Barney Frank has written a clear, detailed and carefully reasoned explanation of why he voted against the debt ceiling bill. It’s long enough to send most of behind the screen, but I want to highlight on the front page what my congressman had to say about our job now:
Dear Friend,
I appreciate you taking the time to let me know of your views on the debt limit. As I will explain later, I think part of the reason that we wound up with a very unsatisfactory bill – one that I voted against – is that there was a disproportionate volume of communications from people who take a wholly negative view of virtually all government activity. Fortunately, now that their efforts have called some fundamental values into question, a more broadly representative sector in the American public is speaking out and I think that will have a good result. [emphases added]
That is: keep those cards and letters coming, now, through the summer, and all the way to Christmas.
There’s a lot more, all worth reading, reminding us (me) that despite the relatively negligible damage done up front by this deal, the potential remains for much worse to come. To get Frank’s take, there’s a lot more below the jump.
As to this legislation, I was originally appalled at the notion that there was dispute over raising the debt limit. It has never been controversial – as many noted Ronald Reagan asked for it several times. It is the exact equivalent of paying your credit card bill or your mortgage when they come due. But the election, last year, of a radical faction of people who combine, in my judgment, an ignorance of the way government actually functions with a philosophical opposition to important public functions, put us in a dilemma. While I do not agree with everything the President did in this situation, I sympathize with him because the fundamental problem was that he was confronting a group of people prepared to blow up the whole enterprise. When you are dealing with very radical people, who are prepared to tear things down, you are, unfortunately, at a disadvantage. And for that reason, I was prepared to vote for a bill to raise the debt ceiling that would have included elements I did not like.
I say that because a failure to raise the debt ceiling would have had terribly negative consequences. First of all, it is axiomatic that if you don’t have enough money, you are unable to avoid failing meet your obligations. So the people who are most vulnerable in our society would have been hurt the worst. But the whole economy would have suffered as well. For that reason, I reluctantly voted on Saturday for the bill proposed by Senator Reid, which did not have increased taxes, which I think are very important, but which at least had equitable spending reductions, very particularly including a trillion dollars that he anticipated saving when we ended the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. These wars are terrible drains on our budget that, hypocritically, many conservatives seek not only to minimize but to increase.
When I saw the bill on Monday morning, my initial reaction was a hopeful one because it had been described to me as something that would put real limits on military spending. But then I read it. It had two serious flaws in that regard.
First, it exempted the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from any spending limits whatsoever. This is incredible. We are restraining everything else – firefighting ; vital research on cancer; aid for homeless people; repairing dangerously decayed bridges, etc. – but we were told there would be unlimited spending for Afghanistan and Iraq.
Beyond that, the initial announcement was that the spending cuts would be parceled equally between military spending and non-military spending for the next ten years. But the bill turned out to impose that division only for the first two years. For the next eight years, military spending would be unlimited within the overall cap, and past history suggests that this would lead to increased military spending at the expense of vital domestic programs. I support a strong military, but the $700 billion a year we are now spending on military – far more than we spend on Medicare – greatly exceeds anything necessary for our legitimate national security and in fact gives some our leaders an incentive to engage in military activity that is unwise.
There was one other part of the bill that I opposed. I am pleased that it made no cuts in Social Security and protected Medicaid, a very important program for low-income people and one that has a very important impact on state budgets. But it provided for a cut of up to 2% in Medicare. It is true that it said this would come only from providers and not from beneficiaries, but there are three problems with this. First, we made some sensible restrictions in what are paid to Medicare providers in the healthcare bill. Ironically, the Republicans who are now pushing for even further cuts denounced us by grossly exaggerating the effect those cuts would have had. Second, restricting funds to providers in Medicare, when non-Medicare reimbursements are not restricted, means that many people will have trouble getting access as some doctors decide not to participate. This is especially a problem for older people who may lack mobility and live in areas where there are not a lot of physicians. Finally, I do not regard healthcare providers as bad things. They are sources not just of good medical care but, in much of the district I represent, of jobs. Hospitals are major job sources in Fall River, New Bedford and other cities in the southeastern part of Massachusetts, and these are also jobs that cannot be outsourced. People cannot administer to patients from Mumbai. In addition, innovative drug and other medical technologies are, for Massachusetts, a major source of economic activity. Again, in the district I represent, there are several such companies, and while I do not think we should be lavishing money on them, I do not want them singled out for excessive restriction.
