And the Democrats, despite having historic congressional majorities and the White House, haven’t delivered them.

Bingo.

You can forgive a low batting averge, but going oh-for-a-year is not going to make friends.

You can forgive a low batting averge

I can’t forgive disemvoweling, however. AverAge

But the liberal MSM is all but washing Obama’s feet!

For instance, the headline of this Times article.

Is it me or are they calling O a liar?

I may be three quarters of a lycanthropic burrowing mammal, but even I know not to take advice from these crazy villagers.
In fact, I only even hear about them from you.

There’s the sense that the Village aims its ire at them far less often than it does at Democrats too though. That whole “the place is wired for Republicans” still applies. It took Shelby holding all nominations over some pork before the village gave him a mild scolding. Chris Dodd threatened to filibuster telecom immunity and there were conniptions.

And let’s not forget the continual mosquito whine of right wing complaints about media bias. The villagers are very sensitive to this.

I’m not convinced wingnuts are as thick skinned as you’re saying Brad.

the public doesn’t give a shit about bipartisanship

FWIW, I don’t think the Villagers care either, it’s just a handy stick to beat Dems with.

Wingnuts are thick skinned when it matters to them. Which is usually questions of money, theirs. They are hypersensitive when it serves their interest to be.

He’s a coward and he’ll leave like a coward. And if he gets replaced by a Republican, what’s the fucking difference? For a while, I thought he was a Republican.

The right gives a shit about the Villagers in that they’re on the ideological attack against them all the time, raising hysterics about anything they don’t like whatsoever.

Democrats and liberals, meh, notsomuch. Bygones and all. Tempest, teapot, etc., maybe we’ll pen a nice op-ed…

I don’t think the dems are really sensitive to the village. I think the village is a convenient excuse the dems can use to avoid taking actions favored by their voting base that will upset their corporate base. Health insurance is making record profits. Why rock the boat?

the public doesn’t give a shit about bipartisanship. They care about results. And the Democrats, despite having historic congressional majorities and the White House, haven’t delivered them.

Hmmm … let’s see if I can put together a good analogy.

Say I was in college and had to deliver pizzas for beer and bong money, and one night I was out doing my job, trying to deliver several pizzas.

Unfortunately, the first customer lived on a road that was closed — the bridge had collapsed and the only way around it was about 200 miles away. So I skip it.

The next customer’s road was blocked by a massive wreck, and the police wouldn’t let anyone in or out of the area. So, again, I skip that one.

The last one looked like I was going to be able to make the delivery, until the police stopped every car on the road for three hours without any explanation whatsoever.

If I were to use the logic in the quote above, that all would have been my fault for … well, being a pizza delivery guy in the first place, apparently.

Listen, I don’t want to defend Senate Democrats and many House Dems. I get that many serve the same masters, are gutless turds, and have no real desire to do much more than get re-elected. But to act as if Democrats are just sitting there, twiddling their thumbs, not doing anything, is totally disingenuous when, in reality, the GOP (with a hell of an assist from the media) has made it fucking impossible to accomplish anything of consequence.

I might be 100% wrong, but I’m damn near 100% sure that if the filibuster were eliminated, a lot would get done real, real, real fast.

Again, I may be wrong, but I do not for a second think that Democrats are intentionally fucking themselves with this stuff. I mean, they LIVE to get re-elected, and not doing anything won’t get them there — they need to have results to show the people back home.

So I just can’t accept that Democrats are willfully doing nothing. It’d be political suicide.

(Note: For all those who will pull the “But Bush got all he wanted!!” crap, remember that Democrats barely ever even threatened to use the filibuster, and hardly any cloture votes were necessary because they believed in majority rule. Congress had operated for 200+ years without seeing the type of massive, coordinated, and un-reported obstructionism. It’s literally unparalleled in American history.)

(Note2: Anyone want to guess what would have/might happen if Dems had tried/dare to try the same thing? If anyone thinks it’d work, I have a bridge in New York for sale … )

Mark,

They had 60 votes, a filibuster-proof supermajority.

And did nothing. Or barely anything.

If you can prove to me that somehow not whipping Ben Nelson and that crew into line wasn’t worth national healthcare..well, take your best shot at it.

I’m not disagreeing with your point, and it’s a perfectly valid one now that they lost the Ted Kennedy seat, but they had this and still did nothing.

The wingnuts and the Democrats are both driving me crazy, in equal proportion, for the first time.

I’m just going to sit back and wait for Sarah Palin to enter the White House. Then I can move to Canada with Hillary.

http://bit.ly/ahQTbl

(satire)

They had 60 votes, a filibuster-proof supermajority.

