists or doctors rather than flying to Alaska's capital, Juneau, 90 miles to the south.
"If you can't fly to Juneau _ and a lot of times you can't, especially in the winter _ they're going to get you to a medical treatment facility if it's an emergency, and that's normally where Whitehorse comes into play," Cochran said.
Cochran has lived in Skagway since 1968 and his family knew the Heaths. His own child needed help a decade ago.
"It was probably 10 years ago, anyway, two of my kids were in a four-wheeler accident, and one of them was hurt pretty badly, so we medevaced them to Whitehorse via ambulance," he said. "It's usually emergency situations when people go up there."
Palin aide Jason Recher did not immediately return an e-mail seeking comment from the former governor.
It may have taken over a year, but President Obama finally told Congress and the public Wednesday what he wants in a health care bill, when he wants it and how he thinks it should pass.
"An impassioned President Obama on Wednesday challenged Congress to vote on sweeping healthcare legislation 'in the next few weeks,' even if doing so means having to maneuver around the Republican minority," the Los Angeles Times ledes, adding: "It was the strongest, most specific language the president has used to drive his healthcare plans forward. And he set a clear timeline for wrapping up the drama that has now run for more than a year." The New York Times notes that "in his remarks, the president refrained from using the word 'reconciliation,' the parliamentary tactic that Democrats are expected to employ to avoid a Republican filibuster and win passage with a simple majority. But he made clear that was his intent, and reminded Americans that despite current Republican objections, other major bills had been passed using the same tactic." The Wall Street Journal writes: "Democrats and the White House are balancing high risks and rewards. Passing the health overhaul would fulfill a decades-old Democratic dream, bringing insurance to some 30 million Americans, and represent the greatest expansion of coverage since Medicare was created in 1965. But if the public judges the overhaul harshly, it is likely to cost some Democrats their seats, and the party's majority in the House could be at risk."
The Washington Post says "Obama's endorsement Wednesday of a risky legislative maneuver to complete health-care legislation sent Democratic leaders scrambling to settle policy disputes and assemble the votes necessary for passage in the coming weeks." How is the White House pitching the plan? "Two senior administration officials said the White House is telling Democrats reconsidering their support for health care reform that they will pay the price for their original vote no matter what happens, so they should reap the political benefits of actually passing a law," Politico reports. On the abortion question, Bart Stupak said on "Good Morning America" Thursday that "he and 11 other Democrats will vote against the overhaul unless a provision subsidizing abortion is removed." Roll Call says "Senate Democratic centrists aren't saying 'yes' just yet, but when it comes to passing a crucial piece of the health care reform puzzle, party leaders have reason to be optimistic that enough of their most fickle Members will put them over the top." Bloomberg focuses on the the tricky timing: "Obama's push to get health-care legislation passed in the next few weeks might collide with his planned visit to Indonesia and Australia, creating a schedule conflict that concerns some Democrats, including White House aides. Obama's top aides have discussed whether to postpone the overseas travel in case the timing for a vote on the president's signature legislative priority slips, according to a person familiar with the discussions. For now, the trip is on."
Get ready to read a lot more profiles of Alan Frumin, the Senate parliamentarian. Time writes that "when it comes to the complex budgetary procedure known as reconciliation, the filibuster-proof process which Democrats hope to use to make certain fixes to the Senate bill, Frumin is 'the defense counsel, he's the prosecution, he's the judge, he's the jury and he's the hangman,' says Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the top Republican on the Budget Committee." Politico says "Senate Republicans are waging a pre-emptive strike against the Senate's parliamentarian -- a hitherto little-known official who could determine the fate of the Democrats' health care reform efforts." USA Today reports, "In a letter e-mailed today to political supporters, Obama wrote that health care 'deserves the same kind of up-or-down vote that has been routinely used and has passed such landmark measures as welfare reform and both Bush tax cuts' -- both items that just happened to have passed as part of reconciliation bills. So this sets up days of debate over both the merits of the Obama health care bill and the congressional process by which it is considered."
Joe Klein thinks that Democrats have made many missteps along the way, "And yet, miracle of miracles, it may pass. And if it passes -- contrary to the conventional wisdom -- it will work to the Democrats' advantage. Next fall, their candidates will be able to say, "Because of us, no one can ever take away your health insurance. My Republican opponent voted against that." That is, if they have the brains to make the argument." The New York Times editorial board writes, "House Democrats who say they cannot accept the Senate's abortion provisions must ask themselves a fundamental question: Are they willing to scuttle their party's signature domestic issue and a reform that this country desperately needs, rather than accept the almost-as-tough language of the Senate bill?" Jonathan Cohn thinks that "if Obama on Wednesday was implicitly giving up on his hopes for constructive, bipartisan governing, he wasn't giving up on his hopes for what governing would achieve. He ran for president on a promise to tackle the nation's most challenging problems--and, since winning election, he's gleefully defied those who warned him he was trying to do too much. On Wednesday, he made clear that he hasn't changed his mind about that."
