I’m still hoping Harry Reid had a well-hidden good reason for the deal he negotiated. But no one has yet provided any plausible explanations. Meanwhile, Jonathan Krohn’s “What the Senate Filibuster Deal Does–and Doesn’t Do” at Mother Jones critiques the deal from a left perspective.
At NBC News Michael Isikoff’s “Obama campaign gives database of millions of supporters to new advocacy group” provides some insight into what’s ahead for Democratic campaign strategy: “Dubbed the “nuclear codes” by campaign aides, the Obama campaign database is widely described as one of the most powerful tools ever developed in American politics. According to published reports, it contains the names of at least 4 million Obama donors – as well as millions of others (the campaign has consistently refused to say how many) compiled from voter registration rolls and other public databases. In addition, the campaign used sophisticated computer programs — with code names like “Narwhal” — to collect information through social media: Anybody who contacted the campaign through Facebook had their friends and “likes” downloaded. If they contacted the campaign website through mobile apps, cellphone numbers and address books were downloaded. Computer “cookies” captured Web browsing and online spending habits.”
Krugman shreds arguments of austerity freaks on Morning Joe.
Richard Benedetto brings President Obama’s 2014 strategy into focus at Real Clear Politics. Calling Obama’s 2nd inaugural address “the first speech of the 2014 congressional campaign,”Benedetto’s post explains: “His apparent two-year strategy is to work hard to help Democrats win back control of the House of Representatives and use his final two years to build the liberal legacy he outlined in his address — a legacy that will be near-impossible to achieve as long as the GOP controls the House…But with Democrats in charge of both chambers of Congress in 2015-16, Obama would be transformed from a lame duck to a soaring eagle…By force-feeding legislation that Republicans are likely to find unpalatable — and portraying that distaste as heartless, mindless, prejudiced and mean-spirited — Obama can shove them back into the role of naysayers and obstructionists, a role that raises voter trepidation, anger and frustration. It could translate into more Democratic votes next election.”
Alex Altman argues persuasively at Time Swampland that the Republicans got creamed in November, not because of their tone, tactics or messaging strategy. It is the substance of their positions on the issues.
ProPublica has a pretty good round-up of “The Best Reporting on What’s Wrong with Congress”
At Wonkblog, Ezra Klein’s “Republicans think the sequester gives them leverage. They’re wrong” offers this interesting observation: “…The sequester doesn’t touch Medicaid, Social Security or Pell grants. It exempts most programs for low-income Americans, like food stamps. Veteran’s benefits are home free, as are federal retirement benefits. Medicare providers see cuts, but Medicare beneficiaries don’t. And fully half of the cuts come from the military — a huge reduction in defense spending that Democrats couldn’t dream about achieving any other way…Given the sequester’s disproportionate focus on the military, it’s even worse for Republicans.”
The Nation’s John Nichols has a must-read for Dems: “Three Strategies to Block the Gerrymandering of the Electoral College”
This one is a great loss for progressives — and an even greater loss for Democrats’ hopes for holding the senate. it also underscores the the critical importance of better Democratic candidate recruitment, training and leadership development to hold seats being vacated by venerable incumbents.
Talk about nerve.

Here’s the lead from an article in Politico this weekend titled “GOP leaders insist no overhaul needed”

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — The Republican Party honchos who huddled here for their first big gathering since the election devoted lots of time talking about the need to welcome Latinos and women, close the technology gap with Democrats and stop the self-destructive talk about rape. But the party’s main problem, dozens of Republican National Committee members argued in interviews over three days this week, is who delivers its message and how, not the message itself. Overwhelmingly they insisted that substantive policy changes aren’t the answer to last year’s losses.
“It’s not the platform of the party that’s the issue,” RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said Friday after being easily reelected to a second, two-year term. “In many cases, it’s how we communicate about it. It is a couple dumb things that people have said.”
…New Hampshire chairman Wayne MacDonald said party leadings need to work on “not being sour-pusses on television or the radio” – that there is a way to be firm and assertive without being mean-spirited.
“Nobody is saying the Republican Party has to change our beliefs in any of our platform planks,” he said

Now here are a few excerpts from the 2012 Republican Platform Plank on Immigration
Encouraging Self-Deportation:

We will create humane procedures to encourage illegal aliens to return home voluntarily, while enforcing the law against those who overstay their visas

Supporting State Efforts to “make their lives so miserable they go back home.”

