A Slippery Slope

Two weeks ago a defense funding bill was passed through Congress and quietly signed by the President. We need defense and a military to protect our country so unlike the extension of the Bush tax cuts this bill, the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) made it through Congress and to the President's desk for signature will little bickering or chest thumping that has characterized the past three years of partisan brinksmanship.

But unlike past appropriations bills this one included something that has passed by many. With the holidays approaching the press and pundits gave it little attention. It was a provision in the bill that Americans potentially could be held in America indefinitely without a trial if suspected of terrorist or terrorist sympathizers activity. No mainstream citizen of the US condones terrorist activities but this would appear to be a tipping point in our country's history and a major violation of our US Constitution and legal system.

It should also be said that both the Bush administration and the Obama administration have interpreted other legislation which would allow them to hold certain al-Qaeda suspects indefinitely until the ceasing of terrorist hostilities. But this is the first time that this activity has been codified in a bill giving the military and the Executive Branch of the US Government the right to detain suspects indefinitely. Does this cross the line of the rights to a trail guaranteed in our Constitution?

Some say it does. Now I am for using every tool at our disposal to capture and interrogate and extract information out of those who wish to do us harm both here and on foreign soil. But it is important to clearly distinguish wartime rights of prisoners overseas and here domestically. It is important to clarify the rights of US citizens residing here legally during peacetime. I might even argue that under the right circumstances and overwhelming evidence US Citizens abroad could be treated differently than they would if they were performing the same acts on US soil. But to arbitrarily seek indefinite detention on US soil even in times of peace seems to go against some of the ideals on which our country was founded. Maybe this power will not be abused by the Obama administration or its successor, but what about those who will lead our country in the future? If this erosion of our rights takes place now, what will the next step in this process be?

If you think that this is a hypothetical question, just go back a few years and consider the Patriot Act. (Or what I like to call the Unpatriotic Act). In a time of national mourning and panic post 911 our government granted itself what was considered unprecedented power to search and listen in on those who were potentially considered terrorism suspects. It gave the government the right to look at telephone bills with the large phone companies seemingly willing participants. Libraries were required to disclose to law enforcement books checked out by suspected terrorism suspects and the rights to wire taps and warrants in terrorism cases were loosened dramatically. At the time these tactics were questioned by civil libertarians but the tide of public opinion in the wake of 911 made their constitutional queries seem unpatriotic. This was the beginning of the slippery slope that makes this most recent legislation's passing into law seem almost like a forgone conclusion and one that has gone largely unnoticed.

But several questions come up. While this law speaks primarily to al-Qaeda, what about domestic terrorism? It is no less of a potential threat. Prior to 911 the Oklahoma bombing was the most serious case of terrorism on US soil. How should suspects be treated in similar cases which to the families involved are no less despicable than the attack on Pearl Harbor or 911?

What sets us apart from a large part of the rest of the world is that we have a system that takes care of criminals and suspected criminals. We also have tools both physical and enacted laws that address crimes against individuals and crimes against humanity. They have worked pretty well up until now. That would include the prosecutions in both civilian and military criminal cases with terrorism both foreign and domestic. Why now do we need to change the dynamic and alter the Constitution of the United States, an example to many around the world? If we continue to trample on the rights of our citizens, even those accused of crimes against humanity, have not the terrorist really gotten what they were after in the first place?

Promise Broken

Was this any surprise? The Republican House of Representatives voted or technically hid
their vote to not extend the Bush tax cuts beyond December 31st, 2011. The
Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner and his cohort Majority
Leader Eric Cantor did not even have the courage of their convictions to send
the Bill to the floor for a vote because they knew it would have passed. So they
sent it to a committee of five where 3 of the 5 committee members said they
would never vote for a compromise to extend the tax cut beyond the end of the
year. Game over.