And did nothing. Or barely anything.

To extend Mark’s analogy, it’s as if he had an atomic flying saucer and yet STILL failed to deliver the pizzas.

Actor, you’re assuming that 60 votes means 60 honest, intelligent, at least marginally liberal people who care about the public’s needs and are willing to take risks and fight their political opponents.

If just one of them does not fit that description, whole thing goes down the fucking toilet. More and more I’m thinking that getting rid of the filibuster would be akin to releasing the shackles on the American political system. And even if, when the Republicans regain power, they use the new no-filibuster rules to do something atrocious, at least the blame can be laid squarely on them, no more of this “Well, the other party didn’t want to a-bloo-bloo-bloo” that has completely fucked up the system. More than anything right now, I want a government that can actually function.

Actor — “They had 60 votes, a filibuster-proof supermajority.”

No, not really. The rules of the senate say that any single senator can bring the entire government to a halt, put a stop to all the business of the senate, with a single “filibuster”. He doesn’t even have to actually do it, he just says, “I’m putting a hold on XXX because POOP, that’s why.” And he gets his wish.

When you have a governing body that is subject to the whims of any single member then it’s not that surprising we have what we have today.

And for what it’s worth, I don’t think the Dems are consciously saying, “let’s do nothing, because that’s a good idea.” Because that’s a stupid idea, and I still hold faith that no one could reach the U.S. Senate holding onto that stupid idea. What I do think is that the Village/Teabag/Republican noise chamber and spin machine has completely ripped out their spines, to the point where they’ve actually internalized the idea that they’ll be punished for acting progressive.

The pizzaman has an atomic flying saucer but he isn’t driving it. Oh the pizzaman gets to sit in front and make noises like he is in charge but he isn’t.The GOP is and if that pizza gets delivered they lose their cushy jobs.

Monk,

NOt really. What I’m assuming is that FUCKING HARRY REID can get his troops into fucking line by hook or crook, somehow.

That’s what a majority leader is supposed to do, particularly with signature legislation and he DOESN’T leave his president hanging out to dry on an important bill.

Great. Now you’ve done it.

I’m calling Domino’s.

Noen,

A filibuster is beaten with a supermajority of 60 votes. If a party has sixty Senators, then effectively the filibuster is voted down (meaning it’s not even raised except by grandstanding assholes who end up losing the key to the executive washroom).

This is Reid’s fault, and his weakness: he had sixty, and blew it on the big stuff.

i agree with noen. it only took the one senator from the great state of very large insurance companies connecticut to do away with the public option

besides, re “majority”: anything worthwhile that a democrat might try to do, they do fighting a giant headwind called Big Business Don’t Want It, Peasant.

whereas, anything a republican wants is done with a giant tailwind called Good Boy – Here’s Your Ten Million Dollars

Actor, Harry Reid certainly has earned your hatred, but it’s missing the larger point. If the Senate’s ability to pass big legislation depends on the singular ability of a born leader to herd 60 cats, giving them all the cat treats they ask for, we’re fucked anyway. My point is that we shouldn’t even be using the 60-vote standard in the first place. I don’t want to cause anyway to cry with rage, but think of the legislation that could have been passed by now if only 50 senators and Joe Biden needed to agree on it.

You’ve had something like 1/10th of the Democratic Senate being more than willing to drag the entire party and legislative body to a halt, or help legislation fail anyway.

They’re not spineless — they simply don’t want the same things you and I necessarily want.

Max Baucus didn’t vanish into a hole with his hand-picked Sub-Sub-Sub-“Committee” of 3 Republican Senators and he and 2 other Dems because he thought it was in the best interests of the party and the legislation, and then come out after 74 days of WWF TeaTard SpeckTACKular with the same shit most of the rest of the Senate Democrats he went in with and no Republican support because he was dumb, or spineless.

and, uh, did i mention FUCK JOE LIEBERMAN WITH A RUSTY FRIGIDAIRE?

actor — “A filibuster is beaten with a supermajority of 60 votes”

Sure, but we don’t have those votes because we have a lot of blue dog “Demoncraps” who vote with the GOP to uphold any GOP filibuster.

“think of the legislation that could have been passed by now if only 50 senators and Joe Biden needed to agree on it.”

Yes, think of all the good legislation President Sarah could get passed if all she needs is a majority vote.

Sure, but we don’t have those votes because we have a lot of blue dog “Demoncraps” who vote with the GOP to uphold any GOP filibuster.