State efforts to reduce illegal immigration must be encouraged, not attacked. The pending Department of Justice lawsuits against Arizona, Alabama, South Carolina, and Utah must be dismissed immediately.

Keeping Them Out

The double-layered fencing on the border that was enacted by Congress in 2006, but never completed, must finally be built.

Punishing Those Who Help Them

In order to restore the rule of law, federal funding should be denied to sanctuary cities that violate federal law and endanger their own citizens

Denying Funds to Universities

Federal funding should be denied to universities that provide in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens, in open defiance of federal law

But Latinos really shouldn’t worry. The GOP promises they won’t be “sour-pusses” about it.

Kenneth S. Baer, a managing director of the Harbour Group and a former official of the OMB in the Obama Administration, has a WaPo op-ed, “Obama’s Mainstream Pitch,” which challenges the popular view of his inaugural address as a “liberal” call to battle. Baer, author of “Reinventing Democrats: The Politics of Liberalism from Reagan to Clinton,” cites a litany of commentators putting to speech into a liberal-progressive pidgeon hole and then explains his view in his nut graphs:

Obama’s address was firmly in the mainstream — of both the country and the Democratic Party, which has absorbed the lessons of its post-1968 defeats and synthesized into its core the New Democratic values of the Clinton era. The speech sounded so robustly liberal not because the president or his party has changed but because the Republican Party has, moving far outside the norms of American political thought…Defending the idea of a social safety net to guard against the vagaries of life is hardly radical.

Baer elaborates on the ‘Obama hasn’t moved left; the Republicans have moved right’ theme:

Defending a safety net and calling for opportunity for all is nothing new, though Obama’s call for full equality for gay and lesbian Americans is. Yet this, along with the calls for equal pay for women, welcoming immigrants and action on climate change, is radical only if viewed through the oversize tortoise-shell glasses of the 1980s.
…Perspective is everything in assessing Obama’s second inaugural address. One cannot ignore how the Republican Party’s move to the right has shifted the parameters of political debate. On economic policy, the president is in line with the bipartisan, postwar consensus on the safety net…On social issues, he is firmly in the mainstream and hardly a McGovernik.

Baer concludes with this kicker from Newt Gingrich:

I didn’t think it was very liberal…There were one or two sentences obviously conservatives would object to, but 95 percent of the speech I thought was classically American, emphasizing hard work, emphasizing self-reliance, emphasizing doing things together. I thought it was a good speech.”

Baer’s view probably won’t prevail among the snap-judgement punditry, though it makes sense nonetheless.

A Pew poll released today has raised some hackles among progressives because at first glance it appears to show that public support for deficit reduction has grown rapidly since Obama was elected.
Seen in isolation, the key statistic does indeed sound disturbing. Four years ago only 53% of Americans viewed deficit reduction as a “top priority.” Today, on the other hand, 72% agree with this view, a very substantial increase of 19%. The Pew Center’s headline for the survey “Deficit Reduction Rises on Public’s Agenda for Obama’s Second Term” seems if anything to reinforce the impression that a significant conservative trend has indeed been detected.
But, in fact, what the survey actually provides is a near-perfect illustration of how important it is to look at polling data carefully and not to simply rely on headlines.
The statistics above come from a survey that Pew has periodically conducted over many years to track changes in the public’s policy priorities. The way the survey is conducted is that the subjects are read a long list of some 21 different items. The exact question they are asked to answer is the following:

I’d like to ask you about priorities for President Obama and Congress this year. As I read from a list, tell me if you think each should be a top priority, important but lower priority, not too important or should it not be done.

