Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktMichi linked a piece last night as a counter argument to Melissa Harris-Perry’s claim that President Obama is the victim of a double standard and that white liberals may be abandoning him because we have set a higher standard for a black president. A few of us discussed this on Tuesday night and came to the conclusion that her claim was a stretch at best. Here’s David Sirota with more analysis.
By seeing this record and then explaining away declining liberal support for President Obama as a product of bigotry, Harris-Perry exhibits the ultimate form of both denialism and elitism. It assumes voters (and readers of the Nation) are all lockstep partisans who don’t — and shouldn’t — care about actual issues, public policies and governmental actions, and that they should instead just line up with their party’s leaders without question. It further assumes — without any factual evidence — that if and when voters don’t follow this partisan script, it means that some deeper psychological factor like racism (rather than, say, rational, considered analysis of public policy) is the primary motivating factor in their behavior.
Betraying the arrogant elitism at the heart of such an argument, Harris-Perry declares that the “legislative record for [Obama’s] first two years outpaces Clinton’s first two years” — a line that suggests that Obama is automatically more deserving of liberal support than Clinton. Yet, in making this part of the basis of her “electoral racism” allegations, she implies that liberal voters are so ignorant that they automatically believe sheer numbers of bills passed trumps what’s actually in the bills. She hopes — or, perhaps, believes — that nobody remembers that many of those bills (the Patriot Act extension, the extension of the Bush tax cuts, the bank bailouts, the no-public-option health insurance giveaway legislation, to name a few) were initiatives that many liberals opposed.
Here’s another follow up to an issue we discussed yesterday. The USPS Office of the Inspector General has released its “management advisory” report on the funding of the postal service’s pension obligation. I’m fairly certain there’s a political football counterpoint to all of this but I thought this was a fairly straight forward stating of the relevant facts. Please correct me if you find something contrary.
In July 1971, when the Post Office Department became the Postal Service, employees that belonged to the federal pension fund began contributing to the Postal Service’s portion of the pension fund. These retirement costs were divided according to the number of years employees had belonged to each fund. However, the federal pension fund paid for retirements was based on 1971 salaries, not final salaries as administered by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
OPM has explained that these mischarges were in response to what they believed to be the will of Congress expressed in 1974 legislation. However, the 1974 language was repealed by Congress in 2003. Congress directed OPM to use its authority to oversee the reforms using accepted “dynamic assumptions” that include pay increases and inflation. OPM switched to dynamic funding for the Postal Service portion, but did not for their share. The Postal Service paid the $75 billion difference.
In 2004, the Postal Service appealed the OPM’s methodology for pension fund allocation and the appeal was denied by the OPM. The denial relied on 1974 legislation that made the Postal Service responsible for the pension costs related to salary increases. However, the 1974 language was repealed by Congress.
In addition, the OPM directed the Postal Service to use 100 percent pre-funding for both pension and health care retirement funds. In contrast the OPM has pension funding levels of 41 percent for federal employees and 24 percent for the military. The OPM’s own retiree health care prefunding for federal employees is 0 percent. The Standard & Poor’s 500 companies’ pension funding is 80 percent.
Correcting either the $75 billion overcharge or reducing the 100 percent target prefunding level to 80 percent would result in the ability of the Postal Service to pay off the Treasury debt associated with paying the $75 billion overcharge.
Admin Note: I think it’s important that as many of us as possible, work schedules allowing, try to contribute new posts and find ways to add to our contributors list. I don’t believe new posts necessarily need to be long-winded each and every time, although I like those, it can be something short and sweet that will spark a discussion.
lmsinca
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
Here's another compelling reason some liberals may have abandoned, or at the very least have doubts about Pres. Obama. Jonathan Turley questions Obama's slippery slope eroding of civil liberties.From the LA Times.Even though many Democrats admit in private that they are shocked by Obama's position on civil liberties, they are incapable of opposing him. Some insist that they are simply motivated by realism: A Republican would be worse. However, realism alone cannot explain the utter absence of a push for an alternative Democratic candidate or organized opposition to Obama's policies on civil liberties in Congress during his term. It looks more like a cult of personality. Obama's policies have become secondary to his persona.Ironically, had Obama been defeated in 2008, it is likely that an alliance for civil liberties might have coalesced and effectively fought the government's burgeoning police powers. A Gallup poll released this week shows 49% of Americans, a record since the poll began asking this question in 2003, believe that "the federal government poses an immediate threat to individuals' rights and freedoms." Yet the Obama administration long ago made a cynical calculation that it already had such voters in the bag and tacked to the right on this issue to show Obama was not "soft" on terror. He assumed that, yet again, civil libertarians might grumble and gripe but, come election day, they would not dare stay home.
