When Government Doesn't Work We are well through the looking glass; the punch-line has become a political philosophy: You know how Republicans always say government does not and cannot work? Well, yes, there is a difference between arguing the point and laboring to prove the thesis. Steve Benen↱ considers a comparison: In the 2010 elections, the Badger State elected Scott Walker (R) governor and gave control of the legislature to Republicans, while the Gopher State made Mark Dayton (D) governor and elected a Democratic legislature. The former got to work targeting collective bargaining and approving tax cuts, while the latter raised taxes on the wealthy and boosted in-state investments. Nearly five years later, one of these two states is doing quite well. Policy.mic had an interesting report this week. Since 2011, Minnesota has been doing quite well for itself. The state has created more than 170,000 jobs, according to the Huffington Post. Its unemployment rate stands at 3.6% – the fifth-lowest in the country, and far below the nationwide rate of 5.7% – and the state government boasts a budget surplus of $1 billion. Forbes considers Minnesota one of the top 10 in the country for business. As Patrick Caldwell recently explained very well, Minnesota's gains come on the heels of tax increases on Minnesota's top 2% and higher corporate taxes, both of which state Republicans said would crush Minnesota's economy. As for their neighbors to the east: By a number of measures, Wisconsin hasn't fared as well as Minnesota. As the Milwaukee Sentinel Journal reports, Wisconsin's job growth has been among the worst in the region, and income growth is one of the worst in the country. It has a higher unemployment rate than Minnesota. And the budget is in bad shape. Back in January, the editorial board of LaCrosse Tribune wrote, “The governors of Wisconsin and Minnesota each presented their versions of new year's resolutions in various media interviews last week .... Which approach is better? As we enter the new year, Minnesota is clearly winning by a long shot.” We should remember that Kansas Republicans just re-elected Sam Brownback↱, whose policies have wrecked the finances of the Sunflower State. Arthur Laffer, best known for the "Laffer Curve" explaining the debunked propositions of supply-side ("voodoo") economics, finds vindication for his work not in its applicability, but, rather, the fact that people will vote for it. Consider Colorado, 2010. Sen. Michael Bennet (D) barely won, edging the rape-abetting former prosecutor from Weld County. In 2014, with another U.S. Senate seat up for grabs, Colorado Republicans enlisted Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO04), a known liar with a thing against women but who wasn't an outright rape abettor. Mr. Gardner fumbled and lied his way into the U.S. Senate, scoring a win for the letter (R) while affirming Colorado's general disgust toward women. As for Mr. Buck? Voters in the Colorado Four sent the rape abettor to Congress. If we want examples of government not working, Mr. Brownback's economic experiment in Kansas provides ample large-scale results. Mr. Buck's example in Colorado is, unfortunately, unsurprising. What Mr. Walker has done to Wisconsin? Well, the problem is that there are very few who couldn't see it coming; its the policy advocates who could see the problem but pressed forward, anyway, who are problematic. And what just happened in Congress? With the Speaker of the House having nothing more to offer than kissy-faces, Congressional Republicans struggling to redefine words like "blackmail" and "leverage" and terms like "clean bill", Mr. Boehner's spectacular failure in the DHS standoff is by this point unsurprising. Still, though, look at the dysfunction, and if you want to tell us that government doesn't work, we will remind that the only axiomatic truth about the statement is that government does not work if you elect Republicans to govern. Neither is this proposition surprising when we take a moment to think about it. Reagan and the "gay measles"? Poppy Bush taking down the dictator he personally helped set up? George W. Bush invading the wrong country? Come on, you want examples of government not working, the Republican Party is a treasure trove. And there comes a point in our political discourse when questions of motivation press inexorably. It is one thing to scream like an aging madman chasing a dream of relevancy to announce that this or that politician does not love his or her country. Considering the question of who is saying such things, though, and comparing against the record? Yes, there comes a point where we wonder what country, exactly, our conservative neighbors love. ____________________ Notes: Benen, Steve. "Wisconsin and Minnesota: A One-Sided Political Competition". msnbc. 5 March 2015. msnbc.com. 5 March 2015. http://on.msnbc.com/1CCGbEh
