Tag - GOP
In a recession whose genesis can largely be laid at their feet, Republicans have decided to own up to their responsibility by…wait for it…blaming the victims. Instead of determining how they might lessen the burden on the unemployed- especially the long-term jobless- Republicans have declared war on them.
It’s difficult to understand, much less explain, how Republican-dominated North Carolina could sharply cut unemployment insurance benefits. Republicans in the Tar Heel state were so committed to pulling the rug out from under the unemployed that they reduced both the duration of benefits AND the average weekly payment. Because of that, North Carolina is no longer eligible for $700 in federal assistance to the long-term unemployed.
Hey, how else are you going to get those lazy “takers” off their asses and convince them to get a job? Never mind the fact that North Carolina has one of the nation’s highest unemployment rates (8.8%). Add in the fact that there are three unemployed Americans for every open job, and a reasonable person would have to ask Republicans where the jobs are. Long-term unemployment remains at historically high levels, but Congress (read: Republicans) long ago allowed extended unemployment benefits to expire.
Ah, so THAT’S how the GOP plans to broaden their appeal to their middle class….
(Read the full post at What Would Jack Do?)
(More at What Would Jack Do?)
Actual legislative language of Senate-passed fiscal cliff deal. ow.ly/gsNPZ
— Bruce Bartlett (@BruceBartlett) January 1, 2013
Because the payroll tax cut is expiring and the Make Work Pay tax cut is not coming back, most working Americans will also see a tax increase. The most galling thing is that 98 percent of Americans will actually see a larger tax increase than some of the richest Americans. Working with our friends at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, we compiled the following chart to demonstrate this:
by Cas Mudde
(Originally posted by openDemocracy, republished under a Creative Commons license)
What a difference two years make.After the congressional elections in November 2010, the Tea Party was the talk of the town. Both left-wing and right-wing media pundits declared “the” Tea Party to be the (only) winner, and all focus was on the right’s new stars such as Rand Paul in Kentucky and Marco Rubio in Florida. The new Republican Party kingmakers were Jim De Mint and Sarah Palin, support from whom was claimed to be essential for their fellow Republicans to get elected. It became obligatory to refer to the new legislature as “the Tea Party Congress”. The fact that only one-third of Tea Party-backed candidates had actually been elected was irrelevant. The Tea Party was the new story, and all experts knew that it was here to stay.
An aptly titled Fox News story – “After election victories, Tea Party activists look ahead to 2012” – speculated about the movement’s future. It seemed beyond debate that it was the newly dominant force in United States politics; the question was whether it was going to take over the Republican Party or create a third party. Within a month of the November 2010 elections the answer to that question became clear: helped by massive spending by “astroturf” organisations such as FreedomWorks, and led by members of the Grand Old Party establishment, the Tea Party was steadily integrated into the GOP. But who controlled who? Read More
Amanda Marcotte re: the need for liberals to finally capitalize on the emerging progressive zeitgeist:
The road ahead, for liberals, is long and hard. Our social safety net and investment in ordinary working people who actually run this country is in tatters, decimated by years of Republican efforts and Democrats letting (or even making) it happen, incorrectly believing that’s what the country wants. The Affordable Care Act was saved last night, and it’s got a lot of good stuff in it, but it needs to be built upon. (But if we didn’t pass it, we couldn’t build on it, something that a lot of people who attack Obama from the left fail to understand.) We need to continue to push for a public option and lowering of the Medicare age to 55. We need to push for more government spending to get this economy healthy again. We need serious legislation to address climate change, and we need to start investing in infrastructure to protect ourselves against future disasters like Hurricane Sandy. We need to get serious about liberalizing our immigration laws. We need to help expand access to abortion and contraception. There’s a lot that needs to be done.
But last night proved—and I hope Democrats are paying attention—that this is what the country wants. We’re not a bunch of conservatives who only vote for Democrats by accident. This is a liberal nation. It’s only going to become more liberal. Democrats can move to the left and they will be rewarded at the polls. After all, conservatives have been calling Obama a “socialist” for four years now, and the public basically responded by saying, “Sounds good to me!” We’re liberals. Time to start governing like it.
Not so fast, says John Judis:
There are two different systems that are at work in American politics. The first is the electoral system. It was on display last night, as Barack Obama won re-election, and the Democrats held onto the Senate and the Republicans the House. The second is the pressure system–a term used by the great political scientist E. E. Schattschneider to describe the competition between lobbies and political organizations to influence not just who wins elections, but what politicians do in office.
While retaining some of the New Deal white working class in the North and far West, the Democrats have built a largely post-industrial coalition of blacks, Latinos, Asians, working women, professionals, and youth. Its outlook is socially liberal, egalitarian, and supportive of positive (as opposed to “big”) government. The Republicans are increasingly the party of the white evangelicals, white Southerners, nouveaux riches suburbanites, and narrow business interests opposed to government taxes and regulation. The Democratic coalition is growing; the Republican shrinking. Republicans can still win national elections, but only when a Democrat stumbles badly.
The pressure system, however, looks very different. Think back to the pressure system at the end of Franklin Roosevelt’s first term. There was enormous ferment on the left–from a growing industrial labor movement to Huey Long’s populism. Republicans were shell-shocked, and business was divided and discredited. In 2012, Obama and Democrats can command the loyalty of single interest groups on the environment, gay marriage and gun control. There are also some internet-based campaign groups. But the only group that can provide money and volunteers and that can battle for a comprehensive agenda between elections is the labor movement. And it is on the decline and on the defensive.
By contrast, the Republican pressure system has, if anything, grown more powerful over the last two decades. It includes major business organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Federation of Independent Business, political organizations like the Americans for Tax Reform, the Club for Growth, Freedomworks, and Americans for Prosperity, and a loose network of activist groups identified with the Tea Party or the religious right. Their power to raise money and wield influence has been enhanced by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.
In states and congressional districts where a Republican is expected to win, they have backed the most conservative candidates. But they have also punished Republicans like Lugar by backing primary challengers. That tactic cost the Republicans a chance to win back the Senate in 2010, and it cost them the Indiana seat this year, but it also has put the fear of retribution in elected Republicans who contemplate compromising with Democrats. It has increased the likelihood of gridlock in Washington.
IOW, don’t hold yr breath in anticipation of a thundering herd of Democratic ponycorns looming on the legislative horizon (alas). Kevin Drum nails it: “It’s going to be four years of faux drama and trench warfare, and that just doesn’t seem very appealing.”
Related: Steve M: ‘Why the Election Ought to Break the GOP Fever (And Why it Won’t)‘ h/t Brad Delong
Oh em gee:
by David Kirby
(Originally posted by Cato @ Liberty, republished under a Creative Commons license)
Last week, I posted data from the latest Reason-Rupe poll showing 77 percent of libertarians supporting Romney—the highest percentage share of the libertarian vote of any Republican presidential candidate since 1980.
Many commenters on Twitter and Facebook were horrified! Surely, many reasoned, this large vote share is a measure of antipathy for Obama rather than affinity for Romney. Others commented that any libertarian supporting Romney doesn’t deserve to be considered a “true” libertarian.
I wanted to reflect on this last comment. Who should count as a libertarian? Read More