Hot/cold is exactly how I'd say I feel towards Brooks-- half the time I read him, I say to myself, "right on." The other half of the time, I think "where did that thoughtful guy go?"
As I tried to say-- if you prefer Macs, think Apple produces better hardware and a better operation system, please-- buy an Apple! I think they are great machines too. I just think that we lazily tend to attach certain visions onto products and commodities that we shouldn't. (And I'm not exempting myself from that criticism.)
I just wonder if you would extend that criticism to someone who makes a movie about domestic violence and then makes an impassioned speech about it. Surely the content of a film is an appropriate point of discussion for what an acceptance speech should contain? If so, I don't know how Sean Penn doesn't mention "hey look, four months ago a whole lot of gay people got their right to marry taken away." Seems significant to me.
There's a lot to be said, Joseph, but at present, let me just say: the ends that we think we can achieve by not doing something are almost always more achievable than the ends we think we can achieve by doing something.
So Philip you can really not think of a situation where one evil actor prevents an even more horrifying outcome? Because what you are suggesting is an entirely ends-tested vision of morality, which, frankly, I find totally incompatible with conventional morality. And you are of course privileged with the information of what did happen, whereas we can't see the consequences of what didn't.
I mean, look, if you can say that the consequences of someone (or some country's) actions are positive, then they are morally superior, regardless of their intention or means, I think that's pretty radical from a philosophical standpoint. Maybe Joe McCarthy actually stopped some Russian spy from stealing vital secrets. That not only doesn't excuse his actions, it can't.
1. The defeat of Germany owes as much as, or more, to the Russians as the United States. That fact has been given short shrift around here because of anti-Soviet sentiment. The defense of Stalingrad had as much to do with defeating Hitler as the invasion of Normandy.
2. We didn't fight out of the conviction that the Nazis and Japanese were evil; we fought because they had attacked us or our allies. Defending yourself is morally neutral.
3. More importantly, as necessary and morally positive as the defeat of the Axis powers was, and as much credit as America certainly deserves for that defeat, I reject the premise of what you're saying. I don't believe in a kind of aggregate morality, where you just take the amount of good as positive, the amount of bad as negative, and just compute the net value of our deeds. It's like saying that if you save a busload of people one week, you can go out and rape a couple people the next week, because on net you're still a force for good. I don't think it works that way.
This is not even to begin to critique that post, but it's worth pointing out that 1) the Union didn't, in fact, employ the slash and burn strategy to nearly the degree they could have , and 2) even so, there is a significant body of historical opinion that suggest that they degree to which they did poisoned the South's ability to move on from the war and cost this country dearly for generations.
The central lesson of Nintendo-- of both the Wii and the DS-- is that you don't have to have the most powerful hardware to be the best system. Ask the Playstation 3. I think the DS is a better system for games than the iPhone, whatever the graphical capabilities.
Also, what Peter said. What's interesting about this question of D-padless gaming is that so many DS games are played without the game pad.
You want numbers, tough guy? Check these numbers. Look at the number of games sold. Nintendogs-- over 20 million. New Super Mario-- over 17 million. Brain Age-- over 16 million. Pokemon DS-- over 16 million. Mario Kart-- almost 14 million. And on and on.
show me an iPhone app that ever sells anything close to one of those top selling games, and we'll talk.
First of all, capitalism tells us that if you aren't breaking the law or violating business ethics, there isn't "fair or unfair." If Microsoft can make money in the video game business by using a strategy like that, they should. Secondly, many, many people will tell you that the Xbox was by far the best of that generation of consoles, and the 360 is likewise much beloved. Third, I think it is ludicrous to say that the iPhone beats the DS or the Playstation PSP on the merits; the iPhone is a phone with some cool games. It's not close to a real competitor with dedicated gaming platforms. That's just my opinion, of course, but I think the tech press is being far too credulous to Apple's claims.
And finally, trust me, while Bill Gates is going to end up the greatest philanthropist in human history, Microsoft isn't in the business of throwing away money for no purpose. They aren't getting into the video game business for some malign purposes; they think they can make a quality product and make money off of it. And the market will decide.
Oh, absolutely. I'm just more aware of the Macheads because I'm not one. It's always more visible and more risible coming from the other side of the aisle.
Certainly, I would exclude Larison from this project, as I don't think he's ever made any bones about his disconnect from the Republican party or movement conservatism.
What I'm really reacting to is what I perceive as backseat drivers who claim no responsibility when the car crashes. I like where they wanted to take the car much, much better than I do the people who were actually driving, and lord knows, they bear less blame than the guy at the wheel. But I do think that they should either admit their desire to drive or get out of the car; that way when the bill from the repairs come due, there's less arguing about who has to pay.
No, but I think we recognize that Larison's detachment from mainstream conservatism gives him less ability to make positive change in that movement. I'm not asking for people to compromise their principles in either direction. I'm asking all of us, and reformist conservatives in particular, to consider the consequences of their outsider status, and am wondering aloud if they aren't sometimes inconsistent or unfair in claiming it.
This is demonstrably false, and the demonstration is an easy one: immigration reform! Did Mickey Kaus depart from the pundit consensus and ding Bush and McCain to annoy and degrade liberals? Obviously not. So I guess that isn't "always always always" his motivation.
Most liberals support comprehensive immigration reform!
I do not know a single liberal who considers Kaus to be on our side, Conor, not one. I know many, many conservatives who will concede he is full of it. Draw from that conclusion what you will.
I still have heard no one even offer an attempt at answering the question of how his repeated "they called me a liberal! Me!" jokes-- like that in point 2 of the first item above-- can make any sense whatsoever, unless the point is that he thinks it's ridiculous for him to be called a liberal.
OK. Here is one half of one page of Mickey Kaus's blog. Identify for me how any disinterested, unbiased observer could tell me that this is a liberal or Democratic voice.
#
The Welfare Issue is Alive, Alive!
Posted Sunday, February 15, 2009 3:02 AM | By Mickey Kaus
1) A Times of London story highlights worries about the Thermidorian welfare reform backsliding in the stimulus bill. Sample:
Douglas Besharov, author of a big study on welfare reform, said the stimulus bill passed by Congress and the Senate in separate votes on Friday would "unravel" most of the 1996 reforms that led to a 65% reduction in welfare caseloads and prompted the British and several other governments to consider similar measures.
2) I get an "Even ... liberal blogger" cite. Hahaha. Take that, Even the Liberal New Republic.
