I find it curious that over the last few months as police officers have (bizarrely) felt attacked, one point they’ve fallen back on is the tired, “Well the next time you’re in trouble, maybe the police won’t come!” During my colorful life, I have found myself in far more dangerous situations than the vast majority of my fellow countrymen. At no point did I think a situation would have been made better by the presence of a police officers. About the only thing I’ve ever wished for is that I had a gun. But the last thing I wanted was someone armed who was jittery and convinced that his job was so dangerous that he needed to start shooting. (Check out the statistics from 2013: officers are much more likely to die in car accidents than in shootings.)

But all this discussion of the matter is telling. It shows that the police really do think they are critically necessary. I think the history of the world shows that this isn’t true. We’ve seen huge rises in policing because crime is so low — not the other way around. People in the lowest crime areas are the least tolerant of any crime and the most punitive towards those people who do commit crime. What’s more, there is always a reason to increase the police force. Is crime up temporarily? We need more policing to stop it! Is crime down? We need more policing because it’s working! It is all madness.

So a crazy man goes on a shooting spree and kills two police officers. And this means… What exactly? Crazy people kill others all the time. When right-wing nutjob Eric Frein killed a police officer, it didn’t have any significance. All the right wing politicians with their “don’t retreat, reload” rhetoric weren’t responsible for that. And no one claimed that they were. But an even crazier man kills a couple of officers and suddenly it is Bill de Blasio’s fault. It’s an amazing but common double standard: right wing politicians are never responsible for anything; left wing ones always are.

Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote a good article yesterday, Blue Lives Matter. It is about how we don’t have a “policing problem”; we have a society problem. The police are, after all, just doing what the people want. I do, however, disagree in one way: we don’t actually live in a democracy. In the modern world, it is all too easy for the power elite to manipulate the electorate. If they manage to do it with economic policy that directly harms those who vote for it, it is trivial to do it on policy designed to keep the underclass as the underclass.

And that starts with the media. The best example of this occurred over the weekend. I learned of it by Miserable Shitehawk at Gawker, Slimy Baltimore FOX Affiliate Caught Faking “Kill a Cop” Protest Chant. A group of protesters was chanting, “We can’t stop! We won’t stop! Til killer cops are in cell blocks!” I understand that it can be hard to understand chants. So the Fox45 newscaster could be forgiven for hearing, “We can’t stop! We won’t stop! So kill a cop blah blah blah!” But that doesn’t explain why she cut off the recording of the chant after “cop.” Amazing.

The station has since issued an apology. But it is ridiculous. They claimed, “Although last night’s report reflected an honest misunderstanding of what the protesters were saying, we apologize for the error.” That’s just not credible given that they did not use the whole chant. But even if it were an honest mistake, what does that say about the media that they think people are out in the streets calling for the murder of police officers? That would be illegal, for one thing.

We have twice as many police officers as we ought to have. We have ten times as many prison cells as we need. We have far too many prosecutors and they have far too much power in the criminal “justice” system. After freeing up these resources, we could use them to help society become better. I’m afraid this “instant death penalty for disrespecting a cop” thing has about played itself out. The only question is whether the people really will continue to think that we must keep our police state going to keep the underclass down. But if we do that, Ta-Nehisi Coates has a warning we should take very seriously, “[O]ne does not have to work hard to imagine a future when the agents of our will, the agents whom we created, are in fact our masters. On that day one can expect that the tactics intended for the ghettos will enjoy wider usage.”

It has begun. One of my biggest concerns about Republican control of Congress was that they would turn the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) into a partisan outfit. And now the process has begun. The idea of the CBO has always been that Congress ought to have access to real economic analysis. If they don’t have it, they will just do what they do in every other area: depend upon lobbyists. That’s not to say that the CBO has been perfect since its creation in 1974, but it has done a better job than I would have expected. And that is all about to change.

Yesterday, Dave Weigel reported, Republicans Block Reappointment of CBO Chief Doug Elmendorf. While it’s true that Elmendorf was appointed by Democrats, he’s never shown any preference toward them. In fact, he has acted the way anyone heading the office is supposed to: as a boring bean counter who drives pretty much everyone crazy. But it isn’t that the Republicans really care about him. It is just that they want to replace him with a partisan hack who will do “dynamic scoring.” This is the idea that tax cuts will so stimulate the economy that they will at least be partially paid for.