Drowning in Bathtub Irony There is a phenomenon in our Beltway culture whereby this week's talking points can openly disagree with last week's, and nobody seems to find the lack of consistency peculiar. Certes, we all pretend to disdain hypocrisy, yet the wheels turn and sausage grinds. But then there are days like we saw this week. Ian Millhiser of ThinkProgress explains: Carvin himself sang a very different tune three years ago. Indeed, Wednesday was not the first time he's stood in the well of the Supreme Courtroom and asked the justices to gut the Affordable Care Act. Carvin was also one of the lead attorneys in NFIB v. Sebelius, the first Supreme Court case attacking the law. In a brief filed in NFIB, Carvin explained that “[w]ithout the subsidies driving demand within the exchanges, insurance companies would have absolutely no reason to offer their products through exchanges, where they are subject to far greater restrictions.” And, contrary to his more recent suggestion that Congress never envisioned any danger if the tax credits are cut off, Carvin wrote in 2012 that “the insurance exchanges cannot operate as intended by Congress absent those provisions.” In a subsequent brief, Carvin elaborated that “the federal subsidies are the incentive to participate in the exchanges, and without those subsidies, there will be no mechanism to sustain the exchanges.” He also seemed to contradict his central claim that different states are treated differently depending on whether their exchange is operated by a state or the federal government. The Affordable Care Act, according to the Michael Carvin of 2012, “enables uniform and acceptable federal premium subsidies”. Let us be clear: • Carvin argues Z. • Z is the opposite of A. • Scalia, Alito, and Kennedy, the Court's hardline conservatives, agree with A, having said so two years ago ... • ... while citing Carvin's argument A. Justice Sotomayor noted the difference; Chief Justice Roberts asked Mr. Carvin whether he had won the prior case, and then jabbed, "So maybe it makes sense that you have a different story today?" Still, though, as Millhiser noted: Roberts was probably willing to excuse Carvin's inconsistencies because Carvin is an advocate, and in that role he makes arguments that serve his client's interest even if those arguments may contradict the views of a previous client. But Carvin is far from alone in his willingness to change his story in order to advance whatever may be the current legal argument against Obamacare. After Carvin argued in 2012 that the tax credits are essential to making the Affordable Care Act work, four of the Court's conservative members believed him. A dissenting opinion signed by Justices Antonin Scalia, Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito embraced Carvin's 2012 argument: In the absence of federal subsidies to purchasers, insurance companies will have little incentive to sell insurance on the exchanges. Under the ACA's scheme, few, if any, individuals would want to buy individual insurance policies outside of an exchange, because federal subsidies would be unavailable outside of an exchange. Difficulty in attracting individuals outside of the exchange would in turn motivate insurers to enter exchanges, despite the exchanges' onerous regulations. That system of incentives collapses if the federal subsidies are invalidated. Without the federal subsidies, individuals would lose the main incentive to purchase insurance inside the exchanges, and some insurers may be unwilling to offer insurance inside of exchanges. With fewer buyers and even fewer sellers, the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended and may not operate at all. Yes, really. This is happening. And in a way, yeah, it makes perfect sense. Litigating before the Supreme Court is not exactly governing, but look at the regard for governance. After yesterday's oral arguments in King v. Burwell, Nina Totenberg reported: Justice Stephen Breyer noted that the statute says that if a state does not itself set up an exchange, then the federal "Secretary [of Health and Human Services] shall establish and operate such exchange." "Context matters," added Justice Elena Kagan. And "if you look at the entire text, it's pretty clear that you oughtn't to treat those five words in the way you are." Justice Sotomayor, looking at the law through a different lens, asked how the challengers' reading of the law would affect the federal-state relationship. "The choice the state had was, establish your own exchange or let the federal government establish it for you," she said. "If we read it the way you're saying, then ... the states are going to be coerced into establishing their own exchanges." With all eyes on Justice Kennedy, he seemed to agree with Sotomayor's point. It does seem "that if your argument is accepted," he told Carvin, "the states are being told, 'Either create your own exchange, or we'll send your insurance market into a death spiral.'" By "death spiral," Kennedy was referring to the consequence of having no subsidies in 34 states, leading to a collapse of the individual insurance market. That, Kennedy suggested, is a form of coercion. So "it seems to me ... there's a serious constitutional problem if we adopt your argument." Even Justice