The President and Senate were blind sided by the
behavior of the speaker and the Republican controlled house because over the
weekend everyone thought that they had a deal to extend the tax cuts for several
months allowing the beleaguered middle class to continue to take home more money
in their paychecks. The Republicans in the Senate were so happy with the
bi-partisan compromise that Mitch McConnell, the Republican Minority Leader in
the Senate was seen with a rare broad smile across his face high fiving a
colleague on the way out the door. After that vote, satisfied with their job
well done, they all left for their Christmas break.

So what happened? We may never know what happened behind closed doors. It was thought that Boehner was taken out to the wood shed by the Tea Party caucus members and told that
there would be no deal. It did not take an expert to read Boehner's body language when he emerged from the meeting to tell anyone who would listen that yet again he could not deliver a deal to keep his word on a compromise that he alluded to being able to pass just days before. He looked like a leader close to tears. As he was using terms like "kicking the can down the road," Boehner's demeanor told another story: one that said that he would rather be anywhere else
than behind that lectern. He tried to explain that the American people want
a longer term solution to the tax cut by no one was buy that, not even people in
his own party. It was apparent that even John Boehner had no idea about what the
American people want or how to apease the extremists in his own party.

But two promises were broken in this fiasco. The first was that fact that the House Republicans led by Boehner (and more realistically by the Tea Party) left their colleagues, the Senate Republicans twisting in the wind. So much so that several prominent Republican senators
openly criticized their own colleagues in the House. Now that is something we have not seen in recent memory. Republican Senators such as Scott Brown from Massachusetts are on the hot seat in the 2012 elections are furious with Boehner and the Tea Party for this latest vote to derail America.

This latest mess may or may not be cleaned up by the time the workers in America have to pay
an additional $40.00 per paycheck in taxes. But the more important "promise" broken is the one that nearly all Republicans made to lobbyist Grover Norquist. The now very famous promise made by nearly every right wing representative and candidate and nearly every right wing Presidential candidate was to never, ever raise taxes under any circumstance for any reason. Funny thing is that Norquist has been very quiet. He did issue a statement saying that this latest failure to act by the Republican House of Representatives and effectively raising the tax on the middle class was not a breaking of the vow by Republicans to never raise taxes. But the damage has been done. No one believes him. He is being exposed for what he and his lobbying firm really are: a shill for the wealthiest who do not want to pay their fair share. Give him credit though. He had many fooled fora long time.

Will this latest act or more accurately this inability to act expose the Tea Party, John Boehner and Eric Cantor, Grover Norquist for what they have become and who they really are? Too early to tell. Most reasonably minded people understand that for now the middle class needs to be left alone to fight their way out of this economic downturn that refuses to ebb. It is only the Tea Party who believes that taxes need to be increased on the working and working poor. But as we enter 2012 and the upcoming Presidential election, the Republicans have shown their hand and for a while it was a pretty convincing bluff.

Republican Party?

It is no secret that even the Republican electorate thinks that it has a weak field of Candidates. At this writing Newt Gingrich is the front runner with Mitt Romney running a distant second. Many, however, think that Romney will ultimately be the nominee. But Romney's buzz is that he is the unenthusiastic choice for the Republican Party. Why? Because he is uninteresting, has no real new ideas and perhaps most importantly is not really a conservative. He has flipped flopped on everything from health care to abortion both of which at one time he was for but is now against.

But is this really anything new for the Republican Party? Within the last few years the Republicans don't really know who they are. From the early 2000's they gave back money to the American people which was needed to fund a war. Make that two wars, one of which was unprovoked. They initiated a prescription drug program that was unfunded. All this was put on the American people's credit card in the form of massive debt. Now they claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility

The Executive Branch all the way up to the Chief of Staff for the Vice President exposed a covert CIA operative after her husband, Joe Wilson, was asked by the administration to investigate yellow cake uranium shipments to Iraq. In simply telling the truth he said that no such shipments existed and his wife was was exposed as a covert operative.

Do theses examples sound like liberals spending wildly without any accountability? Sound like America hating anti-democratic unpatriotic liberals? No, these were the actions of "neo-con" conservatives. Republicans. These were the actions of the Bush administration.

