Showing posts with label New York Times. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New York Times. Show all posts

Monday, November 20, 2017

Toyota Picks Canada For New Plant

Workforce Education Matters
There actually IS a connection between literacy and ball bearings.

MeanMesa has always suspected that manifesting painfully visible ignorance has been considered a "badge of legitimacy" among the stubborn, stalwart denizens of the old Southern State Confederacy. In fact, these drawling red states' "basket case" economic priorities have made annual cuts to education spending a de rigueur mandate which must be embraced with every annual budget plan.

Yes, constituencies in this condition are dependably more tolerant of class driven poverty and state level corruption, but when held up to the Japanese measure of the productivity expected from an auto factory worker, the educational failure begins to emerge rather quickly. When the economic penalties of the dismally non-competitive US health care system are added to balance, the tempting incentives to build manufacturing plants in these "low wage" regions evaporate like a mint julep abandoned in a Mississippi heat wave.

Even Japanese roosters will, eventually, come "home to roost."

Please take a minute to read through the following New York Times article. [Visit the original article here: Opinion - Toyota Moving Northward/NYTIMES]

Modern American politics is dominated by the doctrine that government is the problem, not the solution. In practice, this doctrine translates into policies that make low taxes on the rich the highest priority, even if lack of revenue undermines basic public services. You don't have to be a liberal to realize that this is wrong-headed. Corporate leaders understand quite well that good public services are also good for business. But the political environment is so polarized these days that top executives are often afraid to speak up against conservative dogma.
Instead, they vote with their feet. Which brings us to the story of Toyota's choice.
There has been fierce competition among states hoping to attract a new Toyota assembly plant. Several Southern states reportedly offered financial incentives worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
But last month Toyota decided to put the new plant, which will produce RAV4 mini-S.U.V.'s, in Ontario. Explaining why it passed up financial incentives to choose a U.S. location, the company cited the quality of Ontario's work force.
What made Toyota so sensitive to labor quality issues? Maybe we should discount remarks from the president of the Toronto-based Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association, who claimed that the educational level in the Southern United States was so low that trainers for Japanese plants in Alabama had to use "pictorials" to teach some illiterate workers how to use high-tech equipment.
But there are other reports, some coming from state officials, that confirm his basic point: Japanese auto companies opening plants in the Southern U.S. have been unfavorably surprised by the work force's poor level of training.
There's some bitter irony here for Alabama's governor. Just two years ago voters overwhelmingly rejected his plea for an increase in the state's rock-bottom taxes on the affluent, so that he could afford to improve the state's low-quality education system. Opponents of the tax hike convinced voters that it would cost the state jobs.
But education is only one reason Toyota chose Ontario. Canada's other big selling point is its national health insurance system, which saves auto manufacturers large sums in benefit payments compared with their costs in the United States.
You might be tempted to say that Canadian taxpayers are, in effect, subsidizing Toyota's move by paying for health coverage. But that's not right, even aside from the fact that Canada's health care system has far lower costs per person than the American system, with its huge administrative expenses. In fact, U.S. taxpayers, not Canadians, will be hurt by the northward movement of auto jobs.
To see why, bear in mind that in the long run decisions like Toyota's probably won't affect the overall number of jobs in either the United States or Canada. But the result of international competition will be to give Canada more jobs in industries like autos, which pay health benefits to their U.S. workers, and fewer jobs in industries that don't provide those benefits. In the U.S. the effect will be just the reverse: fewer jobs with benefits, more jobs without.
So what's the impact on taxpayers? In Canada, there's no impact at all: since all Canadians get government-provided health insurance in any case, the additional auto jobs won't increase government spending.But U.S. taxpayers will suffer, because the general public ends up picking up much of the cost of health care for workers who don't get insurance through their jobs. Some uninsured workers and their families end up on Medicaid. Others end up depending on emergency rooms, which are heavily subsidized by taxpayers.
Funny, isn't it? Pundits tell us that the welfare state is doomed by globalization, that programs like national health insurance have become unsustainable. But Canada's universal health insurance system is handling international competition just fine. It's our own system, which penalizes companies that treat their workers well, that's in trouble.
I'm sure that some readers will respond to everything I've just said by asking why, if the Canadians are so smart, they aren't richer. But I'll have to leave the issue of America's comparative economic performance for another day.
For now, let me just point out that treating people decently is sometimes a competitive advantage. In America, basic health insurance is a privilege; in Canada, it's a right. And in the auto industry, at least, the good jobs are heading north.

Monday, March 27, 2017

Holding Trump Accountable - Can Anything Stop Him?

Finding the Joy
Perhaps the "hair shirt" phase of America's horror is passing.
Slowly.
As usual.

In the bizarre, "other worldly" ecosystem of Trump's Washington the traditional institutions of democracy are The Donald's "natural predators."

It's easy to become overwhelmed by the President's efforts to systematically destroy every facet of institutional democracy which might possibly impede the construction of his smelly autocracy, but the "inertial impulse" which is the legacy of all these years of democratic process may be more durable than we thought.

