Ryan Grim has written the best article I have yet read on the Fiscal Cliff, Fiscal Fail: Government Agencies Plan Few Significant Changes For January, Despite Cliff Hype. He starts by explaining what readers of this site already know: nothing happens on 1 January. The stock market won’t freak out. Tax collectors won’t go door to door demanding money. And an asteroid will not collide with the earth. Instead, John Boehner’s caucus will finally see that in fact they had no leverage all along and an agreement will be made to keep tax rates the same on the bottom 98% of tax payers.

I have been wondering how all of this would affect government agencies. In particular, the IRS has to tell businesses how to withhold taxes. And other government agencies need to know what to assume about their budgets. As Grim points out, they are all in agreement: they will proceed assuming that a deal will quickly be worked out:

Similarly, the GAO is looking well into the future:

At first, the only people screaming about the Fiscal Cliff were conservatives who knew that a deal made before the end of the year would be much better for them than one made in the new year. But somehow—probably because there isn’t much else to talk about —the mainstream media have tried to turn these negotiations into a crisis. As Grim points out, however, just like with Y2K, the new year is going to come and everyone will be standing around wondering what was the big deal.

Yesterday, I wrote about workers at UPMC who were trying to unionize because of the low wages. UPMC responded by starting a food bank. And I talked about how poor people have just as much self-respect and dignity as the rich. I explicitly put myself in that category of poor person. But there are various things that distinguish me from most poor people. One is options. My poverty is to some extent self-inflicted and reversible if I wanted to live someone else’s life. (Although even that would be hard until the economy recovers.)

But the biggest thing that differentiates me from most poor people is related to options: hope. I am working toward something other than just being able to pay my bills. The context of my life is far greater than survival. And that makes all the difference.

People (conservatives mostly) often note the way that poor people are so dependent upon status symbols. I don’t know how true this observation is. But certainly, high priced tennis shoes and cell phones have gotten a lot of attention. It is the same way in prison where very small things can be major status symbols. Status symbols provide some sense of individuality and thus power in a world where everyone is similarly powerless.

I think hopelessness is the ultimate tragedy of poverty. In most cases there are few options, none of which are good. So there is no hope for the future, except that you can meet the rent this month and buy enough food. And if you are very lucky, you’ll be able to buy a used iPod that no one with a decent income wants any more.

The non-medical staff at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) are not making enough money to get by. Like workers at Walmart and elsewhere, they have to depend upon welfare programs and private charities like food banks. As a result, they are trying to unionize under the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). And the UPMC has heard their cries!

The UPMC has started its own food bank.

That’s right. Why pay employees a living wage when you can instead just make charity more convenient? And the great thing is that they don’t even have to pay for it. Thus far, all they’ve done is send out fliers to employees asking them to donate to the food bank.

One employee pointed out that in addition to missing the point of their complaints, the local food bank isn’t even helpful. “It’s going to be more demeaning and embarrassing for me because now I have to go and pick up food at a food bank where I work in front of my friends and co-workers. I make it a point to go to food pantries where nobody knows who I am.”

This is a critical point that I don’t think the rich understand: we who are poor have just as much dignity as anyone else. It isn’t easy to be poor in this society that measures worth by bank account balance. But it is even worse when our poverty is made public display of. And it is worst of all when those better off than we are use their acts of charity to feel even more superior.

Of course, in this case, we have something totally different: a company that is trying to avoid its responsibilities to its employees with a gimmick that skirts the issues—hopefully, with someone else’s money.

H/T @JoyfulA

As I reported before, changing how the government adjusts for inflation to the chained-CPI would affect both Social Security and income taxes. But the main thing that has been covered in the media is the effect on Social Security. I think this is mostly because while running for re-election, President Obama explicitly stated that he would not touch the program. Although few want to come out and say it, it is a gotcha moment. I just wish they would be substantially more hysterical about it.