For these reasons, I voted against the bill.
Had there been an increase in tax revenues, this would have overcome my objections. That is, the absence of tax revenues alone would not have led me to vote against the bill if the military spending was restrained. But to have unrestrained military spending and no new tax revenues guarantees that virtually every other part of the government would be unduly cut.
I alluded earlier to what has been an imbalance in the communications we received and my satisfaction that that appears to be over – namely that people who understand the importance, in a civilized society, of our joining our efforts by speaking out. This gives me some optimism for next year.The way this bill is set up, over my objection but nonetheless now law, we will have a very serious debate next year. The Bush tax cuts , which exacerbated the deficit so much, will expire at the end of 2012. If the 12 Member committee set up under this bill cannot come to an agreement, which seems to be the likeliest outcome – we will have what is called sequestration, with very deep cuts in a variety of programs, taking effect on January 1 of 2013. What this means is that for all of next year – we should begin it this year – we will be debating two scenarios. In one, we will allow the tax cuts to continue for most Americans, but return the tax rate on incomes over $250 thousand to where it was under Bill Clinton – when we had a strong economy. What this means is that for every thousand dollars people make above $250 thousand, they will be required to pay $30. more in taxes. (Their marginal rate will go from 36 to 39%) I am prepared to argue strongly that increasing the tax on someone making half a million dollars a year by another $7500. will have no negative effect on his or her economic behavior or well being. And if we do not raise these tens of billions, it will mean further deep cuts in Alzheimer’s and cancer research, firefighters, environmental clean up and aid to community colleges. This is a very important debate. I believe that when the American people look at the deep cuts in services that will come from a sequestration versus a tax increase of $300. for every thousand dollars earned over $250,000, the great majority will be on our side. And in this case, since the Bush tax cuts are due to expire, that would have to be reenacted by both Houses and signed by the President, we will have the leverage this time as opposed to those who had it last time because they were ready to blow things up.
So I am sorry that the bill came out as it did, although I am pleased that we protected Social Security and Medicaid, and at least began the process of cutting the military. But a lack of any increased taxes and a continuation of preferred spending status in the military, meant to me that it was simply not acceptable. And I am now committed to making sure that we have the debate that I described above because I think once that happens, we will not again face such a terrible choice.
Image: Vincent van Gogh, Joseph-Etienne Roulin, (portrait of a postman), 1889
Jim, Foolish Literalist
along these lines: the ad at the top of the page for me this morning was for Americans (like Dick Armey) for Prosperity (for the Koch brothers, reminding their followers that it was their duty to speak up, and offering a “kit” to help them prepare for town meetings. So that nuttiness will continue. I was half-tempted to click on it to see what they’re up to, but I don’t want to get on batshit crazy e-mail lists. More than I already am.
aisce
if you can’t get barney fucking frank to get on board with cuts to medicare providers, that should pretty much sum up the battlefield.
this winter is going to be a disaster. there’s nobody at the wheel. that’s what you should all be worried about. not that one side is outplaying the other like some evil geniuses. winning and losing. there’s no winning right now.
that they don’t know what they’re doing, and they don’t know how to save us from themselves.
LTL-FTC
I loves me the left blogosphere but I wish someone, anyone, would point out that the market crash is not all about this ridiculous debt deal, though it is in part about debt, that being held by European countries of varying size.
JC
Thanks Tom.
I hadn’t seen people yet go into the weeds of this, beyond the excuse making ‘nothing happens in 2012’.
The cuts further off though, are clearly NOT good. Perhaps with a good result come 2012, a lot of this can be rectified by new legislation, but that’s unlikely to be favorable.
So, by complete and total unanimous opposition, the effect is the same.
Obama is – AT BEST – dragged kicking and screaming into again cutting the US revenue pie, towards the rich, greasing the wheels toward cuts in SS, and unfavorable changes in Medicare.
And no democrat could do better.
Midcase – “Middleman” is simply out-strategized, and Obama with his bad negotiating, is greasing the wheels towards cuts in SS, and unfavorable changes in Medicare.