Granted, we have to look very carefully to see the "trembling surge" of Trump's terror ridden display of self hatred and uncertainty quaver as the Administration's public "non-wins" keep rolling in, but they are there -- and there will be more and more of them as these painful days proceed. This New York Times article by Jack Goldsmith may lift your spirits. [Read the original article   here - NYTimes. Links remain enabled.]




Yes, Trump Is Being Held Accountable
Jack Goldsmith 
March 15, 2017

It may look pretty clunky, but it's definitely happening.
Many critics of President Trump, including a sizable number of Democrats in the Republican-controlled Congress, are wary about the incipient congressional investigations of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election and the possibly related Russian entanglements with the Trump administration and campaign. They suspect that an independent investigation from outside the government is the only hope for checking a president who seems oblivious to press criticism, whose party controls Congress and who has the executive branch under his thumb.

These worries are understandable but misplaced. There might be a time when an independent investigation becomes necessary, but we are not nearly there yet. For now, our constitutional system is working well to ferret out the truth and to hold Mr. Trump and his subordinates accountable.

The most important checks on the Trump presidency come from inside it. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is reportedly conducting at least three investigations related to Russia, the election and the administration. Whatever one thinks about his pre-election maneuvers, the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey (a former colleague of mine at the Justice Department), has proved to be an independent actor, and he has every interest in pursuing the cases wherever they lead.

Mr. Trump could fire Mr. Comey on a whim, but that would not kill the F.B.I. investigation. Rather, just as President Richard Nixon hastened his impeachment with the Watergate-related firings known as the “Saturday Night Massacre,” canning Mr. Comey would only heighten the public’s and Congress’s suspicions about Mr. Trump’s guilt and increase pressure on the F.B.I. and others to get to the bottom of the Russia matter.

Another reason to think the existing process is working to keep the president in check are the plentiful leaks from the executive branch that have revealed a great deal about the Russian imbroglio. Leaks of this sort are a predicable response to a perception of illegitimacy or overreach inside the executive branch. It is hard to know at this point which leaks are justified and which are illegitimate. But overall they function as a significant constraint on this presidency.

The leaks have also shown the strength of the press, belying worries that journalists would be chilled by President Barack Obama’s crackdown on leaks and Mr. Trump’s unusual attacks on the news media. The Fourth Estate is covering the Trump presidency with unusual critical vigor, reporting concrete and damning details as if it had a seat inside the Oval Office.

Finally, there are the investigations by Congress. Prominent Republicans such as Senator John McCain of Arizona and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina have questioned the president’s honesty on the Russia matter. The Senate Intelligence Committee is conducting an “independent review” and has already been briefed by Mr. Comey. The House Intelligence Committee will begin hearings next week. A subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee is also investigating the matter and has pledged “to ensure that the F.B.I.’s work is free of all political influence.”

While there is no doubt that partisan politics will inform what many in both congressional parties do in this matter, one should not overlook what is truly remarkable here: In the second month of a new presidency, several bodies in a Congress controlled by the president’s party are conducting high-profile, politically fraught and hard-to-control investigations that potentially implicate current and former administration officials and former campaign officials.

All of these actors and institutions are holding the Trump presidency to account. They are endeavoring to uncover the truth about the manifold Russian mysteries. And they can, if they see fit, take action with effects ranging from publicity and embarrassment to political damage with electoral consequences to criminal prosecution to impeachment if appropriate.

It’s true that the process of accountability is halting and frustratingly slow. But this is as it should be. The stakes could not be higher for our democracy. Ascertaining the truth is vital, and respect for the innocent is as important as identification of wrongdoing. It is thus crucial that the complex and elusive facts be sorted out in a fair and procedurally rigorous manner, and that the law be applied with deliberation and good judgment.

Justice seems elusive here because it is so plodding. But plodding justice is our best chance for a legitimate resolution to this mess.

An Impeachment Reader

While there is "talk" in Congress of stripping Trump's war making powers and -- in even darker corners -- of raw treason based on raw security breaches and other shocking possibilities, the tried and true mechanisms of parts of the government remain in tact. Here are a few of Mr. Trump's "more traditional" problems.

Sooner or later the FBI, CIA, NSA and DNI will have to "pony up" what they have. This can't happen until there is a political structure capable of "receiving" it, and while this "void of receivership" has served to protect Trump -- so far -- it looks like most of this "protection" is now getting a little "frayed" around the hems. 

The following  links will help bring you up to date on the impeachment -- and possibly, the prosecution -- process.

The Guarantee Clause in the Constitution

Monday, November 21, 2016

The Psychology of Trump's Cabinet

The Growing Horror
The future darkness is covering the land.
There is no known vaccine.

The next "Trump Tower?"
Abandoned insane asylum,
Buffalo State Hospital, NY
[image]
There has been plenty written already about the grotesque collection of strange dead enders with whom the President elect has surrounded himself. Half of this accounting has been little more than hysterical laments about how incredibly awful these dark souls are, and the other half has been filled with continuing dismay and terror concerning what consequences we will ultimately pay for having such creatures in power.

