×
- I wish I could say I oppose Republicans having more power in Congress because I disagree with their policies, but that would imply that Republicans actually have a policy agenda. Right now, their agenda is a super-secret surprise that can't be revealed in public because it would become a "campaign issue." But rest assured, John Boehner has vowed to shut down the federal government and enact zero regulations for a year, regardless of what the public actually wants.
- Looks like I wasn't the only one to notice this Sheryl Gay Stolberg piece in the NY Times describing the "paradox" of Obama's presidency. Look, this isn't complicated. The public may have opinions on the legislative successes of the 111th Congress and the Obama administration, but that pales in comparison to the state of the economy. Until that changes -- not any time soon -- those in power will pay a price at the polls. No paradox here.
- Philip Klein responds to the argument that conservatives don't care about the deficit and notes that "if I were to sum up my view of true fiscal conservatism in one easy sentence, it would be: If government does less, it costs less, and can charge less." Well, sure. But this gets at my fundamental question for the limited-government crowd: When, exactly, does government become "too big?" What programs should the government run, and how expansive should they be? Is it the size of the individual programs that matters or the cumulative size of the federal government? Until these specifics are filled out, I'm not impressed by vague commitments to "small government."
- Remainders: Financial regulation is not the same thing as Wall Street reform; the American public, distilled to a single poll result; posts like this make me rejoice The Atlantic's hiring of Ta-Nehisi Coates; Claire McCaskill doesn't give a damn about climate change; I do not comprehend how anybody can defend the Catholic Church as an institution; and at this point the only term I can think of to describe Karl Rove is "scumbag."
--Mori Dinauer
