Last night, for the first time, I seriously considered entering the conservative echo chamber.

Through a news feed I found myself on Town Hall, staring at 300 words of empty rhetoric on Waxman-Markey by Mona Charen. After scanning the article and comments, I was emboldened to add a bit of perspective. I decided giving my address and phone number to Town Hall was too high a price to pay, but it left me thinking.

Ostensibly, Charen's intent was to use HR 2454 to brand the president as a run-of-the-mill liberal idealogue hopelessly out of touch with the "realities" of climate change and global politics. Although I couldn't stomach a close reading of the entire screed, two apparently contradictory observations caught my eye.

The first was a bit of rote climate change denial. Charen notes, without source, that global temperatures have "flatlined" since 2001. Intrigued, I surfed over to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which maintains a database on global temperature trends. The trend does appear flat -- provided you tilt your head at a 45 degree angle.

This hurts my neck, which is perhaps one of the reasons I don't do prayer so well.  Anyway, I assume her "data" must have come from someone in the oil industry, who had simply rotated the chart to get a talking point. George Will has no problem with this kind of analysis, so why should Mona Charen?

It continually amazes me that any rational individual can write off the patient research of thousands of climate scientists as fear-mongering by some liberal cabal. Even if you can, I can't believe you'd want to take even a 50-50 chance that they're right. But no matter.

I shook my head, and moved on.

That brought me to the second observation and another other conservative talking point: with India and China belching CO2 to beat the band, any action on greenhouse gases by the U.S. will be futile anyway. This confused me, because a few paragraphs up she argued that climate change didn't exist. She also failed to mention that while we still have a clear edge in production of greenhouse gases and dither over energy policy, China is positioned to become a global leader in solar and is taking a fair run at clean coal. And India, which has at least signed the Kyoto Protocol, is probably putting more low-emission vehicles on the road per capita than we are. We shouldn't be dissembling our lack of leadership, we should be embarrassed.

The rest of the article is predictable, as are the flame-throwing, me-too comments. But here's the problem. In this case, you can't dismiss this as reactionary pandering to the Republican rump. These arguments and their corollaries -- like the hypocrisy that says conservatives should oppose progressive policy on climate change because they care about the poor -- form a sizable chunk of the 212 nay votes on Waxman-Markey.

That's a huge echo chamber. Filled with an awful lot of folks that, to paraphrase Dave Matthews, seem to welcome perpetual summer and the chance to kick off their shoes and dive in the empty ocean.

On balance, it was a not too terrible day here on Sanford's Plantation, formerly known as the Great State of South Carolina.

On the one hand, we had the latest in the long-running torrent of fatuous comments by our junior senator, flagged this morning by TPM's Jim Kurtz.

Using tortured logic that would make even the governor proud, Senator DeMint predictably named unions as the culprits in the GOP's failure to win Pennsylvania last November. Not, of course, because they played a key role in healing the wounds of a divisive Democratic primary and rallying blue collar workers around Obama's candidacy. The real reason, according to DeMint, is fear of unions that drove working class Republicans from the Rust Belt into the welcoming embrace of the right-to-work South.

Whatever. I was willing to give the senator a pass on this one. Maybe he lost his train of thought, or suffered a moment of divine inspiration. But his subsequent branding of Club for Growth posterboy Pat Toomey as a "mainstream candidate" sealed the deal. Sigh.

All, however, was not lost. This afternoon, the latest round in what has become an endless fusillade of private school choice legislation was moved out of a senate education subcommittee on a 6-4 vote, with an "unfavorable" recommendation. The negative recommendation significantly reduces the bill's chances in the full committee.

The fight is far from over, but public school advocates are breathing a sigh of relief. Providing tax credits to parents who send their children to private -- read religious -- schools is one of the governor's pet projects, and his drive has been bankrolled by out-of-state zealots who view South Carolina's children as pawns in an amusing board game.

Under the tired rubric that competition will cure all ills, these disingenuous legislative gambits would do nothing to improve access to quality education. Private schools go where the money is, and the majority of South Carolinians can't afford the tuition even with a tax credit. The net effect would be further erosion in an already fragile public school system and subsidized religious education for the wealthy. Praise the Lord and pass the vouchers. The beat goes on.

With all due respect to those who believe the administration should make prosecuting war crimes its top priority, as the parent of a public school seventh grader this kind of stuff scares me crapless.

It's not surprising that they [economically hard-pressed workers] get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

I'm not sure why else you'd join a "grassroots" protest against rising taxes after you just got a tax cut. Or hold up a sign decrying the government bailout of General Motors given the impact the company's failure would likely have on the U.S. auto industry and its 2.9 million jobs - jobs just like yours.

