Categories

History

pinnacle studio price price of windows 7 home edition india buy microsoft windows 7 home premium family best price elements 8 for mac microsoft office 2013 standard buy where can i buy adobe photoshop cs4 cheap matlab oem purchase cs4 design premium buy word 2011 for mac cost of photoshop 5 cost of microsoft visio buy microsoft office 2010 home and business buy photoshop elements 6 buy corel designer 10 buy 3ds max models
cubase 5 buy online buy corel draw 11 for mac buy windows 7 ultimate price cheap encarta 2009 cost of final cut express photoshop cs4 price buying matlab in uk windows 7 pro cheapest drive genius discount purchase microsoft office 2013 license buy ms outlook cost of microsoft expression web rosetta stone discount for military cheap adobe flash cs4 professional windows best price camtasia 5

Bowles-Simpson or Simpson-Bowles? The choice is yours …

I didn’t watch the debate — allergies. I did read the transcript, God help me. This is how I know that former US Senator Alan Simpson was in the audience. Apparently he’s a member of the debate commission. That figures; he wants to do for the marketplace of political ideas what he wants to do for Social Security. He must have been extraordinarily gratified when the candidates and the moderator, Bert the Turtle of Duck and Cover fame, all endorsed the diseased plan produced by him and Erskine Bowles, his co-chair on the failed deficit-reduction commission created by the President because.

(Bowles, the one-time Jimmy Carter chief of staff who made his fortune with JP Morgan, and current White House chief of staff Jack Lew, who made his fortune with Citibank, are thought to be the leading candidates to replace Timothy Geithner, Wall Street’s current federal government branch manager, in a second Obama administration.)

If you’ve missed it, all but a few of the Important Serious People have endorsed Bowles-Simpson. Those Few who haven’t, have embraced Simpson-Bowles. Bowles-Simpson and Simpson-Bowles are schemes in which anyone who isn’t untouchably rich is made to suffer by giving up important bits of their retirements previously secured by social insurance programs, while the country at large is starved of the resources necessary to dig our way out of what is inescapably a largely unnecessary decline, while the resources are instead diverted into the pockets of the people who precipitated the decline, who may possibly have to return a few pennies in restored taxes or recovered loopholes but not if they can help it, which odds are they can.

This is called “shared sacrifice;” the election will determine whether the sacrifice will be extracted by the party of the center-right or by the party of the far right, and possibly also how strenuously, if at all, depredations beyond those currently agreed to by all parties will be resisted.

The plan concocted by Simpson and Bowles is austerity by another name. Romney brought up Spain in the context of situations into which we don’t want to get, but if there’s a way to get into that kind of trouble then Alan Fucking Simpson is a great place to start.

There are a host of other horseshit and worse issues and policies already decided upon or already in place that weren’t addressed because both parties, both candidates and Bert the Moderator are all fine with them. You won’t be voting to determine whether or not the US remains the world’s most enthusiastic jailer; whether or not the growth of the national security state accelerates; whether or not we continue to blow up increasing numbers of people and things in an ever expanding war zone; whether or not the pirate sector of our economy continues to operate with letters of marque; whether or not dispensaries catering to cancer-ridden pot smokers are a greater threat to the public order than, say, publicly confessed war criminals. Those trains have left the station and you’re voting on the conductor.

On paper, the debate doesn’t seem as unbalanced as apparently it did in real time. Romney went with the spread, in which the challenger throws out as much shit on as many points in as little time as possible, and Obama countered about as much of it as anyone could have, albeit in spectacularly lackluster prose. As for Bert, well, the first thing they teach you about high stakes debating is that you go to war with the moderator you have, not the one you want. It is unseemly for the Obama camp to complain about Bert — and wholly unrealistic to expect that he would be any better than the president at calling bullshit on Romney; the guy is a professional waffler, fer chrissake, a dispenser of conventionally judicious this’s and that’s, not a maverick educator with a baseball bat — and anyway he seems not to have done anything more offensive than to get run over and compulsively sputter “Simpson-Bowles.”

More reasonable is the campaign’s complaint that Romney won by lying about everything, but this is a guy whose campaign manager compared him to an Etch-A-Sketch. How could you fail to predict and prepare for a debate-related reset?

I don’t know how these moments played out on the teevee screens, but Romney’s use of “trickle-down” as a pejorative description of Obama’s conception of government, and his appropriation of Joe Biden’s characterization of the middle class as having been buried during the past four years, were comedy gold in print.

I’m not among those who have thought the election was already decided so I don’t think Romney’s win, if that’s what it was, changed much. The Republican vote-suppression effort still has legs, electronic voting is still spectacularly insecure, quite a few voters still don’t know who they’ll vote for and there’s a world of inimical shit stirring out there beyond our borders.