3) But the reference to liberalism isn't irrelevant, because the now-undermined welfare reform was the key to rebuilding confidence in (liberal) affirmative government. As Bill Clinton recognized, voters may well have been willing to let government spend, but they didn't trust old style liberals not to spend in actively destructive ways, like subsidizing an isolated underclass of non-working single mothers with a no-strings cash dole. It's a 75-25 values issue. Work yes. Welfare no. Even if welfare spending was only a tiny portion of the liberals' spending agenda, it poisoned the rest of it. Only when Clinton's New Democrats put an ostentatious "time limit" on welfare and required work did they regain the public confidence necessary to increase other kinds of spending (on work-related poverty-fighting benefits like the Earned Income Tax Credit, day care and Social Security, for example.)
A reemerging "welfare" issue is a potential killer, in other words, for Obama's big remaining plans, especially health care. If Dems seem determined to reinstate dependency--or at the least blind to the dangers of dependency--voters aren't going to trust them to spend trillions on universal health insurance and fortified pensions. It's hard to believe Obama doesn't realize this.
4) If not, he may soon. I don't think the debate about welfare has been settled by the stimulus' bill's passage. I think it has just begun. I'm not saying this in a morale-maintaining way--"this fight is not over," "Where do we go from here," etc." I mean that, in fact, there has so far been no debate about welfare the way there has been a debate about pork and Keynesian spending. Before the stimulus bill passed, its welfare provisions were hardly mentioned in the NYT and WaPo. They were just bubbling up from The Atlantic's 's website to a Newsday blog last Friday, as Congress was voting.
Now that the bill has safely passed, even the liberal MSM may feel the obligation to mention them in public. Maybe even in actual print. Reporters have to cover something. More on pork? Welfare seems fresher.
5) In any case, the rump Congressional GOP and talk radio conservatives can force their hand. Why should opponents of the welfare-expanding provisions stop harping on them? Has Obama been asked about his welfare un-reform at a press conference yet? I don't think so. He will have more press conferences. It won't be an easy question to answer. (Reporters could also ask his HHS secretary ... Oh wait. Never mind.)
Welfare is a liberal sore spot that, if Republicans play it right, could become a bleeding open wound for the administration. Voters probably thought they'd settled the dole-vs.-work issue back in 1996. Obama will be fulfilling the crude GOP stereotype of his party if he even waffles on reopening it.
Remember that Newt Gingirch rode the welfare issue to power after haranguing about "the liberal welfare state" for a few election cycles. The new welfare debate, if it happens, won't necessarily be that prolonged. The main question is whether the Administration can effectively paper over the meaning of what's in the stimulus. If not, Congress is still in session. It seems to me there is a real chance for Republicans to get it to "revisit" that part of the bill, as they say in Washington. Obama may decide he needs to excise the most poisonous part of the stimulus to save the rest of his New New Deal.
P.S.: No, the stimulus bill doesn't fully unravel welfare reform--after 1996, welfare is no longer an individual "entitlement," for one thing (a term or art that triggered a whole slew of court-enforced rights). The time limits and work requirements are still at least formally in place. States can still do what they want, in theory, within much broader limits than under the old AFDC program. Many states, with little money to spare, may still refuse to try to expand their caseloads (even if they now have an 80% federal subsidy to do it). A debate on the issue might, in fact, help ensure that states don't go crazy and recreate the bloated and socially disastrous welfare caseloads of the three decades before 1996.
More important, the debate would stop the Money Liberals in the Washington "antipoverty community"--e.g., Peter Edelman and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities crowd-- before they can complete the rest of their agenda, which does involve unraveling welfare reform (eliminating work requirements, for example). Preserving Clinton's biggest domestic achievement isn't something you should want "even" if you're a liberal who believes in affirmative government. It's something you should want especially if you're a liberal who believes in affirmative government.
Filed under: welfare reform, STIMULUS
#
Not Faster Enough
Posted Friday, February 13, 2009 3:23 PM | By Mickey Kaus
MSM (in the form of Newsday) only now just waking up to the welfare-expanding, work-relaxing clauses hidden in the stimulus bill. ... It's not like it's the day of the vote. ... Newsday was tipped off by Ambinder's page, apparently. ... A couple more weeks of debate and, who knows, maybe the story would filter up to the New York Times (though it would still have to get past the paper's "meddling" editors.**). ... [Thanks to reader S.]
**-- "Every hour, a new set of instructions on what the story should say came from New York, believe it or not."--Dean Baquet. ... 3:33 P.M.
___________________________
Filed under: welfare reform, MSM DINOSAURS, STIMULUS
#
Got Juice?
Posted Friday, February 13, 2009 10:21 AM | By Mickey Kaus
Marc Ambinder is now onto the stimulus' "get-more-people-on-welfare" provisions, even if nobody else is. He offers a summary of the issue and then a Dem response (even though his summary included Dem responses). A few points.
1) Ambinder writes
a number of conservatives and even liberals have written to me wondering why the GOP isn't making more of a fuss about this. The answers are fairly simple: they want to avoid being seen as poor-people bashers, they know that Americans still associate welfare with minorities, and there are different sensitivities they must consider when making political claims about the priorities of the first black president. [E.A.]
If Republicans are unwilling to defend work over welfare because we have a black president(!), they might as well all retire en masse now. Hard to believe even GOP consultants are dumb enough to give this advice.
2) See, the MSM doesn't care! Ambinder's anonymous Dem responder argues
A pretty clear lesson of the four-year long welfare reauthorization debate was that there wasn't much political juice left in the issue -- didn't exactly see it on page one much, did you? [E.A.]
Hmm. Maybe that's because the reauthorization debate didn't threaten to roll back reform, and the caseloads were down. Now a) the Dems are starting to roll back reform, in order to encourage states to b) get caseloads back up. ... And there's something fallacious (i.e. circular) about a liberal Dem citing MSM coverage as if the New York Times was an infallible oracle of the people, as opposed to an infallible oracle of liberal Dems. This is what you see when you look up "cocooning" in the dictionary! ...
3) Ambinder's anonymous Democrat says his party has always been suspicious of the "caseload reduction credit," fearing that states will just push people off the rolls in order to get the credit (whether or not those recipients find jobs).
Why exactly should a state get credit towards the work participation standards just because they have fewer people on the caseload? The evidence is pretty clear that it's not like 100% of people who leave welfare get jobs
A fair point--except that in this case it's the Dems who are preserving the caseload reduction credit. They don't want states to have to meet the "work participation standards" (i.e. make recipients work or train) so they've written the bill to let them to wriggle out of them using the "reduction" credit even when, as Dems intend, their caseloads start expanding. ... P.S.: As with "card check," Ambinder is a bit off on the details, in a spun-by-Dem-sources direction. He writes, confusingly,
States get "casework reduction credits" for the number of people they move off of the rolls; these credits help states meet a mandated 50% threshold for their TANF recipients to perform some type of work-related activity. The idea here -- if I'm reading the bill correctly -- is that the caseload reduction credit would effectively be "updated" to account for economic emergencies. State would get more welfare funds without letting their threshold dip below 50%.