Now notice, the respondents can name as many items as they want as “top priorities.” They are not forced to choose one against the other. As a result, the fact that 72% say deficit reduction should be a “top priority” does not mean they have chosen it in opposition to other policy goals.
Read with care, the results actually tell a very different story than the conservative pro-deficit reduction “surge” that a quick reading of the headline would suggest.First, both “strengthening the economy” and “improving the job situation” are actually chosen as “top priorities” more frequently than deficit reduction. While 72% of the respondents felt reducing the budget deficit should be a top priority, 86% thought “strengthening the economy” should be a top priority and 79% felt the same about “improving the job situation.”
In short, what was really going on was that most respondents were simply indicating that they thought all three of these items — and many others as well — should all be considered “top priorities.” They were not choosing deficit reduction instead of polices to create jobs, strengthen the economy or to achieve other social goals.
An even more significant fact that emerges from the data is that the rapid growth of deficit reduction as a “top priority” is actually a good deal less than it first appears. While the percentage of respondents as a whole who considered deficit reduction a top priority did indeed grow from 53% to 72% in the four years since Obama was elected, this increase was concentrated among Republicans. Among them, the number rating deficit reduction as a top priority rose from 51% to 84% — a whopping one-third increase. Among Democrats, on the other hand, it only rose from 64% to 67%, an increase so small that it was actually within the margin of error. Among independents, the percentage identifying deficit reduction as a top priority rose from 57% to 71%, an increase that was significant but one whose importance is also limited because many independents today are actually disgruntled Republicans. The number of “true” independents whose views actually changed would be notably smaller.
In short, what the Pew survey actually reveals is that more Americans considered that strengthening the economy and improving the job situation should be top priorities than considered that deficit reduction should be a top priority. Moreover, the growth in the percentage of people who chose deficit reduction as a top priority was largely concentrated among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents.
When one considers the fact that Republicans were blissfully and gleefully indifferent to deficits as long as George W Bush was president and only began howling about the subject the minute Obama was elected, the fact that their deep and oh-so-utterly genuine and sincere concern about fiscal prudence increased in the last four years is mainly proof that the RNC fax machine and the Fox News TV transmitters were in good working order during the period and not that any profound change had actually occurred in American political attitudes.
The moral of the story? The same one the consumer guy on TV and your lawyer always told you. Don’t be lazy, read the fine print.