Bear in mind it doesn’t usually come up to a vote. They just have to hang back and say they’re not quite ready yet to commit to voting for cloture. That’s it. Any one of those 60 — as long as you play by those rules — and before it ever gets to a vote (and since the 1970s reform you don’t have to do the actual ‘Stand and Deliver’ Mr. Smith speech-making ’til you keel over) the leadership knows there’s no point moving forward legislatively.

(You might decide to do that for political reasons, i.e., to force people to take positions, but then you change the legislative schedule and procedure, too. The Republicans, by the way, fired the Senate parliamentarian when he didn’t play by their rules, but Democrats would never, ever, ever consider such a rude and sans-culottes approach.)

I don’t think Reid ever really had 60 votes. Enough (about five) were too marginal to ever be relied upon. But that doesn’t mean nothing can get done. The strategy (used by the Republicans, as I recall) is to start the session with your legislation that is in danger of filibuster. Refuse to consider other business until the matter is resolved. Use every opportunity to talk about how the obstructionists are preventing other important votes and denying money for the troops. Maybe they hate America? And so forth.

But there isn’t political will to do this. I think there isn’t will because the new Democratic party is limousine liberal in the strict sense: they like small programs to help the poor, but don’t want to change the system in any way that will impact their donors. So: no single-payer health care. No per-transaction tax on financial transactions.

Monk,

LBJ got the Great Society passed by a Congress that had a smaller one-party majority (when filibusters were less common, to be sure, but required a 3/4 majority vote to override) which means he had to dole out cat treats by the bagful.

The Great Society. My god, all we wanted was a jobs bill and health care reform, something 3/4 of the country is begging for.

I understand your point, of course. Herding cats is still herding cats, and Joe Lieberman is still Joe Lieberman, but there were at least three Republican Senators who would have passed a public option in exchange for something pretty reasonable (Collins and Snowe, for example).

Now, the game is not over yet, but it’s fourth quarter and there’s a lot of yardage to gain before we can get it in the end zone. Reid has to man up, but more, Obama has to man up and get this thing done before it gets worse.

Yeah, I get how shitty things would have been if Bush didn’t have the filibuster, or how shitty they would be if Palin takes the throne. But it sure reminds me of an arms race, all this stocking up of defenses and safeguards to make sure they don’t get you, until one day you wake up and you find that’s all you’re doing, maybe even all you’re capable of doing. You’ve become paralyzed as a society.

Bottom line is, all great political sea changes require risk. If nothing else, I think it would help makes government a little more results based, no matter who is in charge.

and if anybody could be described as a limousine liberal, it’s a harvard law graduate who voted to give giant telecom retroactive immunity from prosecution for violating civil rights

geeeaach, whay have we come to when a democratic president to the right of eisenhower is still better than the alternative? this is how farbthe overton window has been moved…

Actor,

LBJ was a badass, and a politician in the truest sense of the word. Someone like him doesn’t come around to often. And that’s my point, that we shouldn’t have to wait for someone like him just so we can get the basic business of government done. Or we’ll be waiting, well, as long as we’ve waited since 1966.

The filibuster wasn’t a problem back then for the express reason that it just wasn’t used. There was an understanding that it was a last resort for matters of grave consequence. That sentiment is gone, and it ain’t coming back. Which makes the filibuster an extremely harmful weapon in the hands of people who think they’ll succeed by making the other guys slip on a banana peel.

Me, I think health care is totally not dead. Obama wouldn’t have convened a summit to discuss it if it was dead. And I do hold out hope that the bill will be passed, because to not pass anything, political suicide, etc. My main point is that the basic process of governing shouldn’t be this hard. Saying Harry Reid should have done this, or Olympia Snowe might be bought off with X, is abandoning that idea, and surrendering to the idea that governing should be as difficult as the powers that be have conspired to make it.

geeeaach, whay have we come to when a democratic president to the right of eisenhower is still better than the alternative? this is how farbthe overton window has been moved…

Remember when (last week?) Greenwald pointed out that Reagan’s terrorism policy was to treat terrorists like common criminals. That’s right: Reagan’s opinion is a bit to the left of the Democratic consensus.

They had 60 votes, a filibuster-proof supermajority.

No … no they didn’t.

Sure, that might be the perception for those who don’t pay attention thanks to the media, but I’m not really sure why some people here—who should now better—are convinced Democrats had an unstoppable, cohesive block of 60 votes. The reality is that they had 60 minus Lieberman, Landrieu (sp?), Nelson, and Bayh—basically, 56 + a bunch of clowns who would have been Republicans pre-1980.