Scalia seemed somewhat befuddled, managing to ask questions that appear to presuppose the untenable, that Congress intentionally wrote the law to fail spectacularly at this specific hinge: "Do we have any case which says that when there is a clear provision, if it is unconstitutional, we can rewrite it?" Scalia inquired as Carvin foundered. Later, quizzing Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, Jr., the conservative justice asked, "Is it not the case that if the only reasonable interpretation of a particular provision produces disastrous consequences in the rest of the statute, it nonetheless means what it says?" Justice Scalia wears his politics on his sleeve; indeed, that only enriches the irony, that he has already participated in a dissent that agreed with Carvin's former argument, which is the opposite of his current line. It will be interesting to see Scalia writhe on the hook if he is predetermined to find for the King plaintiffs. But more than that, look at the structure, here. A lawyer being undermined in by his own argument from a prior loss. A legal linchpin requiring that Congress deliberately passed self-destructing legislation, a collapse that would harm millions of people. That conservatives either cannot see the functional problems, or simply refuse to give a damn about being seen as craven whores, only reminds that there is a reason governance fails in Republican hands. After all, if government actually operated according to the requirements of the conservative argument in King v. Burwell, it would most definitely and spectacularly fail. ____________________ Notes: Millhiser, Ian. "The Lawyer Telling The Supreme Court To Gut Obamacare Explained Why He Should Lose In 2012". ThinkProgress. 5 March 2015. ThinkProgress.org. 5 March 2015. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...reme-court-gut-obamacare-explained-lose-2012/ Totenberg, Nina. "Justices Roberts And Kennedy Hold Key Votes In Health Law Case". All Things Considered. 4 March 2015. NPR.org. 5 March 2015. http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/201...-and-kennedy-the-key-votes-in-health-law-case
To many, at least those with a anti-Republican bias, this will sound like Reprublican propaganda but if the facts are correct, the point is worth some thought. I.e. business are failing in greater numbers in US than are forming - never before the case. 98% of business have less than 100 employees and do most of the failing, unlike the bigger ones (GM, etc.) the government steps in to keep their jobs from disappearing with them. Watch: http://mikemaloneyblog.blogspot.ca/2015/03/war-on-success-heres-why-america-is.html with an open mind and a thinking one. Claim there is 63% of businesses have less than 5 employees and 80% have less than 10. An old Republican claim that small businesses make the new jobs, but now they are closing their doors faster than new ones open their doors. Add to this fact it is the 2% of all, the giants with 500 or more employees, that are automating - with jobs lost - why many find it tough to get re-employed at same salary they had and many can not even find that.
That's because it is Republican propaganda. The fact is the nation has been growing jobs at a pretty good pace for years now. It's an attempt to distract people from the fact that the economy is doing well, andunemployment is falling.
Certainly Republicans will emphase what is wrong with the economy. For example that average wage increase is only $0.03/ per hour, that fraction working part time is increasing and labor force participation rate is at all time low and still falling. Democrats will note that never before have so many had health care insurance, that US is now or soon will be an large exporter of refined oil, that almost all the net income (after essential living expense like food and simple shelter, increasingly by renting) is shrinking for the middle class, but not for the very rich, etc. Does them doing that make these things "propaganda" and not just facts? Unfortunately neither will note that the per capita debt is growing rapidly and can only be paid by making the dollar's value (purchasing power) greatly decline. Both parties like "goodies for the voter now with bills sent to the next generation." Communism, makes the pie grow smaller but more equally divides it. Capitalism, makes the pie grow larger and more unequally divides it. US has the worst of both system for most people: They are ever more years of their income in debt and have lower living standard than the parents had (except for medical and technical advances, like polo-free kids and iPods, they did not know they needed until Apple told them so).
There is nothing wrong with being critical. It becomes propaganda when it becomes dishonest or misrepresented through ignorance or intent. Making unsupported claims falls into that category. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...f-10-new-businesses-fail-as-rand-paul-claims/ If there was something amiss with small business employment it would show up in the employment number and it doesn't.