But the effect of the Dem stimulus' "caseload reduction" finagling is precisely to let the mandated "work participation" standards dip below 50% of the caseload. Example: Suppose a state's caseload was 100 in 2005. Then it dropped to 85 in 2007 and 80 in 2008 before rising to 90 in 2009 and (thanks to the stimulus' new federal incentives for caseload expansion) 110 in 2010. The stimulus bill lets states pretend that the caseload has stayed at 80, giving them a "reduction credit" of 20% from the 2005 baseline. This credit is deducted, point by point, from the 50% "work participation" requirement--meaning that our hypothetical state would only have to get 30% of its recipients into work or training activities. For the other 70%, it's "come on down and get your cash--and stick around since the feds are now paying most of the bill."
4) Ambinder says
Democrats respond, forcefully, that in ordinary recessions, unemployment benefits might tide families over, but during a mini-depression, there are no jobs to push welfare recipients into.
That's true, in at least some cases--though DeParle reports that some state administrators say there are still jobs of the type welfare recipients typically take. But lack of jobs isn't a reason to loosen work requirements. It's a reason for the government to provide the jobs. Have the Dems never heard of "workfare"? Give recipients useful community service work, and if they do the work then they get the cash. Simple. They can hold their heads up.
Of course, Dems have heard of workfare--and they know that AFSCME hates workfare (fearing ex-recipients will do their jobs for less). But AFSCME is pushing on an open door. Money Liberals don't really need to be pressured into relaxing work requirements. They've never liked work requirements, including "workfare," and are always looking for an excuse to say "It's OK to come back on the dole."
And the "mini-depression" is certainly no reason recipients can't be required to train (or if necessary go to school and get their GEDs).
P.P.S.: Stimulus welfare provisions a potential issue in the fight over Gillibrand's seat? We'll see about that juice. .. 12:58 P.M.
___________________________
Filed under: welfare reform, STIMULUS
#
It's on
Posted Friday, February 13, 2009 9:36 AM | By Mickey Kaus
Video #2: Senator Harry Reid, you're facing a tough reelection fight. This vid's for you! ... 9:45 A.M.
___________________________
#
Don't look now
Posted Friday, February 13, 2009 1:30 AM | By Mickey Kaus
Democrats down to the bare-minimum 60 votes on the stimulus in the Senate? ... P.S.: Do House Dems really think that drawing the process out, by letting the Senate GOPs filibuster, will win it for them? From The Hill:
“Make them filibuster” has been a rallying cry of rank-and-file Democrats all week, who say the strategy would portray Republicans as obstructionists and ultimately lead to legislation that better reflects the interests of the party.
Hmm. Filibustering Republicans would have a lot to talk about! My guess is the longer the bill stays un-passed, the more sordid details will come out and the greater the chance that it will be pecked to death. House Dems are deluded cocooning. ... 1:45 P.M.
___________________________
Filed under: STIMULUS
#
Nastier, Please!
Posted Thursday, February 12, 2009 8:22 PM | By Mickey Kaus
That was fast: 1) First video attacking the welfare-expanding provisions hidden in the stimulus package, from 24th State. Pointed and danceable! But not an attack ad directed at a specific, vulnerable Dem who voted for the bill. That's what we want. In my neck of the woods a vulnerable incumbent might be Jane Harman, for example. But you could pick any of Rahm's 2006 red-state recruits. Or a purplish Dem Senator (Bayh, Dorgan, Lincoln). Do they want to defend against the charge that they voted to undermine Clinton's biggest domestic achievement?
2) Senator Richard Burr, Republican from North Carolina, has cited the welfare provisions when justifying his opposition to the stimulus bill in the local press:
He said he did not like some provisions, such as an extension of the Davis-Bacon act and what he calls a rollback of the 1990s welfare reform, in the bill.
The Davis-Bacon Act requires people getting federal contracts to pay a prevailing wage, which Burr said is usually interpreted as the highest wages in an area. He said the bill also hampers efforts to get people off the welfare rolls.
3) Quin Hillyer of American Spectator thinks the welfare issue is the last hope for sinking the whole package (his goal, not mine). He wants "hundreds of thousands of citizens" to flood Congressional offices with questions on the subject. Better call fast! ...
4) Congressional Democrats, in their handouts, routinely bury the welfare news (if it's mentioned at all) under more popular talk of unemployment insurance and "Making Work Pay" tax cuts. The one internal Dem flyer I've seen refers only cryptically, at the very bottom of the page, to "keeping ... Temporary Assistance for Needy Families [the basic welfare program] from being overloaded." No mention of expanding it even where it's not necessarily "overloaded" and relaxing work and training requirements. It's entirely possible many Congressional Democrats don't know how bad the bill's welfare provisions are. ..
5) Meanwhile, the silence in the NYT's news pages and in WaPo (and on the evening news) has been kind of deafening, no? Even Jason DeParle, in a piece specifically about welfare ("The 'W' Word") managed to not even mention the stimulus bill's actual welfare-expansion provision. If I were paranoid I'd say it's almost as if the MSM was in on the conspiracy! ... 9:09 P.M.
___________________________
Filed under: welfare reform
#
Time to Unleash You Tube Again?
Posted Thursday, February 12, 2009 11:07 AM | By Mickey Kaus
National Review says there's "not much" Republicans can do about provisions in the stimulus intended to expand welfare caseloads and undermine the work requirements of the landmark 1996 welfare reform law. That may be true. But there is something National Review's readers--and others who'd like to defend welfare reform--can do.
During the immigration debate of 2007, an emailer suggested that one way readers might influence Congress would be to "go ahead and mash up some negative ads" on the issue and post them on You Tube. Readers responded, and some of the ads were quite good. I think they had an impact--not by swaying public opinion, but by striking fear into heart of legislators by demonstrating what they might face in their reelection campaigns if they voted for the Bush-McCain semi-amnesty bill. The bill died.
It wouldn't be hard to do the same thing with the anti-welfare-reform provisions in the stimulus bill. Again, the idea would not be to influence the public. The idea would be to directly terrify Democratic legislators worried about their reelections by giving them a taste of how their vote might play. (It helps that many politicians are generally terrified of You Tube and other new information technologies they can't control.) Obama aide Rahm Emanuel, for one, is known to be sensitive to the political potency of "wedge" issues like welfare and immigration.
As with immigration, the basic text of the ads practically writes itself: "In 1996, Congress passed the landmark. .. . Caseloads fell by 70 percent. ... Now Congressman X wants to undo that success ..." etc. But I don't have the skill or creativity to do the job of putting one of these ads together, let alone to do the job well. Some of you do.
It's probably too late. The House is scheduled to vote on the stimulus package ... er, tomorrow.** But things move fast these days! And even if the bill passes, if there is enough of a stink embarrassed (or terrified) legislators might change it. Anyway, it seems worth a shot.