Worst case – Obama is ‘bought’ by the liberal 1% elite, the limousine liberals, that while they want a fairer environment toward women, homosexuals, and a fairer more equitable system in general – don’t want their money touched, and so Obama is greasing the wheels towards cuts in SS, and unfavorable changes in Medicare.
I say ‘changes in SS’, because if more revenue isn’t brought in, on the wealthy, by changing tax rates, SS and Medicare will have to be touched. Cantor has already said this explicitly.
In any case, without revenue increases, we will have a much different Medicare in 10 years.
And all Republicans, and a lot of bought off Democrats, don’t want revenue increases.
Jewish Steel
If a majority of seats in congress were as safe and Democratic as Barney’s, well, then…
OzoneR
@JC:
This is probably it.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
Barney Franky needs to keep pushing tax increases, because we need them, but he was able to not vote for the bill because a lot of other Democrats did. I doubt, if he were the deciding vote, he would have let the bill die. As Pelosi said, the Democrats in the House are “sophisicated” and knew what they had to do. And BF’s job is to keep pushing for tax increases.
Stillwater
@aisce:
This actually made me laugh. I’m still sorta chuckling about it.
Downpuppy
I need to test his Mumbai physician claim:
Calling Doctor Bombay! Calling Doctor Bombay!
(waits)
Ach! It doesn’t work without the nosetwitch.
Cat Lady
Would a bunch of someones in the Democratic party please explain marginal tax rates, like they’re five years old, to the talking hairdos on teevee so that they don’t look like a deer in the headlight every time Satan Norquist and his minions scream taxed enough already! I’d also like a pony. kthx.
ETA: Barney’s my rep, and he writes these things all the time if you write to him. You’ve just gotta respect that.
WaterGirl
I have concluded that a fax is more effective than an email message. I discovered FaxZero last week, and I plan to send my two free faxes every single day.
It’s really quite simple – you can either attach a file or you can just type a note directly into FaxZero.
Once you have sent a fax to a number once, it shows up as you start to type the number. Ditto for the name of the person you are sending to. (The only thing it doesn’t do is remember which name goes with which number. Oh well)
I would love to hear from anyone who has used MyFax or any other free internet faxing system. Maybe I can get 4 or 6 free faxes every day. If we all do it, maybe we can start to compete with the teabaggers.
JGabriel
Barney Frank @ Top:
Personally, I think we should let all of the Bush tax cuts expire. Trying to get the GOP to agree to a deal where only the uppermost bracket expires is folly — they will demand too much in return, then demand that the tax cut be continued anyway.
Don’t deal with them. Just let it all expire, as scheduled.
.
JC
It is a bit self-contradictory, isn’t it? As if the general limousine liberal cares if 5% of his income goes towards taxes.
But, rich people are weird about money. Their accountants, every year, tell them how to ‘maximize’ income. It’s best practice, on a individual financial level. Same with liberal leaders in corporations outsourcing jobs, or setting up legal dummy corporations in the Bermudas.
So while unlikely, I’m not ruling it out…
singfoom
How’d they let him be in our Congress? You don’t explain why you voted the way you did to the proles, you tell them you voted the way you did because that’s what Real ‘Murkins do. And to vote any other way would make him not a Real ‘Murkin.
They want an explanation, they can go ask Charles Koch, or at the very least, the gentlemen guarding his compound/office.
JPL
quotes from some of our commenters ..Obama, blah, blah, blah
Good for Barney Frank because his vote was not necessary but to bring the President into this sickens me because he was looking at the country as a whole and letting the USA default might have hurt a few bankers but it would have been devastating to 100 plus million low income people who depend on safety nets. BTW..The bankers and investors are being hurt by the policies of the house, they just don’t realize it.
OzoneR
@JC:
I think they’re apathetic about it and thus will go “this is not my fight” when the fight comes.
And some, yes, I do think care. I’ve witnessed many a fight on friends’ Facebook walls between rich liberals complaining about taxes, especially over the Nassau County vote I’ve been talking about.
JPL
@Cat Lady: This is how I explain it to friends..If you make 100,000 and you pay 15,000 in federal taxes your tax rate is 15%. Most of these folks like the fair tax so then I have to explain why the 24 percent is wrong and once we get beyond that, I say if you save ten percent and now have 90,000 and have to pay 30 percent sales tax this is your rate. Napkins and pencils are involved. Bozo Boortz convinced them they were paying fifty percent in income taxes. I use 100,000 because it’s easy, not necessarily indicative of wealth.