So this whole “They had 60 votes!” thing is a goddamn illusion that otherwise-sane people keep believing actually exists. It doesn’t, and it never did.

Also. Never before in American history has 60 votes been a requirement to pass literally everything. And just ONE PERSON can kill a bill in the Senate. One. Single. Person.

Now, where I blame Dems is in their utter, embarrassing inability to share these facts with the American people, and their messaging failures in general. Just this weekend, Biden had the perfect chance to mention in detail the GOP’s constant obstructionism. For whatever reason, he didn’t.

That, IMHO, is the biggest problems Democrats have, followed by lack of spine and being beholden to the same donors as the GOP.

if you really feel too frustrated and discouraged, go and read up on the fight against slavery, especially the 1850s

re lbj and medicare: 1) lbj was the legendary arm twister of all time, and 2) the political mood in the wake of The Tragic Martydom Of Camelot was way different than these Tea Panty times

First, LBJ was considered the most effective Senate leader ever, so, the dude knew how to work with those schmucks as Preznit. Second, even in his very first years, LBJ had 66 Democratic Senators and there were still moderate and liberal Republicans (outside the South), such that even Republicans voted for cloture on the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

What we’ve largely done is gone from a system in which the Democratic Party comprised an uneasy coalition of radically conservative Southern Segregationist Democrats and non-Southern labor/liberal/ethnic community Democrats, versus a moderate conservative non-Southern Republican Party with some liberal non-Southern Republicans, to, basically, the Democrats now comprising the former non-Southern labor/liberal/ethnic community Democrats and Democrats who would back then have fit better as moderate conservative non-Southern Republicans, versus a strongly and radically conservative, Southern and Western led Republican Party.

The Democrats still form a sort of awkward coalition, with the two major elements often at cross-purposes, while the Republican Party has pretty thoroughly gotten rid of those who differ from the radical reactionary Southern-Western approach.

(Though it should be recalled that the Southern / Western led makeup of the modern Republican party in no way prevents it from placing as its main goal the complete servile prostration of the U.S. nation-state to the most elite of the Eastern and mid-Western and Western establishment super-rich.)

Don’t get rid of the filibuster, but get rid of the “do-nothing” filibuster. If the fuckers want to filibuster a bill, make them get on the floor of congress and do that “Mr Smith” thing. I would love to read about Joe Lieberman droning on and on for hours, torturing the rest of the senate with his monotone, until he loses control of his bladder, pisses himself, and collapses from fatigue.

Make the fuckers work hard to obstruct the agenda.

I think Harkin’s approach to time-limit the filibuster is fairly sensible. If this means risking America finds out what it gets if it elects pure rock crack Republicans back to power, so be it.

Mark, the problem that feeds into that is that, according to Teh Librul Meeja, Obama’s “honeymoon” is over, and accusing the GOP of being the ratfuckers they are is ZOMG BLAMING THE OPPOSITION! Kraut would write a column blubbering about how un-leaderlike that is, Beck would spend a week talking about Obama trying to “outlaw the opposition”, Brooks would write a Very Serious Article scolding O for his lack of compromise, etc. etc., fucking etc. All very tied together, and, frankly, Obama’s a nice guy with some good ideas, but he just does not have the stones to break through that miasma. And I don’t know who does.

stones

i recall two years ago wingnut mythology endowed hillary with stones of purest kryptonite and magical witch powers, but as to the reality of what might have happened if, i have my doubts

Republicans don’t ignore the village, they’ve co-opted the village. They use it to manipulate the gullible masses. Maybe if the Dems we’re actually in the game to reach the same goal, taking a lesson from the Repubs would be helpful.

I mean weren’t in the game…

i recall two years ago wingnut mythology endowed hillary with stones of purest kryptonite and magical witch powers, but as to the reality of what might have happened if, i have my doubts

She diminished a lot in their views. A decade earlier and she was about to lead the UN-Russian forces in their socialist homosexual anti-Christian invasion and occupation of the United States using barcodes on the backs of stop signs to guide them, ’cause, you know, that’s what those types do.

“But Ponnuru is correct — the public doesn’t give a shit about bipartisanship. They care about results. And the Democrats, despite having historic congressional majorities and the White House, haven’t delivered them.”

What “results” did Reagan and the Bushes deliver? Seems like we’re the only ones who get blamed for not delivering “results” – it takes a damn long time for that shit to catch up to the Republicans.

What “results” did Reagan and the Bushes deliver?