LikeLike
If it's Obama/Perry, do you think Democrats and liberals will stay home? If it's Romney, maybe–there's a chance that a President Romney would be more liberal than Obama, yet get away with more of it for the same reason Obama gets away with more eroding of civil liberties than a Republican president would. Tribal loyalties count for a lot, when it comes to voting.
LikeLike
I was just reading that from the link on PL. Personally, i think it's black and white. Either you let the Democratic Party take you for granted or you don't. I'm not sympathetic to the "we're stuck argument" — I understand it, but i don't agree with it.
LikeLike
Conservatives generally felt the Republicans took them for granted. Pretty much since Reagan. Since the 2010 and the Tea party, not so much. I'm not sure having our government run by the Tea Party and the Ché Party constantly duking it out would be as much fun as it sounds.
LikeLike
I understand what you're saying NoVA and believe me I've cast many Presidential ballots over the years for third parties, none of the above, left it blank etc. etc. and have always come away with a very unsatisfactory feeling. I did campaign quite strenuously for Anderson (I) many years ago and we gave it an honest shot which was rewarding. I honestly don't know what I'm going to do in 2012, but I'll probably vote for Obama again. One reason is because it looks like Republicans will possibly take over the Senate and retain the majority in the House. I can't imagine a three-way Republican orgy. And so I'll vote party politics and hope for the best. I don't see anyone on the near horizon with a shot of reversing the civil liberties trend.
LikeLike
This comment has been removed by the author.
LikeLike
NoVA, I just read your exchange over at the PL with a couple of posters. One of the reasons we started this blog was to avoid the types of arguments made against you. Sheesh, some people never learn but you defended yourself nicely, so there's that. I sometimes feel the need to apologize for fellow liberals. I'm beginning to think there's a personality type attracted to blogs that exists across the entire political spectrum.
LikeLike
This comment has been removed by the author.
LikeLike
This comment has been removed by the author.
LikeLike
This comment has been removed by the author.
LikeLike
This comment has been removed by the author.
LikeLike
This comment has been removed by the author.
LikeLike
I can see I'm going to have to go over to the PL to check things out!!Just a quick comment before I do: I agree strongly with your admin note, lms. Taroya's short post yesterday morning sparked the most comments of any post lately, and good discussion. I've got to make an IKEA run today to get a couple of pieces of furniture that I need to finish my unpacking, but I'll try to come up with something to post up today and get some talk going.Oh, and qb if you stop by, I left you my two cent's worth on puppy training at the end of the Bits & Pieces.
LikeLike
Aries, Leo, if you are not a Taurus, it means nothing. ;.>
LikeLike
"I had a back and forth with liam on the morning plum regarding me being a hypocrite (putting it nicely) because i advocate less government while working in the system as a lobbyist. "Well, then, if you're on a diet, but you still eat food, you're a hypocrite. If you would like a greener car, but still drive to work, you're a hypocrite. If you like a moderate amount of something, but would prefer not to drown in it, you're a hypocrite. "I like swimming, but not drowning!" The very essence of hypocrisy. I like good government, and I don't even want less government per se (bigger is not necessarily better, but neither is smaller). I'd like to see the government do what it does well and do that better, with auditing and transparency. But I don't want to see less government for the sake of less government. Indeed, I don't have a problem with big government, so long as (a) it's paid for and (b) checks and balances remain. Freedoms and civil liberties are protected. Etc. But, I think the government ought to do what it can, and not be talked into doing more than it can–no nation building, and Medicare and SS should take care of a very basic level of need, not try to accommodate everybody and everything in every situation.
LikeLike
"Yeah, well I'm becoming more Persona non Grata over there all the time. I just put up another open invitation if anyone sees it. I probably just broke one of my own rules."Good job. "I'm beginning to think there's a personality type attracted to blogs that exists across the entire political spectrum."This is correct. The tendency to want to associate other things with ideology irks me, because liberals and conservatives are very both diverse groups. I've known some great liberals and some creepy conservatives. I've known some way creepy liberals and some absolutely wonderful conservatives.Of course, moderates are, generally speaking, the best people you could ever hope to meet.
LikeLike
This comment has been removed by the author.