JPL
@efgoldman: yup
Erin
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Indeed. Barney Frank is more right than he knows:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/study-tea-partiers-outworked-democrats-in-debt-fight.php?ref=fpa
Raven (formerly stuckinred)
@JPL: That’s not all that fat fucker has convinced them of.
JC
I think this is true at a minimum. On taxes, ‘the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity”.
It’s why the tax fight has been losing ground, since the 70’s.
Cat Lady
@JPL:
Barney did a pretty good job in his missive above. I like the $30 per thousand above $250,000 – it’s easily comprehensible without needing pencils or napkins, even for morans with teabags stapled to their heads.
mikefromArlington
OT but remember this crap?
“”This morning, the GDP projection for the last quarter was released, showing a 3.2% growth for the fourth quarter and suggesting the economy will pick up speed this year. This uptick is no doubt due in part to the certainty that Washington has given the private sector through the recent tax deal and the newly elected House Republican Majority who have pledged to rein in the size and scope of our federal government which has exploded over the last 4 years.”
http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/002087.htm
JPL
@Erin: I bet we could earn some big bucks figuring out how to do that. I’m not an OBOT per say because of the extension of the tax cuts but I also understand that he could not let the country default. How do explain to people that even though you campaigned on changing the tone, you failed. The Tea Party aka libertarians have taken us hostage. (evangelical libertarians..haha)
cleek
@JGabriel:
Dems: hey look, it’s time to write ${IMPORTANT_BILL} ! yay!
GOP: sweet! oh, and by the way, we’re going to attach an amendment to ${IMPORTANT_BILL} to make those Bush tax cuts permanent .
Dems: no!
GOP: try and stop us. last time we looked, we control the House.
Dems: line in the sand! stand firm!
GOP: talk to the hand, muthafukkas. pass it. we both know how this is gonna end.
Dems: Noooo! what will Jayne Hashmner say about us!?
GOP: fuck her. ${IMPORTANT_BILL} needs to pass. pass it, with our amendment.
Dems: rats. elections really do have consequences!
JC
If things continue as they are, we are looking at something similar happening to revenues, as what has happened in California since the property tax fight in the 1970’s.
California is still a good place to live, in a lot of ways. But the infrastructure has wasted away, and the public school system is a mockery of what it used to be.
OzoneR
@JPL:
The problem is, the tone was never his to change.
That’s like the mayor of Joplin saying he “failed” to save the lives of the 150 people in his town who died from the tornado. He couldn’t save them, all he could do is promote ways they can protect themselves, but he couldn’t stop the tornado.
OzoneR
@cleek:
there really isn’t anything important left to do.
jwb
@Erin: And this is why we lose these battles, and why it is important to contact your rep and Senators even if they are known factors. The staffers talk to one another, and they know the volume of mail in gross (not just for their district) that is being sent supporting one side or the other and that knowledge affects tactics, negotiations, etc.
JPL
@Cat Lady: In the south that won’t work because those are the job creators, what works though is why are they paying a lower percentage than you and still not creating jobs.
Steve
I am not particularly eager to raise taxes on folks in the $50,000-$250,000 range, including myself, but the fact is that ending the Bush tax cuts for only the $250,000 and up contingent will do barely anything for the deficit.
If you think it is important to do something on the revenue side of the ledger, all the Bush tax cuts have to end. I realize this is not Obama’s position, and apparently it is not Barney Frank’s position either, so at the end of the day it is unlikely to happen. But honestly, all this talk about how we’re going to get rid of deductions for corporate jets is just the liberal version of “waste, fraud and abuse.” It’s not serious.
Zagloba
Spoken like a true Raygunbot.
JPL
@OzoneR: I hate to play the devil’s advocate but Romney will have an ad saying I can accomplish what Obama can’t. The President’s a nice guy but let’s face it, we need a macho type. Now I’m exaggerating.
cleek
@OzoneR:
IIRC, fiscal year ends in September. appropriations bills need to pass.
