Prairie Weather

A closer view of Bob Woodward's handiwork...

It comes from John Cassidy, the economics and politics writer for the New Yorker, who doesn't grind axes, who -- like all writers at the New Yorker -- knows every damn thing in his column must go through a notoriously rigorous fact check. 

It was Bob Woodward who verified that the sequester idea came from Jacob Lew.  That's been the accepted fact at this blog for a while.  As Cassidy points out, the sequester was warmly embraced by Republicans and voted for by Republicans.  So Woodward was right about that, as most of us have been saying.

Cassidy then goes on to comment on the latest Woodward statements which are patently untrue, not to say nuts.  In all this kerfuffle about getting threats from the White House here's what has emerged, what you can take to whatever bank or mattress you use:

... It’s equally obvious that Woodward was the one who erred. The White House was clear all along that, when it came to replacing the sequester, it would demand a balanced package of spending cuts and revenue increases. In signing the legislation that put the sequester in place, Obama said, “This compromise requires that both parties work together on a larger plan to cut the deficit, which is important for the long-term health of our economy. And since you can’t close the deficit with just spending cuts, we’ll need a balanced approach where everything is on the table.”

Woodward’s determination to accuse Obama of shifting ground prompted Sperling to remark that he would regret making such a claim. In a subsequent interview with two reporters from Politico, Woodward portrayed this statement as a threat, remarking, “You know, tremble, tremble. I don’t think it’s the way to operate.” But the full text of Sperling’s e-mail, eventually revealed by Politico, hardly supports such an interpretation. ...Cassidy, New Yorker

Take a look at the "threatening" email over at Politico.  It was hardly threatening.  Friendly and bland, it is backed up by fact.  Cassidy continues:

For all his faults, Woodward is an industrious reporter, who, at the age of sixty-nine, is still out there conducting interviews and taking notes. In any dispute between the White House and a journalist, my first instinct is to support the latter. In trying to discredit stories and books it doesn’t like, and the writers responsible for them, this Administration, like many before it, has showed itself capable of acting ruthlessly and callously. Woodward isn’t just any reporter, though, and on this occasion he opened himself up to ridicule. Going forward, perhaps he should stick to reported articles and books, which presumably get edited and fact-checked, and leave the op-eds and interviews with Politico to the subjects of his stories. ...Cassidy, New Yorker

I think Cassidy is being fairer than anyone I've read on either side of this silly issue, including myself.  Given half a chance, I'd shout at Woodward over the phone.  But that's because I really don't like spotlight-grabbing old farts like Woodward.  There's stuff going on -- stuff issuing from Washington in the form of more economic punishment foisted on us by a Republican party that (as most Americans now realize) don't care about anyone or anything but themselves.  Woodward's attention, too,  is firmly directed at "moi."  He's all about Bob Woodward. Otherwise he'd think twice about stirring up even more junk. 

Who started this damn sequester thingy?

The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, better known as "Gramm-Rudman Hollings," created a series of deficit targets meant to balance the federal budget by 1991. If these targets were not met, a series of across-the-board spending cuts (sequestration) would automatically ensue. The legislation was sponsored by Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX), Senator Warran Rudman (R-NH), and Senator Ernest Hollings (D-SC) and was signed into law by President Reagan in December 1985.

DESCRIPTION:

The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Graham-Rudman-Hollings) was an amendment to a bill that allowed the debt ceiling to be raised to over $2 billion. It created a five-year deficit reduction plan, with decreasing deficit targets each year, until the budget would be balanced in fiscal year 1991. If deficit goals were not met in any given year, a process of automatic spending cuts termed "sequestration" would take place. Fifty percent of the cuts would come from domestic discretionary spending and fifty percent from defense. Social Security, Medicare, several anti-poverty programs, and interest on the debt were exempted from a potential sequester.

Gramm-Rudman-Hollings garnered bipartisan support and was signed into law by President Reagan in December 1985. Most Republicans in the House and Senate voted for it, while the Democratic vote was split nearly evenly in both chambers. Those in favor of the bill argued that the budget deficit, which had greatly increased since 1981, required dedicated measures to reign in federal spending. Democrats who voted "no" argued that budget cuts were likely to impact domestic programs while leaving military spending largely intact. Nevertheless, the Reagan administration opposed the mandated fifty percent cuts in defense spending in a potential sequester and provided only lukewarm support for the measure.