Since you claim post 3 is "propaganda" then you need to tell at least one fact there that is false, or it is you who is being false, spouting partisan misinformation.
Go back and re-read. By the way, it isn't my job to disprove all the unsupported materials you post Billy T.
No but it is your job to support the claim my source is false - You assert that by calling it "propaganda" and distinguished propaganda from criticism by saying false criticism was what made criticism into propaganda. For the second time, I ask you to tell even one fact that my source asserted and I quoted in post 3 that is false. You can not just label any fact you don't as "propaganda."
Your wage assertion is demonstrably false along with your assertion on part-time workers. The average wage increased by 27 cents per hour in 2013 per data from the Social Security Administration which uses federal tax data as the basis for the Wage Index. http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/AWI.html Part-time workers are falling and have been falling for years now along with the unemployment rate. That is another easily verifiable fact. Labor force participation rate is at a historic low. But as has been explained to you numerous times, that isn’t a bad thing – at least not yet. People are choosing not to work because they have other options. They aren’t dependent on work. They don’t need to work. Much of that shift is the result of baby boomers retiring and falling out of the work force. Labor force participation rate becomes an issue when we approach full employment and we will know that when wage increases begin rising faster that the overall economic growth rate. Well, I don’t know that the US will become a net exporter of oil because that would require an act of Congress. Oil prices have fallen dramatically which has greatly benefited middle income folks. But contrary to your assertion, wealthy folk are still doing very well. The return on capital still greatly exceeds the overall economic growth rate. As pointed out, most of those things are not facts. That is why they are propaganda and those few items which were factual are misrepresented and that is why they are propaganda. Growing rapidly compared to what? The fact is debt is now growing much slower than it was a few years ago (e.g. 2001-2009) and debt growth is now more in line with historical norms. When you breach the debt issue, the discussion gets a bit more complicated. But sufficed to say, the main issue here is not the actual level of debt but the debt service level. And the debt service level is very small, about 2.4 percent of GDP. That isn’t bone crushing debt by any stretch. There is this notion in some circles, especially so called “conservative” circles that all debt is bad. And nothing could be further from the truth. There are industries are highly profitable and highly levered (means they have a lot of debt). It’s integral to their business model. Banks are a case in point, mortgage REITS are another. Every day across the globe CFOs (Chief Financial Officers) wrestle with capital structure issues (i.e. how much debt to have on their books) in order to achieve maximum profitability. Debt isn’t always bad as Republicans would have us believe. There are some very good reasons to have debt and that applies to government as well as private industry. Additionally, it is a cherry picked and myopic view of the world to only look at debt “passed on to future generations”. We are passing on much more than just debt to future generations. We are passing on a very prosperous and technically advanced world with the highest standard and quality of life ever known to man. And as I just said, our debt service levels, which is the important metric, is very low and very serviceable. Hogwash that is the fear your “conservative” brethren are feeding you. Communism did quite well for post Czarist Russia. Communism ultimately failed. But pure capitalism also fails (e.g. Great Depression, and the numerous depressions, recessions and hyperinflation experienced prior to implementation of Keynesian Economics). The US and many other developed countries have the best of both worlds model, because it works. Yeah, except for all the many details and benefits. They may have more debt, but they also have more income. My son is 27, going to college and earning 73k dollar per year and he doesn’t work for me. He has A+ healthcare and a retirement plan. He is doing very well for a 27 year old. He is debt free and when he graduates, he will be debt free. And he has a complete set of young man stuff, a fancy car, a motorcycle, a kayak, etc. It’s far from the dire picture you are trying to paint.
My source spoke of the last quarter of 2014. I don't know how he arrived at only $0.03/hour increase. -will not search to try to find it - you need 2014 data not 2013 to refute it. I will admit, without saying that he did, that he may not have corrected for all the part timers who were not paid in the snow storms that reduced their earnings, etc.* Also note that your data is based on filed tax forms - ignores those earning so little (or with deductions) that did not need to file with IRS. I.e. is very skewed data showing a brighter than true picture. * For example our twice weekly maid, called in to say her child was sick so she lost a day's wages. Many labor disputes, even strikes, now are trying to get a guaranteed number of hours of work each week.
