This Week in Political News -- 12/1/11

DEMOCRATS PAVE WAY FOR INDEFINITE DETENTION: On Tuesday, the Senate -- the Democratically-controlled Senate, mind you -- took a giant leap forward toward enacting seriously terrible, morally repugnant legislation on detainee policy. By a 60-38 vote, it defeated an amendment, introduced by Colorado’s own Mark Udall, that would have stripped the two most odious provisions of the National Defense Authorization Authorization. The first provision would require military detention rather than civil detention for terrorist suspects, unless the President grants a special, politically-toxic waiver. The second provision enacts a law authorizing indefinite military detention -- without trial -- of anyone suspected of having ties to al Qaeda or any other group affiliated with them. Both provisions would apply to suspects picked up in the United States (ie, not “on the battlefield”), though the first one, requiring military detention, would not apply to American citizens. The part allowing indefinite detention of terrorism suspects, by contrast, has no exception for American citizens. As Dahlia Lithwick explains, “So forget the presumption of innocence. Forget the protections of the Constitution. If you are suspected of terrorism, you may be held indefinitely, maybe even shipped off to Guantanamo.” Go read Dahlia’s whole piece. It’s a barnburner. (One paritcularly excellent point she makes is that we are stupid if we think these vast new military police powers will be limited to terrorism. Remember that the Patriot Act, supposedly enacted to ensure that another terrorist attack never happens, has been used to investigate and prosecute drug 1,600 cases, versus only 15 terrorism cases.)

FEDERAL JUDGE SCORES ONE FOR THE 99%: Earlier this year, the SEC sued Citigroup for fraud, “alleging that the bank sold investors mortgage-bank securities that the bank knew would default, while claiming that the securities were safe and had been ‘rigorously selected by an independent investment adviser.’” As is typical for SEC suits, the agency quickly reached a settlement with Citi that allowed the bank to escape admissions of guilt and pay a quick $250 million fine -- and to keep the details of what actually happened under wraps. But the case didn’t come out as planned, when a federal judge earlier this week refused to enact the settlement agreement. Judge Rakoff said that allowing the bank to settle without admitting guilt “is neither reasonable, nor fair, nor adequate, nor in the public interest.” YLS Professor John Macey examines the opinion: “Adopting the language of the Occupy Wall Street movement, Rakoff ruled that if judges do not have enough information on which to base their decisions, then the deployment of judicial power ‘serves no lawful or moral purpose and is simply an engine of oppression.’ ‘In any case like this,’ Rakoff wrote, ‘that touches on the transparency of financial markets whose gyrations have so depressed our economy and debilitated our lives, there is an overriding public interest in knowing the truth.’” The judge told the parties to be ready for trial by July. Here’s a great video of Eliot Spitzer (yes, yes, I know) talking about the case and other economic issues. (Is it possible to watch that and not think, What an absurd waste of political talent?)

WELL FOLKS, THIS IS HAPPENING: I don’t really know what to say. Newt Gingrich -- Newt Gingrich -- is currently leading the GOP presidential field. I know, I know -- we’ve been here before. First it was Perry. Then it was Cain. Both have disintegrated so catastrophically it’s almost incredible. And so perhaps I am being naive or engaging in semi-wishful, semi-terrified thinking, but this Newt surge feels different. First, there’s the extent of it: Newt currently tops the field nationally with 38% to Romney’s 17%. That’s a 21-point lead, the largest that has been recorded in this cycle so far. And yes, national polls are silly. But check out Florida, where Gingrich leads Romney by a whopping 24 points; and South Carolina, where he leads Romney by 23 points; and Iowa, where he has an 8 point lead. These are real numbers! Second, there’s the timing. Surging now, with only a five short weeks before the Iowa caucuses, is pretty idea. There’s not that much time for Gingrich to screw up, especially since voters will be paying less attention around the holidays. On the other hand, this year there’s an unusually enormous time lage between the earliest primaries and Super Tuesday, leading Nate Silver to suggest there could be something like a “Buyer’s Remorse Primary,” in which, by March, GOP voters have gotten their Romney-hatred out of their system and come to their senses that the Mittster is their only chance at winning this thing. So if Newt wins some early states, Mitt has time not only to re-sell himself to the voters and fight against the “momentum” that would otherwise carry an early victor, but also the advantage of a better ground game and deeper pockets. Which all means this think likely won’t be over anytime soon.