But of course we’re more concerned with the world of inimical shit right here at home. Take it away, Bert …

10 comments to Bowles-Simpson or Simpson-Bowles? The choice is yours …

  • Schmutzie

    Outstanding. Bravo. I hate to speak in superlatives so I won’t cal this your best, but it’s certainly one of the better analyses I’ve read of the debate, and the upcoming election in general. I especially like the right-of-center vs hard right choice that you’ve correctly pointed out.

    “There are a host of other horseshit and worse issues and policies already decided upon or already in place that weren’t addressed because both parties, both candidates and Bert the Moderator are all fine with them. You won’t be voting to determine whether or not the US remains the world’s most enthusiastic jailer; whether or not the growth of the national security state accelerates; whether or not we continue to blow up increasing numbers of people and things in an ever expanding war zone; whether or not the pirate sector of our economy continues to operate with letters of marque; whether or not dispensaries catering to cancer-ridden pot smokers are a greater threat to the public order than, say, publicly confessed war criminals. Those trains have left the station and you’re voting on the conductor.”

    Brilliant.

    Thanks for this one Weldon.

  • JackD

    Not all that wasn’t mentioned weren’t addressed because all are “fine with them”. There is the small matter of Supreme Court nominations and judicial nominations generally. There are also a parade of horribles well beyond Simpson-Bowles with which you are familiar such as the privatization of social security, turning medicare into a coupon program, and the further shrinking of medicaid by turning over priorities in dealing with decreasing funds to the states. There’s more too but I’ve run out of time. Sort of like what happens in debates.

    • Jack, I think I’m reasonable to assume that Obama will keep doing the nasty things he does, and I credit him with genuinely wanting to do the nasty things he says he aspires to. No guarantees, of course, but I suspect even yr modern-day Democrats in Congress would strenuously resist an overt privatization of Social Security, while there are sufficient numbers who wouldn’t oppose cuts to it — Illinois’ own Dick Durbin prominent among the Senators declining to sign Harry Reid’s line-in-the-sand letter — that those could go through if enough Republicans opt to take what they can get in the moment. On the points I raised, the prison industry and rapacious financiers and so on, is there some question of the status quo not enjoying bipartisan support? of the prison industry falling out of favor with one side or the other, of a threat to the enthusiastic prosecution and continuing militarization of the drug war, of a current or future president not enjoying whatever executive powers he can lay his hands on?

      Yes, there are those other things. Those are not the things I was writing about. Time.

  • JackD

    A great deal, in my opinion, depends on who occupies the seats in the new congress, house and senate. Get enough Democrats in the House and Jan Schakowsky might be able to rally the troops to resist many of the things that concern you. The makeup of the Senate is also important. A new Senator Warren could help steer a better course there. Durbin is open to persuasion if he has access to the votes. There are voices in both houses that support your positions. They need help. I don’t think Obama is committed to the drug war and its militarization, nor is supportive of the prison industry. Those things are largely products of the legislature and prior administrations. My contention remains that most of the things you wanted to be discussed in the debate weren’t because of the nature of the moderator’s questions, Romney’s initiation of issues and the lack of time. Perhaps the new debates will address some of these issues.

    • Well sure, who is in Congress makes a difference. I’m talking about presidential policy. Congress didn’t send Marines to Guatemala on drug war duty, and Congress didn’t force Bob Gates and Leon Panetta to send out all the Pentagon press releases I’ve seen in the past few years touting military involvement in drug interdiction efforts. Congress didn’t direct the Justice Department to target weed dispensaries in medical marijuana states. Congress didn’t force the appointment of Simpson-Bowles. Congress didn’t make the Justice Department buy that prison from Illinois. And part of my point is that this stuff has been so thoroughly internalized that it wouldn’t even occur to Lehrer to ask the questions. Have you ever heard the President say anything about the US being the world’s leading jailer?

  • Schmutzie

    Another reason the GOP is a pack of soulless hyenas. They’re starting to drift back to Todd Akin.

    Jack- Schakowsky will do whatever Obama tells her to do of course, but I wouldn’t hold my breath on the Dems taking back the House.

  • JackD

    As to the jailer point, most prisoners are state prisoners, not federal. As to the rest, point taken.

  • bdtex

    If “Romney’s win, if that’s what it was,” didn’t change much then something did. I was pretty sure that Willard’s post-debate bounce had reached it’s ceiling on Thursday and that Pres. Obama’s OH,VA,CO,IA,NV firewall was holding. Yesterday’s polls showed the bounce still has momentum. That firewall has been whittled to OH,IA and NV as of today,which would still give Pres. Obama a 2nd term. But as you point out,if Simpson-Bowles is the model,what difference does it make for the economy.

    • BD, I meant that Obama’s position was never secure; lots of things could have had a similar impact. He’s a very vulnerable candidate running against a very vulnerable candidate.