LikeLike
Shrink often posts things that mystify me.I understand that when I post things that mystify me (grin) it is generally the result of a full moon, and will soon pass.Do you think maybe Shrink's wife is in PMS when he does inexplicable things like that? You know, sympathetic and all………….(how do you do a tongue in cheek?)
LikeLike
Taryoa, we'd need a stylus, but that could be fun.
LikeLike
" I can't imagine a three-way Republican orgy."You mean: immediate infighting. Republicans can't take yes for an answer. And you know their motto: always let a good opportunity go to waste. I'm planning on voting for Obama right now, but I like Obama. I didn't vote in the first election I could have voted in, because I was going through my liberal-to-conservative transition, and found the technocratic Michael Dukakis insubstantial, and Bush the Elder a basket of 'meh', and couldn't be bothered (I also sat out the '96 election with similar feelings). Which doesn't mean I would prefer what I would consider a solid, sober conservative to Obama. I find Chris Christie tempting, where as Perry and Romney leave me cold, and Michelle Bachman mostly wins my vote based on her pro-lightbulb stance. I kind of like Ron Paul, but I don't think he's the best at communicating stuff that I think he's mostly right about. I like Gary Johnson, based on what I've heard in interviews, and Hunstman . . . meh. Gingrich is a train wreck. While I'll always have a tender spot in my heart for Palin, her post 2008 behavior has disappointed me. And I would have voted for her in 2008. In fact, I did. And that grumpy old guy she was running with. What was his name? The closest I've ever been to excited about voting was in 2004, when I voted for Bush. Kerry was so not the drama, and there was (and still is) a great deal I liked about Bush, and the tact the Democrats and the left were taking towards BushChimpHitler War Criminal Treason Impeach Bush left me as cold as poster of Obama as a witchdoctor left your average Berkley feminist working on her post-doctoral thesis regarding the inherent evil in our patriarchal caucasian culture of oppression. That was a mouthful. Sufficed to say, I was actually excited about voting for Bush, and immediately disappointed afterwards (see my flashback post), felt he bungled an excellent opportunity for incremental Social Security reform, etc. So, while planning on voting for Obama because I like the guy and think he get's a bad rap (do I like it when he says stuff like "the rich need to pay their fair share?" No, I do not, but I gave Bush a pass for his "compassionate conservatism" bs, which I liked even less), I'm not excited. This allows me to avoid the inevitable disappointment.
LikeLike
Also, this is now a public forum. Anyone can come and comment, if they have an account with OpenID or Google (we do not allow anonymous comments, for obvious reasons). If they don't abide by the rules, I think anybody (admin) is entitled to completely delete any inappropriate comments. And, if it goes whacky, we will shut off comments for anybody but admins and authors.
LikeLike
"They've both been bad mouthing us over here and I thought I would set the record straight in case anyone else was reading."Next time, explain that it is all an evil conspiracy, and you are the Meesus Beeg of said conspiracy. We are busy discussing our dastardly plans of world domination, and they better get used to it.It's amazing, isn't it, that certain people feel it necessary to bad mouth a modest attempt for people to communicate without name calling and rancor. Outrageous!
LikeLike
This comment has been removed by the author.
LikeLike
what timing — comments stopped working for me over there.
LikeLike
It's up to you, lm. But I think you've been a great contributor over there, and you are entitled. I'm not sure where the competition is–there's 10 times the action over there than when I started at Plumline, and the comments system is a mess. If we're in competition, we've already lost. I'd just like to see if we can attract more people who are actually interested in participating in a dialog without yelling and insults and badmouthing and impugning and thinking we know everything about someone we've never even met. Anyway, I defer to your wisdom, most of the folks we've got over here, you and Mark got 'em. Help lmsinca recruit! Didn't someone start up a discussion with Tao?
LikeLike
You can't comment, or you don't see the comments? I don't see the comments because some of the more unorthodox things the comments section does are stopped by the Net Nanny here. And so . . . no comments for me!
LikeLike
can't see them — but it looks like their back now. who knows.
LikeLike
I was going to say, I don't view this blog as a competitor.Go ahead and drop the email, I don't mind.Of course, I am much more polite here than I am there.Likely because I respect the people here.
LikeLike
Taroya, I defer to lmsinca's wisdom on the matter. She is, I suspect, wiser than I. I can be a bit rambunctious. And will have no trouble going through a comment thread and hitting *delete*, *delete*, *delete* for every rude, thoughtless, or insulting post anybody brings. But if she thinks we shouldn't drop a link, I'm fine with that.
LikeLike
This comment has been removed by the author.
