As my and other progressive reactions to the Ryan budget proposal have tried to make clear, the document is a true landmark in the consolidation of movement-conservative control over the Republican Party. Not since Barry Goldwater opposed the original Great Society legislation has such an effort been made to roll it all back.
But there are reminders today that even this degree of rightward movement by the GOP is not enough for more than a few conservatives. There’s this interesting tidbit in the Washington Post‘s account of congressional GOP reaction to Ryan’s budget:

Some Republicans have already dismissed the Ryan plan as too timid, saying they can’t go back to constituents without a balanced budget.

Similarly, a leading Tea Party blogger warns conservatives not to get too excited about Ryan himself:

Many conservatives desperate for the second coming of Reagan and Jesus have poured out their hopes, dreams, and ambitions into Paul Ryan as if he is some sort of empty vessel to be filled with the desires of conservatives.
Paul Ryan is a very decent guy, but he is just a man. He supported No Child Left Behind, the medicare prescription drug benefit, TARP, the auto bailout, the arguably unconstitutional AIG bonus tax, and capping CEO pay among other things. He is not infallible. Please, conservatives, try not to sound too enraptured.

Meanwhile, rank-and-file conservative radicalism was on display in a startling new PPP poll from New Hampshire, which showed Donald Trump jumping into a competitive second-place position just below Mitt Romney in a trial primary heat:

If Trump actually runs 21% of New Hampshire GOP voters say they’d vote for him, compared to 27% for Romney. The key to Trump’s relatively strong showing? He does well with birthers and Tea Partiers, two groups he has seemed to actively court with his public comments of late. 42% of primary voters firmly say they do not believe Barack Obama was born in the United States to 35% who believe that he was and 23% who aren’t sure. Trump leads Romney 22-21 with the birther crowd, but Romney holds the overall lead because he’s up by a much wider margin with the folks who dismiss the birther theory.
Trump also leads Romney 23-21 with the Republican primary voters who consider themselves to be Tea Party members but that’s only 30% of the electorate and Romney’s up by a good margin with the folks who don’t identify with that movement.

Republican elected officials are under a lot of pressure to say and do things they’d never have considered saying and doing–in public, at least–until things started getting weird for them in 2008.

The wave of conservative hype greeting the release of Rep. Paul Ryan’s draft budget resolution is a pretty clear indication the Republican Party is about to take a deep breath and go over the brink into a direct assault on the programs and commitments that gave the United States a small replica of the modern welfare state common in the rest of the developed world. So excited are they that the New York Times‘ David Brooks, who normally likes to position himself as an eagle soaring above the grubby machinations of both political parties, just can’t contain himself:

Over the past few weeks, a number of groups, including the ex-chairmen of the Council of Economic Advisers and 64 prominent budget experts, have issued letters arguing that the debt situation is so dire that doing nothing is not a survivable option. What they lacked was courageous political leadership — a powerful elected official willing to issue a proposal, willing to take a stand, willing to face the political perils.
The country lacked that leadership until today. Today, Paul Ryan, the Republican chairman of the House Budget Committee, is scheduled to release the most comprehensive and most courageous budget reform proposal any of us have seen in our lifetimes. Ryan is expected to leap into the vacuum left by the president’s passivity. The Ryan budget will not be enacted this year, but it will immediately reframe the domestic policy debate….
The Ryan budget will put all future arguments in the proper context: The current welfare state is simply unsustainable and anybody who is serious, on left or right, has to have a new vision of the social contract.

Wow, you can almost hear the soaring music of a Tim Pawlenty ad when you read that passage! As Brooks would have it, Ryan’s assault on “the welfare state” isn’t really debatable; it’s based on Revealed Truth that all honorable people will accept and only scoundrels will deny. Anyone second-guessing this leader who has exposed Barack Obama’s cowardice must come with his or her own six-trillion dollar package of cuts for benefits affecting those people whose aspirations to luxury items like health insurance are now “unsustainable.”
But while Brooks and others praising Ryan’s budget are laughable in lauding the “courage” of a safe-seat congressman throwing red meat to his party’s base while taking on the poor and disabled and delighting private health insurers and anyone paying corporate taxes–they are right about Ryan’s audacity.
The simple way to put it is that Ryan’s budget steers clear of taking on the signature New Deal social program, Social Security, but takes dead aim on the Great Society’s accomplishment of a partial set of guarantees for access to health care.
By any meaningful measurement, Ryan’s proposal would kill Medicare by privatizing it and capping its costs, and kill Medicaid by making it simply a soon-to-be-phased-down grant to states with no obligation to provide a set of minimum benefits for the poor and disabled.
On the first point, Josh Marshall nicely explains why privatizing Medicare destroys its very rationale:

We all know about pre-existing conditions. You’re a cancer survivor so no insurer will cover you. Or you have one of the myriad possible conditions that make you a bad risk. And no insurer wants to issue a policy for someone who odds say is likely to cost a lot of money. Well, guess what, people over 65 all have a preexisting condition: they’re old!
Now, not that people aren’t living longer and longer lives. And plenty of folks in their late 60s are in better health than folks 10 or 20 years younger. But by and large, we all know how this life thing works. When you hit your mid-60s or so, things start breaking down. And eventually, you die. That’s a bald way to put it. But we all understand that this is true. The simple truth is that for all the problems with private health insurance for the young and working age populations, it just doesn’t work for seniors.
We tried it. That’s why we ended up creating Medicare.

We created Medicaid (originally a Republican alternative to universal health coverage) to ensure that people with insufficient funds to purchase health services or insurance or whose health costs outstripped their ability to pay would not, to put it pretty bluntly, get even sicker and/or die. Ryan’s “block grant” proposal would end any personal claim on health services for any American, and would simply subsidize state health care programs for the indigent and the disabled (a subsidy guaranteed to be a fat target in futue federal deficit reduction efforts once the “problem” is thought of as a state responsibility). Here’s a mild estimate of what that would involve from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities:

States would most likely use their additional flexibility to cap Medicaid enrollment and put people on waiting lists once the cap was reached (which they cannot do today), significantly scale back eligibility for millions of low-income children, parents, pregnant women, people with disabilities and seniors — driving many of them into the ranks of the uninsured — or cut services substantially, with the result that many of the nation’s poorest and most vulnerable people could become underinsured.

With respect to Medicaid, the downward spiral of eligibility and benefits contemplated by Ryan’s proposal would occur after the immediate disqualification of an estimated 15 million Americans who would obtain Medicaid coverage under the provisions of last year’s health reform legislation, which Ryan would repeal. That’s quite a giant leap backward for anyone supporting the basic idea of universal health coverage.
Against the background of a budget that will apparently leave defense spending pretty much as it is, while applying any savings from closing tax loopholes to the lowering of top and corporate rates, Ryan’s Medicare/Medicaid proposals are astoundingly unbalanced. For all the talk about his “courage,” it’s also noteworthy that Ryan insulates today’s seniors (who happen to be more heavily Republican in their voting preferences than at any time in recent memory) from any changes in Medicare, while targeting a Medicaid-eligible population with few GOP voters.
To conservative ideologues who think America went fatally wrong in the Great Society years–except, of course, for the establishment of a National Security State supporting a vast array of overseas military commitments that helped our allies afford their own welfare states–Ryan’s budget makes perfect sense. In taking on Ryan, it’s imperative that Democrats begin by making it clear exactly what is at stake.

There’s been a fair amount of commentary, some snarky, some genuinely sad, about the contrast between the atmosphere surrounding Barack Obama’s low-key re-election campaign announcement today and the exciting, historic launch of his 2008 campaign.
It is true that lack of enthusiasm for the administration among progressives could be a problem for Obama ’12, though the virulent radicalism and ill will of the contemporary GOP will help reduce that gap significantly. And it remains to be seen if the Obama political brain trust is going to be able to replicate much of the grassroots orientation–in organization and in fund-raising–of the original model.
But let’s remember that presidential re-election campaigns by their very nature are almost invariably a more sober proposition than those of challengers. Presidents seeking another term want to convey the sense that they are working hard, under enormous pressure, on the problems facing the country, and are elevated by their office to a level of discourse not typical of mere politicians. There’s a reason a number of presidents have chosen to wage “Rose Garden Campaigns” that eschew much of the hullabaloo of traditional canvasses. And obviously incumbent chief executives have no need to raise their name IDs or introduce Americans to their personal and ideological traits.
A time will come when the Obama campaign strikes a more urgent tone, and ’08 Obama voters will definitely be reminded that they aren’t going to get what they bargained for back then by switching horses and parties in 2012. Songs will be sung and celebrity endorsers will be back. But nobody should expect much in the way of excitement from Team Obama any time soon.