If you build them, I will link.
**--I'm assuming the welfare provisions are still in the bill. [Update: They are, I'm told. $5 billion to expand welfare.] They were in both the House and Senate versions. ... My goal isn't to use the welfare issue to sink the stimulus, if that were even possible. It is to get the welfare provisions removed or reversed. Your goals may vary.
More: Why would Republicans make an issue of marsh mice when they have welfare, a proven hot button (for good reason)? Hello?. ... They could even be bipartisan about it, noting that it's Clinton's achievement that's being undermined. ... P.S.: Maybe it's no accident-- the GOPs secretly want the welfare provision to pass and hope the resulting caseload boom will be a good issue to run on in 2010. They're saving their best shot for later. But that would be unpatriotic! It would also demonstrate an uncharacteristic amount of long-term thinking. ... 11:34 A.M.
___________________________
Filed under: welfare reform, STIMULUS
#
Will Krugman Thank the Centrists?
Posted Wednesday, February 11, 2009 10:11 PM | By Mickey Kaus
Steven Pearlstein argues that the ideal stimulus spending "is that which creates jobs and economic activity now, has big payoffs later and disappears from future budgets." The last criterion doesn't get much attention in many pro-stimulus arguments (including Pearlstein's), but it's important if you care about deficits. It's also important if you think the claim of government on the national GDP is limited, and you want there to be room for universal health insurance down the road. And, Paul Krugman even claims (for somewhat tricky technical reasons), it's important if you care about maximum stimulus, because "temporary government spending has a bigger effect"--i.e. it's better at creating new demand than spending that won't disappear from future budgets.
So if the big dispute in the stimulus conference committee was over school construction spending, where
House Democrats are pushing to have school-repair funding listed as a recurring expense; Senate Republicans want such an allocation to be a one-time-only deal.
And if as a result of the moderate GOP Senate crossovers like Susan Collins holding firm, the school construction spending will be a one-time only deal ...
Then haven't the much-criticized Senate centrists, at least on this one issue, helped produce a better stimulus bill--not just a lower-deficit stimulus bill, or a stimulus bill that leaves a bit of room for health care, but, according to Krugman, a more stimulating stimulus bill? ... Am I missing something? ... 11:06 P.M.
___________________________
Filed under: STIMULUS
#
Special Fratricidal Edition
Posted Wednesday, February 11, 2009 6:24 PM | By Mickey Kaus
I apologize for the dropped posts (now back). Slate's new blogging system is cr ... undergoing continuous improvement! Lucky I'm not the type to let that sort of thing drive me crazy ... If anyone notices any other missing posts, please let me know. ... Meanwhile, Andrew Sullivan's bellicose and bullying "New Orwell" era archives magically reappear at the very moment they come in handy for him. Funny how that happens! ... 6:46 P.M.
___________________________
You mean "dollar cost averaging" is a bad idea? Experts (not just Suze Orman) have been telling me to do that for decades. Still seems smarter than trying to time the market. ... [via Gawker] 6:35 P.M.
___________________________
Filed under: EXCITABLE!
#
Turning Over the Rock
Posted Wednesday, February 11, 2009 12:31 PM | By Mickey Kaus
Robert Rector and Katherine Bradley note that the anti-welfare-reform provisions in the stimulus bill aren't as bad as I'd feared. They're worse. They attempt replicate the fiscal mechanics of the old welfare (AFDC) "entitlement," but with a bigger incentive to welfare expansion:
For the first time since 1996, the federal government would begin paying states bonuses to increase their welfare caseloads. Indeed, the new welfare system created by the stimulus bills is actually worse than the old AFDC program because it rewards the states more heavily to increase their caseloads. Under the stimulus bills, the federal government will pay 80 percent of cost for each new family that a state enrolls in welfare; this matching rate is far higher than it was under AFDC.
Right and you’re operating from the stance that it’s better to be liberal than to be conservative. I fail to see how, other than being on opposite sides of the spectrum, it’s any different…?
Malkin is proud to be a conservative. I am proud to be a liberal. Kaus is contemptuous-- contemptuous, utterly and completely, and I choose that word with care-- of liberalism. Not of what has become of liberalism, not of where liberalism is headed, but of liberalism himself.
I only go back to this because it so irks me when say, Michelle Malkin or someone in her far-right coalition lambastes a centrist conservative in this very same way.
Yes, but Malkin does so from the position that it's better to be conservative than to be liberal. Kaus renders liberal a term of shame. I'm going to post a compendium of quotes for you guys sometime soon.
So neoliberals worked across the aisle with Bush and co. so what?
No. Neoliberals made progressivism into an object of ridicule while claiming to be reformers and utterly destroyed the ability of the ideology to defend itself against movement conservatism, which, I say without hint of controversy, has spelled utter disaster for the country for 8 years.
What specific stance did Mickey Kaus take that damaged liberals or empowered Bush?
The stance that liberalism is always the problem, the stance that the best way forward for any liberal in any situation is to tack to the right, the stance that the greatest danger to this country is always from the left and not from the right. None of those categoricals is anyway unfair or at all a misrepresentation of what Kaus thinks and says; if you think so, you have not accurately followed his position. Kaus does not just often critique liberalism; he makes critiquing liberalism his constant purpose, and he does it in a way that is not constructive, bur corrosive, because it assumes and asserts that the problem is always liberalism and its values. Kaus and the neoliberals didn't reform liberalism, they destroyed its foundations, and perpetuated the idea that the media should always look skeptical on any kind of left-wing ideas of people. That attitude seeped into our culture and created the conditions that left no credible opposition to the Bushite right. The consequences for our country have been terrible. The damage had been done by the Iraq war; liberalism had already been hamstrung, and liberal already turned into an epithet. That's not just because of Rush Limbaugh and a compliant media but because of people like Mickey Kaus telling liberals that they should feel ashamed to demonstrate fidelity to our most basic, most important policies and positions.
Mickey Kaus has contempt for liberalism. Read his blog, and see if you can tell me with honesty that this isn't the case. A reformer works to better his ideology and its core principles; Kaus has worked only to damage them and to marginalize those who would stand for them. And the time has come for decent people whose side was not the one responsible for the utter failure of the last eight years to say "enough".
On “Brooks on Jindal”
Hot/cold is exactly how I'd say I feel towards Brooks-- half the time I read him, I say to myself, "right on." The other half of the time, I think "where did that thoughtful guy go?"
On “Balance Sheet Recession”
Of course, there's the absolutely terrible public-private partnerships in the penal and defense contracting worlds too.
On “Apple v. Microsoft”
As I tried to say-- if you prefer Macs, think Apple produces better hardware and a better operation system, please-- buy an Apple! I think they are great machines too. I just think that we lazily tend to attach certain visions onto products and commodities that we shouldn't. (And I'm not exempting myself from that criticism.)