March 3 was likely Charles Rangel's last in a position of power in the House. "Rangel stepped down on Wednesday as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee after losing support within his party because of ethics violations, shaking up the Democratic power structure in the House and costing New York a powerful seat of influence in Congress," the New York Times writes. But as the Wall Street Journal writes, In reality, the move is much more likely to be permanent, and it could augur the beginning of the end of Mr. Rangel's storied political career. As a matter of House procedure, it would be difficult for Mr. Rangel to win the support of his colleagues to return to the chairmanship, even if he is cleared by the House ethics committee on all remaining matters." The Washington Post says, "the move created immediate ripples throughout the chamber. The chairmanship would normally be passed to Ways and Means' next-most-senior member, Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.). But rank-and-file committee Democrats clamored Wednesday for a more robust and long-term leader of what is traditionally one of the most powerful panels on Capitol Hill." National Review profiles Rangel's super-longshot GOP reelection opponent.
Michael Steele got another headache Wednesday, courtesy of Politico: "The Republican National Committee plans to raise money this election cycle through an aggressive campaign capitalizing on 'fear' of President Barack Obama and a promise to 'save the country from trending toward socialism.' The strategy was detailed in a confidential party fundraising presentation, obtained by POLITICO. ... One page, headed 'The Evil Empire,' pictures Obama as the Joker from Batman, while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leaders Harry Reid are depicted as Cruella DeVille and Scooby Doo, respectively." The Washington Post writes: "Raynard Jackson, a GOP activist who has worked to attract blacks and other minority members to the party, was outraged by word of the presentation. 'This is just beyond the pale,' he said. 'And the best we can get is Michael Steele issuing a statement through a spokesman? And they wonder why they can't get minorities, especially black people, involved in the party?' GOP aides privately said that the document might hurt the RNC because it suggested that its major donors may be 'ego-driven' to give to the party and that they might be motivated by 'tchotchkes.'"
Karl Rove's new book also drew attention Wednesday, as he writes "that the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq badly damaged the Bush administration's credibility and led to dwindling public support for the war," AP reports. The New York Times says "Rove's book offers the most expansive account yet of the Bush presidency by one of the people most responsible for it. Addressing the most controversial and consequential moments of Mr. Bush's eight years in power, Mr. Rove takes responsibility for the widely criticized Air Force One flyover after Hurricane Katrina and writes that he secretly cried in his White House office when he learned he would not be indicted in a C.I.A. leak case. For the most part, his book ... is an unapologetic defense of Mr. Bush and his presidency, and takes aim at Democrats, the news media and disloyal Republicans for what he describes as hypocrisy, deceit and vanity. He also recounts his hardscrabble upbringing in a family broken by divorce and his mother's suicide." The Washington Post notes this tidbit: "In one passage, Rove accuses former Virginia congressman Tom Davis of repeatedly trying to get Jeannemarie Devolites, a former state senator in Virginia, appointed to the board of Sallie Mae. Rove writes that he finally gave in and recommended her appointment, only to discover through news reports that the pair were romantically involved -- even though Davis was married at the time. He said that he confronted Davis, who denied the allegations, and that their relationship was difficult from that point on."
By John E. Potter
Sunday, February 28, 2010
For 235 years, the U.S. Postal Service has delivered your mail in snow, rain and dark of night. However, tough market conditions are creating new challenges for our business. Misconceptions about the future of our enterprise abound; dispelling these myths will show that we can continue to deliver the mail.
The Postal Service, reorganized in 1971 as an independent agency of the executive branch, operates as a commercial entity. We rely on the sale of postage, mail products and services for revenue.
A small annual appropriation from Congress reimburses the USPS for free mail for the blind and absentee-ballot mailing for overseas military personnel. Otherwise, we have not received taxpayer funds to support postal operations since 1982; in fact, though we're often described as "quasi-governmental," we're required by law to cover our costs.
2. The Postal Service is inefficient.
Ten years ago, it took 70 employees one hour to sort 35,000 letters. Today, in that same hour, two employees process that same volume of mail. Though the number of addresses in the nation has grown by nearly 18 million in the past decade, the number of employees who handle the increased delivery load has decreased by more than 200,000.