So, if these unsettling developments are to merit a presentation as a post on this blog, we must find observations which might actually add something of value to the dismal narrative. Another depressing repetition of the comments made previously offers not much at all. 

We are well aware of the painful facts. Let's have a shot at truly exploring this phenomenon at a somewhat more primitive level. There's plenty of material.

What is the psychology of this madness? Can anything material be deduced from the mayhem unfolding? Are there clues for a new "understanding" hidden somewhere which can help us by providing a more accurate narrative describing what has just "happened?"

Although this presumption might seem somewhat tenuous, let's proceed anyway. MeanMesa believes this is possible, so let's try to "light it up" a little.

Explaining Trump's Hideous Cabinet Choices
All the choices seem so strangely unusual.

Donald Trump, unlike more rational fellows who have taken this powerful office, apparently has no trusted friends into whose hands Presidential responsibilities might be delegated. At this juncture in the traditional path toward a January Inauguration the press is speculating about which of a President's "favorites" might be selected for Cabinet positions.

In this more normal scenario individuals such as those who had previously cooperated with the President-elect to pass bills through the Congress might be at the top of the list. In this case the President-elect has never passed any bills through the countries legislature, so there are none of these Congressional types presented as actual choices. Further, these "cooperatives" may not have even been in the Congress -- there are plenty of other places such individuals may have occupied, from which assistance might have been rendered -- academics, industrialists, state governments, and so on.

Nonetheless, in the cases of such Presidentially "trusted associates" a "footprint" is on record. The Presidential nomination of such people for powerful positions on a new President's cabinet is routine. They are obviously perceived as "problem solvers," and, as such, are expected to strengthen a Presidential Administration's capacity to deal with unforeseen challenges as well as the tedious task of implementing a President's ideas to accomplish policy goals.

Such nominations have always run the risk of sparking serious political resistance among those who responsible to judge and approve them, but they have never elicited a Senatorial question such as "Why is this nominee before us?

In Trump's case, however, the selections and nominations are awkwardly impersonal. He has never "worked" with any of his choices, primarily because he has never confronted such tasks.

A New Understanding of the Seriousness of "Narcissism"
We've heard the term bandied about a great deal,
 but do we understand that abnormalities in the President's personal psychology
 can present very material problems for the country?

In a more traditional process the President would, at least, be an acquaintance of his nominees. A record of past experiences with such a relationship would go a long way to "answering" the Senatorial question posed previously. This is not to say that Presidents haven't occasionally nominated individuals with whom they fundamentally disagree. They have, but there has always been a somewhat personal "side story" which served to explain such choices. There has been a reason -- political support from a certain, important constituency, proven abilities in persuading problematic legislators to gain necessary votes or even having been a successful lobbyist in previous Administrations.

The important point here is that these "reasons" have had some basis of a personal nature. This need not be "creepy." MeanMesa is referring to even something as insubstantial as "working together on the phone" to accomplish some political ambition. In such cases the President-elect might explain such as choice as "Although we have never actually met, during the crisis, we were able to work together to meet our goal."

All of this may sound a bit flippant, but we can ask ourselves some rather pointed questions about this.

Do we think that the President-elect and racist geriatric monstrosity, Senator Jeff Sessions, had phone conversations during some time that they were both working on some past project? What project? Perhaps it was some effort to create additional sabotage to the Voting Rights Act, Session's obsession for the last few decades. Do we think that Donald Trump ever spoke to the Senator before the issue of his nomination arose?

Or....do we suspect that Donald Trump, after his Breitbart Chief of Staff, Steven Banon recommended Sessions for the job, asked "Who is this Senator Sessions you've recommended to become my new Attorney General? Why do we want this guy?"

Do we assume that Trump's selection of a disgraced Muslim hating General for his executive intelligence team is evidence of a similar sentiment held by the President-elect? 

Or...do we find this narrative inconsistent with the facts? The new President claims to hold substantial hotel property in Ankara, the Turkish capital. Further, remembering that Turkey is an Islamic NATO partner suspected by many to be profiting from the receipt of crude oil confiscated by ISIS, we now discover that -- after being ignominiously rejected by the Congress from his position as Director of the US Defense Intelligence Agency [DIA] -- General Flynn started a consulting [lobbying] firm primarily dedicated to the interests of the Turkish state.

General Flynn played pivotal roles in military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. While his skills served him well in those environments, when he was tapped to lead the Defense Intelligence Agency, his shortcomings as a manager and strategic thinker soon became glaring. His grasp on the truth was so flimsy at times that colleagues began mockingly referring to “Flynn facts.”                           [New York Times November 19]

What "value" -- other than his "connections" with the Turkish government -- prompted the President-elect to choose this guy? Did Trump ever even so much as meet this hot head before nominating him? MeanMesa suspects that this choice was another of Trump's ruthlessly pragmatic moves to satiate his Muslim hating, biblical lunatic base.