Cat Lady
@JPL:
Didn’t Warren Buffet say his maid pays more taxes than he does, or has a higher rate or something? Shouldn’t that make everyone crazy, even Southerners? There are so many ways to make this fairness message stick, but why isn’t it? Why isn’t every Gooper asked about jobs? Lowest taxes in decades, so where are the jobs! Our media just completely sucks.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Barney Frank made a great point on Hardball the other night. I can’t remember the figures and I don’t want to misstate them, but we’re talking about a pretty small amount of money that the rich will be asked to pay in taxes, and if our side (not Obama, but Dem-friendly media people) can get that message out, I think the repeal of tax cuts will be pretty hard to argue against. Karl Rove will be running his “tax and spend” ads anyway, the Ruth Marcuses and David Gregorys of the world will have to be led to the water to understand the debate
MarkJ
I have a serious actual question for you Tom, or anyone who can answer. I’m a resident of DC. I could write to the one person who “represents” me in Congress (Elenore Holmes Norton) but since she has no vote, it’s pretty much useless, because she has no means to influence policy. If I write to anyone else, I’m assuming that they’ll ignore me because I’m not a constituent.
This leads to my question: Does the Congressional leadership (Nancy, John, Harry, etc.) actually pay attention to letters they receive from people who are not their constituents? If it would do actual good, I’ll write them. Otherwise, I have more enjoyable ways to spend my time than writing to folks who tax me without representation, and don’t give a shit what I have to say about it.
Bill Arnold
@LTL-FTC:
Agreed. The damage to the U.S. economy (such as it was)was done during the months-long runup to the debt deal. Same applies to the damage to international perceptions about U.S. competence and power and reliability.
I happen to be in Madrid today, and there have seen the Indignado street protests. (Relatively small and well-behaved, and what I saw of the police presence was strong but well behaved.) The few random people we’ve talked politics with are very unhappy with the current government. I think several current governments in Europe will fall over the next year, even if the euro zone doesn’t collapse.
OzoneR
@JPL:
Sure he will, the Republicans will campaign that they’re tougher, because they always do.
We haven’t we “needed” a macho types. Macho types always win, which is why I say liberals are continue to wander in the political desert until they find the Southern White Governor War Hero.
Why in hell did anyone think the community organizer from Chicago is going to appeal to a nation that loves war heroes?
trollhattan
@MarkJ:
I dunno but if I were in your shoes I’d concentrate on the house and senate leadership and key committee leadership. IMHO they have responsibilities inherently beyond the needs of their direct constituencies.
I could be completely wet, also, too.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@OzoneR:
How dare you sir! How dare you! I am a rabid partisan of ${IMPORTANT_BILL}. If the Dems don’t throw all other considerations over the side of the boat to pass ${IMPORTANT_BILL} then they are worse than ${EVIL_DICTATOR} and ${NASTY_SKIN_AILMENT} combined and I shall tell all my friends on Facebook that they should punish the Dems by witholding their money and their votes until ${GLORIOUS_UTOPIA} arrives.
Harrrrrumph! The nerve of some people!
OzoneR
@Cat Lady:
There’s a black guy in the White House and gays are getting married in New York, and you think the Southerners are going to be concerned with economic fairness?
Economic fairness means they have to first admit they’re in an inferior position and then share a fight with black people and immigrants.
Lee Hartmann
Would that we all had congresspeople as smart and eloquent as Barney. My congressman probably even can’t spell many of the words Barney uses.
Erin
@jwb: i know even the Obama lovers/haters contacted their reps to vote yes or no. Its the Obama voters im worried about. Most of these people never followed politics i.e. young people, ‘independents’, etc.
The vast majority do not follow these things, and never do and never will. It’s just a historical fact.
evinfuilt
@JGabriel:
We should let all the bush tax cuts expire anyways, not just because it would be hard, but because it fiscally makes sense. Bush’s middle class tax cut wasn’t needed.
OzoneR
@Erin:
which is why Republicans can go against popular opinion and not suffer for it and Democrats can’t use it to their advantage.
JC
Is this snark? We just had an election where Obama beat the pants off a war hero.
Actually, twice in a row, the war hero has lost.
Also, it’s going to be hard to portray Multiple Choice Mitt as tough.