FAREWELL BARNEY, AND THANKS FOR THE FUN: This week, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) announced that this will be his last term in the House -- his 16th term in office. Like many lefties, I will be very sad to see Frank go. Not only is he sharp, witty, and eminently entertaining, he is by far one of the smartest people on the Hill, and has a deep interest and comfort with the gritty details of policy. Not to mention the fact that he was and is a pathbreaker for gay rights and the gay community. (Here he is discussing with pride his coming out in 1987.) There’s also concern that, without his strong stewardship, there’s a chance that his final flagship policy -- the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill -- could be significantly weakened. Anyway, enjoy some of his best YouTube moments here. And here is he in his press announcement, gleefully anticipating a Gingrich nomination and what it will mean for the debate on gay rights. And here are some of his best insults to reporters.

GOOD NEWS -- Marine Commandant Changes Mind on DADT: Marine Commandant Gen. James Amos was one of the few military leader who strongly supported the DADT policy and advocated forcefully against its repeal. He suggested that allowing gays to serve openly could be a deadly “distraction” to Marines that could endanger their lives. But in an interview with the AP earlier this week, Amos stated that he is “very pleased” with how repeal is going, and said that he’s received almost no concerns or complaints about the change in policy. I’m glad Amos has seen the light, but will he and the other bigots who fought tooth and nail against repeal (I’m looking at you, John McCain) ever be called to account for how insanely wrong they were? Here’s Tom Ricks quoting an active duty major: “At what point in time should journalists, bloggers, etc ... hold those who made wildly inaccurate predications on the lifting of the ban accountable? All the retired generals and officers (LTG Mixon, Merrill A. McPeak and Col. Dave Bedey for example) who predicted that soldiers would leave the military by the thousands, or John McCain and other politicians describing how it would affect us as a fighting force? At some point I feel that the public should be reminded of their predictions so the next time they make predictions that are way off the mark, fewer people will give them credence.” Hold politicians accountable for their miserable, bigoted, totally false predictions? You still have so much to learn, young grasshopper.

Chart of the Week: The era of corporate profits.
Must Reads of the Week: These two companion pieces were published last week, and they’re both quite long, but they’re really, really worth a read. In the first, Jonathan Chait goes through the history of liberals’ disenchantment with Democratic presidents -- no matter who they are or what they do. (Note: Even though the headline is pretty aggressive, the article is not that way at all.) In the second, ex-Bushie David Frum lays out exactly how the GOP has lost its marbles. It’s an excellent piece. Take 20 minutes and enjoy them both! (But if you have time for only one, do Frum’s.)
Another Must Read: An absolute moron’s guide to the European debt crisis.
Fun Video of the Week: Fox News’ freak-out about Obama’s God-less Thanksgiving video.

