David Brooks: Most people in public life are in it for the right reasons. They’re representing a point of view or a group. They’re faced with horrendous character tests — a system that perpetually tempts them to put loyalty to the team ahead of loyalty to the truth. I find the most accurate approach is to view them with sympathetic scrutiny but rarely outright scorn.

…

Gail Collins: On behalf of the scorn contingent, I have to protest. I’m with you about there being very few evil people in politics, but there are a LOT of self-satisfied, shallow careerists, and I was put on this earth to make fun of them.

U.S. cotton farmers took in almost $2.3 billion dollars in government subsidies in 2009, and the top 10% of the recipients got 70% of the cash. Now Uncle Sam is getting ready to ask taxpayers to foot the bill for another $147.3 million a year for a new round of cotton payments, this time to Brazilian growers.

…

Here’s the problem: The World Trade Organization has ruled that subsidies to American cotton growers under the 2008 farm bill are a violation of U.S. trading commitments. The U.S. lost its final appeal in the case in August 2009 and the WTO gave Brazil the right to retaliate.

Brazil responded by drafting a retaliation list threatening tariffs on more than 100 U.S. exports, including autos, pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, electronics, textiles, wheat, fruits, nuts and cotton. The exports are valued at about $1 billion a year, and the tariffs would go as high as 100%. Brazil is also considering sanctions against U.S. intellectual property, including compulsory licensing in pharmaceuticals, music and software.

The Obama Administration appreciates the damage this retaliation would cause, so in April it sent Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Miriam Sapiro to negotiate. She came back with a promise from Brazil to postpone the sanctions for 60 days while it considers a U.S. offer to—get this—let American taxpayers subsidize Brazilian cotton growers.

I’m really not sure what to say.

a.  Cutting spending
b.  Raising taxes

It seems that most people choose “c.  Magic more money into existence.”  Presto:  you have California.  Also, our federal government.

themightypuck: And, while I agree that the decision is probably the correct one, it is a bit of a high wire act for an originalist to come to said conclusion.

Alsadius: How so? “Congress shall make no law…” seems pretty much what the original intent was, given that that’s how it’s written.

themightypuck: The entire text:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I’m quite happy that centuries of jurisprudence have defined speech to mean more than speech and I only mention it here as evidence of what I see as the failure of originalism.

The issue with this statement is that the founders clearly meant speech to include the printed word, and you can argue that television advertising is the modern equivalent of the printed word.  Not being a student of the law, I can’t tell you how the original intent doctrine deals with technological development.

The outrage is that this decision, which overrules a law put into place by the people’s elected representatives as well as two past Supreme Court precedents, was handed down by a group of justices (and celebrated by a group of activists) who all claim to be against judicial activism.

As Karen notes below, Senator Tom Coburn from Oklahoma–who, with James Inhofe, constitute the most extreme Senate delegation from any state–prayed for the incapacitation or death of a Democratic Senator so that health care would be blocked.

Sounds absolutely terrible, doesn’t it?  This Coburn guy must be a really terrible fellow… Except, of course, that’s not what Coburn said.  Here are his actual words:

What the American people ought to pray is that somebody can’t make the vote tonight.

Now you can certainly interpret those words as Klein did, but when you’re a respected journalist you don’t get to simply assume the worst about people and move on.  You’re supposed to provide as accurate and balanced reading of events as possible — even if you’re just blogging.

Klein, of course, is a huge fan of health care “reform.”  One of his favorite provisions is the individual mandate, which he argues will force young, healthy people to buy insurance they wouldn’t otherwise purchase, lowering costs for everyone else.  What he doesn’t mention is a less popular, but economically equivalent way of achieving the same outcome:  instead of forcing young people to purchase something they don’t want, we could just have an “under 30 tax” and distribute the proceeds to the rest of the population.  That way people who are early in their careers and suffering under a mound of student debt could be saddled with yet another financial obligation, for the benefit of those with much higher salaries.  I know the AARP thinks it’s a great idea.

So no, I don’t see jerks who speculate on houses and then walk away from their mortgages because they’d rather spend the money on cruises as heroes of the working class, striking a well-deserved blow against the banks for the rest of us.  I see them as the folks who are doing their best to ruin a very good thing for the rest of us.