Oh, they delivered results. Shitty results. For example, Reagan preached about the need to deregulate our entrepreneurial banking industry; and tonight’s PBS NewsHour has a good look back at the collapse of the Savings & Loan part of our financial system based on the delivered results. Still, it got done. And that’s manly, and all morning-y, and stuff.

Jebus Keeeerist onna kracker this conversation is depressing. I think I’ll go cheer myself up by strangling myself with my own entrails. Yipppeeeee!

What “results” did Reagan and the Bushes deliver?

Well, let’s see…partial dismantling of the safety net…rollback of environmental, financial and commercial regulations…massive government contracts to their friends in the military-industrial complex…a big fuck-you to middle and working class people…crushing the unions…fill in the rest.

Those are results that matter to a not-insignificant sector of the public, namely, the motherfuckers that run everything.

All I’d like to see is the Senate leadership, the House, and the President step up and humiliate or destroy one (or more) of these Republican* asshats. Politics is a contact sport. Let’s have a little contact, please.

*Some Dems can feel the pain as well.

Also, I’ve always believed that Reagan’s policies, which included cutting social services and underfunding the VA (which led to the release of large numbers of mentally-ill veterans with no recourse but to live on the street) led to the explosion of homeless people we saw in the ’80s and ’90s.

You believe it? That shit is just objectively true.

“Also, I’ve always believed that Reagan’s policies, which included cutting social services and underfunding the VA (which led to the release of large numbers of mentally-ill veterans with no recourse but to live on the street) led to the explosion of homeless people we saw in the ’80s and ’90s.”

That’ll account for the number of HOMELESS – VIETNAM VET – PLEASE HELP people I see at all these intersections.

Well, as it happens…

..Mental health professionals were also concerned that patients were not receiving adequate care. Estimates of the homeless population ranged from 250 to 500 thousand people (Dear and Wolch, 1987; Jencks, 1994; Rossi, 1989; Wright, 1989). Of these, appro ximately a third were mentally ill (Rossi, 1989). In many cases, such mentally ill patients were arrested for vagrancy and other minor infractions and were processed by the criminal justice system. Concerned that this population was receiving no treatment at all, mental health workers advocated involuntary commitment as a means of getting the mentally ill homeless into treatment…

…Cuts in funding for mental health services continued throughout the 1980s, with the emphasis being on the provision of services via the private sector. Overall, the number of beds available to the mentally ill in public and private hospitals dropped ov er forty percent between 1970 and 1984 (Reamer, 1989). Most of this decline was due to cuts in public hospitals. During the 1980s, the number of beds provided by general hospitals in psychiatric wards and in private hospitals for the mentally ill increase d. In 1970, there were 150 private psychiatric centers; in 1980, there were 184; by 1988, there were 450 in the United States. General hospitals offering psychiatric services increased from 1,259 in 1984 to over two thousand in 1988 (Reamer, 1989, 25; LaF ond and Durham, 1992, 115-16). With such growth in the private sector, there were substantial profits to be made in mental illness, assuming that the patient had adequate health insurance. Those without medical insurance frequently did not receive adequate care…

…The net result of federal abdication of responsibility, the push to state orientated programs (often underfunded), the dis-organization of groups, and the confluence of public interests (in crime prevention and fiscal restraint) with state goals, were reforms that only marginally addressed the real concerns of stakeholders and that ultimately benefitted capital by reducing the cost of social safety net. To be sure, the shift in policies dealing with involuntary commitment emerged from larger social issues.

By the middle of the 1970s, groups representing the mentally ill, their families, and those who cared for them had reached a consensus on the need for reform. This culminated in the passage of the Mental Health Systems Act. This implementation, though not without its problems, was seen as a progressive step forward.

However the costs of these reforms were unacceptable in the new neoconservative climate and ran counter to the interests of capital. Reagan, who never presumed to support social policy, promised to cut federal spending and ensure a “favorable business climate.” So under Reagan the new law was rescinded. This signaled that for Reagan’s administration, social policy was of lower priority than fiscal policy. After this act, the interest groups would need to settle for piecemeal reforms within the limitations of the administration’s desire for low cost reform measures.

The “New Federalism” served as justification for relaxed federal “interference” in state issues, including mental health policy. The business community was facing a crisis of accumulation, and a shift in the political economy was perceived as necessary to guarantee adequate profit. With the abdication of the federal government, mental health policy was almost entirely in the province of the individual states.

And of course, all the states stepped up to their new responsibilities, many of them paying for one-way bus tickets to send their newly released wards to some other state to deal with.

It was truly Morning In America.

Holy crap, Cid, I was just reading that same article, and was about to link it when RSS told me you already had. Bastard.