This Week in Political News -- 10/13/11

THIS WEEK IN POLITICAL NEWS -- 10/13/11

GENERAL GOP UPDATE: Last week, I was being sort of tongue-in-cheek when I declared Herman Cain the new GOP frontrunner. Turns out I was actually just prescient: A new NBC/WSJ poll shows Cain in the lead, coming in as the first choice for 27 percent of Republicans (Romney comes in at 23% and Perry at 16%). PPP has Cain over Romney 30-22% in Iowa, and 30-22% nationally. Equally striking about these polls is Perry’s dramatic downfall. He’s lost nearly half his support from September to October, according to PPP; NBC/WSJ show him losing 20 points since August. And those numbers lead to yet another shocking realization: Almost none of Perry’s former supporters have moved to Romney, whose support has barely moved in the last few months, stuck around 20ish percent. I think GOP voters really, really don’t like Romney -- and who can blame them? He was strikingly liberal in his past life, he has switched his position on every conceivable issue item, he is slick and huckster-like, and he’s filthy rich while still parading around saying he’s part of the middle class.
Part of Cain’s success -- and certainly part of Perry’s massive decline -- can be attributed to the debates. There was another one this week, hosted by Charlie Rose (who moved from genuine puzzlement to exasperation as it slowly dawned on him that the people seated around his debate table exist in a completely alternate universe). The best (and by best, I mean most forehead-onto-the-table-inducing) was this Rick Perry gem, in response to a question about China and trade policies: “What we need to be focused on in this country today is not whether or not we are going to have this policy or that policy. … We don't need any plan to pass Congress.” Policies? Passable plans? Who needs ‘em when you can have a big strong cowboy president who shoots puppies with handguns?! In a two hour debate, I think I saw Perry speak maybe 5 or 6 times; most of the time he was slumped back in his chair, looking either bemused or sleepy, depending on the camera angle.

Other highlights: First, and most disappointing, was Jon “Reasonable Man” Huntsman’s parroting the absurd, long-debunked right-wing rumor that health reform entails the hiring of 20,000 new IRS agents. You had Newt Gingrich insisting in the first 5 minutes that Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd should be thrown in jail. You have Cain saying his economic advice comes from an “economist” from Cleveland who’s actually just a guy with a college degree in accounting. You had Michelle Bachmann claiming to have spent her “whole life in the private sector,” minutes before claiming to be a federal tax lawyer (“That’s what I do for a living”) -- all while apparently forgetting that what she actually does for a living is serve in the House of Representatives. You have Rick Santorum declaring “I want to go to war with China!” Oh, and we can’t forget Perry blaming America’s massive, decades-in-the-making income inequality on -- I kid you not -- Barack Obama. (Santorum chimed in to say that the blame is also on the rise of single mothers.)

MOVEMENT ON AMERICAN JOBS ACT?: This week, Obama’s jobs bill came up for a vote in the Senate, where the GOP successfully blocked its full consideration (ie, voting to filibuster). Enragingly, two Democrats (Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Jon Tester of Montana) joined the filibuster, thereby denying the Democrats a united front and allowing the GOP to claim bipartisan opposition to the bill. (Their explanations for their defection are wholly, pathetically unconvincing.)This is enraging not just because these people need to get in f-ing line but also because this bill is INSANELY popular. When the provisions of the bill are explained, 63% approve; 64% say it’s “a good idea” to raise taxes on the wealthy. A separate poll found 68% -- including 53% of Republicans -- support raising taxes on those making more than a quarter million dollars. The White House feels it has a winning political issue here, so it plans to keep bringing up elements of the bill and forcing Republicans to show where they stand. More importantly, Obama’s team is now directly calling out GOP obstructionism for what it is: economic sabotage aimed at political gain. In an email to supporters this week, Obama campaign manager Jim Messina was explicit about the Republican Party: “Their strategy is to suffocate the economy for the sake of what they think will be a political victory. They think that the more folks see Washington taking no action to create jobs, the better their chances in the next election. So they’re doing everything in their power to make sure nothing gets done.” This is aggressive, unprecedented -- and true.

GOP REMAINS LASER FOCUSED: Remember when Republicans ran in the midterms on a “jobs” agenda? “Where are the jobs” was their annoyingly cloy campaign tagline. And so it only made sense that the first bill the new GOP majority in the House introduced was...an abortion bill. Republicans have introduced at least 40 abortion bills since January. And while claiming they have no time to take up Obama’s jobs bill, the House spent today voting on yet another abortion-restriction bill, one that would allow any hospital to turn away a pregnant woman seeking an abortion -- even if it were an emergency and even if the hospital’s refusal could mean the woman would die. NARAL runs down the GOP’s laser focus on restricting abortion rights.

