Republican Hypocrisy category archive
Jared Bernstein, in another excellent article, points out that Republican statements on health care and other aspects of the “social safety net” betray (or portray) an essential misunderstanding of how insurance works.
It’s like the old joke about life insurance: You’re betting you’re going to die, the insurance company is betting you won’t, and you hope they are right.
The purpose of experience is to spread risk so that each person bears a little tine bit of the cost so that, if someone needs assistance, the assistance is available without crushing expense. In contrast, Republicans seem to believe that crushing persons who do not have buckets of money under mountains of cost is somehow a good and moral thing.
Of course, that might seem reasonable to those who believe that there is no such thing as the common good. Here’s a bit from the article (emphasis added):
That’s kind of a description about how insurance works.
Two things, at least. First, I do think today’s conservatives are uniquely uneducated when it comes to the role of government in mitigating risk. But second, the old Upton Sinclair insight about people being paid not to understand something is also very much in play.
Jared Bernstein, writing at Philly.com, struggles to understand why the Republican Party, with control of the legislative and executive branches of the federal government, has been so far unable to accomplish their most vocally-stated goal: repeal of the Affordable Care Act. He warns that his speculation is just that, speculation, but it is a thoughtful piece and worth the few minutes of your time reading it requires.
Here’s a bit:
. . . Republicans’ efforts to repeal and replace have run smack into these contradictions. They propose to seriously hurt some of the very people who helped put Trump in the White House to partially offset the costs of wasteful tax cuts for the rich. They say they want to help the disadvantaged, but their actions betray such claims, and their falsehoods have been most clearly exposed in this health-care debate.
There may still be enough representativeness left in our democracy to block such venal efforts. But then again, there may not. Stay tuned.
Brian Greenspun stands amazed at the willing, compliant credulity of the Trumpettes. A snippet:
It is easier to believe that a baby can take over a year to be born than it is to believe that the Russians did not interfere in our elections to help Donald Trump win the White House. And that Trump’s friends, associates and/or family were up to their elbows in that effort.
I don’t know if what happened is criminal, yet. That is what the special counsel will determine. Criminal or not — maybe the Trump team really is just incompetent and stupid — what we are watching in real time couldn’t even be conceived of in the minds of Hollywood’s most creative writers.
But, beyond all of this, what is criminal to me is that practically every Republican voter and elected official believes it is OK and patriotically American to just accept what Trump says even though what he says is now totally and demonstrably untrue.
Shaun Mullen follows the money trail. A snippet:
Beginning in 1984, over 30 years before he ran for president, Trump began tapping into what would become an extensive network of contacts with corrupt businessmen, mobsters and money launderers from the former Soviet Union, Russia and their satellite states to make deals ranging from real-estate sales to beauty pageants sponsorships to bailing out his frequently ailing enterprises.
It is tempting to say that Trump built that network himself as his business empire grew, but in reality members of the network more often used him as a convenient patsy. This has been especially true of money launderers.
In the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, David D. Haynes documents the new dance craze–the Ryan Shuffle. A snippet:
Call it the Ryan Shuffle.
He dodges. He weaves. He loses his voice — and then he loses his nerve.
More steps at the link.
That’s what Dick Polman wants to know. A snippet:
Politically, Republicans do have a dilemma. If they stood tall and denounced Trump, and called for the impeachment proceedings that are so richly warranted, the Trumpkins back home would go bat-crazy. They’d stay home in the ’18 congressional midterms, convinced that Trump was being railroaded by “the Republican establishment.” If I were to give Republican leaders the benefit of the doubt, I’d guess that they’re waiting for a sufficient share of Trumpkins to wake up to reality – something that could conceivably happen when the revelations become too explosive to dismiss.
. . . they’re still fine with Russia penetrating our sovereignty, and with Russia’s chumps running the White House into the ground, as long as they can cling to their wet dream of getting Trump’s signature on a bill that slashes taxes for the wealthy and zaps health coverage for 20 million people.
At the Boston Review, Lawrence B. Glickman examines the evolution of the conservative political vocabulary. He points out the much of what passes for conservative discourse has its roots in opposition to Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal and is as flawed and fraudulent now as it was then. A snippet:
“Free enterprise” was an ambiguous phrase that acquired meaning mainly as the opposite of the New Deal. Where the New Deal stood for public spending on infrastructure and cultural institutions, free enterprise claimed to represent “frugality and thrift—words that I doubt are in the Washington dictionary,” as the presidential candidate Dwight D. Eisenhower said on the campaign trail in 1952. Where the New Deal established principles of business regulation, free enterprisers defined such rules as “straightjackets” that harmed economic freedom and efficiency. As Henry Hazlitt, the popular conservative economics writer, claimed in 1956, “government intervention in the market economy always finally results in a worse situation than otherwise would have existed.”