The Party of No

So now the Obama administration has come up with another series of incremental, surely-no-one-can-object-to-these, proposals. They include a tax cut for middle class families, allowing a credit of $900 for child care (which I think is what babysitters now charge to take care of your child on a Saturday night). The Republicans, naturally, have objected to these proposals. That's right, the Republicans are against a tax cut, despite the fact that tax cuts are the only "idea" recently proposed by the Republicans to solve any kind of problem. From this we can conclude a few things. First, that even if the Democrats adopted the Republican platform in its entirety and tried to base a bill on it, the Republicans would vote against it. ("Putting Regan on the five dollar bill? Only a communist would suggest such a thing! This is yet one more step towards adopting a global currency!") If I were running the Democratic party (and I again note that they have thus far failed to consult me) I would abandon all hope of working with these people. Take it as a given that they will vote no on everything, and see what other possibilities you have. Possibly you should get rid of the fucking filibuster.* Just a suggestion. I would also realize that there is nothing to be gained by putting forward incremental policies. Even apart from the fact that they have as little chance of passing as more radical proposals would, such policy proposals gain you no support among the public. They are not enough to make a tangible difference to most people, they are not based on actual ideological commitments worth fighting for, they are, in short, boring.

*Digression on filibusters: they strike me as so inherently undemocratic that I can't really see the argument in favor of them. Yes, I know that the Democrats want to keep the filibuster so that, when they are inevitably in the minority again because of their short-sighted, lame-ass, ineffective governing, they can threaten to use the filibuster against insane conservative judges. I note two things: one, the Democrats never really had the spine to actually filibuster things far worse than conservative judges (cf. 2000-2008, wars of, tax cuts for the wealthy during, massive boondoggles by government contractors during, lack of accountability or oversight during). And two, all that happened was that Bush then appointed slightly less insanely conservative judges, who ruled basically the same way as the insane judges would have anyway. The Senate is already undemocratic: it is bullshit, frankly, that South Dakota gets as many votes as California, but okay, I see the point of allowing smaller states to have a say. Sort of. The filibuster, though, means that senators from states that are, say, Nebraska, can hijack entire bills until they get the pork they want.