The important point is chilling, indeed.

The role of the National Security Advisor, General Flynn's new job, extends far beyond the flimsy necessity of placating one's admittedly uninformed voter base. However, in President-elect Trump's eyes, sacrificing any potential benefit which might accompany the appointment of an actually competent National Security Advisor is painlessly "trumped" by the possibility of satisfying his rather fickle political base.

Brain dead Muslim haters represent an important part of Trump's base. Trump has directed the main strength of the intelligence apparatus to feeding this. He has yet to discover that "successfully hating Muslims," no matter how wide spread the practice might become, is an unlikely agenda priority for eliciting any sort of enduring popular support -- especially when the economy is faltering and most of the rest of his Presidency inevitably enters the perpetual "toothache" stage. It will.

General Flynn's re-elevation was made on the suggestion of Trump's "assistant Chief of Staff," Banon. The choice offers essentially no benefit to US national security.

Trump's New "Guide Book" - How To Be An Autocrat
Eliminating the last remnants of a troublesome democracy can be hard work.
The last thing one should consider is having anyone questioning the process nearby.

Donald Trump, tragically lacking any trusted, personal friends or confidants, views the new denizens of this lurching transition not as actual people, but instead, as useful, ideological "markers." There is no close connection between the President-elect and any of them. This should not surprise any blog visitor who is familiar with the clinical features of extreme narcissism. Narcissists have no close friends because -- thanks to their savagely paranoid world view -- they are unable to trust anyone.

The alternative, that is, perceiving such individuals as nothing more than convenient manifestations of their respective ideological positions, allows the "narcissist in charge" to ruthlessly demand behavior which reflects the ideological purity which made them attractive in the first place. Trump has already summarily dismissed potential associates for a troubling variety of insignificant reasons.

In his mind, the tenuous possibility of an individual filling one of these positions relies entirely on the potential for "ideological usefulness." He clearly reserves the authority to instantly "fire" anyone who might dare question his status, yes, just as in his television show. Further, this autocratic inclination to "instantly fire" anyone at any time and for any reason is a momentary thing to be found only during the "settling in" period of the Administration -- it continues for the duration.

The result is that when one of the Cabinet positions finds itself facing a difficult circumstance, the primary attention must still be directed first at self-preservation. Trump is extremely impulsive. The experience of holding one of these cabinet positions will be constant terror, reminiscent of the most unsettled times during the Stalinist period in the old Soviet Union.

Scratching Presidential Popularity
 From Perpetual Chaos and Phobias
For the very weak and unstable no other possibility is visible.

The unquestioned "hall mark" of Donald Trump's "ascension" has been his relentless promise to destroy the status quo.

He has concluded that the politically successful course is based on permanently fracturing the status quo -- anything in the status quo. There is no perception that some things might be worth saving. This is not Trump's personal philosophy showing through, either. He considers this to be the fundamental basis of his rather shaky political support.

Naturally, having a pocket handy and full of those deserving blame is an additional component.

Understandably, Trump considers raw xenophobia to be high among his most successful political assets. The final appetite of his inferiority complex saturated base is a desperate obsession to feel superior to someone -- anyone. The most readily available "someone" happens to be the nearest Mexican, although Sessions will be sure that blacks will fill in when the first blamed minority isn't at hand.

In the awkward event that the mayhem on the domestic front were to relax into something somewhat "normal," the President-elect holds the prospect of inciting another wave of raw Islamophobia in his illiterate supporters as a "stand in" choice. General Flinn should prove quite useful for this necessary "political maintenance" task.

Although Trump may not actually be that much of a racist, he understands that his voter base is. Like other out of touch oligarchs, Trump sees raw racism primarily as a political tool. It will be a constant, dependable source of the chaos his Presidency will require. Happily, for Donald Trump the mentality of his base is quite adolescent. In their "video game" reality they are continuously assuaged by the imaginary relief they derive from shooting some impersonal, animated "opponent."

So long as President Trump can continue to provide an on-going source of such "opponents," the "assuagement" will continue, and Trump's political support -- poll numbers -- will continue. It's a new game, and all the rules are new, too.

Additional Reading
Trump's Strange Cabinet Choices


A final note from a posting on FaceBook:

"Duck Dynasty is going off the air? It'll be fine, I'm sure they're all getting White House positions."


Saturday, November 21, 2015

Making Sense - Leave It To the Farmers

Taking a Second Look at Iowa
Amid the fury and feathers of the Iowa caucuses,
we find a quiet, determined realism.

Two of the really destructive "bad habits" of America's contemporary industrial media and "news" reporting are its annoying habits of:

1. creating a political caricature of Iowa which can be melded seamlessly into the latest, jaded tale of the State's "premier seat assignment" for holding the earliest primary, and an equally uncomplimentary caricature of the State's residents in agricultural areas [which comprise most of Iowa's area and hold 35% of Iowan residents] as howling, right wing lunatics obsessed only with the singular decision between other lunatics running a GOP Presidential candidates, and,
2. focusing entirely on large alternate energy projects located in urban areas where the energy produced serves for consumption by large, dense populations.