The CBO has never done dynamic scoring for a really good reason: by and large the economy doesn’t really work that way. One of the reasons that the 2009 stimulus worker poorer than it needed to was because it a good chunk of money was spent on tax cuts (much of which wasn’t spent) instead of direct spending. Once the Republicans get a partisan hack installed at the CBO, then they can propose Paul Ryan’s tax cutting rich-guy giveaway “budget.” And the CBO will say that it will reduce the budget because it will cause 6% growth from now until the second coming of Reagan.

Jonathan Bernstein is not a man to make outlandish claims, but even he wrote today, Republicans’ Latest War on Facts. He made three points. First, the Republican obsession with the budget deficit is “phony.” See how careful he is? This one could have been called in the early 1980s under Reagan. So: of course these mendacious jerks don’t care about the deficit. They only care about it in as much as it allows them to hurt the poor. Money given to the rich is sacred, and no sacrifice is too great to do that holy work.

Bernstein’s second point is that the Republicans have no interest in facts. He’s particularly focused on the supply side garbage thinking and the idea that tax cuts pay for themselves:

What do facts matter when they get in the way of things you simply want to believe? Want to cut food stamps? Scream about the budget deficit! Want to fund a war? Scream about how Reagan proved budget deficits don’t matter! Want Tinker Bell to come back to life? Appoint a Director of the Congressional Budget Office who really, really believes in fairies!

And his third point is perhaps the most damning, “Republicans in Congress don’t care about Congress.” Like most political scientists, Bernstein really cares about political institutions. And the Republicans don’t. They are just trying to push their ideological agenda by any means necessary. It reminds me of the Nazis when they took power in the legislature: they abolished it. If there were a way to do that in the United States, I have little doubt that the Republicans would have done it in January of 2003.

The Commerce Department has revised the third quarter GDP growth rate up to 5%. People are happy. Ed Kilgore is happy. Paul Krugman is happy. Matt Yglesias is happy. But I’m not. Who really cares about increases in GDP when it has become uncoupled from wages?

It’s remarkable to think about this. Roughly four decades ago, the wages of American workers broke off from its strong correlation with GDP and flat-lined. But in that time no one has seemed to care. It goes along with the announcement of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, which is announced every night on the news. Does a smoking hot stock market mean that more people are employed? No. Does it mean wages go up? No. So why do we care?

The truth is that “we” — as in, actual people who work for a living — don’t care. But newscasters do. The power elite care. And that is all that matters in the land of the “free” and the home of the “brave.” It’s an outrage that people remember the 1970s because of the high inflation as opposed to the beginning of deregulation. It is an outrage that people remember the 1980s as “morning in America” and not the decimation of unions and the end of even small gains to worker standards of living. It is an outrage that people remember the 1990s as a good economic time instead of yet another bubble economy and the end of welfare as we know it.

Democracy is not just a matter of voting. In fact, it isn’t even primarily about voting. No one really thinks that democracy is where an autocrat is the only person people can vote for. But in America, where we get to vote from two (!) people with exactly the same economic policies, we do call it democracy. It isn’t. It is oligarchy. We let the prols decide how long they can abort fetuses — but not whether they can join a union at work. Have a good same-sex wedding — if you can afford it, which you can’t.

So a 5% increase in GDP is a good thing in theory. But it could be 50% or 500%. What does that matter to you?! Are you going to get a job or a better job because of it? Are you going to get a raise? No you’re not. Our GDP could be cut in half and most people would be far better off if the economy were more equally divided among the people. So who cares? Caring about this is just more indication that we see everything through the lens of the power elite. We need to stop doing that.

It seems that Timothy Geithner is going around patting himself on the back because TARP ended up bring in more money than it put out. Thankfully, Dean Baker is out beating down this ridiculous notion, The Profit on the TARP and Bernie Madoff. He provided a great example of how the federal government could have done the same thing for Bernie Madoff that would have saved his business and “made” the government money. He considers the issue, “The question is whether an important public purpose was served by rescuing the Wall Street banks from their own greed.” He doesn’t see one.

There is an even more basic consideration. Geithner is just looking at how much money it cost the government to borrow the money and comparing it to the amount of interest that the banks paid. That’s a ridiculous way to look at it. To begin with, the government could borrow for so little money because interest rates were really low. And interest rates were really low because the economy was terrible. And the economy was terrible because the banks destroyed it. Something is very wrong with that kind of logic.

The other issue is that the government doesn’t work for free. Timothy Geithner and a bunch of other people and institutions had to be paid. There is government overhead for all of this stuff. Why isn’t all of this taken into account of the costs to the government? Because the government would have to pay it anyway? That’s not how a private business would look at it in its accounting. So why should the banks get off in this way. Clearly, this is just a way for Geithner to argue (as if it were necessary) that it is always a great idea to shovel cash to the rich because it is always a good investment.

