Goring Someone Else's Ox

Yesterday, when I was trying to work, my most financially successful friend-- one of the inventors of iTunes-- called to make idle chitchat. I wonder what those people do over there! He tried getting my attention by lurching into a topic he rarely thinks about: politics. He wanted to know about Obama's meeting with the GOP leaders and how that would impact a compromise on the Bush tax cuts. His opinion is that no one making over a billion dollars a year should get to keep his or her tax break. He would even be willing, if push comes to shove, to lower the threshold to $10 million; he's a liberal.

And for the ultimate in Republican ritual hypocrisy, we can just turn to today's Wall Street Journal where we find that semi-official GOP policy is now to oppose all earmarks-- except ones in your own state. Talk about goring someone else's ox! The Journal points to the crucial work being done on ports in Georgia and South Carolina-- and the Republican senators, Saxby Chambliss, Johnny Isakson and Lindsey Graham, who are earmarking them to completion.

Earmarks were denounced by conservative activists during the recent midterm election campaigns, and Republicans in both chambers banned them last month. But several GOP senators have suggested they'll make exceptions if they see fit, including three of the four from Georgia and South Carolina.

...Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) supports the earmark ban but has vowed to earmark funds for the Charleston port if necessary. "I'm in a spot where I have to get the port deepened for economic reasons," he said.

...Georgia's Republican senators are touting their opposition to earmarks but also suggesting they'll do whatever it takes for the port. "My position has consistently been, I'm going to support reform or total elimination of earmarks," said Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R., Ga.). "But if a project is vital to the economy and jobs of my state, I'm sent here by the people of my state to make sure their interests are looked after."

Sen. Johnny Isakson (R., Ga.), who also supported the ban, said he would "continue to fight for funding for projects such as the expansion of the Savannah port that is critical to my state and to U.S. trade."

Many senators are allowing themselves such wiggle room. Other Republicans oppose the ban outright and are not committed to abstaining from earmarks at all. Democrats, who have a majority in the Senate, have not adopted a ban.

And what about anti-earmark fanatic, Jim DeMint? He's not budging, even if the port of Charleston fails and brings down the whole South Carolina economy. Take that, you damn libruls!

It's so much easier for rightists to assuage their hopped up base by screaming about "sacrilegious art," throwing Latinos and other "foreigners" to the dogs or by stomping on the heads of gay and lesbian active duty service members, than actually doing anything that will get anyone's nose bent out of joint-- at least not anyone who "counts." This week most Republican senators will vote against repealing DADT-- even the ones who claimed they were only opposed until the Pentagon issued it's report-- and against the DREAM Act, even though fully 66% of the American people support it, "including majorities of Democrats (81%), independents (60%), and even Republicans (57%)!"

But Republicans don't count on non-Cuban Hispanics, on the non-closeted LGBT community or on low income workers for their votes. So they don't really care what these communities think or do or say. For the sake of appearances-- even Republicans need to look moderate and unbigoted from time to time to help them with dizzy independents-- more than a few Republican senators claimed they just wanted to wait until the Pentagon reported on what the impact of repealing DADT would be before they voted. Now the military brass has reported and they reported that the ridiculous and outmoded law should be immediately repealed for the sake of national security. But the same freaks who opposed it-- and who would have opposed allowing African-Americans to serve in an integrated military before Harry Truman told them to get over themselves and just did it as Commander-in-Chief, are unlikely to live up to their words. Take that Maine profile in courage, Olympia Snowe, currently quaking in her boots over a teabagger primary challenge. In refusing to support repeal earlier this year this is what she said:

Moreover, as I have previously stated, given that the law implementing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy has been in place for nearly 17 years, I agree that it is overdue for a thorough review. The question is, whether we should be voting on this issue before we have the benefit of the comprehensive review that President Obama’s Secretary of Defense ordered in March, to secure the input of our men and women in uniform during this time of war-- as the Joint Chiefs of Staff from all of the services have requested prior to any vote. We should all have the opportunity to review that report which is to be completed on December 1, as we reevaluate this policy and the implementation of any new changes.

I can't wait to hear her excuse for not voting for it now. And I doubt it will be a truthful, "I'm afraid of the damn teabaggers. They just elected one as governor of my idiotic state."


Here's the summary of the Pentagon's finding's that Snowe and her colleagues will have to look for excuses in to support McCain's narrow-minded, bigot-rich filibuster:

- 70% of Service members said they would be able to “work together to get the job done” with a gay servicemember in their immediate units.

- 69% said they worked in a unit with a co-worker that they believed to be homosexual.

- 92% stated that their unit’s “ability to work together,” with a gay person was “very good, “good” or “neither good nor poor.” (89% for those in Army combat arms units, 84% for those in Marine combat arms units.)

- 74% of spouses of military service-members say repeal of DADT would have no impact on their view of whether their husbands or wives should continue to serve.