I can't figure another good reason why, as a bluecollar worker in a blizzard of pinkslips, you'd rail against the government serving as spender of last resort in a recessionary cycle, and why you wouldn't complain instead that the direct economic stimulus provided by ARRA was too small by half. Or why the back of your "Maobama Tse Tung" t-shirt wouldn't say "China Leads While We Teabag." Or why you'd show up at an anti-tax rally to protest gun laws, or abortion, or anything else that happened to be on your mind at the time.

Obama nailed it in Pennsylvania last year. None of this teabagging makes any sense otherwise. And the Republican establishment, long on paranoia and short on policy alternatives, are working it for all they can get.

In what can only be described as a tour de force of investigative journalism here in my sleepy upper left hand corner of Sanford's Plantation, the Greenville News has laid bare the earmarking wiles of U.S. Rep. Gresham Barrett, Congressional backbencher and aspirant to the porch swing of Massa Mark.

According to the News, Barrett slipped nearly $2 million in earmarks for Lowcountry development projects into the omnibus spending bill passed earlier this month. The problem, as astutely noted by Dolph Bell of the News, is that the projects have only a tenuous connection to Barrett's Upstate district.

Barrett claims the largesse is intended for the general benefit of all South Carolinians and have absolutely nothing to do with his run for governor. Barrett suffers from low name recognition in the eastern half of the state.

What makes an otherwise ho-hum story more interesting is that Barrett is a self-styled earmark hawk who recently announced his very own personal Earmark Pledge.

To be fair, Barrett has not sworn off earmarks. Instead, his eight-point pledge includes a call for transparency and a commitment to use the tactic only for infrastructure projects. Laudable goals indeed.

But a visit to his official website suggests that this latest pork barrel escapade may have broken the very first of Barrett's Rules: to disclose all earmarks on his official website.

I couldn't find a one. Can you?

Update: Readers have pointed out that the information is in fact both available and accessible. I apologize and should probably refrain from posting late at night when I'm mad at Republicans. Thanks for straightening me out.

P.S. In its Sunday editorial, the News called on Sanford, its former BFF, to stop grandstanding and accept South Carolina's share of stimulus money. In a game of chicken that would be entertaining if it weren't so alarming, the legislature has prepared a duplicate budget that axes thousands of state jobs and closes prisons in the event state coffers aren't refreshed.

Dear Senator McCain:

In an interview on Sunday with CNN, you and Senator Lindsey Graham strongly criticized the President Obama for "breaking his promise" to "sit down together" with Republicans on economic recovery legislation.

I detect some disagreement, inside the Beltway and around the nation, on just what constitutes "sitting down together" or, to use today's term of art, bipartisanship. Now I may be tone deaf to nuance, and I'm sure I have a Pollyannaish view of how Democrats and Republicans might join hands to solve the many problems we face.

To help clear the air, I propose a thought experiment.

You maintain that the President is not fulfilling his commitment to seek bipartisan solutions. So I ask that, as difficult as it might be after a tough loss last November, you walk a mile in his shoes.

What would you have done differently, if you were the President with a Congressional majority? It is safe to assume that your favored approach to economic stimulus would have been tax cuts. You have said as much yourself.

Yet you often describe yourself as a maverick, open to seeking a third way.

So what would you have done, to reach across the aisle in the spirit of bipartisanship? What concessions would you have made to the Democratic minority? How might the negotiations have transpired? What might the final bill have looked like? What about the ratio of tax cuts to spending?

Thanks in advance, Senator, for your time. The President values your experience and may find your response instructive. So will I.

I originally posted this as a comment to TheraP's blog "How Much is Too Much?" With her encouragement, and in recognition of related responses there and elsewhere on TPM, I'm reposting it today.

I've been thinking lately about Ted Kennedy returning to the Senate to vote on the stimulus bill. I'm reminded, among other things, of his eulogy for Bobby, which is one of my favorite speeches.

While the most emotionally compelling passages are Ted's own, much of the eulogy reprises a speech Bobby made in 1966 to a group of young people in South Africa. Addressing a people whose hope was in danger of being extinguished under the crushing mantle of apartheid, Bobby spoke as well to us, a nation at war abroad and divided at home, with millions of its citizens locked in a tragic struggle for equality.

What Bobby said then bears repeating again.