Neither conveniently simplified "shortcut" description enjoys much accuracy in terms of actual "facts on the ground." [MeanMesa worked for a time on a project in Ames, Iowa, several years ago.] In addition to the two misleading "leaders" mentioned above, we can also condemn the same media for consistently presenting exclusively nightmarish "climate change" scenarios heavily laced with sheer hopelessness -- the topical bias second only to stark terror as a persuasive ploy for network credibility.

Well, if you find yourself awash in this media nonsense, you may very well find the following New York Times article [quoted here in its entirety] a real breath of fresh air. Enjoy.


Iowa’s Climate-Change Wisdom

By JEFF BIGGERS

NOV. 20, 2015

[Visit the original article  here New York Times]


Iowa City — NEGOTIATORS en route to the United Nations conference on climate change in Paris, scheduled to begin later this month, should take a detour on rural roads here in Johnson County. A new climate narrative is emerging among farmers in the American heartland that transcends a lot of the old story lines of denial and cynicism, and offers an updated tale of climate hope.


Recent polls show that 60 percent of Iowans, now facing flooding and erosion, believe global warming is happening. From Winneshiek County to Washington County, you can count more solar panels on barns than on urban roofs or in suburban parking lots. The state’s first major solar farm is not in an urban area like Des Moines or Iowa City, but in rural Frytown, initiated by the Farmers Electric Cooperative.

In the meantime, any lingering traces of cynicism will vanish in the town of Crawfordsville, where children in the Waco school district will eventually turn on computers and study under lights powered 90 percent by solar energy. Inspired by local farmers, who now use solar energy to help power some of their operations, the district’s move to solar energy will not only cut carbon emissions but also result in enough savings to keep open the town’s once financially threatened school doors.



Wind turbines now line cornfields across the state, providing nearly 30 percent of Iowa’s electricity production. With some $10 billion invested in wind energy and manufacturing in Iowa, Republicans and Democrats alike recognize the benefits of green jobs.

This is only a beginning, of course. Dirty coal still accounts for 60 percent of Iowa’s electricity needs. But such centralization of electricity will falter, as other towns and cities follow the lead of Bloomfield, which recently announced plans to ramp up energy-efficiency efforts and shift its municipally owned utility — one of 136 in Iowa — to 100 percent energy independence, significantly through renewable sources by 2030.

But here’s the catch: Even if every coal-fired plant shuts down, land misuse still accounts for an estimated 30 percent of the world’s carbon emissions. The soils in the United States, like those of nations around the world, have lost calamitous amounts of carbon.

This is where Iowa’s new climate narrative has emerged as a great story for the nation and other countries heading to Paris. Despite the fact that the United Nations General Assembly declared 2015 to be “the international year of soils,” a global soil carbon sequestration campaign — one that recognizes direct links between climate mitigation, regenerative agriculture and food security — rarely ranks at the top of any high level accords, or even conversations.

Far too few climate change negotiators took notice of an important proposal called the Four Per Thousand Initiative, which France’s Ministry of Agriculture, Agrifood and Forestry introduced earlier this year. This proposal simply calls for a voluntary action plan to improve organic matter content and promote carbon sequestration in soil through a transition to agro-ecology, agro-forestry, conservation agriculture and landscape management. According to France’s estimates, a “.4 percent annual growth rate of the soil carbon stock would make it possible to stop the present increase in atmospheric CO2.”

To see the wisdom of such a proposal, you can visit the Versaland agroforestry farm in Johnson County, Iowa. In less than three years, a young farmer named Grant Schultz has planted more than 30,000 trees, introduced cover crops, composting and multispecies grazing, and transformed a once degraded industrial corn farm into a vibrant carbon capturing and storing ecosystem. Mr. Schultz is not alone; other farmers in Johnson County have joined a University of Iowa initiative to plant fields with perennial miscanthus grass, as part of a soil carbon sequestration and biomass program aimed at achieving 40 percent renewable energy consumption on campus by 2020.

In effect, Mr. Schultz and Versaland have completely shifted the climate change narrative in the heartland. Today’s farmers can play a key role in climate solutions.

Iowa has arguably the most altered landscape in the United States, with its native prairies having been reduced by more than 99 percent over the decades. As in other industrialized farming regions, volatile cycles of flooding, drought and erosion increasingly threaten farm and food security.

According to a white paper released last spring by the pioneering Rodale Institute, which studies and promotes organic farming, if management of all current cropland worldwide shifted to a regenerative model similar to that of Versaland and other organic farming sites, more than 40 percent of annual carbon emissions could potentially be captured. What Mr. Schultz and other Iowan farmers are doing is not only groundbreaking; it’s also giving the heartland a new future.

But such efforts are only a first step in what should be a global campaign. That begins by international negotiators’ committing to binding measures that increase soil organic carbon stocks as a key part of any climate solution and deal.