Suffern ACE
@Erin: When the debate is about “saving social security” or “medicare” all the time, every time there is a crisis, does that really inspire the youth? Yeah, a lot of them think it won’t be there, and a lot of them think it will, but it’s not their lives in the present that are being discussed.
Cat Lady
@OzoneR:
Yeah, what was I thinking – I was letting my class consciousness get the upper hand. Stupid me. Someone not straight, white and Christian may be getting something they might not deserve and make the baby jeebus cry, so destroying 75 years of American commonwealth it is.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@Cat Lady:
The last time we were in this situation with excessive concentration of stagnant wealth and depression economics back in the 1930s, the Southeast, which historically is the area of the country culturally most resistent to the idea of the govt spending money on “internal improvements” (aka investing in tomorrow’s economy to the rest of us), that area was different from today in two very important ways: (A) it was completely under the political control of the same party as the President and Congressional leaders who were proposing to increase spending (and hence the lever of intra-party patronage was something the leadership could use to get people in line) and (B) was a severely under-developed area, almost a third-world colony of the manufacturing base concentrated in the Northeast and Upper Midwest. FDR’s New Deal was greatly aided in its passage because so much of the spending in it was being used to modernize the economy of the Southeastern states, and because FDR and key Congressional leaders could yank the chains of members of their own party to whip the votes in favor of it, while at the same time being able to get votes from the more liberal members of the GOP on ideological rather than partisan grounds.
Today we don’t have that sort of leverage. If the Congressional delegations from the former CSA states decide to sabotage everything they can get their hands on, we don’t have the sort of threats and bribes with which to coerce them which we had back in 1933.
Suffern ACE
@evinfuilt: Nope. The bush tax cuts in general are economically worthless. Even the precious middle class ones.
Lockewasright
Cantor can demand all he wants. If they don’t come to an agreement via the committee then half of the cuts come from defense and safety net benefits are sheltered from the other half. All Reid and Obama have to do to get us our revenue is nothing. The Bush tax cuts expire automatically.
JPL
Ozone, What’s interesting about the community organizer thing is that should feed into the conservative memo. You want folks to take care of themselves. I would be willing to guarantee that in my little world in the south, most of those folks live under covenants that dictate the color of their house. BTW, I don’t and my little neighborhood looks better.
jwb
@Erin: That’s not what that poll said. The report on TPM didn’t break the figures down in a particularly useful way, but it said that only 5% of people who were not Republicans contacted an elected official. Unless the percentage of Republican/Tea Party was miniscule in the poll, there’s no way you get Dems close to the Republican/Tea Party’s 66% who contacted elected officials.
J. Michael Neal
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ: On a completely different subject, you suggested last week that I try to make some money writing. Do you have any idea how to get started? I found one person willing to help . . . for $150/hour. I need to have more confidence that it could happen before I’m willing to pony up that kind of cash.
Meanwhile, Corporations Aren’t People
jwb
@OzoneR: You’re sounding like Nick channeling Carville tonight.
boss bitch
Its interesting to watch the same group of people (liberals) telling Obama that he shouldn’t worry about the deficit during a recession also say he shouldn’t extend the Bush tax cuts for ANYONE because of their concern for the….deficit.
Also, I have nothing against Barney Frank but he’s not getting a pat on the back from me for his letter. If his vote was needed, he would have voted YES. I don’t think any Democrat was happy to vote for the debt deal, but no Democrat wants to go home and explain why he/she allowed the country to default.
Julia Grey
Noooooo, Barney! You had it right the first time. 3% of 1000 = 3 dollars for every hundred, ten hundreds in a thousand = 30 dollars!
$300 is THIRTY percent of $1000.
Julia Grey
@boss bitch:
Yes, this is foolish. The middle class SPEND all their money, the rich essentially sequester theirs. That is why we tax the rich during a recession and the government has to spend, even on a deficit basis — to make up for middle class demand.
You must get the money out and MOVING.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@J. Michael Neal:
I have no idea. $150/hour for consulting on something ill defined and likely to take awhile before it bears fruit sounds like a possible scam to me, like one of those “Resume writing services” that just takes your money and leaves you with something you could have done by yourself on the computers at a public library (assuming any of those are left open by now). My suggestion was made from the viewpoint of the consumer (I like the quality of your writing and would be willing to pay for published work at that level) but I can’t help you with info on the production end of that business as I don’t know much about it. Hopefully somebody else here might be able to help you with more specific suggestions as to how to get started. Good luck and best wishes!