The future does not belong to those who are content with today, apathetic toward common problems and their fellow man alike, timid and fearful in the face of new ideas and bold projects. Rather it will belong to those who can blend vision, reason and courage in a personal commitment to the ideals and great enterprises of American Society. Our future may lie beyond our vision, but it is not completely beyond our control. It is the shaping impulse of America that neither fate nor nature nor the irresistible tides of history, but the work of our own hands, matched to reason and principle, that will determine our destiny. There is pride in that, even arrogance, but there is also experience and truth. In any event, it is the only way we can live.

Today, a half century later, we are again a nation in crisis. Once again we find ourselves at war. While our soldiers fight in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, as a nation we are locked in struggle to define the future of America.

We are a nation at war with its own ideals. What began as a quest for equality, opportunity and prosperity, of government by and for the people, is at risk of being abandoned in favor of petty partisanship and the endless pursuit of material comfort. A nation that once sought the best of its citizens now asks nothing of most. The wealth created by the hands of many is enjoyed by few. Instead of bravely navigating the current of uncertainty we drift ceaselessly into the past, leaving our children to face the challenges of tomorrow.

This is, as the President has said many times, a defining moment. Change has come to America.

I hope we make the most of it.     

Rep. David Obey was questioned on NPR this morning about how the decision to eliminate earmarks from the stimulus bill would impact Congress' ability to direct spending.

Obey acknowledged that the federal government was effective ceding a much of its customary control over the disposition of spending. His response was direct and to the point: "So what?"

He pointed out that the bill included strong measures to assure accountability, measures he described as unprecedented. But the subtext was clear: spending decisions should be made at the state and local level.

I found his candor refreshing, if at times cavalier. But the question remains. Who will insure that the money is spent now, spent wisely, and spent on its intended purpose: strengthening our safety net and putting people to work?

We, the people.

Citizen involvement at the grassroots level was the cornerstone of Obama's campaign and the foundation of his commitment to change our politics. It has never been more important than it is now. When this bill passes -- and it will -- we must seize the opportunity.

This is the first real test of Organizing for America, the President's citizen outreach initiative. It is the first real test for us, who supported his candidacy and sought a voice in shaping his agenda.

For my part, my first step will be to draft a letter to my local party chair asking for a full-court press to mobilize local party members and Democratic legislators.

We all have a voice. We all need to get involved.

What are your thoughts?

What will you do?

Paul Krugman weighs in on the stimulus impasse.

Aside from Snowe, Collins, Specter and a handful of others who are probably yes votes, Republican opposition falls into two camps. 

The first is composed of supply-siders who believe government is the source of all evil and push their tax-cutting ideology in the face of nearly a decade of evidence that it doesn't work.

The other is the Limbaugh faction. These cynical clowns see economic collapse as a strategy to bring back Karl Rove's permanent Republican majority. 

It's one thing to oppose a plan because you think it might fail. But it increasingly appears that a majority is willing to risk everything on a bet it will.

Out of touch with reality? I wish it were that simple.

An average workday usually provides me with abundant opportunities for righteous indignation. Yesterday being a docile exception, I arrived home looking for an outlet for my pent-up rage.

Fortunately for my family and my dog, the junior senator from South Carolina stepped once more into the breach.

DeMint again proved more than worthy of his role as shill for the Heritage Foundation, boisterously hawking tax cuts as the solution to our current economic crisis and to a lifetime of future economic ills besides.

Some on TPM have played down the tax cut message as having no traction. I disagree.

For more than two decades, Republicans have succeeded in getting nearly half the electorate to vote for candidates presenting government as the problem, and tax cuts as the solution. Yes, it's voodoo economics. But it's a simple message with innate appeal to working families juggling four jobs to pay some bills and put food on the table.

The intrinsic evil of this message and its underlying strategy is a topic for another time.

Today, the administration and Congressional Democrats should recognize voodoo economics as a formidable foe. They should be treating the boxer in the opposing corner as Apollo Creed, and striking back with everything they have.

DeMint's plan would drop the top marginal rate to 25 percent. Whatever else it might achieve (once again, a topic for another time), this "stimulus" would benefit less than one percent of taxpayers.

Since I'm not fortunate enough to be part of that one percent, I guess I won't get really stimulated by this permutation of voodoo economics. Nonetheless, I thought it might be useful to look at things from my perspective.

Call it a doll's eye view.

Let's dream for a moment and say DeMint decided to propose reducing federal income taxes for the 99 percent neglected by the Heritage Foundation. Let's say I wind up with an extra $1,000 come refund time. Where am I going to spend that windfall?

Big screen tv? No way. New car? Don't want the payments, can't afford 'em anyway. Fancy suit for me or a designer dress for my wife? Guess you don't know me very well. Dinner at PF Chang's? I'd have to think about that one.