Ponnuru’s only point about Bayh holds – he literally has never faced a difficult election. And this is someone who started in 1986. He has to try, even against a dumber-than-Quayle who outschmucked himself during his campaign rollout? Get out the fainting couch.

It was truly Morning In America.

Reagan and Republican policies pleased the business community vis a vis defunding mental health care. And who complained the most, the loudest about the resulting explosion of crazy homeless people?

Yep, bidnessmen.

Thanks for the backup, El Cid. I lived through all of that, and I remember it very well.

Use every opportunity to talk about how the obstructionists are preventing other important votes and denying money for the troops. Maybe they hate America? And so forth.

I think it would have been fun if they started adding, to each bill, an earmark naming something after Reagan. Then we’d be able to point and laugh at the spectacle of Republicans voting against commemorating The Great Whatever-they-call-him. What would poor Grover do in a such a circumstance?

The Great Whatever-they-call-him

ALL HAIL RONALDUS MAGNUS!

http://ronaldusmagnus.com/

With such growth in the private sector, there were substantial profits to be made in mental illness, assuming that the patient had adequate health insurance. Those without medical insurance frequently did not receive adequate care…

Yes, and what genius figured out that people who had mental illnesses would likely have excellent health insurance with coverage for treatment!

Massive FAIL.

I mean do you really need a study to say that if you kick schizophrenics out of institutions many of them will live on the streets. That’s just basic cause and effect. The highlight of that policy though was the guy who shot like 4 people because God told him it was the only way to stop another earthquake from hitting Los Angeles. Still, at least Reagan had courage of his convictions he didn’t bitch and moan about entitlements to turn around and sign fucking Medicare part D.

Hell, even “adequate health insurance” doesn’t necessarily equate to decent mental health coverage.

I just don’t understand bipartsianship. If you believe in change we can believe in why appoint Cabinet members and other appointeesI haven’t studied that “we” didn’t believe in?
I’m especially disappointed in the the president’s keeping of Robert Gates as Sec. of Defense. He was appointed head of the CIA just to keep the corruption there from getting out of hand according to Mother Jones the year he was appointed. So he was appointed to keep those who would blow the whistle on Cheney’s cherry picking the intelligence on Iraq, it’s relationship to Al Qaeda and it’s nuclear weapons program, quiet.
Doing so well there I suppose he earned the promotion to Sec. of Defense when Rumsfeld was finally fired. Isn’t Gates just a kind of a Rumsfeld, Jr.? Democrats did a lot of work for Obama and to reveal the goings on inside the Bush administration. Don’t they deserve something?
It takes hard work to become a member of the Cabinet. Gates hard work was kissing Bush’s ass. How does that fit into the Obama adiminstration? I understand Bipartisanship but you don’t work with members of the other party who are subverting your own goals.

Oh an on the suject of medical care and the total collapse of said in American because of stupid fucking Dems and stupid fuckity fuck GOPers. —-

In 11 days: Medicare melts down, & the public option dies

on March 1, across-the-board payment rates to physicians (not to hospitals or nursing homes, not to device makers, not to pharma — only to physicians) are slated to be slashed by an average of 21.2%.

The cuts in physician payments are mandated by a fatally flawed and ironically named formula called the Sustainable Growth Rate (pdf), or SGR. The simple summary: this formula was created to maintain budget neutrality in the part of Medicare (Part B) that pays physicians, and looks only at costs to Medicare, and totally ignores the costs to physicians of keeping their doors open. Costs like rent, salaries, supplies and insurance. Costs that make the average overhead of a medical practice in the neighborhood of 60%.

By 2016, absent Congressional intervention, Medicare rates will be cut by approximately 40%. During this same time, practice expenses are expected to rise by 20%.

Oh yeah!! This will happen ONE WEEK after Obama’s health care forum. …. back to my entrails, seems I wasn’t done.

Actor, you’re assuming that 60 votes means 60 honest, intelligent, at least marginally liberal people who care about the public’s needs and are willing to take risks and fight their political opponents.

No, we were assuming that 60 votes means 60 craven, self-interested crumbums who could be intimidated or bribed into passing the President’s flagship accomplishment.

meant*

Also, I should have continued on: “Or if they could not be coerced into passing health care reform for the good of the people, they could at least be coerced into passing health care reform for the sake of their own perpetual reelection.”