On “can I just say…”
I just wonder if you would extend that criticism to someone who makes a movie about domestic violence and then makes an impassioned speech about it. Surely the content of a film is an appropriate point of discussion for what an acceptance speech should contain? If so, I don't know how Sean Penn doesn't mention "hey look, four months ago a whole lot of gay people got their right to marry taken away." Seems significant to me.
On “Apple v. Microsoft”
Tip to readers coming from Sullivan: read the whole fucking post before you criticize, not just the excerpt!
Ye gods.
On “love of… what?”
There's a lot to be said, Joseph, but at present, let me just say: the ends that we think we can achieve by not doing something are almost always more achievable than the ends we think we can achieve by doing something.
"
Even that absolute, Bob?
Just kidding.
"
So Philip you can really not think of a situation where one evil actor prevents an even more horrifying outcome? Because what you are suggesting is an entirely ends-tested vision of morality, which, frankly, I find totally incompatible with conventional morality. And you are of course privileged with the information of what did happen, whereas we can't see the consequences of what didn't.
I mean, look, if you can say that the consequences of someone (or some country's) actions are positive, then they are morally superior, regardless of their intention or means, I think that's pretty radical from a philosophical standpoint. Maybe Joe McCarthy actually stopped some Russian spy from stealing vital secrets. That not only doesn't excuse his actions, it can't.
"
1. The defeat of Germany owes as much as, or more, to the Russians as the United States. That fact has been given short shrift around here because of anti-Soviet sentiment. The defense of Stalingrad had as much to do with defeating Hitler as the invasion of Normandy.
2. We didn't fight out of the conviction that the Nazis and Japanese were evil; we fought because they had attacked us or our allies. Defending yourself is morally neutral.
3. More importantly, as necessary and morally positive as the defeat of the Axis powers was, and as much credit as America certainly deserves for that defeat, I reject the premise of what you're saying. I don't believe in a kind of aggregate morality, where you just take the amount of good as positive, the amount of bad as negative, and just compute the net value of our deeds. It's like saying that if you save a busload of people one week, you can go out and rape a couple people the next week, because on net you're still a force for good. I don't think it works that way.
On “In which…”
This is not even to begin to critique that post, but it's worth pointing out that 1) the Union didn't, in fact, employ the slash and burn strategy to nearly the degree they could have , and 2) even so, there is a significant body of historical opinion that suggest that they degree to which they did poisoned the South's ability to move on from the war and cost this country dearly for generations.
On “Apple v. Microsoft”
The central lesson of Nintendo-- of both the Wii and the DS-- is that you don't have to have the most powerful hardware to be the best system. Ask the Playstation 3. I think the DS is a better system for games than the iPhone, whatever the graphical capabilities.
Also, what Peter said. What's interesting about this question of D-padless gaming is that so many DS games are played without the game pad.
"
Feeling a little sensitive, lava?
You want numbers, tough guy? Check these numbers. Look at the number of games sold. Nintendogs-- over 20 million. New Super Mario-- over 17 million. Brain Age-- over 16 million. Pokemon DS-- over 16 million. Mario Kart-- almost 14 million. And on and on.
show me an iPhone app that ever sells anything close to one of those top selling games, and we'll talk.
"
First of all, capitalism tells us that if you aren't breaking the law or violating business ethics, there isn't "fair or unfair." If Microsoft can make money in the video game business by using a strategy like that, they should. Secondly, many, many people will tell you that the Xbox was by far the best of that generation of consoles, and the 360 is likewise much beloved. Third, I think it is ludicrous to say that the iPhone beats the DS or the Playstation PSP on the merits; the iPhone is a phone with some cool games. It's not close to a real competitor with dedicated gaming platforms. That's just my opinion, of course, but I think the tech press is being far too credulous to Apple's claims.
And finally, trust me, while Bill Gates is going to end up the greatest philanthropist in human history, Microsoft isn't in the business of throwing away money for no purpose. They aren't getting into the video game business for some malign purposes; they think they can make a quality product and make money off of it. And the market will decide.
"
Oh, absolutely. I'm just more aware of the Macheads because I'm not one. It's always more visible and more risible coming from the other side of the aisle.
On “the foul rag and bone shop of real politics”
Certainly, I would exclude Larison from this project, as I don't think he's ever made any bones about his disconnect from the Republican party or movement conservatism.
What I'm really reacting to is what I perceive as backseat drivers who claim no responsibility when the car crashes. I like where they wanted to take the car much, much better than I do the people who were actually driving, and lord knows, they bear less blame than the guy at the wheel. But I do think that they should either admit their desire to drive or get out of the car; that way when the bill from the repairs come due, there's less arguing about who has to pay.
How's that for an overworked metaphor?
"
No, but I think we recognize that Larison's detachment from mainstream conservatism gives him less ability to make positive change in that movement. I'm not asking for people to compromise their principles in either direction. I'm asking all of us, and reformist conservatives in particular, to consider the consequences of their outsider status, and am wondering aloud if they aren't sometimes inconsistent or unfair in claiming it.
On “more on Kaus”
I thought I said that Kaus can be a liberal. I just don't see what possible good he does for the liberal cause.
"
This is demonstrably false, and the demonstration is an easy one: immigration reform! Did Mickey Kaus depart from the pundit consensus and ding Bush and McCain to annoy and degrade liberals? Obviously not. So I guess that isn't "always always always" his motivation.
Most liberals support comprehensive immigration reform!
"
I do not know a single liberal who considers Kaus to be on our side, Conor, not one. I know many, many conservatives who will concede he is full of it. Draw from that conclusion what you will.
I still have heard no one even offer an attempt at answering the question of how his repeated "they called me a liberal! Me!" jokes-- like that in point 2 of the first item above-- can make any sense whatsoever, unless the point is that he thinks it's ridiculous for him to be called a liberal.
"
OK. Here is one half of one page of Mickey Kaus's blog. Identify for me how any disinterested, unbiased observer could tell me that this is a liberal or Democratic voice.
#
The Welfare Issue is Alive, Alive!
Posted Sunday, February 15, 2009 3:02 AM | By Mickey Kaus
1) A Times of London story highlights worries about the Thermidorian welfare reform backsliding in the stimulus bill. Sample:
Douglas Besharov, author of a big study on welfare reform, said the stimulus bill passed by Congress and the Senate in separate votes on Friday would "unravel" most of the 1996 reforms that led to a 65% reduction in welfare caseloads and prompted the British and several other governments to consider similar measures.
2) I get an "Even ... liberal blogger" cite. Hahaha. Take that, Even the Liberal New Republic.