It’s become pretty common-place to note that most of the crew looking to run for president as Republicans in 2010 are trying mighty hard to leave no space to their right. By and large, they are churning out red meat to “the base” on every subject that comes up.
The exception, interestingly enough, may be immigration, where the pols haven’t quite kept up with activist demands. The firebrands at NumbersUSA have published a “report card” for proto-candidates on the issues they care about, from opposing “amnesty” to ending “birthright citizenship.” They are not happy with most of the candidates, less because of the positions they’ve taken than because of the controversies they’ve dodged (particularly on ending birthright citizenship and lowering rates of legal as well as illegal immigration).
Chris Christie is given a nice even “F”; Haley Barbour, Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich all earn “D-minus” grades; Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee come in at “D.” Then comes Ron Paul at “C-minus.” At the top of the list are Tim Pawlenty at “C-plus” and Michele Bachmann at “B-minus.” Both the Minnesotans have come out for eliminating birthright citizenship.
Barack Obama, of course, is given an “F-Minus,” a hitherto unknown point of depth in the grading scale.
Perhaps falling levels of immigration and competing problems are creating fears among anti-immigrant zealots that their cause, given such a big lift last year by the viral spread of state laws resembling Arizona’s, is on the wane. Or maybe they just want to get the candidates’ attention and get their fair share of pandering. But it’s become a truly crazy conservative world in which even Michele Bachmann can’t win a higher grade than “B-minus” on an issue measuring ideological orthodoxy.

Today is the 43rd anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther KIng, Jr., who was murdered while supporting striking sanitation workers in Memphis, TN in 1968. Dr. King, a strong supporter of the American trade union movement, said “The Labor Movement was the principal force that transformed misery and despair into hope and progress.” Today, American labor will honor Dr. King with more than 1000 events in the ‘We Are One’ campaign, coast to coast. From the AFL-CIO Now blog:
You can keep up with all of the We Are One events on April 4 by checking out a live Web stream, Twitter feed and photo slide show of ongoing events at the AFL-CIO site….
If you are out at a rally or event, share what’s going on through Twitter using the #April4 hashtag. And if you’re on Twitter and attending a rally, please send twitpics using the #April4 hashtag and we will add them to the slideshow at www.aflcio.org.
On April 4 and in the days before and after, working people are joining students, religious leaders, elected officials and community activists across the country in more than 1,000 We Are One actions to show solidarity with workers under attack and to honor the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who was assassinated that day in 1968. He was in Memphis April 4 helping sanitation workers fight for the same workers’ rights now under attack in Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio and elsewhere.
Click here to find an event near you…Click here for ideas you can use to stage your own event, here for resources and here to add an event to our We Are One calendar

Many of you probably heard about the preliminary 2010 census estimates showing that the trend towards a nonwhite majority population has accelerated. Fortunately for us political junkies, the intrepid Ron Brownstein has already written up an informed glimpse for National Journal of what that might mean for the fate of the two major parties, beginning in 2012.
The relatively high percentage of minority Americans who are not old enough to vote (nearly half of under-18 Americans are from minority groups), and the significant number of Latinos who are not citizens, both mean non-Hispanic white voters will continue to punch above their demographic weight for some time to come. But even so, change is coming rapidly to that picture. Here’s Brownstein’s most important interpretation of the data:

If the minority share of the vote increases in 2012 by the same rate it has grown in presidential elections since 1992, it will rise to about 28 percent nationally. By itself, that could substantially alter the political playing field from 2010, when the minority vote share sagged to just 22 percent. It means that if Obama can maintain, or even come close to, the four-fifths share of minority votes that he won in 2008, he could win a majority of the national popular vote with even less than the 43 percent of whites he attracted last time.

Just as importantly, rapidly rising minority populations are especially notable in key battleground states. Check out these projections:

Obama, for instance, won Florida last time with 42 percent of the white vote; under this scenario, if he maintains his minority support he could win the Sunshine State with just under 40 percent of the white vote. With equal minority support in Nevada, the president could win with only 35 percent of the white vote, down from the 45 percent he garnered in 2008. Likewise, under these conditions, Obama could take Virginia with just 33.5 percent of whites, well down from the 39 percent he captured last time. In New Jersey, his winning number among whites would fall to just over 41 percent (compared with the 52 percent he won in 2008). In Pennsylvania, under these circumstances, 41 percent of white votes would be enough to put the state in Obama’s column, down from the 48 percent he won in 2008.