But there is a far easier, if less quantitative way of thinking about this. The government can only do so many things: it has limited resources. So there is an opportunity cost of doing any given thing. The question is never whether bailing out the banks paid for itself in the long run. The question is whether that was a better use for the money than other things. Personally, I have no doubt that spending that money on improving schools and infrastructure would have been better. But for obvious reasons, people never bring this up. Because helping out the rich is always the most important thing to do because the one thing we really believe here in America is that the rich can never, ever be allowed to fail.

Baker did mention in passing the “Second Great Depression scare story.” That’s the one where we are all supposed to deliver gold, frankincense, and myrrh to the feet of Timothy Geithner for saving us from the calamity that would have befallen us if the big banks hadn’t been save. In other places, Baker has mentioned a number of things that could have been done. But in this article, he just mentioned the most obvious: the government could have spent money. That is, after all, what the government did do. But if it had been regular spending, it could have been used on good things instead of the bonuses of top management at banks.

This last week, there was big news. The Democrats got to confirm a whole bunch of executive and judicial nominees that they weren’t expecting to. It turned out that they managed to confirm 23 nominees. This is surprising because of the slow way that the Senate works. Normally, votes on the nominees must be brought to the floor where they stay for a couple of days before they can get a vote. The way it was looking, there might have been a hand-full of nominees confirmed before the end of the session. As it was, the Senate was supposed to go home for the weekend on Friday and so Reid was going to have to wait until the following Monday to bring the nominations to the floor.

Lucky for the Democrats, they have great allies in the Republican Party: Mike Lee and Ted Cruz. These two clowns decided to make a bold stand against President Obama’s recent executive action on immigration. When the Senate tried to adjourn for the weekend, it needed unanimous consent. Lee and Cruz balked. They wanted a purely symbolic vote to say that the president was a doody pants for this action. And they wanted it Saturday! This allowed Harry Reid to bring all those nominees to the floor a full two days ahead of schedule. And that meant they would all have time to get votes.

Not surprisingly, the Senate Republicans were furious. But it is hard to feel bad for them. Lee and Cruz are what the Republicans have assiduously sowed over the last several decades. Any political party is going to have a spread of opinions. There is no way for the Republicans to have moved so far to the right without having people who are even more extreme. And remember: starting in January, there will be even more extreme Republicans in the Senate. This is what the Republican Party is. It’s ridiculous for them to think that they could get all the advantages of their pro-corporate extremism without it causing them to lose some tactical advantages because many of their members are simply crazy.

Just the same, the Democrats were thrilled. As Steve Benen pointed out, they got a whole bunch out of this and they gave absolutely nothing. To start with, the Lee-Cruz stunt ended in the symbolic vote going down in flames: 74 to 22. But the vote was scheduled for the next week anyway. It isn’t clear what the dynamic duo thought they were getting. It is also likely true that fewer Republicans voted for the bill because they were so angry at these idiots.

Juliet Eilperin at The Washington Post provided a great overview of the outcome of this whole thing, Democrats Employ Strategy to Get the Most Bang for Obama Nominations. Reid has been very clear that they have focused on judicial appointments because those are the ones that have the longest effect. I’m so glad to hear him say that. Too often, Democrats do not act strategically. And, in fact, Obama was rather bad during his first term — he just wasn’t that interested in the judicial branch. But that’s changed. This Senate has confirmed more judges than any Senate since 1980.

There is some concern that the Senate has focused too much on the judiciary. There are scores of executive branch nominees that have gone unconfirmed. I think Reid’s approach was the best, however. It isn’t just that the judiciary has long-term effects. In the next two years under the Republicans, I’m sure that not a single judge will get a vote. But some executive branch nominees might, given that they will have less than two years to serve.

The truth of the matter is that there should be no reason that executive branch nominees should be simply passed through in the vast majority of cases. That’s especially true when the president is a Democrat and so the nominee isn’t being put in charge to destroy the institution he’s leading. But the situation is that the minority party will always block these nominations if for no other reason than to slow down any other work from getting done. When they get in power next year, I’m not sure how motivating this is going to be.

The next two years ought to be fairly uneventful in the Senate. I think we are going to see just how facile and rhetorical were all the claims that if Obama acted alone Congress wouldn’t work with him. There will be no working together. There never would have been any working together. And the Democrats should take any victory they can. The Republicans were never going to play nice and they won’t in the future.