3) But the reference to liberalism isn't irrelevant, because the now-undermined welfare reform was the key to rebuilding confidence in (liberal) affirmative government. As Bill Clinton recognized, voters may well have been willing to let government spend, but they didn't trust old style liberals not to spend in actively destructive ways, like subsidizing an isolated underclass of non-working single mothers with a no-strings cash dole. It's a 75-25 values issue. Work yes. Welfare no. Even if welfare spending was only a tiny portion of the liberals' spending agenda, it poisoned the rest of it. Only when Clinton's New Democrats put an ostentatious "time limit" on welfare and required work did they regain the public confidence necessary to increase other kinds of spending (on work-related poverty-fighting benefits like the Earned Income Tax Credit, day care and Social Security, for example.)
A reemerging "welfare" issue is a potential killer, in other words, for Obama's big remaining plans, especially health care. If Dems seem determined to reinstate dependency--or at the least blind to the dangers of dependency--voters aren't going to trust them to spend trillions on universal health insurance and fortified pensions. It's hard to believe Obama doesn't realize this.
4) If not, he may soon. I don't think the debate about welfare has been settled by the stimulus' bill's passage. I think it has just begun. I'm not saying this in a morale-maintaining way--"this fight is not over," "Where do we go from here," etc." I mean that, in fact, there has so far been no debate about welfare the way there has been a debate about pork and Keynesian spending. Before the stimulus bill passed, its welfare provisions were hardly mentioned in the NYT and WaPo. They were just bubbling up from The Atlantic's 's website to a Newsday blog last Friday, as Congress was voting.
Now that the bill has safely passed, even the liberal MSM may feel the obligation to mention them in public. Maybe even in actual print. Reporters have to cover something. More on pork? Welfare seems fresher.
5) In any case, the rump Congressional GOP and talk radio conservatives can force their hand. Why should opponents of the welfare-expanding provisions stop harping on them? Has Obama been asked about his welfare un-reform at a press conference yet? I don't think so. He will have more press conferences. It won't be an easy question to answer. (Reporters could also ask his HHS secretary ... Oh wait. Never mind.)
Welfare is a liberal sore spot that, if Republicans play it right, could become a bleeding open wound for the administration. Voters probably thought they'd settled the dole-vs.-work issue back in 1996. Obama will be fulfilling the crude GOP stereotype of his party if he even waffles on reopening it.
Remember that Newt Gingirch rode the welfare issue to power after haranguing about "the liberal welfare state" for a few election cycles. The new welfare debate, if it happens, won't necessarily be that prolonged. The main question is whether the Administration can effectively paper over the meaning of what's in the stimulus. If not, Congress is still in session. It seems to me there is a real chance for Republicans to get it to "revisit" that part of the bill, as they say in Washington. Obama may decide he needs to excise the most poisonous part of the stimulus to save the rest of his New New Deal.
P.S.: No, the stimulus bill doesn't fully unravel welfare reform--after 1996, welfare is no longer an individual "entitlement," for one thing (a term or art that triggered a whole slew of court-enforced rights). The time limits and work requirements are still at least formally in place. States can still do what they want, in theory, within much broader limits than under the old AFDC program. Many states, with little money to spare, may still refuse to try to expand their caseloads (even if they now have an 80% federal subsidy to do it). A debate on the issue might, in fact, help ensure that states don't go crazy and recreate the bloated and socially disastrous welfare caseloads of the three decades before 1996.
More important, the debate would stop the Money Liberals in the Washington "antipoverty community"--e.g., Peter Edelman and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities crowd-- before they can complete the rest of their agenda, which does involve unraveling welfare reform (eliminating work requirements, for example). Preserving Clinton's biggest domestic achievement isn't something you should want "even" if you're a liberal who believes in affirmative government. It's something you should want especially if you're a liberal who believes in affirmative government.
Filed under: welfare reform, STIMULUS
#
Not Faster Enough
Posted Friday, February 13, 2009 3:23 PM | By Mickey Kaus
MSM (in the form of Newsday) only now just waking up to the welfare-expanding, work-relaxing clauses hidden in the stimulus bill. ... It's not like it's the day of the vote. ... Newsday was tipped off by Ambinder's page, apparently. ... A couple more weeks of debate and, who knows, maybe the story would filter up to the New York Times (though it would still have to get past the paper's "meddling" editors.**). ... [Thanks to reader S.]
**-- "Every hour, a new set of instructions on what the story should say came from New York, believe it or not."--Dean Baquet. ... 3:33 P.M.
___________________________
Filed under: welfare reform, MSM DINOSAURS, STIMULUS
#
Got Juice?
Posted Friday, February 13, 2009 10:21 AM | By Mickey Kaus
Marc Ambinder is now onto the stimulus' "get-more-people-on-welfare" provisions, even if nobody else is. He offers a summary of the issue and then a Dem response (even though his summary included Dem responses). A few points.
1) Ambinder writes
a number of conservatives and even liberals have written to me wondering why the GOP isn't making more of a fuss about this. The answers are fairly simple: they want to avoid being seen as poor-people bashers, they know that Americans still associate welfare with minorities, and there are different sensitivities they must consider when making political claims about the priorities of the first black president. [E.A.]
If Republicans are unwilling to defend work over welfare because we have a black president(!), they might as well all retire en masse now. Hard to believe even GOP consultants are dumb enough to give this advice.
2) See, the MSM doesn't care! Ambinder's anonymous Dem responder argues
A pretty clear lesson of the four-year long welfare reauthorization debate was that there wasn't much political juice left in the issue -- didn't exactly see it on page one much, did you? [E.A.]
Hmm. Maybe that's because the reauthorization debate didn't threaten to roll back reform, and the caseloads were down. Now a) the Dems are starting to roll back reform, in order to encourage states to b) get caseloads back up. ... And there's something fallacious (i.e. circular) about a liberal Dem citing MSM coverage as if the New York Times was an infallible oracle of the people, as opposed to an infallible oracle of liberal Dems. This is what you see when you look up "cocooning" in the dictionary! ...
3) Ambinder's anonymous Democrat says his party has always been suspicious of the "caseload reduction credit," fearing that states will just push people off the rolls in order to get the credit (whether or not those recipients find jobs).
Why exactly should a state get credit towards the work participation standards just because they have fewer people on the caseload? The evidence is pretty clear that it's not like 100% of people who leave welfare get jobs
A fair point--except that in this case it's the Dems who are preserving the caseload reduction credit. They don't want states to have to meet the "work participation standards" (i.e. make recipients work or train) so they've written the bill to let them to wriggle out of them using the "reduction" credit even when, as Dems intend, their caseloads start expanding. ... P.S.: As with "card check," Ambinder is a bit off on the details, in a spun-by-Dem-sources direction. He writes, confusingly,
States get "casework reduction credits" for the number of people they move off of the rolls; these credits help states meet a mandated 50% threshold for their TANF recipients to perform some type of work-related activity. The idea here -- if I'm reading the bill correctly -- is that the caseload reduction credit would effectively be "updated" to account for economic emergencies. State would get more welfare funds without letting their threshold dip below 50%.
