Earthquake in Chile, Tsunami expected

I wasn’t planning to post today, but this is kind of important:

A massive 8.8-magnitude earthquake struck Chile early Saturday, shaking the capital of Santiago for 90 seconds and sending tsunami warnings from Chile to Ecuador.

Chile’s TVN cable news channel was reporting 78 deaths, with the toll expected to rise.

The quake downed buildings and houses in Santiago and knocked out a major bridge connecting the northern and southern sections of the country.

It struck at 3:34 a.m. local time and was centered about 200 miles southwest of Santiago, at a depth of 22 miles, the U.S. Geological Survey reported. The epicenter was some 70 miles from Concepcion, Chile’s second-largest city, where more than 200,000 people live.

If you are searching for in on relatives in Chile, you should contact the State Department at (202)-647-1512. If you want to get in contact with the Chilean Red Cross, you can follow their Twitter account here.

And remember, Haiti is still in need of help and donations. If you haven’t already, head to the Red Cross to donate what you can.

Photo credit: New York Times

Song of the Day (Beastie Boys)

“Shadrach” by the Beastie Boys

[YouTube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dciESSrWyKE&feature=youtube_gdata]

More aid to states please!

I’ve been beating this point for awhile, and the beatings will continue until Congress does something about it (from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities):

But in over half the states, new gaps have recently emerged for 2010, as revenues have fallen short of the projections on which the 2010 budgets were based (even though the projections themselves seemed pessimistic at the time). Already, 41 states have identified mid-year gaps — some but not all of which have already been addressed through spending cuts or other measures — totaling $38 billion or 7 percent of these budgets.

[...]

These new shortfalls are in addition to the gaps states closed when adopting their fiscal year 2010 budgets earlier this year. Table 2 combines these new gaps with previously reported gaps for 2010 — the gaps that were addressed when states wrote their budgets for this year. In total, 48 states have addressed or still face shortfalls in their budgets for fiscal year 2010, totaling $196 billion or 29 percent of state budgets — the largest gaps on record.

And because they’re the CBPP, they’ve provided a nifty graph:

Right now, the most effective thing Congress could do for the economy is provide direct aid to states and extend Medicaid funds, which will be cut off in December 2010. Filling the gap in state budgets will keep teachers, police officers, firefighters and civil servants employed, pump more money into the economy, and ensure that marginal Americans aren’t kicked off of their benefits when they need them most. It’s a no brainer.

Republicans aren’t afraid of ambition. In fact, they love it.

Ezra Klein on yesterday’s health care summit:

At best, what you can say today is demonstrating is that there’s a sharp contrast in the philosophies on display: Democrats believe the federal government is capable of writing and implementing legislation that will take a big step forward on a hard problem. Republicans believe government doesn’t have that capability, and shouldn’t try. There’s no real compromise available between those two position, but they’re philosophies that the American people can choose between.

The more I think about it, the more I think this is only partially true. Republicans do believe that government has the capability to write and implement ambitious legislation, but only when it involves cutting taxes or invading countries. President Bush’s $1.3 trillion tax cut was an ambitious piece of legislation; it was a colossal reduction in government revenues that — if coupled with appropriate spending cuts — would have tremendously reduced services and programs provided by the federal government. And if anything, the Iraq War was a hugely ambitious attempt at governance: President Bush and the Republican-led Congress committed the blood and treasure of the United States to transforming a poor, authoritarian country into a prosperous liberal democracy.

By any reasonable standard, Republicans have been very ambitious when in control of government. It’s just that they become extremely circumspect when you try to turn that ambition away from wars and welfare for the wealthy, and towards ways of providing economic security for ordinary Americans. Doubly so when its a Democratic president trying to show a little concern for the problems of the non-elites. The short of it then is that Republicans are okay with ambition, as long as it’s conservative ambition, and as long as it is for the purpose of extending American “influence” or redistributing wealth to the wealthy.

Let’s try to be adults, okay?