THE BUFFET RULE ADDRESSES AN ACTUAL REAL PROBLEM: A few weeks ago, Obama introduced an idea he called “the Buffet rule,” premised on the idea that billionaire Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretary, because most of his income comes through investments that are taxed at a lower rate than wages. The right immediately dismissed this as a canard (David Brooks was particularly apoplectic). But a study released today lends weight to the idea that our tax code is, in very real ways, massively skewed to favor the uber-rich. The Congressional Research Service finds that about 25% of the nation’s millionaires -- nearly 100,000 people -- pay a lower tax rate than about 10.5 million middle class Americans. Most millionaires do indeed pay more than most middle class Americans. But the chunk that violate the Buffet Rule is hardly negligible. (The regressiveness of the tax code would, of course, be dramatically worse if Cain’s 9-9-9 plan -- just endorsed by Haley Barbour and supposed budget whiz Paul Ryan -- were enacted.)

Funny Joke of the Week: A public union employee, a Tea Party guy, and a bank CEO are sitting at a table with a plate of a dozen cookies. The CEO takes 11 of the cookies, turns to the Tea Partier and says, “Watch out for that union guy; he wants your cookie.” (HT: Steve Benen)
Charts of the Week: This is why the 99% is getting angry. (Look through the whole thing.)

This Week in Political News -- 9/29/11

THIS WEEK IN POLITICAL NEWS -- 9/29/11

PERRY’S TANKING, GOP FLAILING: Last Thursday night there was yet another GOP primary debate. The debate moment that gained the most attention was the audience’s booing of a gay soldier serving in Iraq, along with the failure of any of the candidates to thank the man for his service. (The GOP audiences have become so absurd that Obama has started mentioned them, albeit obliquely, in his speeches. “That’s not reflective of who we are,” he said.) The second-most talked about moment occurred when Rick Perry completely and utterly mangled what must have been a scripted attack on Romney as a flip-flopper. (Really, watch the video. It’s painful. Just a hair’s breadth away from “I personally believe that U.S. Americans...”.) Perry’s terrible debate performance was followed by a dismal showing in last weekend’s Florida straw poll, despite his best efforts to sway the voters. Perry’s tanking, and fast -- and it led to yet another round of fantasizing about New Jersey Governor Chris Christie getting into the race. Do these people know anything about Christie? Part of the GOP’s sudden disaffection with Perry is his apostasy on illegal immigration: He passed a law providing for in-state tuition for undocumented students living in Texas, and told conservatives at last week’s debate that if they don’t support the bill, they “don’t have a heart.” Predictably, this deeply upset the GOP base, and so...they go scurrying to a governor who has stated that “being in this country without proper documentation is not a crime” and urged Congress to create a “path to citizenship” for people here illegally? They are begging a man who has called the Tea Party freakout over “Shariah Law” “crap” pushed by “crazies” to become the new GOP standard bearer? Christie supports gun control, acknowledges the existence of man-made global warming, criticizes the GOP for “overreacting” to the so-called Ground Zero mosque, and refused to join other Republican governors in challenging health reform in court. Oh and he supports tax increases. This is the man conservatives are supposedly desperate to see enter the race as an alternative to Romney and Perry? Do they know themselves at all?

OBAMA TO SCOTUS: PLEASE RULE ON HEALTH REFORM: On Wednesday, the Department of Justice asked the Supreme Court to review the Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare”) and resolve the split between the 11th Circuit, which held the individual mandate unconstitutional, and the 6th Circuit, which ruled that the law was clearly within Congress’ power. The request means that the Supreme Court will almost certainly decide a case on health reform next term -- with a decision expected just months before the 2012 election. Of course, the Court may not necessarily decide the case on the merits. It may follow the Fourth Circuit and find that the issue isn’t ripe yet and/or that the plaintiffs who challenged the law lack standing to sue. Perplexed as to why the Obama administration would want to tee up a potentially enormous loss to come just weeks before the election? People smarter than I have offered at some possible reasons why the White House wants this resolved now: The Obama DOJ -- rather than the Romney or Perry DOJ -- gets to control the case and argue forcefully for the law’s constitutionality; it shows confidence rather than delay; and, perhaps counterintuitively, it could provide a political win-win for the Obama campaign, as Rick Hasen explains: “If the Court strikes down the law, Obama makes more of an issue of a Court out of control (think FDR) during the 2012 campaign. ... If the Court upholds the law, this takes some of the wind out of the argument likely to come from the Republican presidential nominee that the health care law is unconstitutional.” But Dahlia Lithwick suggests that a rational Court may not want to get into this political morass at all, or at least not right now. “I remain unsure that there just are five justices at the high court eager to have the court itself become an election-year issue,” she writes. “I don't think Chief Justice John Roberts wants to borrow that kind of partisan trouble again so soon after Citizens United.” Time will tell. But please remember, as Andrew Koppleman explicates, the Affordable Care Act is obviously and undeniably constitutional -- though, as he concludes somewhat distressingly, “the silliness of the constitutional objections may not be enough to stop these Justices from relying on them to strike down the law.”