- 30% overall (and 40–60% in the Marine Corps and in various combat arms specialties) expressed negative views or concerns about the impact of a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

And although, no one's going to accuse the current occupant of the White House of having the cajones of a Harry Truman, he popped his head out yesterday after the Pentagon report to give this statement in support of repeal:

As Commander in Chief, I have pledged to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law because it weakens our national security, diminishes our military readiness, and violates fundamental American principles of fairness and equality by preventing patriotic Americans who are gay from serving openly in our armed forces. At the same time, as Commander in Chief, I am committed to ensuring that we understand the implications of this transition, and maintain good order and discipline within our military ranks. That is why I directed the Department of Defense earlier this year to begin preparing for a transition to a new policy. 
 
Today’s report confirms that a strong majority of our military men and women and their families-- more than two thirds-- are prepared to serve alongside Americans who are openly gay and lesbian. This report also confirms that, by every measure-- from unit cohesion to recruitment and retention to family readiness-- we can transition to a new policy in a responsible manner that ensures our military strength and national security. And for the first time since this law was enacted 17 years ago today, both the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have publicly endorsed ending this policy.
 
With our nation at war and so many Americans serving on the front lines, our troops and their families deserve the certainty that can only come when an act of Congress ends this discriminatory policy once and for all. The House of Representatives has already passed the necessary legislation. Today I call on the Senate to act as soon as possible so I can sign this repeal into law this year and ensure that Americans who are willing to risk their lives for their country are treated fairly and equally. Our troops represent the virtues of selfless sacrifice and love of country that have enabled our freedoms. I am absolutely confident that they will adapt to this change and remain the best led, best trained, best equipped fighting force the world has ever known.

On the other hand, much more difficult for these heroes in the Senate to deal with would be a thorny topic like the billions of wasted dollars on the ethanol boondoggle. As the Wall Street Journal reported yesterday, there's a broad bipartisan consensus-- eveyone from MoveOn.org to FreedomWorks-- forming around ending the taxpayer subsidies for ethanol. But some of the loudest right-wing voices for a balanced budget and for abolishing Medicare and Social Security and cutting wages on low income workers, are screaming the loudest about the subsidies. They don't want their ox gored.

The tax credit, which is due to expire Dec. 31, cost the government $4 billion in 2008 and could cost $6.75 billion a year by 2015, according to the Government Accountability Office. That has made it a target for conservatives who want to cut federal spending and handouts to private interests. On the left, ethanol’s image as a “green” fuel has taken a hit as environmentalists-- including former Vice President Al Gore-- have swung to the view that the energy benefits of using corn as fuel are marginal. Some environmentalists and hunger groups complain corn ethanol drives up the cost of food without making a real dent in global greenhouse gas emissions, claims that the ethanol industry has disputed.

As Markos pointed out at Daily Kos yesterday, " As much as the village likes to pretend otherwise, fact is, Republicans don't give a damn about the deficit. They grow them, while Democratic administrations shrink them. That's the objective and provable reality, no matter what anyone else might think."

Ethanol subsidies have had a two-track level of support-- farm state legislators of both parties support them, as well as anyone with presidential ambitions. Iowa, anyone? But even beyond the primaries, The midwest is a key electoral battleground, and ethanol is huge in Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. South Dakota isn't competitive at the presidential level, but one congressional district in Nebraska is (1 EV) as well as another 68 EVs in the other states (minus a handful they'll lose in next year reapportionment).

That's quite a few senators who will fight to protect free government money to their agricultural sector. Not a single one of those states is represented in the letter calling for the abolition of those subsidies. And it's significant money. From the letter:

We are writing to make you aware that we do not support an extension of either the 54 cent-per-gallon tariff on ethanol imports or the 45 cent-per-gallon subsidy for blending ethanol into gasoline. These provisions are fiscally irresponsible and environmentally unwise, and their extension would make our country more dependent on foreign oil. Subsidizing blending ethanol into gasoline is fiscally indefensible. If the current subsidy is extended for five years, the Federal Treasury would pay oil companies at least $31 billion to use 69 billion gallons of corn ethanol that the Federal Renewable Fuels Standard already requires them to use. We cannot afford to pay industry for following the law...

Democrats will fall along regional lines on the matter, like they always do. Wasteful spending in Iowa won't seem so wasteful to Iowa's Democratic congressional delegation. And in normal times, the same would apply to the region's Republicans.

But these aren't normal times, with the teabaggers demanding that Republicans pay more than lip service to deficit reduction. And there's no doubt that these subsidies aren't just wasteful, but they're unsound on any possible policy grounds. Subsidizing Big Oil and Big Agribusiness for environmentally unsound ethanol subsidies is madness, and has only persisted as long as it has because of Iowa's presidential clout.

And in a presidential cycle where Republicans will be tripping over themselves to curry favor with the teabaggers and with Iowans ... well, this topic should prove entertaining to say the least.