This item by TDS founding editor William Galston is cross-posted from The New Republic.
“The chief business of the American people is business,” Calvin Coolidge famously said. But not all business is the same: The policies that assist some may injure others, and the organizations that represent different kinds of business often work at cross-purposes. This reality, which the Republican mantra of “job creators” obscures, could be the key to determining the success of President Obama’s second term. The Obama administration will need to recognize the fervent opposition of small businesses to its priorities, while taking advantage of large corporations’ willingness to cooperate.
There are deep and strucutral differences between these two sectors. Most small businesses pay taxes through the individual code, while big businesses pay corporate rates. Small businesses typically hire through family and local networks, while big businesses draw from a national labor pool. Small businesses focus mainly on the domestic market, while big businesses are just as concerned about overseas sales. Corporations have sizeable cash flows and access to credit markets, which gives them a cushion against adversity and added costs; small businesses often operate much closer to the margin and are acutely sensitive to policies that threaten to drive up costs. Corporate CEOs can hire experts to help them cope with added regulatory burdens and can spread the costs over a large workforce; small business owners must deal with these burdens by themselves and have few ways dilute their impact.
A glance at the websites of two leading business organizations–the National Federation of Independent Business (the “voice of small business”) and the Business Roundtable (CEOs of leading companies with a collective $6 trillion in annual revenues) underscores these differences. While the NFIB continues to call for the repeal of Obamacare, the BR seeks only modest fixes. The NFIB denounces “overzealous regulation” and advocates a national drive to protect small businesses from regulations recently proposed by the Obama administration. For its part, the BR calls for “smarter regulation” and criticizes eight proposed or pending regulations but also “applaud[s] President Obama’s initiative to streamline the federal regulatory apparatus.” Many corporate CEOs supported the fiscal cliff agreement, which small business people opposed because it increased top marginal rates for high-income taxpayers.
The NFIB stance toward government is almost entirely negative: Most of what government does makes the lives of small businessmen and women harder, and it should just stop doing it. By contrast, last year the Business Roundtable issued “Taking Action for America,” a comprehensive plan for jobs and economic growth that called on the government to act on numerous fronts, from education and immigration to energy and trade. While it is easy to discern the thread of self-interest woven through its agenda, the BR at least acknowledges that well-judged government action can contribute to a more robust economy and a healthier labor market.
For the foreseeable future, the NFIB will remain a building-block of the Republican base and a charter member of the “leave us alone” coalition. Corporate American finds itself in a more ambiguous situation. On fiscal policy, the pantheon of gods to whom they bow includes Simpson and Bowles, Domenici and Rivlin. The Republican Party’s tax rejectionism leaves them cold, but so does what they see as the Democrats’ refusal to take entitlement reform seriously. They favor immigration reform, which most Republicans have not, at least until the recent election, but tilted toward higher skilled workers and away from family reunification–the reverse of most Democrats’ priorities. While they are willing to make their peace with the architecture of the Affordable Care Act, they push for changes such as medical liability reform that are anathema to the Democratic base. The Republicans’ populist, nationalist impulses worry corporate leaders, but so does the Democrats’ heightened emphasis on fairness and redistribution. Neither party is focused on what the CEOs believe is the central challenge we face–sustainable economic growth in a hyper-competitive global economy.
On balance, corporate America remains right of center. But that does not make its leaders comfortable in today’s Republican Party, dominated by a hard-bitten, quasi-libertarian stance toward the public sector. CEOs are closer to being politically homeless than they have been since the waning decades of the nineteenth century, when the pettiness and corruption of both parties drove business leaders to the sidelines. The right kind of Democratic agenda might cement a new alliance with at least a portion of corporate America. Gene Sperling, the author of a notable book entitled The Pro-Growth Progressive and the director of Obama’s National Economic Council, would seem ideally placed to lead the conversation.
But it’s not clear that his boss is interested. President Obama’s second inaugural address was notable for the relatively short shrift it gave to fiscal issues, tax reform, and pro-growth public investments. He spent much more time on climate change and on the social equality agenda, which was clearly the thematic and emotional heart of the speech. And while he spoke in passing of “hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit,” he spoke much more forcefully about the need the preserve programs for the elderly, raising the moral stakes by calling them the “commitments we make to each other. If economic growth rests in part on expanded public investment–in research and development, education and training, transportation and communication–where is the money to come from? With an agenda dominated by a new emphasis on guns and immigration, and a renewed focus on climate change, where is the energy and political capital that would be needed to put growth first?
It was never exactly true that (in the words of Secretary of Defense and former GM head Charlie Wilson) that “what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa”. Still, there is a substantial overlap between the agenda of responsible corporate leaders and the well-being of average Americans. Our country would be stronger if the Democratic Party could find a way of linking the long-term self-interest of corporate America to a progressive pro-growth agenda. But we seem to be headed in another direction altogether, and CEOs are likely to remain without a home in either party.

By now, readers of TDS and other progressive websites are no longer surprised by new revelations concerning the Republican project to undermine fair political representation by gerrymandering at every opportunity. But The Nation’s John Nichol’s puts it particularly well in his post, “GOP Version2013: Battling Not Just Democrats but Democracy.” Here’s how it happened, as Nichols explains:

On a day when most Americans were focused on the stirring second inaugural address of President Barack Obama–and on the broader majesty of the transference of an election result into a governing mandate–Republican state senators in Virginia hatched an elaborate scheme to rig the electoral system against democracy.
Prevented by an even 20-20 divide in the chamber from gerrymandering Senate districts to favor one party or the other, the Republicans knew that their only opening to draw lines that favored their candidates in this fall’s off-year elections would be if at least one Democrat were missing. Inauguration Day gave them an opening, as an African-American senator, a veteran of the civil rights movement, was in Washington to recognize the beginning of the new term of the nation’s first African-American president.
In a matter of minutes, the Republicans introduced and approved–on a 20-19 vote–a new map that is designed to concentrate African-American and liberal white votes in a handful of districts while virtually guaranteeing that Republicans will win a majority of the new districts and control of the legislature. And if a Republican wins the governorship this fall, the GOP will, thanks to a legislative coup and the electoral map it created, have complete control of a state that was easily won by Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, that has two Democratic senators and that most observers believe is trending Democratic.