ALABAMA’S EXTREME ANTI-IMMIGRANT LAW: Today, the toughest anti-immigrant law in the country went into effect, in Alabama, a day after a federal court upheld some of its key provisions. The law allows state police to question and detain without bond anyone they suspect of being in this country illegally. No other underlying criminal offense is needed, just a suspicion that the person is undocumented. The law also required every single public school child to register with the state and provide proof of their citizenship through an elaborate documentation review procedure. All families who don’t pass through this process are presumed to be here illegally -- and, presumably, can automatically be arrested. Employers are required to demand documentation from anyone they suspect to be here illegally, an obvious invitation to racial profiling. So, yeah, this is bad.

THE LEGITIMACY OF THE PRESIDENCY DEPENDS ON SOME REPUBLICANS IN PENNSYLVANIA DOING THE RIGHT THING: In 2010, Republicans took over both houses of the Pennsylvania legislature and captured the governorship. The new governor decided to one-up his peers across the country -- who are enacting systematic changes to voting laws to make it less likely for Democrats to win -- by proposing a change to the state’s allocation of electoral college electors that would throw the entire legitimacy of presidential elections into question. Gov. Corbett has proposed allocating the state’s electors district-by-district, rather than on a statewide level. So in 2008, Obama would have won only 11 of Pennsylvania’s 21 electoral votes, even though he won the state popular vote by 10 points (9 electors for the 9 districts he won, plus 2 for winning the statewide vote -- meaning he and McCain would have come to a draw). This is an assault on our democracy. The electoral college already greatly reduces the power of individual votes in cities and non-swing states. This scheme would enormously elevate the impact of Pennsylvania’s rural (and Republican) voters, who are already overrepresented in Congress -- and it would take the rest of us even farther away from the popular election of the president by vastly increasing the chances of someone winning the electoral college (and the presidency) without winning the popular vote. (Akhil Amar has a good video up explaining why this is such an unprecedented and dangerous move.) The scariest part is there is nothing Democrats can do to stop this plan. Our only hope lies in Republican members of the Pennsylvania legislature doing the right thing. Luckily, the public seems to get it: 52% are against the plan, and 57% understand the move as coming from purely partisan impulses. National Republicans are lukewarm on the plan (although Rick Santorum endorsed it after stating its benefits: “It would turn it from a state Democrats rely on, as part of the base, to a state that they're gonna lose under almost any scenario."), with some state GOPers saying that it would diminish Pennsylvania’s status as a swing state. 11 of the state’s 12 GOP House members apparently are against it, saying it would make their House races more competitive (though, to be honest, I don’t quite see how that would be the case). Hearings begin on this next Tuesday.
The absolute best, most sensible, easiest, and wholly constitutional fix to the problem of the electoral college (which, lest we grow sentimental, we should remember was created to protect the power of slave states) is to enact the National Popular Vote. Under this interstate compact, states pass legislation to allocate their electors to whomever wins the national popular vote (ie, Al Gore in 2000). But those laws wouldn’t go into effect until enough states have passed equivalent laws to equal 270 electoral votes, the number necessary for an electoral victor. This way, no state risks being the first one to give up its own electors; rather, everyone jumps at the same time. New Yorker writer and personal-hero-to-Yours-Truly Hendrik Hertzberg has written lots about this; check it all out here.