But the effect of the Dem stimulus' "caseload reduction" finagling is precisely to let the mandated "work participation" standards dip below 50% of the caseload. Example: Suppose a state's caseload was 100 in 2005. Then it dropped to 85 in 2007 and 80 in 2008 before rising to 90 in 2009 and (thanks to the stimulus' new federal incentives for caseload expansion) 110 in 2010. The stimulus bill lets states pretend that the caseload has stayed at 80, giving them a "reduction credit" of 20% from the 2005 baseline. This credit is deducted, point by point, from the 50% "work participation" requirement--meaning that our hypothetical state would only have to get 30% of its recipients into work or training activities. For the other 70%, it's "come on down and get your cash--and stick around since the feds are now paying most of the bill."
4) Ambinder says
Democrats respond, forcefully, that in ordinary recessions, unemployment benefits might tide families over, but during a mini-depression, there are no jobs to push welfare recipients into.
That's true, in at least some cases--though DeParle reports that some state administrators say there are still jobs of the type welfare recipients typically take. But lack of jobs isn't a reason to loosen work requirements. It's a reason for the government to provide the jobs. Have the Dems never heard of "workfare"? Give recipients useful community service work, and if they do the work then they get the cash. Simple. They can hold their heads up.
Of course, Dems have heard of workfare--and they know that AFSCME hates workfare (fearing ex-recipients will do their jobs for less). But AFSCME is pushing on an open door. Money Liberals don't really need to be pressured into relaxing work requirements. They've never liked work requirements, including "workfare," and are always looking for an excuse to say "It's OK to come back on the dole."
And the "mini-depression" is certainly no reason recipients can't be required to train (or if necessary go to school and get their GEDs).
P.P.S.: Stimulus welfare provisions a potential issue in the fight over Gillibrand's seat? We'll see about that juice. .. 12:58 P.M.
___________________________
Filed under: welfare reform, STIMULUS
#
It's on
Posted Friday, February 13, 2009 9:36 AM | By Mickey Kaus
Video #2: Senator Harry Reid, you're facing a tough reelection fight. This vid's for you! ... 9:45 A.M.
___________________________
#
Don't look now
Posted Friday, February 13, 2009 1:30 AM | By Mickey Kaus
Democrats down to the bare-minimum 60 votes on the stimulus in the Senate? ... P.S.: Do House Dems really think that drawing the process out, by letting the Senate GOPs filibuster, will win it for them? From The Hill:
“Make them filibuster” has been a rallying cry of rank-and-file Democrats all week, who say the strategy would portray Republicans as obstructionists and ultimately lead to legislation that better reflects the interests of the party.
Hmm. Filibustering Republicans would have a lot to talk about! My guess is the longer the bill stays un-passed, the more sordid details will come out and the greater the chance that it will be pecked to death. House Dems are deluded cocooning. ... 1:45 P.M.
___________________________
Filed under: STIMULUS
#
Nastier, Please!
Posted Thursday, February 12, 2009 8:22 PM | By Mickey Kaus
That was fast: 1) First video attacking the welfare-expanding provisions hidden in the stimulus package, from 24th State. Pointed and danceable! But not an attack ad directed at a specific, vulnerable Dem who voted for the bill. That's what we want. In my neck of the woods a vulnerable incumbent might be Jane Harman, for example. But you could pick any of Rahm's 2006 red-state recruits. Or a purplish Dem Senator (Bayh, Dorgan, Lincoln). Do they want to defend against the charge that they voted to undermine Clinton's biggest domestic achievement?
2) Senator Richard Burr, Republican from North Carolina, has cited the welfare provisions when justifying his opposition to the stimulus bill in the local press:
He said he did not like some provisions, such as an extension of the Davis-Bacon act and what he calls a rollback of the 1990s welfare reform, in the bill.
The Davis-Bacon Act requires people getting federal contracts to pay a prevailing wage, which Burr said is usually interpreted as the highest wages in an area. He said the bill also hampers efforts to get people off the welfare rolls.
3) Quin Hillyer of American Spectator thinks the welfare issue is the last hope for sinking the whole package (his goal, not mine). He wants "hundreds of thousands of citizens" to flood Congressional offices with questions on the subject. Better call fast! ...
4) Congressional Democrats, in their handouts, routinely bury the welfare news (if it's mentioned at all) under more popular talk of unemployment insurance and "Making Work Pay" tax cuts. The one internal Dem flyer I've seen refers only cryptically, at the very bottom of the page, to "keeping ... Temporary Assistance for Needy Families [the basic welfare program] from being overloaded." No mention of expanding it even where it's not necessarily "overloaded" and relaxing work and training requirements. It's entirely possible many Congressional Democrats don't know how bad the bill's welfare provisions are. ..
5) Meanwhile, the silence in the NYT's news pages and in WaPo (and on the evening news) has been kind of deafening, no? Even Jason DeParle, in a piece specifically about welfare ("The 'W' Word") managed to not even mention the stimulus bill's actual welfare-expansion provision. If I were paranoid I'd say it's almost as if the MSM was in on the conspiracy! ... 9:09 P.M.
___________________________
Filed under: welfare reform
#
Time to Unleash You Tube Again?
Posted Thursday, February 12, 2009 11:07 AM | By Mickey Kaus
National Review says there's "not much" Republicans can do about provisions in the stimulus intended to expand welfare caseloads and undermine the work requirements of the landmark 1996 welfare reform law. That may be true. But there is something National Review's readers--and others who'd like to defend welfare reform--can do.
During the immigration debate of 2007, an emailer suggested that one way readers might influence Congress would be to "go ahead and mash up some negative ads" on the issue and post them on You Tube. Readers responded, and some of the ads were quite good. I think they had an impact--not by swaying public opinion, but by striking fear into heart of legislators by demonstrating what they might face in their reelection campaigns if they voted for the Bush-McCain semi-amnesty bill. The bill died.
It wouldn't be hard to do the same thing with the anti-welfare-reform provisions in the stimulus bill. Again, the idea would not be to influence the public. The idea would be to directly terrify Democratic legislators worried about their reelections by giving them a taste of how their vote might play. (It helps that many politicians are generally terrified of You Tube and other new information technologies they can't control.) Obama aide Rahm Emanuel, for one, is known to be sensitive to the political potency of "wedge" issues like welfare and immigration.
As with immigration, the basic text of the ads practically writes itself: "In 1996, Congress passed the landmark. .. . Caseloads fell by 70 percent. ... Now Congressman X wants to undo that success ..." etc. But I don't have the skill or creativity to do the job of putting one of these ads together, let alone to do the job well. Some of you do.