[Jeff Biggers, a writer-in-residence and the founder of the Climate Narrative Project at the University of Iowa, is the author of “Damnatio Memoriae.”]

Tuesday, October 8, 2013

3/4 The GOP Billionaires: Democracy Innocently "Caught" in a Flood of Coincidence

Your Country is Asking for Fifteen of Your Minutes
Getting Over the Presumption of Democracy Will Take a Little Longer

Yeah, we're talking about reading the whole thing, here.

Normally, MeanMesa avoids long articles or tries to excerpt them, but in this case, theexcellent journalism of the New York Times reporting on this topic is so important that Short Current Essays is quite comfortably willing to "take one in the Short" to share this with visitors to this blog.  So, find a comfortable place to read and spend a few minutes with the "story behind the story" of the Republican shut down of the US government.

The links within the original text remain enabled in this post.  If you would like to link this article to your fB page, use http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/us/a-federal-budget-crisis-months-in-the-planning.html?pagewanted=1.

[A MeanMesa note to our international visitors: While it may be amusing to watch the US oligarchs throw this nation crippling temper tantrum, be advised that in your developing economies your own oligarchs are gradually creeping out of the mud, too.  They have the same sociopathic avarice and the same out-of-control ambitions that our US plutocrats are showing now.]


US
A Federal Budget Crisis 
Months in the Planning

Michael Stravato for The New York Times

"You are here because now is the single best time we have to defund Obamacare. This is a fight we can win." SENATOR TED CRUZ, speaking in August to a Heritage Action gathering in Dallas


WASHINGTON — Shortly after President Obama started his second term, a loose-knit coalition of conservative activists led by former Attorney General Edwin Meese III gathered in the capital to plot strategy. Their push to repeal Mr. Obama’s health care law was going nowhere, and they desperately needed a new plan.


Out of that session, held one morning in a location the members insist on keeping secret, came a little-noticed blueprint to defunding Obamacare,” signed by Mr. Meese and leaders of more than three dozen conservative groups.

It articulated a take-no-prisoners legislative strategy that had long percolated in conservative circles: that Republicans could derail the health care overhaul if conservative lawmakers were willing to push fellow Republicans — including their cautious leaders — into cutting off financing for the entire federal government.


“We felt very strongly at the start of this year that the House needed to use the power of the purse,” said one coalition member, Michael A. Needham, who runs Heritage Action for America, the political arm of the Heritage Foundation. “At least at Heritage Action, we felt very strongly from the start that this was a fight that we were going to pick.”


Last week the country witnessed the fallout from that strategy: a standoff that has shuttered much of the federal bureaucracy and unsettled the nation.


To many Americans, the shutdown came out of nowhere. But interviews with a wide array of conservatives show that the confrontation that precipitated the crisis was the outgrowth of a long-running effort to undo the law, the Affordable Care Act, since its passage in 2010 — waged by a galaxy of conservative groups with more money, organized tactics and interconnections than is commonly known.


With polls showing Americans deeply divided over the law, conservatives believe that the public is behind them. Although the law’s opponents say that shutting down the government was not their objective, the activists anticipated that a shutdown could occur — and worked with members of the Tea Party caucus in Congress who were excited about drawing a red line against a law they despise.


A defunding tool kit created in early September included talking points for the question, “What happens when you shut down the government and you are blamed for it?” The suggested answer was the one House Republicans give today: We are simply calling to fund the entire government except for the Affordable Care Act/Obamacare.

The current budget brinkmanship is just the latest development in a well-financed, broad-based assault on the health law, Mr. Obama’s signature legislative initiative. Groups like Tea Party Patriots, Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks are all immersed in the fight, as is Club for Growth, a business-backed nonprofit organization. Some, like Generation Opportunity and Young Americans for Liberty, both aimed at young adults, are upstarts. Heritage Action is new, too, founded in 2010 to advance the policy prescriptions of its sister group, the Heritage Foundation.


The billionaire Koch brothers, Charles and David, have been deeply involved with financing the overall effort. A group linked to the Kochs, Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, disbursed more than $200 million last year to nonprofit organizations involved in the fight. Included was $5 million to Generation Opportunity, which created a buzz last month with an Internet advertisement showing a menacing Uncle Sam figure popping up between a woman’s legs during a gynecological exam.


The groups have also sought to pressure vulnerable Republican members of Congress with scorecards keeping track of their health care votes; have burned faux Obamacare cards” on college campuses; and have distributed scripts for phone calls to Congressional offices, sample letters to editors and Twitter and Facebook offerings for followers to present as their own.


One sample Twitter offering — “Obamacare is a train wreck” — is a common refrain for Speaker John A. Boehner.


As the defunding movement picked up steam among outside advocates, Republicans who sounded tepid became targets. The Senate Conservatives Fund, a political action committee dedicated to “electing true conservatives,” ran radio advertisements against three Republican incumbents.


Heritage Action ran critical Internet advertisements in the districts of 100 Republican lawmakers who had failed to sign a letter by a North Carolina freshman, Representative Mark Meadows, urging Mr. Boehner to take up the defunding cause.