For what it’s worth, I think that when mid-October rolls around and the shitpile that is the United States Senate still has done jack shit with its 18-vote majority, the House of Representatives will look at the 4 seconds left on the play clock and pass the damn Senate bill. For all its faults, and there are many, it’s still pretty good reform. And hey, who knows? Maybe reconciliation will squeeze through the Senate sometime in the next six months and we’ll get more and better reform than we ever hoped.

No, Gates isn’t Rumsfeld Jr. Rumsfeld, according to everything I’ve heard about him, was an ideologue and a control freak whose refusal to listen to his generals (“Sir, if you really want to invade Iraq, we’re going to need a lot more troops than this to maintain order”) and to back them up in the face of the politicians, are largely the reason why the Iraq war became a fucking nightmare rather than just a bad idea.

Gates, whatever his faults, is much more of a pragmatist and more willing to listen to the people on the ground. A lot of the reason the Iraq nightmare got better after 2007 can be traced to the change of management at the Pentagon after he took office – Rummy would never have authorized his soldiers to open talks with Sunni insurgents, or to seek the advice of experts outside the small, “pure” neocon circle. Just want to throw that out there.

You guys following the Clinton-Tea Party tall tale on BigGovernment?

“…Big Government has learned that Clintonistas are plotting a “push/pull” strategy. They plan to identify 7-8 national figures active in the tea party movement and engage in deep opposition research on them. If possible, they will identify one or two they can perhaps ‘turn’, either with money or threats, to create a mole in the movement. The others will be subjected to a full-on smear campaign. (Has MSNBC already been notified?)

Big Government has also learned that James Carville will head up the effort….

http://biggovernment.com/capitolconfidential/2010/02/17/clinton-plotting-tea-party-counterattack/

The comments–a zillion and counting–are entertaining and, yup, it’s starting to show up throughout Our Dearly Beloved Wingnut Blogosphere. No source, not even an anonymous source. No quotes. No nothing. And, ahem, it’s a BG story. Someone should ask BG writer John Boehner about it. Seems to me he should have an opinion since BG is his publisher. Also, hum, taking it at face value, it’s a call with Carville and Clinton and…and…and…a bug?

they could at least be coerced into passing health care reform for the sake of their own perpetual reelection

Or, they could simply look forward to many years of huge sums of money flowing in from their grateful insurance and pharmaceutical interests who will hire them for corporate boards, think tanks, and other money laundering positions.

A full-on smear campaign of the Tea Party? Sounds like we’ve finally been taking our lessons from the right. If only it were true – sadly, dirty tricks like this have become the exclusive realm of the conservatives.

Tea Party

how could anybody cast them in a more unfavorable light than they themselves put their moran asses into?

incredible luck for non republicans that fuckbrainistan has decided to organize itself into a colorful and amusing perpetual freakshow

Tighten up, Sadly, Knots! Loose not thy schtick.

From the regulars that keep the snark engines purling, to the earnestly brilliant heart-droppings from the resident squares, S,N! is the laced stand for the enlightened elite.

As to mellow-harshers, Anne Bowline was right: “Let them eat POOP. “

laced stand

are sadlies the long lost lace daemonians?

This colostomy bag need filling.

Sweet fucking Christ on a Saltine Cracker … sorry for being the piss in everyone’s Post Toasties all over S,N! today.

My apologies to all. Things been tough, vented here, snark seemed to disappear.

So … here’s a picture of Willy the Pimp to cheer everyone up.

And here’s a FYWP because this comment is not, in fact, spammy, you fucking useless fuck of a spam filter.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1137

THANK YOU!!! Fuck me, FINALLY something to indicate that the American people may, after all, not have gone COMPLETELY around the bend.

Remains to be seen, I was just hoping one of the luminaries would work in a sheepshank in the ensuing pun-storm so a veiled penis reference would then be playable. I’ve got, like, four of them in my hand.

Again, FYWP for eating my comment and preventing me from posting the correct link to Sweet Willy Style.

Well … it was either FYWP or the morphine sulfate. Not sure which.

… penis … would then be playable. I’ve got, like, four of them in my hand.

Aren;t you the multi-takser?

I’m sure there will be much interest in your newsletter and/or website …

End aren;t eye teh typoe Keeng.

That’s it. I’m goin’ to bed. Apparently, nineteen hours of non-stop use is my brain’s limit.

a people-of-walmart website! now my happiness is truly forblunget complete

Results?
Obama has escalated the war in Afghanistan and is proud to be breaking ground on a new nuclear power plant. With “results” like that, I prefer ineptitude.

Iraqi troops are at 90K but I suppose you would prefer a smiling dog W.