Steve
@boss bitch:
It’s interesting to see people have trouble distinguishing between short-term deficits and long-term deficits. No, just kidding, it’s fucking annoying!
slag
Sorry, BF, I love you, but to paraphrase Jon Stewart, you’re not pinning this turd on us. I, for one, am tired of having to micromanage you fuckers. Major legislation, such as ACA, I’m here for you. Just say the word. But THIS? You wanted us all to drop what we’re doing so we can tell you how to raise the fuckin debt ceiling? Sure thing. And next, I’ll go down to reception and tell them how to press the star key when they transfer calls. You all need to get your shit together and do your goddamned jobs. Or find new ones. Assholes.
Ruckus
@J. Michael Neal:
Learn to edit your own material. By that I mean like an outside editor will do. It all sounds good to us when we write it because it is in our voice. The hardest part for me in learning how to write technical info that was not mind numbingly boring was learning how to read it.
So the basics are
1. Write a lot. On subjects you know something about at first.
2. Let it sit for a day or 2. Now read it like someone else wrote it. What did you like about it? What didn’t you like? Is there a clearer/funnier/more honest/direct way to say the same thing? Be Brutal, everyone else will be.
3. Let the edit sit. Run through 2 and 3 a couple of times if necessary. Compare the versions.
4. Writing takes practice and patience and practice and practice and…
That was what I was taught by a couple of managing editors of glossy magazines. I still write like a C+ 12th grader but you should have seen the output a few years ago. And now when I write crap, I know it as soon as it’s on the screen and can edit it to be simpler and clearer for the most part, on the fly.
Heliopause
@boss bitch:
No, what actually happened was this; Obama said deficits were a problem (been saying it for years, in fact). So if deficits are a problem then a logical place to address this would be the Bush tax cuts. Obama also said there must be shared sacrifice (been saying it for years, in fact). So if there must be shared sacrifice then, hell, take my middle-class tax cut Mr. President and leave the old, poor, and disabled folks alone. Of course, Obama and everybody else in Washington were goddamned idiots to make deficits a problem in the middle of a near depression in the first place, but it was his idea, not mine.
Dennis SGMM
@J. Michael Neal:
If you want to get published then you would be wise to consider signing with an established agent. While many publishers still accept manuscripts over the transom your chances of being published via that route, particularly if you’re a complete unknown, are pretty slim. An agent can get your manuscript considered because the people who make the decisions tend to see agents as a means of filtering out works that aren’t ready for publication. Another virtue of signing with an agent is that he or she can put you in touch with an editor who will help you polish your work before it’s presented to a publisher. You may have to pay the editor, that’s largely dependent on the agent’s level of enthusiasm for your work. There are good editors out there who aren’t big names and who charge a reasonable fee.
EDIT: What Ruckus said. Writing is a job. You need to approach it like a job. That means working at it every day.
Samara Morgan
@cleek: no moron. the bush taxcuts expire AFTER the ‘lection, and AFTER the december 23 trigger date.
you too are dumber than a teabagger.
cleek
@Samara Morgan:
feel free to link to the law that says “no tax cuts shall be made permanent until the current extension expires.”
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@Steve:
DADD (Deficit Attention Deficit Disorder) strikes again!
Dennis SGMM
@cleek:
Yep, I’m not at all consoled by the fact that the tax cuts expire before a new Congress is seated. If the Republicans become lame ducks then they’re more likely to do whatever damage they can before they exit.
Samara Morgan
@cleek: its game theory, retardia.
Obama cannot be forced to make a move before Nov 6. OR Dec 23.
many bills languish in committee FOREVAH.
Obama turned a bug of divided government into a feature.
Now he can do NOTHING and win. :)
i lurve theory of cooperation and evo bio and evolutionary theory of games.
my total favorite things.
sadly there are there many aristotelian frogs like cleek that only see their local mudpatch….and not the soaring platonic bird view.
cleek
@Samara Morgan:
err. ok.
(backs away slowly)
Samara Morgan
@cleek: /sideways smile
stratification on cognitive ability in action.
better turn your pie filter.
you might learn something inadvertantly