It's probably too late. The House is scheduled to vote on the stimulus package ... er, tomorrow.** But things move fast these days! And even if the bill passes, if there is enough of a stink embarrassed (or terrified) legislators might change it. Anyway, it seems worth a shot.
If you build them, I will link.
**--I'm assuming the welfare provisions are still in the bill. [Update: They are, I'm told. $5 billion to expand welfare.] They were in both the House and Senate versions. ... My goal isn't to use the welfare issue to sink the stimulus, if that were even possible. It is to get the welfare provisions removed or reversed. Your goals may vary.
More: Why would Republicans make an issue of marsh mice when they have welfare, a proven hot button (for good reason)? Hello?. ... They could even be bipartisan about it, noting that it's Clinton's achievement that's being undermined. ... P.S.: Maybe it's no accident-- the GOPs secretly want the welfare provision to pass and hope the resulting caseload boom will be a good issue to run on in 2010. They're saving their best shot for later. But that would be unpatriotic! It would also demonstrate an uncharacteristic amount of long-term thinking. ... 11:34 A.M.
___________________________
Filed under: welfare reform, STIMULUS
#
Will Krugman Thank the Centrists?
Posted Wednesday, February 11, 2009 10:11 PM | By Mickey Kaus
Steven Pearlstein argues that the ideal stimulus spending "is that which creates jobs and economic activity now, has big payoffs later and disappears from future budgets." The last criterion doesn't get much attention in many pro-stimulus arguments (including Pearlstein's), but it's important if you care about deficits. It's also important if you think the claim of government on the national GDP is limited, and you want there to be room for universal health insurance down the road. And, Paul Krugman even claims (for somewhat tricky technical reasons), it's important if you care about maximum stimulus, because "temporary government spending has a bigger effect"--i.e. it's better at creating new demand than spending that won't disappear from future budgets.
So if the big dispute in the stimulus conference committee was over school construction spending, where
House Democrats are pushing to have school-repair funding listed as a recurring expense; Senate Republicans want such an allocation to be a one-time-only deal.
And if as a result of the moderate GOP Senate crossovers like Susan Collins holding firm, the school construction spending will be a one-time only deal ...
Then haven't the much-criticized Senate centrists, at least on this one issue, helped produce a better stimulus bill--not just a lower-deficit stimulus bill, or a stimulus bill that leaves a bit of room for health care, but, according to Krugman, a more stimulating stimulus bill? ... Am I missing something? ... 11:06 P.M.
___________________________
Filed under: STIMULUS
#
Special Fratricidal Edition
Posted Wednesday, February 11, 2009 6:24 PM | By Mickey Kaus
I apologize for the dropped posts (now back). Slate's new blogging system is cr ... undergoing continuous improvement! Lucky I'm not the type to let that sort of thing drive me crazy ... If anyone notices any other missing posts, please let me know. ... Meanwhile, Andrew Sullivan's bellicose and bullying "New Orwell" era archives magically reappear at the very moment they come in handy for him. Funny how that happens! ... 6:46 P.M.
___________________________
You mean "dollar cost averaging" is a bad idea? Experts (not just Suze Orman) have been telling me to do that for decades. Still seems smarter than trying to time the market. ... [via Gawker] 6:35 P.M.
___________________________
Filed under: EXCITABLE!
#
Turning Over the Rock
Posted Wednesday, February 11, 2009 12:31 PM | By Mickey Kaus
Robert Rector and Katherine Bradley note that the anti-welfare-reform provisions in the stimulus bill aren't as bad as I'd feared. They're worse. They attempt replicate the fiscal mechanics of the old welfare (AFDC) "entitlement," but with a bigger incentive to welfare expansion:
For the first time since 1996, the federal government would begin paying states bonuses to increase their welfare caseloads. Indeed, the new welfare system created by the stimulus bills is actually worse than the old AFDC program because it rewards the states more heavily to increase their caseloads. Under the stimulus bills, the federal government will pay 80 percent of cost for each new family that a state enrolls in welfare; this matching rate is far higher than it was under AFDC.
12:58 P.M.
___________________________
On “the continuing fraud of Mickey Kaus”
Be contrarian for the sake of stirring things up and aiding the ferment of ideas.
But always, always, always to annoy and degrade liberals, Conor. That's simply the case.
"
If you'll check the updates, you'll see I've conceded that Kaus should be able to call himself whatever he wants.
"
Right and you’re operating from the stance that it’s better to be liberal than to be conservative. I fail to see how, other than being on opposite sides of the spectrum, it’s any different…?
Malkin is proud to be a conservative. I am proud to be a liberal. Kaus is contemptuous-- contemptuous, utterly and completely, and I choose that word with care-- of liberalism. Not of what has become of liberalism, not of where liberalism is headed, but of liberalism himself.
"
I only go back to this because it so irks me when say, Michelle Malkin or someone in her far-right coalition lambastes a centrist conservative in this very same way.
Yes, but Malkin does so from the position that it's better to be conservative than to be liberal. Kaus renders liberal a term of shame. I'm going to post a compendium of quotes for you guys sometime soon.
"
So neoliberals worked across the aisle with Bush and co. so what?
No. Neoliberals made progressivism into an object of ridicule while claiming to be reformers and utterly destroyed the ability of the ideology to defend itself against movement conservatism, which, I say without hint of controversy, has spelled utter disaster for the country for 8 years.
What specific stance did Mickey Kaus take that damaged liberals or empowered Bush?
The stance that liberalism is always the problem, the stance that the best way forward for any liberal in any situation is to tack to the right, the stance that the greatest danger to this country is always from the left and not from the right. None of those categoricals is anyway unfair or at all a misrepresentation of what Kaus thinks and says; if you think so, you have not accurately followed his position. Kaus does not just often critique liberalism; he makes critiquing liberalism his constant purpose, and he does it in a way that is not constructive, bur corrosive, because it assumes and asserts that the problem is always liberalism and its values. Kaus and the neoliberals didn't reform liberalism, they destroyed its foundations, and perpetuated the idea that the media should always look skeptical on any kind of left-wing ideas of people. That attitude seeped into our culture and created the conditions that left no credible opposition to the Bushite right. The consequences for our country have been terrible. The damage had been done by the Iraq war; liberalism had already been hamstrung, and liberal already turned into an epithet. That's not just because of Rush Limbaugh and a compliant media but because of people like Mickey Kaus telling liberals that they should feel ashamed to demonstrate fidelity to our most basic, most important policies and positions.
Mickey Kaus has contempt for liberalism. Read his blog, and see if you can tell me with honesty that this isn't the case. A reformer works to better his ideology and its core principles; Kaus has worked only to damage them and to marginalize those who would stand for them. And the time has come for decent people whose side was not the one responsible for the utter failure of the last eight years to say "enough".