Since it’s Friday, I don’t feel compelled to be too substantive, which is why I’m going to have some fun, and needle Another Black Conservative for Another Tremendously Misguided Blog Post:

Chris Chillizza at the Washington Post picks the Winners and Losers of the Health Care Summit (a.k.a Obama’s Dog and Pony Show on health care). I have a slightly different take. Here is what I saw.

Winners:

Obama: If you are a person who does not follow politics closely and you tuned in to the summit today, you would have found Obama acting like a referee trying to bring the two ideologically opposed parties together. He came off as fair and above the fray (most of the time, John McCain would disagree). You could almost forget that it is HIS nasty bill that was actually the starting point for today’s event.

Ah, yes. President Obama’s “nasty bill.” The bill that was mostly hashed out by a small group of moderate Democrats and Republicans last fall, and the bill that — despite its modesty — provides coverage for 30 million Americans, reduces the cost of insurance for millions more Americans, slows the growth in health spending, and cuts the deficit by a hundred billion dollars, give or take. Yes, President Obama’s terrible, no good, horrible bill.

I actually don’t mind if ABC doesn’t believe that the federal government ought to ensure universal coverage, or if he doesn’t believe that the federal government ought to pursue ambitious legislation. That’s a fair difference of opinion. But let’s not pretend like this bill is going destroy America. By most accounts, it will do a lot of good. And while you might disagree with its aims and underlying ideas, it’s still possible to acknowledge that this is a good faith effort to help a lot of people.

Photo credit: Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

Legislative Hostage Taking

Atrios:

I really don’t comprehend why, if he really wants Republican votes, Obama and Senate Dems haven’t made credible threats to put in all kinds of crazy liberal hippie shit through reconciliation. I guess they’re sticking with their precompromising strategy…

I’ve wondered about this too. My guess is that the second liberals begin threatening “crazy hippie shit,” conservative members of their own caucus begin to blanche at voting for the legislation, leaving you in an even worse spot. Either that, or Glenn Greenwald is right, and Democrats don’t actually care about the liberal hippie shit, and are using Republicans as an excuse to not even pursue it.  The answer is probably some combination of the two.

Obvious Observations

I think there’s a strong chance that Charlie Crist will run as a Democrat or independent for the open Florida Senate seat.

A Mild Defense (except not really) of Glenn Beck

DougJ at Balloon Juice writes the trillest thing I’ve read today:

There are a lot of people out there who believe that our sorry state of affairs is caused by Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and, if they’re really deluded, they’ll add “and on the left, Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann”. I know plenty of people who say things like this.

The truth is, it’s more the fault of Charlie Rose and Tom Friedman and David Brooks. Glenn Beck didn’t get us into Iraq.

This really can’t be stressed enough. Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are objectionable, sure, and the impact they’ve had on the Republican Party is pernicious, yes, but when it comes down to it, neither of them are responsible for the disasters and excesses of the previous decade. That distinction goes to the Bush administration and its allies and enablers in the media. Mainstream Beltway pundits turned a blind eye to — or actively cheered on — the Bush administration as it cut taxes for the wealthy, invaded Iraq, and trashed the Constitution.

Of course, there will never be any consequences for the people — in media or government — who pushed the country to war and fiscal madness. They’ll shift the blame elsewhere (blame the fringes!) and never actually confront the results of their cheerleading. What’s more, they’ll be rewarded for their incompetence: David Brooks is still a New York Times columnist, Bill Kristol has a lucrative perch at the Washington Post, along with Bush luminaries Michael Gerson and Mark Theissen, and Tom Friedman still makes hundreds of thousands of dollars pontificating on things he really knows nothing about.

This, folks, is why I’m certain that history’s verdict for our leaders will not be kind.

What is wrong with these people?

Jonathan Cohn posts an email from a Democratic strategist:

I don’t believe there is an accurate vote count at this time. It is fluid and many members are trying to digest the policy, process, and outcome of this week’s summit before making a final call. Some of those who are contemplating voting for the bill won’t commit to an aye vote without securing something (policy, political or personal) for it in return.