No I don't, 2014 data isn't available because not all tax returns have been filed. The larger question is why are you keeping your source secret and why did you not disclose you were only speaking of one quarter? And where did his data sourced? That's deception Billy. Wage numbers are usually cited as annual numbers because annual numbers don't need to be seasonally adjusted. So your quarterly number isn't valid.
Fact: Approximately 20% of Government School graduates are functionally illiterate. Fact: The USA Government spent 600 billion losing it's phony wars this year. Fact: The USA Government is the largest polluter in human history. Fact: The USA Government is the single largest consumer of limited energy. Fact: Using the Orwellian-named "Patriot" Act, the USA Government is domestically spying. Fact: The USA Government purposely made up evidence and LIED to the general population to go to war against numerous nations (see: Vietnam, Iraq, etc...). Fact: The USA Government incarcerates more non-violent humans pp compared to ANY other nation - in the HISTORY of the human race. .....and etcetera. The fact is, when society agrees to give a single group of humans the legal ability to initiate and use violence against other innocent people, we always end up with a dysfunctional organization of crony-criminals, aka: Government. It doesn't matter if it's the USSA, North Korea, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. A fact you State-bots will come to realize long after it's too late. The US Constitution is there to LIMIT Government and the first 10 Amendments written to PROTECT us FROM Government. Which, by its very nature, its DNA, is immoral. It's the, and ONLY ONE, institution that can legally murder innocent humans. And, because most humans like violence, they of course LOVE their Government. The very thought of using it against the people they are jealous of, or dislike because of skin color, religious belief - whatever, brings a warm glow and happy smile to their pathetic Patriotic faces (see: War on Drugs, War on Terror, War on Privacy, etc...) You can vote all damn day, for the rest of your life - but know this. Using violence is NEVER going to give the functionally illiterate the ability to read and write, it isn't going to turn violence Public welfare ghettos into peaceful nature reserves - all it's going to do is make things worse. MUCH worse. You'll see.
These are all easily verified facts that I've posted links to (example: US DoED). The empirical data shows quite clearly that one in every five Americans lack the basic reading skills beyond a 4th grade level. So, as I said, vote for all the Hope and Change or whatever other slogan suite your fancy. All you're getting from Government is violent demagoguery and various forms of Warmongering and pillaging of what's left of the middle class. Don't worry Joe, we're getting more State. Land of the Fleeced Home of the Slave
Your source is of mean yearly earnings from wage labor for a given person's SS eligibility. That does not translate directly into median hourly wages. The median hourly wage for 2013 was $16.87, according to the BLS, with median yearly wage earnings between 27k and 28k - essentially unchanged from 2012, which is down from 2007's median wage peak of over 28k yearly and over $17 per hour.
I guess you missed the part where I explained the source of the numbers I used. I cited the Social Security wage index which is sourced from IRS data (i.e. tax returns). As usual Ice, you have no clue about the material on which you opine. You are mixing your medians and means again. This conversation is about a mean. If you want to quibble about the usage of a mean over a median, talk to BillyT because he first used it and I don’t want to waste any more time playing the role of your grade school teacher. Here is the difference between the number I used and the BLS data aside from the median and mean issue. First the BLS data is sourced from a Census Bureau Survey. You do know what a survey is -- don’t you? The numbers I used was sourced from the IRS, you know they guys who actually receives reports from virtually all wage earners and their employers who affirm their accuracy under penalty of law…you know those guys? Additionally, my number includes all wage income. Your BLS number doesn’t include all wage income. Uh, No Ice. I suggest you go back and read. My source is the IRS as I explained to BillyT. As I explained to BillyT, that is why 2014 data isn’t available. Not all 2014 tax returns have been filed. The wage index I cited is used by the Social Security Administration but that doesn’t change the fact that it is the average wage. Two, BillyT and I were discussion averages. We were not talking medians. Perhaps you should begin a threat for “medianophiles”. Your median fixation isn’t relevant to the discussion you butted into. And as I previously explained the number you are using doesn’t include all wage data and it is based on a survey (i.e. polling). The numbers I used are the actual wage numbers reported to the IRS by wage earners and their employers. And you don't have to be a rocket scientist to convert an average annual wage into an average hourly wage as I did. It's basic math. You know it does help to understand something about the material you write about Ice. I am getting a little tired of being your teacher Ice.