Fun Video of the Week: Jon Stewart to dissatisfied GOP voters: Maybe the problem is you. (Scroll down to the video labeled Part 3)
Fact Check of the Week: Did you hear something about how Obama “scolded” the Congressional Black Caucus last week, telling them to “stop whining, stop complaining”? Did you hear how this was yet another example of Obama spitting on his base/hippie-punching, etc etc? Well, that’s really not what it was at all.

This Week in Political News

THIS WEEK IN POLITICAL NEWS -- 9/9/11

OBAMA PRESENTS HIS JOBS PLAN: I just watched the Obama speech. You all should stop what you’re doing and watch it; it’s only 30 minutes. It was exactly what I needed. He was FIRED UP and ready to go -- finally! He announced he’ll be submitting a detailed bill, called the American Jobs Act, that will include payroll tax cuts, tax credits for businesses that hire, funds to repair bridges, roads, and schools, extended unemployment insurance -- all to be paid for by methods he’ll announce next week. The plan is “considerably larger than expected, with an estimated $447 billion in stimulus money.” When was the last time Obama issued something bigger than expected?! He insisted that Congress act, and right away: Obama used the phrase “pass this bill” 12 separate times. And he specifically called out Republicans by reminding them they have supported these exact measures before. One of my favorite lines, calling for a payroll tax cut: “I know some of you have sworn oaths to never raise any taxes on anyone for as long as you live. Now is not the time to carve out an exception and raise middle-class taxes, which is why you should pass this bill right away.” Another great line, which can be seen as a swipe at Rick Perry: “We shouldn’t be in a race to the bottom, where we try to offer the cheapest labor and the worst pollution standards. America should be in a race to the top. And I believe that’s a race we can win.” One more, which only comes across half as good in text: “Should we keep tax loopholes for oil companies? Or should we use that money to give small business owners a tax credit when they hire new workers? Because we can't afford to do both. Should we keep tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires? Or should we put teachers back to work so our kids can graduate ready for college and good jobs? Right now, we can't afford to do both. This isn't political grandstanding. This isn't class warfare. This is simple math. These are real choices that we have to make. And I'm pretty sure I know what most Americans would choose. It's not even close. And it's time for us to do what's right for our future.” And then he ended by declaring that he will “take that message to every corner of this country.” In other words, Repubs, he’s coming for you.

Really, just go watch it. Obama in scrappy mode is really fun.

GOP DEBATE LOWLIGHTS: On Wednesday, the Republicans gathered in the Reagan library in California to try to see who could sound the craziest in the least number of words (winner: Rick Perry by a 10 gallon hat!). Most attention-grabbing moment: Perry defended and reiterated his position that Social Security is a “Ponzi scheme” (ie, a criminal fraud), and that anyone who denies that position is telling a “monstrous lie.” You have to love the political pandering that went right along with his seeming political suicide, when he emphasized that current retirees have nothing to fear and can count on their benefits continuing to flow. You could almost hear him shouting to the Florida grandmas, “Yes, I said Social Security is a criminal monstrosity, but that won’t change anything that you get. See? Nothing to worry about here!” Romney tried to come off looking reasonable by insisting that the GOP nominee “has to be someone who isn’t committed to abolishing Social Security but who is committed to saving Social Security.” But as Rachel Maddow noted last night, Romney has repeatedly endorsed Social Security privatization -- or, in other words, “abolishing” the program as we know it. Other great (meaning terrible) moments:

• Perry explaining that the reason so many Texans are uninsured is because of the federal government (Direct quote: “Well, bottom line is that we would not have that many people uninsured in the state of Texas if you didn't have the federal government.”);
• Santorum reveling in magical thinking about taxes (Direct quote: “We cut the corporate tax from 35 percent to zero, because we want to build the great middle of America again.”);
• Ron Paul insisting that the free market could absolutely replace food safety regulation, air traffic controllers, and drug inspections (Quote excerpts: “I think in theory, if you understood the free market in a free society, you don't need government to do that. … And, I mean, do we need the federal government to tell us whether we buy a safe car? I say the consumers of America are smart enough to decide what kind of car they can buy and whether it's safe or not.”);
• Michele Bachmann flat out lying by saying the CBO said “ObamaCare” “is killing jobs” (In fact, the CBO said impact on jobs would be minimal.);
• Newt “Tiffany” Gingrich insisting that, as president, he would fire Ben Bernanke “tomorrow” -- despite the fact that a president likely has no such authority;
• Perry transitioning from praising the Navy SEALS who killed bin Laden to decrying Keynsian economics, all in one sentence (Direct Quote: “I give more props to those Navy SEALs that did the job, but -- and the other thing this president's done, he has proven for once and for all that government spending will not create one job. Keynesian policy and Keynesian theory is now done. We'll never have to have that experiment on America again.”)

A SIDE NOTE ON SOCIAL SECURITY: With all this Social Security bashing going on (though today Perry’s people tried to insist that he never suggested the program was unconstitutional and that it’s “misinformation” to claim he wants to abolish it), it’s important to make a few facts clear. First, if we do nothing, it remains solvent through 2038. Second, if we raise the cap on taxable income, we could ensure the solvency of Social Security for 75 years. And third, it’s no more a Ponzi scheme, as Matt Yglesias puts it, “than anything else that relies on future economic growth.” Indeed, it strikes me that it’s no different than any government program -- like, say, disability payments for returning vets -- paid for by taxes. Just because my payroll taxes pay for current retirees -- just like my income taxes pay for current veterans’ benefits -- doesn’t make it some sort of fraud. It’s what a nation of young productive people and old non-productive people does; it’s how we support each other. Am I missing something?

A PARTICULARLY DEPRESSING/ENRAGING/ALIENATING MOMENT: There were some serious low points in last night’s debate, obviously. But one moment stood out, not only for how disgusted it made me, but also for how sharply it reminded me of the wide gulf between my and my compatriots’ views. This moment came when host Brian Williams asked Perry about the 234 people -- 234! -- executed by the state of Texas during Perry’s governership. Before he could finish the question, the audience burst into loud, thunderous applause -- just at the fact of these hundreds of executions. And then, when Williams is able to finish his question about whether Perry has ever struggled with or lost sleep over the idea that perhaps even one of those men might have been innocent, Perry unblinkingly declared he never worried about it for one second. “I've never struggled with that at all,” he said. (Watch it here.) Not even after journalists and experts exposed the execution of a man who was almost certainly innocent. In fact, Perry was so unperturbed by that execution that he single-handedly shut down the investigation into the prosecution that led to the most likely wrongful execution. During Perry’s most recent campaign for reelection as governor, one primary voter dismissed concerns over this issue: “It takes balls to execute an innocent man.” Chait put it best: “It is telling that the political culture that has nurtured Perry is so morally demented that demonstrating that he blithely executed an innocent man is not a political liability.” Obama’s protestations to the contrary, there really is a Red America and a Blue America, and it takes moments like this -- seeing Americans leap to their feet to applaud the notion of executing hundreds of their fellow citizens -- to remind me how firmly entrenched in my own Blue world I am.

Good News: A Fourth Circuit panel threw out a pair of lawsuits challenging the Affordable Care Act, holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. Two of the three judges said they would have affirmed the constitutionality of the law.
Must Read of the Week: This is an old story -- it’s from 2009 -- but it’s the full account of the Texas execution of Cameron Todd Willingham, a man who was almost certainly innocent of the murders for which he was convicted and sentenced to die. It’s an incredible piece of journalism, and with Perry as the GOP front-runner, it’s a must-read.
Must-Watch Video of the Week: A very moving tribute to the workers who dug out the rubble at Ground Zero in the hours and days following the 9/11 attacks.