According to the U.N.-affiliated Universal Postal Union, we deliver nearly half of the world's mail. The World Economic Forum, host of the annual summit of global power players in Davos, Switzerland, consistently ranks the U.S. Postal Service among the top 4 percent of more than 120 nations' and territories' postal services.
But keeping operating costs down is the greatest testament to efficiency. Since 2002, the Postal Service has cut its costs by $43 billion, including by $6 billion in 2009. These savings have come through workforce and overtime reduction, the renegotiation of more than 500 supplier contracts, the consolidation of facilities, the closing of administrative offices, and cuts in travel expenses and supply budgets.
Despite such efforts, the Postal Service was added to the Government Accountability Office's "high-risk list" last July to help put it on a more sustainable financial path. The GAO assessment, with which we agree, accurately reflects the Postal Service's fiscal condition, but the announcement also noted that many of the actions we've taken to reduce costs should continue.
We've also asked Congress to eliminate the statutory requirement that we deliver mail six days a week. A switch to five-day delivery would help us save more than $3 billion a year while still devoting appropriate resources to delivering the mail.
3. Mail is not reliable.
Independent quarterly surveys conducted by IBM confirm that the Postal Service has achieved record reliability levels. In the last quarter of 2009, on-time overnight delivery of single-piece first-class mail was at 96 percent for the fifth straight quarter, an agency best.
We're not only punctual, we're trusted and secure. According to the Federal Trade Commission, as little as 2 percent of identity crimes occur through the mail. Theft of a wallet or purse is responsible for 5 percent -- meaning your documents are safer in the mail then they are in your pocket.
4. The USPS is not environmentally friendly.
There's no way around it: Delivering mail uses fossil fuels, and mail often produces paper waste. Still, the Postal Service is greener than you think. As long as consumers and businesses use physical mail, we're committed to finding ways to process it responsibly.
Our fleet of 44,000 alternative-fuel-capable vehicles is one of the largest in the world and includes electric, three-wheeled electric, hybrid electric, ethanol, fuel-cell, biodiesel and propane technology. More than a half-billion packages and envelopes that we provide free annually are recyclable and made of environmentally friendly materials. The quality of the raw materials in our packaging, including tape and labels, makes the USPS the only shipping company to meet the stringent eco-design and manufacturing standards set by McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry in its Cradle to Cradle program.
Last year, we recycled more than 200,000 tons of paper, plastics and other waste -- the equivalent of saving 1.67 million barrels of oil, according to an online Environmental Protection Agency calculator. There are Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)-certified post offices, a 2.5-acre green roof on a major facility in downtown Manhattan, solar photovoltaic building systems and other sustainable building designs in use across the country.
Still, saving the environment doesn't begin and end with the Postal Service. That's why we encourage our customers to "read, respond and recycle." In 8,000 post offices nationwide, signs remind P.O. box customers to open their mail, take whatever action is necessary and place the waste in our recycling bins. The EPA reports that standard mail represents less than 2.1 percent of the material in our nation's landfills. (By comparison, disposable diapers represent 2.2 percent, glass beer and soft-drink bottles 3 percent, and yard trimmings 6.9 percent.)
5. The USPS can't compete with the private sector. The Postal Service can and does compete. Our closest competitors, UPS and FedEx, don't threaten our business; as two of our biggest customers, they help build it. Our competition pays us to deliver more than 400 million of their ground packages every year in residential areas and on Saturdays. In turn, the USPS contracts with UPS and FedEx for air transportation to take advantage of their comprehensive air networks.
Although stamp prices have increased about 33 percent over the past 10 years, this increase is in line with inflation. By comparison, private carriers raised their prices by as much as 60 percent between 1999 and 2009. The Postal Service is, and has always been, a bargain.
It's no secret that the Postal Service has been losing money since 2007. What are not well known are the financial demands of the Postal Reform Act of 2006 -- demands not faced by the private sector. Though the USPS is self-supporting, its finances are tied to the federal budget because postal employees participate in federal retirement plans. In 2006, Congress required that the USPS prefund 80 percent of future postal retiree health benefits. This will cost more than $5 billion a year through 2016. No other federal agency or private company carries such a heavy burden.
Without the prefunding requirement, the Postal Service would have been better able to weather the recent recession. In 2008, prefunding contributed to a loss of $2.8 billion. Without it, we would have been $2.8 billion in the black.
Though we operate in a difficult legislative and economic environment, we are prepared to forge ahead. On March 2, we are releasing our plan for future financial viability and greater business flexibility -- a plan that will keep the Postal Service thriving for years to come.
John E. Potter is postmaster general of the United States.