Noting that “the Republican senators adjourned their Rev. Martin Luther King Day session not in honor of the civil rights icon but “in memory of General Thomas J. ‘Stonewall’ Jackson.” In addition, Nichols explains that the GOP war on democracy “…is part of a national strategy to allow Republicans to “win” even when they lose. And its primary focus will be on gerrymandering not just state legislatures and the US House but on rigging the Electoral College.”
Nichols goes on to show that the Republicans’ electoral college vote allocation schemes, if implemented last year, could well have resulted in a Romney electoral college victory, even though Obama would have had a five-million vote popular vote edge. The GOP strategy being pushed by party Chairman Reince Priebus can be boiled down to: Cheat Democrats out of congressional strategy with gerrymandering and rip off electoral votes through proportional allocation schemes. Nichols continues,

..Just as Virginia Republicans were willing to abandon any pretense of fairness in order to game the system for statewide electoral advantage, there is every reason to believe that Republican legislators in states across the country will, with encouragement from the national chairman of their party, move to rig the Electoral College so that a losing Republican might again “win” the presidency–as popular-vote loser George W. Bush did in 2000, with an assist from a Republican-dominated US Supreme Court.
Americans who presume that there are limits to the willingness of Priebus and his Republican stalwarts to rig the rules in their favor have not been paying attention. The Virginia coup should serve as their wake-up call. Reince Priebus’ GOP Version2013 threatens not just Democratic victories but democracy itself.

The temptation is to hope the Priebus will bring the same level of competence to marshalling his war on democracy that he demonstrated in organizing the Republican Convention last summer. But Dems can’t count on that and need to be on high alert in every state where the GOP has enough leverage to game the system.

There’s a new wrinkle in Virginia Senate Republicans’ redistricting plan, which is designed to gerrymander a significant number of new congressional districts to favor Republican candidates. Some Republicans now fear the Governor’s transportation bill might now be torpedoed by Democrats angered by the Republican sneak attack that caught VA Dems unprepared. Errin Haines and Laura Vozzella report on the story at the Washington Post.
Dems do have a plan for actual party-building in Texas, as Alexander Burns reports at Politico: “National Democrats are taking steps to create a large-scale independent group aimed at turning traditionally conservative Texas into a prime electoral battleground, crafting a new initiative to identify and mobilize progressive voters in the rapidly-changing state…The organization, dubbed “Battleground Texas,” plans to engage the state’s rapidly growing Latino population, as well as African-American voters and other Democratic-leaning constituencies that have been underrepresented at the ballot box in recent cycles. Two sources said the contemplated budget would run into the tens of millions of dollars over several years – a project Democrats hope has enough heft to help turn what has long been an electoral pipe dream into reality.”
This report on Wisconsin Dems implementing a “72-county strategy” is encouraging.
At WaPo’s Wonkblog, Evan Soltas has a round-up of recent reporets on filibuster reform, including this nugget from Slate’s Dave Weigel, explaining the “flip’ proposal: “Democratic aides tell me that the party is not likely to accept a Reid-McConnell reform deal unless it includes a change that “flips” the filibuster. Instead of the majority requiring 60 votes to block a bill, the minority would need to muster 41 votes to block a bill.”
Steven Greenhouse reports in the New York Times that labor union membership is down nation-wide — about 400,000 workers in one year, according to the Bureau of labor Statistics. But he cites A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s chief economist William Spriggs noting an uptick in union membership in California, Georgia, North Carolina, Oklahoma and Texas and among Latinos and Asian Americans. Greenhouse adds “According to the report, North Carolina has the lowest unionization rate, 2.9 percent, followed by Arkansas, at 3.2 percent. New York had the highest unionization rate, 23.2 percent, with Alaska second, at 22.4 percent.” All this despite a wage differential in median weekly earnings of $201 favoring unionized workers nationwide over non-union employees.
New York Times Opinionator Thomas B. Edsall asks “Can Republicans Change Their Spots?” Edsall explores possible answers and comments on two states that have been gerrymandered to favor Republicans: “In North Carolina, Bloomberg news found that Democrats won 2.22 million votes to 2.14 million cast for Republican candidates, but Republicans won 9 of the state’s 13 House seats. Similarly, in Pennsylvania, Democrats won 2.7 million votes to the Republicans’ 2.6 million, but Democrats ended up with only 5 of the state’s 18 districts.”
At CNN Politics’ Mark Preston writes in “GOP chief plans major overhaul to party” about Reince Priubus’s plans to revamp Republican party structure and operations. The predictable reforms on his agenda — shorten primary season, fewer presidential debates, better data-driven research and stronger messaging — won’t cause Democratic leaders to lose any sleep.
Brian Bennett of The Los Angeles Times addresses whether the “GOP can woo Latino voters with shift on immigration.” Bennett writes, “An estimated 31% of Latino registered voters would be more likely to vote for a Republican if the party took the lead on pushing for immigration reform, according to poll results.” He notes that “Fifty thousand Latino citizens turn 18 and become eligible to vote every month,” according to Professor Gary Segura of Latino Decisions polling firm.
At The Daily Beast however, Micheal Tomasky explains why Republican leaders are going to have a tough time winning many African American and Latino voters. Tomasky notes, for example, “Conservatives always say, “Latinos are conservative; they are our natural allies!” It’s not really true. Exit polls last year found Latinos supporting abortion rights in quite large numbers, and ditto same-sex marriage (to a lesser degree, but still a healthy majority). The conservative misunderstanding, of course, is in assuming that personal conservatism equates with political conservatism. Sometimes it does, but a lot of the time it does not.”
As if.