In 1986 the Supreme Court ruled the Act unconstitutional on the grounds that the sequestration process gave Congress undue budgetary power. In 1987 the Act was passed again (see Gramm-Rudman-Hollings II), with a new sequestration process and deficit numbers; the revised legislation also pushed back the date at the budget was to be balanced to 1993. ...more here

Is Bob Woodward just another wuzza?

Washington is full of wuzzas.  A wuzza is an individual who once wuzza somebody, who no longer is, but stays in Washington nonetheless and begs for attention.  Bob Woodward wuzza Ace Reporter back in the '70's and has written a couple of  "I'm still here and still in touch with the rich and famous" books since then but is now an elderly, forgetful editorial writer at his old newspaper. 

Forgetful?  Yes.  He's forgotten what it's like to actually be a reporter.  As a reporter, you get told off all the time.  You expect the White House to be friendly when you're looking for dirt or something that will get you attention once again?

Joe Gandelman, who spent much of his life as a freelance journalist here and overseas and who is now the editor-in-chief at The Moderate Voice, writes:

...The White House official who talked to Woodward helped confirm a growing impression that this is a thin-skinned White House. Are Obama officials surprised surprised that Woodward is writing or asserting things with which they don’t agree? How many White Houses have read books or articles by Woodward and found information in them that they wished was not there, or an analysis with which they did not agree? Have they followed Woodward’s career and the credibility of his fly-on-the-wall reporting over the years? ...Moderate Voice

Can't argue with that!  Gandelman goes on to say that it's beginning to look more and more as though Woodward is making something out of nothing.

... Indeed: how many (of us) who worked in the news media or worked in it had a source say if we ran with something we’d regret it? It’s often a hint the reporter has it wrong, or that the source is highly connected and there will some kind of consequences. Or its an attempt to intimidate, which inevitably is a stupid mistake: few editors or reporters will STOP reporting on a story if a source makes it clear they don’t want more coverage. In fact, a threat usually means they’re onto something and the story develops “legs.”...Moderate Voice

Gandelman thinks, and I agree, that Woodward's apparent willingness (eagerness?) to appear on the Hannity show is probably going to deal him a significant loss in his credibility.  And the Obama administration?  Media consumers across this fruited plain are well aware that the Republicans are out to damage the president as thoroughly as they can.  Republican credibility is, as polls have been telling us for -- for years now! -- in very bad shape. 

That's when the bitter, noisy, defensive stage of being a Washington wuzza really kicks in.  It's not just Bob Woodward. If there ever were a bunch of wuzzas plaguing our nation's capitol, the Republican party of 2013 is definitely included!

Why the pope wanted out -- and fast!

Word on the street is (and has been for a while) that a godawful scandal has been brewing within the Vatican -- not just about the sexual predation but about the administration of the church in general. 

Benedict was unable or unwilling to take it on.  He decided to get out rather than plead ignorance.

Andrew Brown writes in The Guardian:

The convulsions that started with the second Vatican council of the 1960s have still not played themselves out. On the other hand, the pope will still be a Catholic. There are not going to be female priests, and only what absolutely has to change will change. The ban on contraception will remain: the best – and the least – that can happen is that it is quietly ignored, even by the hierarchy, and no longer used as the shibboleth of orthodoxy in any priest who wants promotion. Some things can't change, and we shouldn't assume that the new leader will take up the agenda of the Guardian or the New York Times.

But it's clear from the pope's resignation that he knows things can't go on as they are.  The speculation warmed up last summer as "Vatileaks shed light on a Vatican gripped by intrigue and power struggles like a Renaissance court" according to Silvia Poggioli reporting for NPR.

The scandal has focused attention on the intrigues in the Curia — or government — whose name comes from the Latin word for royal court.

"In the past if there were power struggles in Roman Curia, it was much more about doctrinal interpretations, about gossip — he has a girlfriend; the other is gay," says Vatican analyst Marco Politi. This time, he adds, the stakes are much higher.

"There is a well-organized group of dissidents who want to overthrow the secretary of state," Politi says. ...WBUR

___ 

The retiring pontiff has decided to reserve the report for his successor, but the three cardinals over 80 years old who drew it up will be allowed to inform the cardinal electors about some of its findings during next week's consultations.