Nowhere in the major media do we see any discussion of what I think is the most important issue. Obama and Boehner are negotiating over the budget deficit. Social Security is not part of this. Social Security has its own funding stream and budget. Social Security will not have a deficit for at least 20 years. Why are we talking about changing anything about Social Security in these budget negotiations?

Politico reported yesterday that, “The scope of a potential fiscal cliff deal narrowed dramatically Friday.” The deal would be to raise taxes on incomes over $250,000, extend unemployment benefits, and delay the sequester. On its merits, this is a much better and more progressive solution than the last one that Obama offered to Boehner.

There is no mention of two other very important parts of the Fiscal Cliff. The capital gains tax rate is scheduled to go up from 15% now to 20% next year. Also: dividend income, which is currently taxed as capital gains, will be taxed as regular income as of 1 January. These are excellent changes, but the Republicans will be very much against them since they hit the rich hard. But these changes will not hurt the economy; they will just make the rich a little less so.

Regardless of whether these tax cuts are included, this “lesser bargain” is a good thing. As Matt Yglesias puts it:

Of course, Yglesias also argues that Obama has always been in favor of cutting Social Security. He goes back to The Audacity of Hope and shows that while Obama won’t come right out and say he wants to cut the program, he is always hearkening back to deals that did just that.

So as usual, it seems we have that crazy Republicans to thank for saving Obama from himself. We just might get a Fiscal Cliff deal that doesn’t suck.

Ten years ago today, Joe Strummer died suddenly of a congenital heart defect. He was only 50. I always wonder about people who believe in a loving God. If God loves me, why did he take all the music that Strummer would have made for me but left all the bad law that Clarence Thomas has and will continue to make? And don’t give me any of that, “God works in mysterious ways.” Electronic devices work in mysterious ways, but I don’t worship them.

Here is The Clash performing Sonny Curtis’ I Fought the Law, pretty much the same way that The Bobby Fuller Four did it, except with Strummer’s distinctive sneer:

Although it isn’t one of their best songs, I think that Rock The Casbah has some of the most amusing lyrics of any rock song. And the video is very good—especially for the time:

Getting ready for tomorrow, I was reminded of the great Sonny Curtis. Here he is doing a version of his song I Fought the Law, which kind of sums up my life: an iconoclast who lost.

He also wrote and sang the theme song to The Mary Tyler Moore Show and wrote Leo Sayer’s hit More Than I Can Say.

In an update for a post earlier today, I noted that Jim Naureckas tweeted, “If only an armed guard could be placed next to every state trooper.” Well, it has become a thing. David Frum has now similarly tweeted 14 times.

First, dental clinics:

We need a federal agent at every dental clinic abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?sec…

— davidfrum (@davidfrum) December 22, 2012

Later, strip clubs:

We need a federal agent at every strip club wdrb.com/story/20372337…

— davidfrum (@davidfrum) December 22, 2012

And most recently, muffler shops:

We need a federal agent at every muffler shop topix.com/forum/philly/T…

— davidfrum (@davidfrum) December 22, 2012

He’s now up to 22 in the time it took me to embed those tweets. The point should be clear, just as I discussed in, NRA Calls for Militarizing Schools. There is no end to this. Gun violence is everywhere in America. The NRA call for protection for our children is really just a call for having a cop in every home. David Frum is being so reasonable these days, he may have to change parties. (Just kidding. He was defending Robert Bork earlier today.)

Update (22 December 2012 3:54 pm)

In the end, David Frum did a total of 32 tweets. He has collected them all in one place, ‘We Need a Federal Agent’.

Jonathan Bernstein at The Plum Line blog encourages us, Don’t Worry Too Much About John Kerry’s Senate Seat. I not exactly worried about this, but I have been opposed to it. Of course, that was when Kerry was going to be moving to the Pentagon. Moving to State seems like a better deal, but I still think it is a questionable idea.