Consumption is out in my house, baby. Savings and debt reduction are in. First I'd pay off my credit cards. If I had any left, it would go to savings. I've been trying to start a college fund for my son for years. Soon he'll be in college.

In other words, no stimulus from the bluemeanie clan. And since the average family owes thirty percent more than they bring in, I'm pretty sure we're not the only ones.

Personally, I'd pay more taxes if the return was some promise of job and wage security and the real financial freedom that comes with them. And the only thing that will create jobs in the short and medium term is direct investment in infrastructure and other things that aren't consumption-driven.

One of the things that scares me about the stimulus/economic recovery bluster on both sides of the aisle is that it too much, if not all, focuses on restoring prior levels of consumer consumption. I think those days are over.

Like others of his day, Adam Smith used a few too many words to make a point. But this one is insightful:

A profitable speculation is presented as a public good because growth will stimulate demand and everywhere diffuse comfort and improvement. No patriot or man of feeling could therefore oppose it.

But the nature of this growth, in opposition, for example, to older ideas such as cultivation, is that it is at once undirected and infinitely self-generating in the endless demand for all the useless things in the world.

This massive economic flameout is what Nassim Nicholas Teleb would call a black swan. It's the result of decades of excess consumption fueled by expectations of limitless growth. We've met the enemy, and it is us. Whether we like it or not, we're charting a new course here. And I damn sure hope the Heritage Foundation isn't drawing the map.

Ouch. Pull that pin out, Senator Jim. It hurts, and you're insane.

Sheesh.

Two stories heard virtually back-to-back on the radio this morning.

In the first, the reporter asked a small business owner how he was holding up. The guy said he had stopped paying himself, had eliminated all but essential expenses at home and in his business, but was near having to make a choice between letting employees go or closing the doors.

The second story concerned how some companies are considering pre-emptive layoffs in order to hoard cash. Just in case things get worse, you see.

Want to know why our economy is disfunctional and consumer confidence is non-existent?

Note to cash-hoarding ceos, their boards and shareholders:

For just a moment, look outside the door of your $1.2 million dollar office and past your next earnings release. Your survival depends on consumer confidence, and its collapse is a vicious cycle. If you have not taken every possible step to avoid laying off employees, do so now.

If you are still forced to get rid of employees, do so with a heavy heart and the realization that the actions you are taking may jeopardize the future of your organization.

Then remind yourself that you're not cutting overhead or "rightsizing" or eliminating FTEs. You are turning a person's life upside down. This person may not find employment for a long time. When he does, it will likely be a position that pays less.

He may lose his home. She will eliminate all but the expenses necessary to survive. Consider this before you bank your bonus check and ponder the profit forecast for company and its clever but ultimately nonessential product.

Then realize that the steps you are taking only add momentum to what are already very bad times. The FTE that walks out your door today is the consumer who will no longer be able to afford your product tomorrow.

Take a longer view. And show some humanity. It's in there, somewhere.

It was interesting for a while. But now that the stimulus bill has reached the Senate, where in some form or another it seems certain to pass, I've stopped trying to figure out legislative tactics and moved on to meatier issues.

I'm with Krugman. Even assuming the best-case projection of 4 million jobs, $800 billion and change ain't gonna pull us out of this tailspin. The way it's looking, four million new jobs will just about replace what was lost over the past few months. It doesn't even begin to generate the real employment growth that will be needed to drive a sustainable recovery.

So I'm assuming the President will be back on the Hill before long, asking for more. And when he does, I think he should go a moon shot.

If I were asked to come up with something really audacious, I'd take Schwarzenegger's greenhouse gas reduction plan and go national.

It would be wickedly expensive. It would be way ahead of public opinion. It would be reviled by every Republican in Washington, and some Democrats too. But it's the right thing to do. And I think it might just work.

A massive commitment to renewables, rebuilding the energy grid, and upgrading and retrofitting private and public structures would tens of millions of jobs, from unskilled knowledge-based. It would be a boon for education, particularly tech colleges.

A huge public commitment would unlock venture money and turn entrepreneurs loose on everything from batteries and solar panels to fans and ceiling tiles. And it would put additional momentum behind public and private sector R&D.

I'd put a lot more effort into this if I could count on a robust but reasoned debate in the TPM community. I'm neither a scientist nor an economist. Anything I know about energy policy, I got from the New York Times. 

I am, however, open to constructive criticism, starting now. 

According to a report in today's New York Times, Wall St. bonuses will drop by 44 percent in 2008, to $18.4 billion from 32.9 billion. The average bonus was $112,000.