"The cardinal electors cannot decide to choose this or that name to vote for if they don't know the contents of this dossier," Tauran told La Repubblica newspaper.

"If it's necessary, I don't see why they should not ask for names," said Tauran, a former Vatican foreign minister who now heads its department for interreligious dialogue. ...Reuters

And finally this up-close report revealing the ugliness we may yet see:

The most recent blow to the pope's authority was the "Vatileaks" scandal, which erupted in January 2012 when the Italian journalist, Gianluigi Nuzzi, received a trove of secret documents directly from the pope's apartment -- documents that proved beyond any doubt the disarray inside the Curia. The revelations pointed to widespread corruption within the Curia, including bribes demanded to secure a papal audience. Benedict asked three trusted and experienced cardinals -- Julian Herranz, Jozef Tomko, and Salvatore De Giorgi -- to investigate the matter, and they produced a report that was given to the pope a few weeks before his resignation. The report is classified, but that hasn't stopped rumors about it from swirling around the world.

The rumors suggest that church leaders have been routinely participating in at least two or three of the deadly sins. The most outrageous accusation is that inside the Vatican there is a "gay lobby" strong enough to influence the church leadership. It is not clear whether this accusation is actually written in the report by the three cardinals; however sources inside the Curia confirm to me that something like a "gay lobby" exists, just as they confirm the struggle for economic power around IOR, the Vatican bank.

The pope apparently knew all about this corruption before the report came out but didn't think he had the strength to fight the battle. Therefore he decided to resign as a "great act of governance of the Church," as his spokesman Father Federico Lombardi put it. Benedict couldn't solve the problems himself, so he opted to shock the Vatican and push for the election of a successor that will have a better chance to redeem the Holy See.

...The struggle for power inside the Curia, however, might be the strongest obstacle to a real and effective reform. ...Foreign Policy

Some good gun control news, for a change

As Greg Sargent points out, yesterday's primary win by Democrat Robin Kelly in Illinois has boosted confidence in and efforts towards effective gun policies.  Sargent describes it as a liberal win over Democrats.  That, in itself, is a healthy message for the Democratic party.

First of all, there's the solid win thanks to Bloomberg's PAC money.  The loud shout from the left means NRA funding -- and probably to a greater extent its mailing list -- meet serious competition.

... Liberal groups are now going to try to make gun control a litmus test issue in Democratic primaries. This was a first test case, and you can expect that they will now be looking to primary “gun rights” Dems and make them pay a price for coziness with the NRA wherever possible. ...Sargent, WaPo

That's the really good news.  Add to it some political heft, some successful herding of cats.

Bloomberg’s PAC wasn’t the only group that sought to swing the race. A number of liberal organizations and online groups also got involved: CREDO Super PAC did on the ground organizing against Halvorson; DailyKos raised money for her; Democracy for America also raised money and contributed phone banking; and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee did some last minute organizing. The success of this effort is likely to encourage such groups to look for other “gun rights” Dems to target. ...Sargent, WaPo

Free!  Freedom at last from the heavy hand of the NRA!  And quite apart from the gun control issue, the Dems are looking a lot healthier, more together, less dependent on gun-toters' votes.

... As Obama’s victory showed, the Democratic Party is increasingly reliant on groups that are growing as a share of the electorate — minorities, young voters, and suburban and college educated whites, especially women — that view gun control as a priority. At the same time, Dems are increasingly less reliant on constituencies — blue collar white men, rural voters — who are hostile towards stricter gun laws, and no longer see as much of a need to shape the party’s agenda to avoid alienating them. ...Sargent, WaPo

Thumbs up for $9 minimum wage

The IGM Forum, which is run by the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business, polled top economists on the minimum wage. The first question they asked was whether raising the minimum wage could make it harder for some low-wage workers to find jobs. The responses were mixed ...

...The second question was whether they thought increasing the minimum wage was worth it given the possible downsides. They do. ...Ezra Klein, WaPo

The hitch:  we really should have a minimum wage of $10.10.  But hey, $9 is better'n' what minimalists are getting these days.  Am I a socialist?  Damn right -- and a capitalist, too. I think America needs to regain the balance we once had between socialism and capitalism.  That's when we're at our healthiest.  Capitalism is divisive, as we've learned to our cost.