Brownstein also discusses the possibility that rising minority voting could put states like Texas and Georgia into play, which could have significant tactical implications in a close race even if winning these states is a reach for Obama.
Some analysts, of course, doubt that Obama will be able to replicate his astonishing 2008 performance among minority voters (or the historic turnout of African-Americans) in a less-historic election, and with the burdens of a struggling economy now on his back. Brownstein also runs state-by-state numbers under a scenario where Obama loses about a tenth of his 2008 minority support (roughly the percentage Democrats won in 2010, but with a higher turnout, as is typical in presidential years). Under that scenario, Obama would have to do as well or slightly better among white voters to win most battleground states. But anyway you slice it, the 2012 electorate will be significantly more positive for Democrats than the 2010 electorate, and even somewhat better than the 2008 electorate.
The variable that seems least likely to change between now and November of 2012 is stronger Republican appeal to minorities, given the hard-right trajectory of the GOP on virtually every policy issue, and the now-almost-anonymous hostility of GOP office-holders to comprehensive immigration reform (remember that both the outgoing Bush administration and 2008 GOP nominee John McCain had been conspicuous supporters, at least in the past, of comprehensive reform, which may have prevented an even more catastrophic performance among Latinos). Brownstein concludes by noting that the one thing GOPers could do to help themselves among Latinos is to put one of their number on the national ticket. I’d go further and say Marco Rubio is already a lead-pipe cinch for the vice-presidential nomination if he wants it.
All in all, elections are events in which demographic trends are relative to each other, and one vote equals another. But if a recovering economy and GOP radicalism make it possible for the Democratic ticket to get without shouting distance of its 2008 performance among white voters, demographic change is likely to be strong enough to put Obama back in office for a second term while giving Democrats a good chance at gains in the House and maintenance of control in the Senate. Meanwhile, the less immediate future looks very bright for the Donkey Party unless the Republican Party changes its atavistic ways.

Reports on what is happening with the negotiations over current-year federal appropriations are all over the place, with some suggesting an imminent deal (possibly complicated or even unraveled by revolts from both the left and right in Congress and elsewhere) and others a government shutdown. But a much bigger and more momentous battle is going to begin next Tuesday, when House Budget Committee chairman Rep. Paul Ryan finally unveils his draft long-range budget resolution.
Early indications are that Ryan will not go after Social Security benefits (other than rhetorically), but will really bring the hammer down on Medicaid and Medicare, with the former targeted for a cool trillion in cuts over the next ten years. Given the close connection between Medicaid and health reform, there’s zero question that hammering Medicaid eligibility and benefit levels will represent a collateral attack on “ObamaCare,” not to mention an opportunity to screw those shiftless po’ folks who caused the housing and financial meltdowns and stole the 2008 elections with the help of ACORN.
The overriding rationale for Medicaid cuts will be the program’s impact on state government budgets. Expect lots of talk from Republican governors about the need for “flexibility,” which can be pretty strictly translated as the “flexibility” to cut benefits. Nationally, conservatives have been longing for decades to dump Medicaid beneficiaries, typically through some “block grant” scheme that fixes federal spending at current levels (even though health care costs continue to rise rapidly) and liberates the states to make ends meet by abandoning services and those served. Ryan may propose such a block grant, or perhaps a version of the vouchers he’s already talked about using to “reform” Medicare (a tricky proposition for Medicaid since eligibility and benefit levels vary significantly from state to state, thanks to the “flexibility” already provided to states).
The impending GOP assault on Medicaid is ironic, since the program began back in the early 1960s as an accomodation of a long-standing GOP proposal for health coverage of the poor, its preferred alternative to universal health coverage.
Ryan’s treatment of Medicare will likely get more attention, and will be a lot less transparent, given the political sensitivity of cuts in a program much beloved among the GOP’s increasingly elderly base. For one thing, current beneficiaries will be “grandfathered,” with the brunt of reduced benefits falling on those qualifying for Medicare in a decade or so (this approach, which is also a standard feature of GOP Social Security “reform” schemes, hasn’t much worked in the past, viz. with Bush’s 2005 SocSec proposals).
In general, the budget debate will represent the most thorough-going conservative effort to explode the entire New Deal-Great Society legacy we’ve ever seen. We’ll also find out if Republicans are willing to look seriously at long-range defense budget reductions. The stakes couldn’t be much higher, particularly if you consider that a growing number of conservatives are linking votes for a public debt limit increase to acceptance of their “big ideas” on the budget. Indeed, it may well be that conservatives are switching their planned maximum temper tantrums from the short-term appropriations bill to the long-term budget measures.
I know many progressives are demoralized by the White House’s handling of the appropriations negotiations, and of other issues like Libya. But believe me, the fight that’s about to begin over the budget will make the appropriations wrestling match look like, well, a wrestling match, compared to the open warfare just on the horizon. And no, I do not think there is any significant chance that the president, regardless of his willingness to talk about “entitlement reform,” is going to “cave” and accept a Medicaid block grant or a voucherization of Medicare, particularly if Republicans predictably continue to oppose a restoration of Clinton-era tax rates for the wealthy and insist on repealing health reform.
So get ready for the real budget debate.