“They’ve been hugely influential, said David Wasserman, who tracks House races for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. When else in our history has a freshman member of Congress from North Carolina been able to round up a gang of 80 that’s essentially ground the government to a halt?


On Capitol Hill, the advocates found willing partners in Tea Party conservatives, who have repeatedly threatened to shut down the government if they do not get their way on spending issues. This time they said they were so alarmed by the health law that they were willing to risk a shutdown over it. (“This is exactly what the public wants,” Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, founder of the House Tea Party Caucus, said on the eve of the shutdown.) 

Despite Mrs. Bachmann’s comments, not all of the groups have been on board with the defunding campaign. Some, like the Koch-financed Americans for Prosperity, which spent $5.5 million on health care television advertisements over the past three months, are more focused on sowing public doubts about the law. But all have a common goal, which is to cripple a measure that Senator Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican and leader of the defunding effort, has likened to a horror movie.  


“We view this as a long-term effort, said Tim Phillips, the president of Americans for Prosperity. He said his group expected to spend “tens of millions” of dollars on a “multifront effort” that includes working to prevent states from expanding Medicaid under the law. The group’s goal is not to defund the law. 


“We want to see this law repealed,” Mr. Phillips said. 

A Familiar Tactic


The crowd was raucous at the Hilton Anatole, just north of downtown Dallas, when Mr. Needham’s group, Heritage Action, arrived on a Tuesday in August for the second stop on a nine-city “Defund Obamacare Town Hall Tour.” Nearly 1,000 people turned out to hear two stars of the Tea Party movement: Mr. Cruz, and Jim DeMint, a former South Carolina senator who runs the Heritage Foundation.


“You’re here because now is the single best time we have to defund Obamacare,” declared Mr. Cruz, who would go on to rail against the law on the Senate floor in September with a monologue that ran for 21 hours. “This is a fight we can win.”


Although Mr. Cruz is new to the Senate, the tactic of defunding in Washington is not. For years, Congress has banned the use of certain federal money to pay for abortions, except in the case of incest and rape, by attaching the so-called Hyde Amendment to spending bills.


After the health law passed in 2010, Todd Tiahrt, then a Republican congressman from Kansas, proposed defunding bits and pieces of it. He said he spoke to Mr. Boehner’s staff about the idea while the Supreme Court, which upheld the central provision, was weighing the law’s constitutionality.


“There just wasn’t the appetite for it at the time,” Mr. Tiahrt said in an interview.


“They thought, we don’t need to worry about it because the Supreme Court will strike it down.”


But the idea of using the appropriations process to defund an entire federal program, particularly one as far-reaching as the health care overhaul, raised the stakes considerably. In an interview, Mr. DeMint, who left the Senate to join the Heritage Foundation in January, said he had been thinking about it since the law’s passage, in part because Republican leaders were not more aggressive.

“They’ve been through a series of C.R.s and debt limits,” Mr. DeMint said, referring to continuing resolutions on spending, “and all the time there was discussion of ‘O.K., we’re not going to fight the Obamacare fight, we’ll do it next time.’ The conservatives who ran in 2010 promising to repeal it kept hearing, ‘This is not the right time to fight this battle.’ ”


Mr. DeMint is hardly alone in his distaste for the health law, or his willingness to do something about it. In the three years since Mr. Obama signed the health measure, Tea Party-inspired groups have mobilized, aided by a financing network that continues to grow, both in its complexity and the sheer amount of money that flows through it.


A review of tax records, campaign finance reports and corporate filings shows that hundreds of millions of dollars have been raised and spent since 2012 by organizations, many of them loosely connected, leading opposition to the measure.


One of the biggest sources of conservative money is Freedom Partners, a tax-exempt “business league” that claims more than 200 members, each of whom pays at least $100,000 in dues. The group’s board is headed by a longtime executive of Koch Industries, the conglomerate run by the Koch brothers, who were among the original financiers of the Tea Party movement. The Kochs declined to comment.


While Freedom Partners has financed organizations that are pushing to defund the law, like Heritage Action and Tea Party Patriots, Freedom Partners has not advocated that. A spokesman for the group, James Davis, said it was more focused on “educating Americans around the country on the negative impacts of Obamacare.”


The largest recipient of Freedom Partners cash — about $115 million — was the Center to Protect Patient Rights, according to the groups’ latest tax filings. Run by a political consultant with ties to the Kochs and listing an Arizona post office box for its address, the center appears to be little more than a clearinghouse for donations to still more groups, including American Commitment and the 60 Plus Association, both ardent foes of the health care law. 

American Commitment and 60 Plus were among a handful of groups calling themselves the “Repeal Coalition” that sent a letter in August urging Republican leaders in the House and the Senate to insist “at a minimum” in a one-year delay of carrying out the health care law as part of any budget deal. Another group, the Conservative 50 Plus Alliance, delivered a defunding petition with 68,700 signatures to the Senate.  