I miss the Amy Alkon post also.

the fucking worst thing is, if there is a move to remove the filibuster, the Tea Party and the Republicans are going to shit their pants that the Left is changing the constitution and the way “the founders wanted America to be”.

And to continue my rant, their Tea Party line is so bogus. They are interpreting the original constitution? “Starting to read it?” What the hell do they think the US History class in High School was about? Its been interpreted for the last 200 years and amended, as its supposed to be. Its what got us where we are. But they read the letters, not the spirit; that the US government is to serve for people, for the good of all, and to enable, not disable. And good means you have a right to a decent opportunity to have a good life. Thats what the goddamned Revolution and Civil War were about. Its not that fucking hard. /end rant.

I miss the Amy Alkon post also.

It’s still up- go nuts, baby!

and is proud to be breaking ground on a new nuclear power plant

At least he knows how to pronounce “nuclear”. I think they should store all of the radioactive waste in the Captiol basement. You want nukes, baby, you sit on the plutonium pile.

The chronic inability of the Democrats to ignore the Villagers has deep roots. In 1998, after the smug column which gave us the very term, the Villagers threw tantrums about (a) a bunch of filthy commoners on the internet ripping the clothes off Imperial Impeachment Emperor Hyde, and (b) the near-loss of the House due to said impeachment. I wondered then, and wonder now, why the Dems didn’t leap to Clinton’s defense, and continue exposing the family values liars as the frauds they are. When you have the population on your side in a democracy, who gives a fuck about senile old David Broder?

“When you have the population on your side in a democracy, who gives a fuck about senile old David Broder?”

Clearly, the Democrats.

A polity with a 90%+ incumbent return rate isn’t a democracy in anything but the most technical sense.

People like Broder are far more important than mere voters because–in an essentially aristocratic government–long term relationships between members of the elite have far more effect on elite personal prospects than voters do. A senator who pisses off his constituents has perhaps a 10% chance of being removed from office. A senator who pisses off enough of the village will lose his career.

Well, in Broder’s defense, he’s old enough to have punched Katherine Graham’s dance card. Wait, I mean, he’s a fucking zombie. Wait, I mean Broder’s still thinking about the day that Katherine Graham patted him on the head when he said “Bipartisan. Don’t fight. Bipartisan. Corky brings peace. Bipartisan.” and handed him a whiskey sour. He’s just trying to be a good boy. That’s what I mean.

Big Government has learned that Clintonistas are plotting a “push/pull” strategy. They plan to identify 7-8 national figures active in the tea party movement and engage in deep opposition research on them. If possible, they will identify one or two they can perhaps ‘turn’, either with money or threats, to create a mole in the movement. The others will be subjected to a full-on smear campaign.

In the interest of fairness, maybe the Clintons could just publish a book claiming a tea party candidate only got a medal because he shot himself, or maybe they could organize a break-in of tea party headquarters, or the bugging of their phones, or entrap them on hidden video or illegal phone tapes. Surely no one on the right could complain about those methods.

Yes, think of all the legislation President Sarah will get passed when all she has is 49 Republicans and Joe Lieberman.

fixed your typo.

Someone needs to tell the Villagers that the usual standard is one idiot per Village, as opposed to the 100%-idiot policy they seem to adhere to.

Big Government has learned that Clintonistas are plotting a “push/pull” strategy.

Very-thinly-veiled masturbation reference.

Which is perfectly fitting, because that entire post is one big exercise in jerkin’ the gherkin … & as I commented there, the inevitable non-result of this non-scandal will be wingnut hootings about how either ( a ) the mighty cadres of the People’s Front For Universal Teabagging are all pure as the driven snow, ( b ) the Clintons are all washed up, too politically inept to even pull off a generic campaign of subversion, or ( c ) all of the above.

Why do I think this is not so much *BREAKING NEWS AROO AROO* & more like just a poorly-thought-through cover-story for an impending wave of defections from within the upper ranks of the Patriotic Balls-On-Chin Patriots’ Army Of Liberation?

“And the Democrats, despite having historic congressional majorities and the White House, haven’t delivered them”

Au Contraire my Sadly Nauts… The Democrats have delivered, big time, to those who own them. The banks, the insurance companies, the military-industrial complex. Oh yes… they’ve delivered.

Anyone who ain’t a chump knows which way the wind is blowing. Look at their actions, not their rhetoric and you’ll know exactly who the Democrats are. Republican Lite.

Now don’t get wrong, I’ll take Republican Lite over Republican Crazy any day of the week, but when I cast my vote I won’t be fooling myself with any asinine tom-foolery about how the Democrats aren’t “delivering”.

They’re delivering in spades.