Senate leaders have begun meeting on filibuster reform and are expected to decide its fate this week. Alexander Bolton reports at The Hill,

In recent days, Reid has begun to focus on a proposal to tweak the filibuster rule by requiring the minority party to muster 41 votes to stall a bill or nominee. Under current rules, the responsibility is on the majority to round up 60 votes to end a filibuster.
Reid will insist on reducing delays to motions to begin debate on new business and motions to send legislation to conference talks with the House, according to Senate sources.
Democratic proponents of filibuster reform emphasize that Reid does not yet have a final package. They are holding out hope that Reid can be persuaded to include the talking filibuster after a caucus debate.

Reid may or may not present the “constitutional option” or “nuclear option.” he will first try to get Minority Leader McConnell to agree to a bipartisan compromise to their respective caucuses this week.
Reid will have leverage with the Democrats in opposing the ‘Talking Filibuster,” since he is supported by Sens. Dianne Feinstein, Max Baucus, Carl Levin, Joe Manchin and Mark Pryor. Now Sen. Richard Durbin, an astute vote-counter, says there are not enough votes “at this point” to secure a “Talking Filibuster” requirement.
At Huffpo, however, Amanda Terkel reports that Sen. Tammy Baldwin has endorsed the ‘Talking Filibuster” advocates. Terkel adds,

There are two ways the Senate could change the rules: Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) could agree to a deal, or Reid could force a vote on the floor if McConnell refuses to cooperate. Reid has already made McConnell an offer.
“The ball is in McConnell’s court — agree to Reid’s offer, or let’s get it on,” said a top Senate Democratic aide….Filibuster reform advocates need 50 votes plus that of the vice president in order to change the rules of the Senate when the chamber reconvenes on Tuesday. Udall has said he is confident they will have enough votes, and the bill has the strong support of progressive groups.

Any of the aforementioned reforms would be an improvement over the current reality, in which a super-majority is required to do anything significant. If McConnell refuses the compromise, my hope is that Reid will use the ‘constitutional option’ to enact even stronger restrictions on the filibuster. The Republicans need to know that refusing to compromise always has a penalty.

Here’s Managing Editor Ed Kilgore in his Political Animal column describing Paul Ryan’s latest attempt to clean up his Ayn Rand extremist act:

Paul Ryan exhibited some chutzpah today in a cry of foul play aimed at the president’s shot at those who divide Americans into “takers and makers,” which until it got him into trouble in 2012 was one of the Wisconsin Randian’s favorite rhetorical devices.
According to the Weekly Standard, Ryan went on television this morning and perhaps having read Michael Gerson’s WaPo op-ed accusing the president of creating a “raging bonfire of straw men, played the victim his own self:
Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan knocked President Barack Obama for “shadowbox[ing] a straw man” in his inaugural address. Speaking Tuesday morning on the Laura Ingraham Radio Show to guest host Raymond Arroyo, Ryan responded to Obama’s statement that Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security “do not make us a nation of takers, they free us to take the risks that make this country great.”
Ryan called Obama’s insinuation that he and other reform-minded Republicans consider recipients of these benefits “takers” a “switcheroo.”
“It’s kind of a convenient twist of terms to try and shadowbox a straw man to try to win an argument by default,” Ryan said.
“No one is suggesting that what we call our ‘earned entitlements’, entitlements you pay for, you know, like payroll taxes for Medicare and Social Security, are putting you in a ‘taker’ category,” Ryan continued. “The concern that people like me have been raising is we do not want to encourage a dependency culture. This is why we called for welfare reform.
Note first off that Ryan conveniently omits mentioning Medicaid in his self-defense against Obama’s alleged calumny, for the good reason that it is not an “earned entitlement” based on payroll tax deductions. For that matter, Ryan is advancing an interpretation of Medicare that he knows is completely erroneous, because over 40% of Medicare expenditures come from general revenues rather than payroll taxes or premiums. Who knows, maybe Ryan thinks Medicare beneficiaries are “takers” just three days out of every week, or is telegraphing a future intention to limit benefits to payroll taxes paid.
But in fact, Republicans deploying the taker/maker dichotomy, most especially Paul Ryan, are almost always referring to people who receive more federal government benefits, regardless of their type or justification, than they pay in federal taxes. Here’s an example from Ryan:

Read more…

Now that all the pundits have had their say about President Obama’s second inaugural address, Nate Silver brings the data to show what really matters: The public supports the president’s agenda. On climate change:

The PollingReport.com database includes two polls on global warming conducted after the Nov. 6 presidential election. An Associated Press-GfK poll in the field from Nov. 29 to Dec. 3 found that 78 percent of respondents said they believed the planet had warmed over the past 100 years, and 49 percent said they thought global warming would be a “very serious” problem for the United States if left unaddressed (31 percent said they thought it would be “somewhat serious”).
Fifty-seven percent of the 1,002 adults surveyed said the United States government should do “a great deal” or “quite a bit” on global warming…A United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection poll conducted Nov. 8 to 11 found that 57 percent of adults said they thought global warming was increasing the likelihood of storms like Hurricane Sandy.

On same-sex marriage:

The percentage of adults who favor same-sex marriage has been rising steadily for some time…Five polls on same-sex marriage have been conducted since the election and are included in the PollingReport.com database. Each poll uses slightly different question wording, but an average of 51 percent of respondents favored same-sex marriage and 44 percent opposed it.

On Immigration reform, Silver cites four recent polls, two showing strong majorities favoring a path to citizenship similar to what the president supports and two showing healthy pluralities supporting the president’s proposals.
On gun violence, different polls on various reforms bring a mixed message, but more favorable to Obama’s proposals than not:

…a New York Times/CBS News poll found that 54 percent of respondents favored tighter gun laws, up from 39 percent in a CBS News poll last April…A Jan. 17 Gallup poll found 53 percent of adults said they would want their representative to vote for the package of gun law reforms that Mr. Obama proposed. Forty-one percent said they would want their representative to oppose the laws.
…The most recent Fox News poll found that 51 percent of respondents said that “protecting the constitutional right of citizens to own guns” was more important than “protecting citizens from gun violence.” Forty percent of those surveyed said protecting citizens was more important…In the same Fox News poll, laws requiring criminal background checks and mental health checks on all gun buyers were both favored by more than 80 percent of respondents. (That’s in line with virtually every recent poll on guns. The Times/CBS News poll found that 92 percent of respondents favored background checks on all potential gun buyers.)
…Recent polls have found that support for a ban on assault rifles and semiautomatic weapons as well as a ban on high-capacity magazines usually falls in the low 50s to low 60s.

In his speech the president said, “Our journey is not complete until no citizen is forced to wait for hours to exercise the right to vote.” Silver cites “a solid majority favoring such laws.” Silver did not discuss restrictions on early voting opposed by Democrats in general. But heavy participation rates indicate that it is overwhelmingly popular with voters.
Republican commentators are still parroting their message du jour that the president’s speech was somehow polarizing. Not really. Their knee-jerk response is to oppose everything he proposes. But the public clearly supports the president’s speech agenda in almost every instance — often by overwhelming margins.