Bernstein argues mostly that Scott Brown isn’t that big a threat. First, he says that Brown is not the favorite to win the special election next summer. But as reported yesterday by his own paper, Scott Brown Would Win Special Election Today. That’s just a poll nine months out, of course. But exit polling of the 6 November election showed that the people still liked Brown by a lot; they just liked Warren more. So Brown has at least a decent chance to take Kerry’s seat.

Bernstein says not to worry because the seat comes up for re-election in 2014. So the Democrats would have a second chance to defeat Brown. This strikes me as a very weak argument. If Brown wins the special election, he will almost certainly win the off-year election.

There is one issue that Bernstein brings up that I think is strong: Kerry is almost 70. He may not run for re-election in 2014 anyway. That’s an excellent point. It is also the case that the Democrats are prepared for a fight in this upcoming election in a way that they were not after Kennedy died. But I’m concerned about this nomination for another reason.

Obama shows an amazing lack of strategic thinking. We see this in the Fiscal Cliff negotiations where he wanted to include a two year extension of the debt ceiling. In this case, he seems to have forgotten that in 2014 there will be 20 Democrats to only 13 Republicans up for re-election in the Senate. Losing Kerry’s seat might not be a big deal now, but it could be the difference between a Democratic and Republican majority at the start of 2015.

So I’m still not convinced that Kerry’s move is good for the Democrats. But I like the idea of him at State. That would be good for America. But I’m not sure it would be enough to make up for the harm that Scott Brown would do in the Senate.

In his farewell address to the Senate, Jim DeMint said, “If we can win the hearts and minds of the American people with these ideas, I know we can engage and enlist them to convince all of you here to set the politics aside, the parties aside, and to adopt those ideas that work.” It has a certain charm to it: let’s put politics and parties aside and all agree to be Republicans. This is kind of at the heart of the Republican Party: the religious belief that they have good ideas. But as I’ve written before, other than tax cuts for the rich, destroying the social safety net, and an intense desire for power as power, they have no actual ideas. And regardless, they never test their ideas. They don’t mean to shrink the size of government because it will be good for the country; the want a smaller government because they believe in a smaller government.

Jamelle Bouie reports at The Plum Line blog, GOP Elevates Reactionary Tim Scott to South Carolina Senate Seat. How reactionary? He has the usual Republi-Crazy positions: climate change denier, deep water oil drilling proponent, stem cell research opponent. But in addition, he proposed a bill that would deny assistance to any family that had a member who went on strike. And he wanted to impeach Obama for the debt ceiling.

Bouie notes, “It should be said that for all of the real problems the GOP has with diversity in terms of its organization and its candidate pool, the party does an excellent job of elevating the minorities that do find themselves in its tent.” Of course, that is just a symptom of their fundamental racial problem. Rather than court minority groups with policy, they instead elevate those few minorities in their coalition. Frankly, I don’t think that Bobby Jindal or Marco Rubio are really ready for prime-time national politics. Neither would have risen so fast in the Democratic Party.

The same is at least as true of Tim Scott, who is an African American. He has only been in the House for one term. But more to the point, he is yet another example of the Republican Party trying to change its brand without changing its policies. Michael P. Jeffries writes in The Atlantic, “Scott’s policy positions prove him just as tone-deaf to the modern political world as his most conservative GOP colleagues. That makes him one of them at the same time he’s a useful foil. What he won’t be, however, is someone who helps the GOP win black and Hispanic voters.”

Jeffries goes on to talk about how it is that Scott is just a token in the Republican Party. Primarily, as with Herman Cain, he is a black man who completely reinforces the white power structure. And as a result, he wins by getting almost exclusively support from whites. But even more, he is only accepted in the party as long as he follows along. This makes me think of David Brock who explains in his book Blinded By the Right how he was accepted as a gay man as long as he was shilling for the conservative movement. The moment he strayed even a little, he saw what he had always been to them: a useful tool.

So the Republican Party continues to look for ways to not change. The appointment of Tim Scott is an excellent example of this doomed effort.