[...]

That is called using your leverage; some will maximize their use of it. The President and his senior staff will have to be aggressively proactive in this effort, something that he and his Administration is not particularly well known for doing. Having said, while the votes are certainly not there now, the odds for a successful outcome is trending in the right direction. Also encouraging is that many in the White House understand it is time for an all hands on deck effort. Regardless, if the Congressional Leadership schedules votes, it will be extremely close–as has been every major Democratic or Republican initiative during the last two decades.

This is so frustratingly stupid. There are times when it is beneficial to “use your leverage,” but this isn’t one of them. This week notwithstanding, it’s been almost two months since there was any real movement on health care reform. Americans might not know a single thing about the bill, but they know when something is taking too long, and this is taking too long and that, in turn, feeds into negative polling numbers. Indeed, 90 percent of why this is taking so long has entirely to do with the fact that congressional Democrats are addicted to unnecessary dealmaking. They see large legislation as a pinata of sorts; the goal is to burst it open, and grab as many goodies as you can before adults step in and stop the ravenous frenzy.

Now, I understand that it is simply in the nature of things that congresspeople are first and foremost interested in delivering goodies to their districts and states. And for the most part, I don’t actually have a problem with it. But on big, priority legislation, I wish legislators could push that impulse aside for the purpose of moving the party’s priorities forward. Had congressional Democrats simply crafted the president’s proposals into a bill, and passed it, they would be in much better shape than they are now.

Photo credit: Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

Respect the Tea Partiers; Take Them at Their Word

E.D. Kain on Tea Partiers and rural whites:

But I wonder, have rural whites (i.e. angry rednecks) really been in power for decades? And what do we mean by “in power” anyways? Is it possible that people in general have simply been more in control over their own destinies in the past, making most of their decisions at a local or state level? Then, as the federal government becomes increasingly stronger and more pervasive, that local and community control becomes more and more diminished? This isn’t a question of power over others, then, but one of power over ourselves.

I think E.D. is right to suggest that rural whites haven’t had much control of their destinies; more so than most Americans, rural whites have really suffered from the economic changes of the last three decades. Rural areas are disproportionately low-income, lack significant technological infrastructure, have poor educational opportunities, and have suffered from an on-going “brain drain” of young, bright rural Americans to the cities.

But for all the sympathy I have for rural whites and E.D.’s defense of them, I think he is really understating — and even ignoring — the ugly prejudices and resentment that underly rural anger. There is a deep paranoia about minorities among older, rural conservatives. This might not be “racism,” per say, but it is a belief that minorities aren’t “American” in the same way as them and theirs. “Taking America back” — especially in light of rhetoric like this — means more than stopping liberals, it means making America more familiar. Which is to say, whiter.

The cultural narrative, writ large, of the last forty years has been the slow death of white male privilege. And while the federal government has grown stronger and more pervasive, it has largely been in service of an attempt to enforce the rights of women and minorities over the protests of states and localities. Is this a power grab? In a sense, yes. Is it bad? Not in the least. And while E.D. would certainly agree that this is a good thing, I think he is blind to the ugly side of “localism”; at the same time that localism empowers communities to guide their destinies, it also empowers them to enforce their prejudices. Since the 1960s, by and large, the “control” localities have lost to the federal government is the power to ostracize and push aside marginal members of their communities.

If you take the Tea Partiers at their word; if you look at their slogans and their signs, it is pretty obvious that this “control” is part and parcel of their protest. Their whiteness and maleness (and in some cases, wealth) no longer entitles them to success, and they’re pissed off about it! Which you know, is understandable.

I don’t like their anger, but I”m at least trying to understand it. E.D. isn’t blind to it either, but he does seem to want to sweep it under the rug, in favor of a nobler explanation. I get that, but it is not at all helpful in his — or anyone else’s — attempt to understand this movement.