In the fight to shape public opinion, conservatives face well-organized liberal foes. Enroll America, a nonprofit group allied with the Obama White House, is waging a campaign to persuade millions of the uninsured to buy coverage. The law’s supporters are also getting huge assistance from the insurance industry, which is expected to spend $1 billion on advertising to help sell its plans on the exchanges.


“It is David versus Goliath,” said Mr. Phillips of Americans for Prosperity.


But conservatives are finding that with relatively small advertising buys, they can make a splash. Generation Opportunity, the youth-oriented outfit behind the “Creepy Uncle Sam” ads, is spending $750,000 on that effort, aimed at dissuading young people — a cohort critical to the success of the health care overhaul — from signing up for insurance under the new law.


 The group receives substantial backing from Freedom Partners and appears ready to expand. Recently, Generation Opportunity moved into spacious new offices in Arlington, Va., where exposed ductwork, Ikea chairs and a Ping-Pong table give off the feel of a Silicon Valley start-up.


Its executive director, Evan Feinberg, a 29-year-old former Capitol Hill aide and onetime instructor for a leadership institute founded by Charles Koch, said there would be more Uncle Sam ads, coupled with college campus visits, this fall. Two other groups, FreedomWorks, with its “Burn Your Obamacare Card” protests, and Young Americans for Liberty, are also running campus events.


“A lot of folks have asked us, ‘Are we trying to sabotage the law?’ ” Mr. Feinberg said in an interview last week. His answer echoes the Freedom Partners philosophy: “Our goal is to educate and empower young people.” 




Critical Timing


 
But many on the Republican right wanted to do more.


Mr. Meese’s low-profile coalition, the Conservative Action Project, which seeks to find common ground among leaders of an array of fiscally and socially conservative groups, was looking ahead to last Tuesday, when the new online health insurance marketplaces, called exchanges, were set to open. If the law took full effect as planned, many conservatives feared, it would be nearly impossible to repeal — even if a Republican president were elected in 2016.


“I think people realized that with the imminent beginning of Obamacare, that this was a critical time to make every effort to stop something,” Mr. Meese said in an interview. (He has since stepped down as the coalition’s chairman and has been succeeded by David McIntosh, a former congressman from Indiana.)


The defunding idea, Mr. Meese said, was a logical strategy.” The idea drew broad support. Fiscal conservatives like Chris Chocola, the president of the Club for Growth, signed on to the blueprint. So did social and religious conservatives, like the Rev. Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition.


The document set a target date: March 27, when a continuing resolution allowing the government to function was to expire. Its message was direct: “Conservatives should not approve a C.R. unless it defunds Obamacare.


But the March date came and went without a defunding struggle. In the Senate, Mr. Cruz and Senator Mike Lee, a Utah Republican, talked up the defunding idea, but it went nowhere in the Democratic-controlled chamber. In the House, Mr. Boehner wanted to concentrate instead on locking in the across-the-board budget cuts known as sequestration, and Tea Party lawmakers followed his lead. Outside advocates were unhappy but held their fire.


“We didn’t cause any trouble,Mr. Chocola said.


Yet by summer, with an August recess looming and another temporary spending bill expiring at the end of September, the groups were done waiting. 

“I remember talking to reporters at the end of July, and they said, ‘This didn’t go anywhere,’ ” Mr. Needham recalled. “What all of us felt at the time was, this was never going to be a strategy that was going to win inside the Beltway. It was going to be a strategy where, during August, people would go home and hear from their constituents, saying: ‘You pledged to do everything you could to stop Obamacare. Will you defund it?’ ”  

Heritage Action, which has trained 6,000 people it calls sentinels around the country, sent them to open meetings and other events to confront their elected representatives. Its “Defund Obamacare Town Hall Tour,” which began in Fayetteville, Ark., on Aug. 19 and ended 10 days later in Wilmington, Del., drew hundreds at every stop.


The Senate Conservatives Fund, led by Mr. DeMint when he was in the Senate, put up a Web site in July called dontfundobamacare.com and ran television ads featuring Mr. Cruz and Mr. Lee urging people to tell their representatives not to fund the law.


When Senator Richard M. Burr, a North Carolina Republican, told a reporter that defunding the law was “the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard,” the fund bought a radio ad to attack him. Two other Republican senators up for re-election in 2014, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, were also targeted. Both face Tea Party challengers.


In Washington, Tea Party Patriots, which created the defunding tool kit, set up a Web site, exemptamerica.com, to promote a rally last month showcasing many of the Republicans in Congress whom Democrats — and a number of fellow Republicans — say are most responsible for the shutdown.


While conservatives believe that the public will back them on defunding, a recent poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that a majority — 57 percent — disapproves of cutting off funding as a way to stop the law.


Last week, with the health care exchanges open for business and a number of prominent Republicans complaining that the “Defund Obamacare” strategy was politically damaging and pointless, Mr. Needham of Heritage Action said he felt good about what the groups had accomplished.


“It really was a groundswell,” he said, “that changed Washington from the outside in.”