Month: April 2011

The Rumpus interviews Ta-Nehisi about his upcoming novel, which is set in Virginia before the civil war:

[M]y aim is to answer a simple question–How might it have felt to be a Southerner before/during/immediately after the Civil War? My way of answering that question is through the language of the time, is through attempting to hear the voices, and phrasing of that period and pull something out of it that will allow me to understand that world. As it stands, the story is about an interracial family in Virginia. It’s told from the perspective of four different voices in that family. I don’t know if it will make a very good novel. But I’m confident it will answer my questions about the times.

EA:

The latest from the front lines in Libya: experienced military commanders who defected from the Gaddafi regime are trying to stop rebels from advancing towards Brega. Gaddafi's main force in the region has advanced beyond Brega, according to reporters, and the military commanders with the rebels want to make sure that Ajdabiya is well defended. The rebels are still complaining that, since the U.S. has withdrawn its aerial bombardment campaign, NATO has failed to protect civilians from Gaddafi's heavy weapons, artillery, and missiles.

AJE:

After several days of skirmishes, the frontlines keep moving back and forth between Brega and Ajdabiya, with neither side able to make any significant move.

(Photo: A Libyan rebel commander looks through binoculars as he talks on a radio near front-line positions outside of Brega, Libya on April 6, 2011. Rebel militias fighting against Libyan government loyalist soldiers continued their standoff in the eastern Libyan desert today. By Chris Hondros/Getty Images)

Many readers insist that the CBO has found that Ryan's plan would make the debt and deficit worse. That's not accurate:

Under the extended-baseline scenario [meaning the law as currently written], debt held by the public is projected to rise from about 62 percent of GDP in 2010 to about 90 percent of GDP in 2050. Under the alternative fiscal scenario [meaning a scenario the CBO sees as likely], the ratio of debt to GDP is projected to rise to more than 300 percent in 2050 … Under the proposal, the ratio of debt to GDP would be significantly smaller over the long term–falling to 48 percent in 2040 and 10 percent in 2050.

How would the Democrats bring the ration of debt to GDP to 10 percent in 2050? When I hear that, we can work out a compromise. So far: crickets or demagoguery.

I think Jake Weisberg makes an essential point (and Jake is not a conservative by any means):

If the GOP gets behind his proposals in a serious way, it will become for the first time in modern memory an intellectually serious party—one with a coherent vision to match its rhetoric of limited government. Democrats are within their rights to point out the negative effects of Ryan's proposed cuts on future retirees, working families, and the poor. He was not specific about many of his cuts, and Democrats have a political opportunity in filling in the blanks. But the ball is now in their court, and it will be hard to take them seriously if they don't respond with their own alternative path to debt reduction and long-term solvency.

That's especially true for Obama.

We were told that his refusal to back his own debt commission or offer anything serious to tackle the long-term debt was because it would political suicide to go first in outlining entitlement and defense cuts. We were told that presidential leadership on this meant he had to get the opposition to share some of the heat.

Well, he now has the opposition breaking with thirty years of fiscal surrealism and actually proposing something that would seriously cut the debt. So his excuses are over. He has many options: he could propose real cuts in defense, or make tax reform revenue-positive even as rates fall.

No big deal:

(Hat tip: The High Definite)

Here's why I can't stand the Democrats:

Senior Democratic strategists told POLITICO that the Ryan plan is almost certain to be a centerpiece of their advertising and fundraising efforts. “It was a good day for Democrats,” said J.B. Poersch, former executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee who is heading an independent expenditure effort for Democrats in 2012. “It’s going to sting [Republicans]. This is a news flash for seniors. It’s probably an overreach, and they are likely to pay politically.”

This is the kind of politics Obama swore to avoid in the campaign. We have a serious and flawed plan to get the debt under control – and the Democrats' immediate response is to go into total opposition. The president has been more muted in his response. But the onus is on him now to provide a plan that matches the impact on the budget that Ryans' does, with different emphases.

So where is that plan? Or does the president have none?

James Capretta asked about the Dems' response to Paul Ryan's budget. Ezra Klein says a plan is in the works:

Democrats have been very reluctant to let the Bush tax cuts expire for anyone but the very rich, and they’ve had trouble communicating the cost savings in the health-care law, much less expanding them. So it’ll be interesting to see where [Rep. Chris Van Hollen, ranking member on the House Budget Committee,] and the Democrats go with this. [Rep. Paul] Ryan has really raised the standard for policy ambition, and it’ll be hard to get much attention for a budget that doesn’t follow his lead on that.

For which much thanks.

Mark Blumenthal thinks it's "too soon to anticipate how Americans will react to a government shut down, should it occur."  What we do know:

[L]arge majorities of Americans want President Obama and the Republicans to reach a compromise and avert a shutdown. Four different surveys released in the last two months shows majorities ranging from 55 to 81 percent expressing a preference for compromise rather than a hard line leading to a government shutdown.

As the above chart from Pew shows, Republicans are more hostile towards compromise. But the key group, Independents, are closer to the Dems on this than the Republicans.

Christopher A. Preble wishes Ryan's budget had tackled military spending:

Defense is an undisputed core function of government—any government—and spending for that purpose should not be treated on an equal basis with the many other dubious roles and missions that the U.S. federal government now performs. But please note the emphasis. The U.S. Department of Defense should be focused on that purpose: defending the United States. But by acting as the world’s de facto policeman, we have essentially twisted the concept of “the common defence” to include the defense of the whole world, including billions of people who are not parties to our unique social contract. 

Noah Millman ends up in a similar place:

The debate about Medicare isn’t a pure spending debate, and neither is the debate about defense. We talk about Medicare in the context of a larger debate about how to drive better health outcomes for lower cost. We talk about defense in the context of a larger debate about America’s overall foreign policy. We could, in both cases, let budgetary necessity force policy choices upon us, but I do think we’d get better results if we actually talked about policy with the budgetary necessities in mind, and vice versa.

He's pulling the plug on his Fox News gig. Dave Weigel asks Beck biographer Alexander Zaitchik what it means. Zaitchik's two cents:

Moving forward, I see [Beck]  turning into a sort of hybrid-figure, part Limbaugh, part Breitbart, part Pat Robertson, maybe a little Ben Stein on the documentaries front. But it's hard to avoid the conclusion that his days as a heavy, constant presence in the mainstream conversation are over. Whatever media shape-shift he's about to perform post-Fox, he's a greatly diminished national presence for those who aren't "Insider Extreme" members at glennbeck.com. Which is a blessed, blessed thing.