The declines reflect the souring of the global economy and credit markets, as well as the disappearance of the traditional Wall Street investment banking model.

What were the five largest Wall Street banks no longer exist in the form they began 2008.

With the formation of Organizing for America, President Obama has taken another step toward the restoration of real participatory democracy in our country.

As many of you who have suffered through my comments are aware, I believe this may be the boldest and most important initiative undertaken by the Administration. As he did during his campaign, Barack is presenting a compelling alternative to special interest politics.

It is us.

This is a welcome change from the business as usual that has hijacked our politics and stripped citizens of their right -- and responsibility -- to participate meaningfully in government beyond the local level. 

Realizing this central promise of democracy has always been a challenge. But that challenge has elevated to crisis as business groups and other special interests have marshalled seemingly endless resources to buy power and influence in the White House, on Capitol Hill and in state houses across the country. For a thorough and comfortably left-leaning analysis of this corrosive trend I suggest William Greider's Who Will Tell the People.

Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.

Reagan's first inaugural address was a rhetorical tipping point that began the modern attack on our cherished principle of government by and for the people. Along with the Republicans' 1994 Contract with America, it accelerated the erosion of American democracy by identifying The Government as an obstructionist entity divorced from its citizens and implacably opposed to their desires.

There was an element of truth to this. But real reforms that would have increased accountability and transparency never made it into law. Instead, Republicans mounted an aggressive ideological assault that reduced government to simplest terms: taxes, regulation and entitlements.

This reductio ad absurdum has encouraged legions of individuals to run for government by running against it. Instead of stimulating a robust debate on priorities and vision, it has spawned mindless promises to cut taxes and end "handouts." Instead of giving citizens a true voice in the affairs of the nation, it has further consolidated political power with corporations and monied interests.

Instead of strengthening our society and enriching our public discourse it has spawned a mutant individualism, in which personal self-interest always trumps the common good.   Rampant consumerism, greed and the mindless pursuit of short-term gain have corroded our social and physical infrastructure, assaulted our environment and diminished opportunity for hundreds of millions of Americans.

What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility -- a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character than giving our all to a difficult task.

This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

Capitalizing on the power of the Internet and a remarkable ability to reach, inspire and mobilize ordinary citizens, Barack Obama revolutionized campaigning and made an explicit promise to again make government bend to the will of the people. During his transition and within days of assuming office, he has begun to make good on that promise.

Now it is up to us.

Republicans apparently are at loggerheads with President Obama over provisions in the economic stimulus package that would provide a tax cut to workers who do not earn enough to pay income taxes. According to John Kyl of Arizona, this would not be tax relief but a government handout.

"Handouts," according to the Republican Bible of Economic Darwinism, are the cornerstone of the dreaded "welfare society," which is inherently evil because it provides, among other things, a disincentive to work. The optimal solution, of course, is to eliminate taxes, regulations and other burdens that prevent the glorious free market from solving the problem on its own.

So far, the glorious free market's contribution to economic freedom has been two million layoffs. And counting. I don't see it stepping forward anytime soon.

But what if it did?

In an earlier post, I mentioned that I had once done a back-of-the-cocktail-napkin calculation of the economic stimulus that would be provided if Wal*Mart increased its average hourly wage to $16 from the current poverty-level $9.68. Even holding its average workweek constant at 34 hours (which of course allows our economic titan to avoid providing hundreds of thousands of low-income workers with health care and other benefits), this would provide $15.6 billion of direct stimulus to the economy where it is needed most.

This wouldn't come cheap, of course. By my accounting Wal*Mart, which earns about $9 billion a year, would have to cough up about $548 million in profits. A portion of this money would come back to the retail titan as happy shoppers used their new economic prowess to buy its cheap Chinese-made clothing and toys.

But hey, maybe ceo Lee Scott could peel a few Benjamins from his $17 million in foldin' money to help cover the difference.

And maybe the govmint could carve off a nice tax credit for payroll expansion. You know, in recognition of the sacrifice America's Superstore made for the common good.

Oops, strike "common good." Them's code words for socialism.

Wal*Mart employs a million and a half people. These are the good, hardworking people our consumption economy needs to get spending again while we try to sort out a sustainable future that includes tens of millions more jobs that pay a living wage. It just might put enough pressure on the labor market to boost pay for convenience store clerks and frycooks. It would certainly return some of the luster to our glorious free market.

The stupidity, dishonesty and downright mean-spiritedness of an ideology that defines prosperity as the mass migration of wealth to the wealthy is a topic for another time.

But what say ye? Think shareholders and the suits in Bentonville are equal to the task?