How They Love Their Country: Senate Republicans Aim to Sink Iran Negotiations If one ever needs an example of, well, any number of things, sure ... er ... ah ... let's try that again: A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won't last after Obama leaves office. Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process. “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.” (Rogin↱) Look, for all the rhetoric we hear about who loves their country or not, or separation of powers, or government not working, it seems nearly a stunning consideration: Senate Republicans are now actively working to tank P5+1 negotiations with Iran. When they go out of their way to tell Iranians that Republicans will make certain President Obama has no negotiating leverage, they are essentially telling Iran to not bother with the negotiations at all. After all, Obama might get a deal, but future Republicans will renege. Brookings fellow Daniel W. Drezner tries to cover a lot of ground: I get what Senate Republicans are trying to do here. They don't like the contours of the deal that's being negotiated, and they really don't like Barack Obama's enthusiasm for bypassing a truculent Congress via executive actions on Iran. So if the Senate GOP can signal to Iranians that an executive agreement isn't that much of a credible commitment device, maybe they can scuttle a deal they dislike with the white-hot passion of a thousand suns. Or perhaps: I don't think an open letter from members of the legislative branch quite rises to Logan Act violations, but if there's ever a trolling amendment to the Logan Act, this would qualify. But more than the facial politics, well, it turns out Skitt's Law really is something of a bitch: The Republican senators appear to be slightly off in their pedantic Constitutional lesson. See Jack Goldsmith's commentary on the letter for more. I'll just note here that if you're a Republican, you really don't want someone of Goldsmith's stature to write, “It appears from the letter that the Senators do not understand our constitutional system or the power to make binding agreements.” Scholar Norm Ornstein↱ declared he was "flabbergasted" by the "astonishing breach of conduct". Akbar Shahid Ahmed considers legal and political questions: The letter highlights that the Constitution includes a congressional role in approving any international commitment more binding than an executive agreement between two governments and that it limits President Barack Obama's time in the White House. That means, according to them, that any deal the Obama administration reaches with Iran to limit its nuclear program could be revoked by the next president or modified by future Congresses. But there are a couple of problems with this constitutional lesson. The first hitch is that contrary to the letter's premise, Iran's leadership actually has access to a great deal of understanding about how the U.S. works: as The Economist noted last year and users reminded the Twitterverse last night, Iran's presidential cabinet presently features more members with doctorates from U.S. universities than Obama's cabinet does. And the second issue, which is perhaps more alarming for a GOP only just becoming reacquainted with Senate control, is that a legal luminary from the senators' own party now says they got the Constitution wrong. Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard University law professor and former top legal official in the George W. Bush administration, offered the lawmakers their own lesson early Monday morning. Writing for the blog Lawfare, Goldsmith noted that the senators mistakenly say in their message that the Senate "must ratify" any treaty. In fact, he points out, the Senate's role is to give the president its consent for a treaty -- and to recognize that ratifying it is the president's choice. "This is a technical point that does not detract from the letter's message that any administration deal with Iran might not last beyond this presidency," Goldsmith wrote. "But in a letter purporting to teach a constitutional lesson, the error is embarrassing." And it is worth noting that, in addtion to the apparent error, the condescension about the letter. To reiterate: The first hitch is that contrary to the letter's premise, Iran's leadership actually has access to a great deal of understanding about how the U.S. works: as The Economist noted last year and users reminded the Twitterverse last night, Iran's presidential cabinet presently features more members with doctorates from U.S. universities than Obama's cabinet does. (Boldface accent added) In a later article, Ahmed returns to this theme: After sparking a furor in Washington Monday with a letter signed by fellow Republican senators warning Iran against nuclear diplomacy with the Obama administration, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) went to the extra trouble of having his message translated into Farsi for Iranian leaders. Among his targets: foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. Cotton