LikeLike
I have not followed the white-liberal-racism-hypocrisy fracas. I have a lot of thoughts about white liberals and race, but it seems to me that most of this is mainly a function of the deification of Obama circa 2008.And he was deified. Don't even try to deny it. The level of expectations was raised to infinity and beyond. He and Michelle helped and encouraged it. Truly, what POTUS or candidate has EVER made some of the egomaniacal and megalomaniacal claims he made? Planet healing, oceans receding, world thinking of itself better the day he took office? Puhleease! But his voters ate it up.He's the Icarus President. Many liberals invested their aspirations and identities in him. Oh, yes, some of it was race based. We know it. It felt good, really good, for people to throng around Obama. White guilt vote? Yes.Now, he hasn't lived up to expectations. Indeed, he has been revealed as pretty much just the opposite of what was adverstised in terms of competency, disposition, and much else. Expectations were managed way, way up, and so failure has left his white liberal followers let down and disappointed, to say the least. I think there is a tinge of racial angst to it. White liberals coronated him as a sort of apotheosis and symbol of their race righteousness. Alas, he has not done well. I don't know what this is called.
LikeLike
"Didn't someone start up a discussion with Tao?"I did, and it was really the foul PL comment system that fouled it up.If I see him again, I'll just be more direct.PL is bursting at the seems with drive by and interchangeable nutcakes and snipe artists any more. It's totally ridiculous much of the time, and they haven't fixed a thing technically. It's a complete disaster.But I would still like some people to be able to treat this as a "quiet room" to bring topics over instead of fighting with 86 insult replies from cao, liam, dd, and beach, not to mention drive-by riff raff.
LikeLike
qb: I tend to agree Obama was oversold, and under delivered. I didn't think at the time that there was any way any politician could make good on those expectations–expectations were created that completely, to me, misunderstood what any human being was capable of in the office of the presidency. "I don't know what this is called."For you, I think it's called "schadenfreude". 😉 I suspect there may have been a basic, identity-politics desire on the part of a number of white liberals for Obama to really hit it out of the park, and show backwards caucasians huddled around their barbecue grills in their gated suburban enclaves what for. That may add to the overall disappointment of some, but I think, for the most part, Obama has not been liberal enough for most of his base, and almost everybody isn't happy with the economy as it stands.
LikeLike
"But I would still like some people to be able to treat this as a "quiet room" to bring topics over instead of fighting with 86 insult replies from cao, liam, dd, and beach, not to mention drive-by riff raff."Yeah, I've noticed that WaPo looks for incendiary topics, or posts that are generating traffic, and the pimps them everywhere on their network–so as to get the nasties to flood Plumline, or Ezra, or Jennifer Rubin. Because more traffic is good!
LikeLike
Kevin,If we can up our game in terms of posting good and thought-provoking content, and managed to get noticed a couple of times, I can see gaining some visibility. And there's always what Stacy McCain aka The Other McCain called blogwhoring to get noticed, which might make it more appealing for some people to participate."For you, I think it's called "schadenfreude". ;)"Funny, funny (and true). Of course, I really meant the liberal mental/emotional gear workings. Sorta tired of racism this, racism that, yadda yadda. Race has something to do with it, but whether it is racism is not of that much interest to me right now.
LikeLike
This comment has been removed by the author.
LikeLike
This comment has been removed by the author.
LikeLike
This comment has been removed by the author.
LikeLike
This comment has been removed by the author.
LikeLike
And BTW, I really hate the word troll. It's a waste of time talking to someone when the first thing out of your mouth is an insult. And if you don't want to talk to someone, don't.
LikeLike
This comment has been removed by the author.
LikeLike
qb, he said that over at the Plumline though right? I think we need to leave those old grievances behind us if possible. A lot of us said things over there we might not say here or maybe even again. I think, I hope. And I'm still thinking through my response to your comment about Obama, if you're around later.
LikeLike
And lmsinca is right. We should clean up this thread today or tomorrow.
LikeLike
QB, you gotta give him points for not claiming he was fired in retaliation for having taken FMLA to care for his father.That's the kind of stuff I deal with routinely.
LikeLike
Mark, having been an object of his on-line attention for many months, I'm amazed he could hold a job at all. I'll leave at that.
LikeLike
Mark, I give Chris a lot of points, myself. Guy is super smart, why he hasbto . . . I know, I know, it just seems like such a waste. Ah, well, I'm sure he feels the same way about me.
LikeLike
*has to . . .Ipadism.
LikeLike