needn't have bothered with the translation. Zarif is more than capable of reading the Republicans' letter in English. He attended prep school in San Francisco, San Francisco State University, Columbia University, and the University of Denver's School of International Studies (where, Zarif told The New Yorker's Robin Wright, a professor who had taught GOP foreign policy icon Condoleezza Rice once quipped to the young Iranian, "In Denver, we produce liberals like Javad Zarif, not conservatives like Condi Rice.") Zarif, leading his nation's negotiations with the U.S., the U.K., France, Germany, Russia and China, put that education to use in his response Monday to the Republican message, which suggested that Iran's leaders "may not fully understand our constitutional system." Zarif answered that it was Cotton and the 46 other Republican senators who signed his letter who suffered from a lack of "understanding." "The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfil the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations," Zarif said, according to Iran's government-controlled Tasnim News Agency. (Boldface accent added) One of the first rules of writing is to know your audience. Perhaps Congressional privilege dismisses Sen. Cotton (R-AR) from such notions. Or maybe he just felt like making soem abstract point with priggishness. But while it is tempting to focus on GOP buffoonery, hubris, and condescension, it also seems much more important to consider just what Senate Republicans have done, and are trying to do. Steve Benen↱ notes he is "struck by how dangerous the Republicans' conduct is". And one can certainly point to his msnbc and TRMS credentials, but should not raise their own hope of simply dismissing the point on such grounds. That is, consider a simple question: If Iran cannot believe that any treaty negotiated with the United States will be respected, why would they negotiate at all? Left of center, it is beyond a growing suspicion; the general outlook is that Republicans want a war with Iran. And while meddling in Israeli elections in order to rebuke the President of the United States and beat the drums of war might not have been enough to set the centrists on edge, one can only wonder how they will respond to Senate Republicans trying to tank P5+1 negotiations. Of course, with the ostensible center drifting ever rightward, maybe "separation of powers" really does, in the twenty-first century, mean Congressional usurpation of the constitutional duties assigned to the executive. So pick your politics; there is a smorgasboard here, from protocol and procedure to legalisms to clownish condescension, all of which are escalations of the Republican caricature. But there is also the outright danger, here, that Senate Republicans are, in pursuit of war, doing everything they can to undermine American foreign policy and bring danger to our shores. And with their bicameral majority, it turns out this is what Republicans call governance. It's easy enough to say we're not surprised, but at the same time that really does gloss over the magnitude of this idiotic cabal.
Citations for #18 Above ____________________ Notes: Rogin, Josh. "Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won't Last". Bloomberg View. 8 March 2015. BloombergView.com. 10 March 2015. http://bv.ms/1Br2Gcj Drezner, Daniel W. "Congress tries to go beyond trolling on foreign policy. It won't work." The Washington Post. 9 March 2015. WashingtonPost.com. 10 March 2015. http://wapo.st/1GlV0ck Ornstein, Norm. "I am flabbergasted by the Senate letter". Twitter. 8 March 2015. Twitter.com. 10 March 2015. http://bit.ly/1B1hKK9 Ahmed, Akbar Shahid. "GOP Senators Flub Fact About The Constitution As They Lecture Iran About The Constitution". The Huffington Post. 9 March 2015. HuffingtonPost.com. 10 March 2015. http://huff.to/1wV8bSb —————. "Iran Schools GOP Senators On International Law". The Huffington Post. 9 March 2015. HuffingtonPost.com. 10 March 2015. http://huff.to/186xZ1G Benen, Steve. "Playing with fire: Senate GOP tries to sabotage nuclear talks". msnbc. 9 March 2015. msnbc.com. 10 March 2015. http://on.msnbc.com/195xPcj
Basically, these so called "conservatives" are anything but conservative. These so called conservatives are basically calling for another war, which was the track we were on before Obama managed to assemble this collation of nations to negotiate an off ramp to war with Iran. We have seen how well Republicans handled the Afghanistan and Iraq. We don’t need another war and we don’t need to spend trillions fighting a war which could have been prevented. What Republicans have done is no less than traitorous. Republicans have repeatedly put party above the nation since the inception of the Obama presidency. It began with voting against the bailouts and refusal to provide economic stimulus, and then threatening to cause the nation to default on multiple occasions, then to threats to defund Homeland Security and now to derail prospects for a peaceful solution of the Iranian nuclear bomb program.