You can throw in a financial meltdown due to lax oversight. Finally, for good measure you can also include the demise of the US auto industry with two of three remaining US car companies filing for bankruptcy. The picture was pretty bleak just three years ago. Anti business Democrats? No, Republicans.

If Barack Obama had an (R) next to his name he would be considered the new coming by Republicans. He has ended the war in Iraq much to the consternation of many Republicans. Just ask Dick Cheney the instigator of the mess in Iraq who says we should have a permanent presence there. On Obama's watch our troops captured Osama Bin Laden, the mastermind behind 911 who alluded the US Government for nearly 10 years and during all of the Bush administration. He passed a sweeping health care initiative that every president, Republican and Democrat, back to Richard Nixon called for but was unable to pass. He turned around the financial system from a near catastrophe without losing any US taxpayer money. He lent and has be repaid for loans to the US automotive industry which is now making a comeback. While unemployment still remains high, it too is also beginning to show signs of improvement. He has done this all while trying to keep taxes at their lowest rate to GDP in history only proposing, but not getting passed, a tax increase for the wealthiest American. What is he called? A socialist and the worst US President in history. He has done all this without assistance from the Republicans whose main goal is to get the President out of office.

Yes there is a deficit and yes, it is serious. But he did not create the problems we are in today and he did nothing any differently than any other president would have done in a similar situation to get us out of where we are today.

So what are the Republican ideas for making the US a stronger and better nation as we steam full speed to the 2012 election? They are against raising any taxes, especially on the wealthy. The rich are job creators. Only there is no real proof that they have created any new jobs. Tax rates in this country for all Americans are lower than they have been at any time in the modern era, yet for some reason unemployment remains stubbornly high. Just ask any Republican. They think that taxes are still too high and that if you lower them even further, unemployment will fall. But there was a small chink in the armor this past week when a bill to extend the tax breaks to all working Americans was opposed by...Republicans. Yes Republicans.

So who are the Republicans? Hard to tell. They are the party of family values. But then why has Newt Gingrich been married three times? Why was he married to his first wife while dating his second wife? Why did discuss divorce proceedings with his second wife while she was in the hospital recovering from Cancer? Why was he cheating on his wife while he publicly called for the impeachment of Bill Clinton for adultery? I actually heard the audacity of a conservative pundit ask why Democrats were held to a lower standard when it came to personal indiscretions? It is because Democrats are not preaching an holier than thou standard for themselves like Republicans. Call it the hypocrite factor.

So who are the Republicans? Well the are the party of the free market. But then why has Michelle Bachman's family received so much in farm subsidy revenue from the US Government over the past several years. Why has Bachman been such an ardent supporter of farm subsidies in a free market economy? Good question. But she has. She even wrote a note praising the Obama administration for their decision to continue these subsidies? You won't hear that from her in a campaign speech even in the State of Iowa. Does she ask for one thing and get another? You be the judge. But it would appear that some Republicans want it both ways.

So who are the Republicans? Ask Mitt Romney. He created a health care program in Massachusetts that most people really like. It has been considered a success. But now he is running away from that accomplishment and says that the states should do what is right for them much the way the South did what was right for them during the time of segregation. Romney was also pro choice when it came to being the Governor in Massachusetts. But now that he is running for president he is against a woman's right to seek an abortion. I think that there is only one thing worse than changing your stance on an issue: not having an opinion at all. That is obviously Romney's real stance; whatever it takes to be elected.

So choose carefully this election season, especially if you are a Republican. It would seem that nothing has really changed in the past six years. The Republicans are for less taxes as long as the working class pays more. They are for containing Iran through force, a neo-con position extracted from Mitt Romney by Paul Wolfowitz during the most recent Republican debate. How would we pay for that? Wolfowitz in case you are unaware of his name was the national security official that lobbied for and brought us the Iraq War. They are anti-gay wanting to turn back the clock nearly 15 years with gay Americans going back into the closet to serve in the military.

The one thing I have not heard from the Republican slate of candidates is what they would do differently to continue to have the country recover from what has been the worst downturn since the great depression. If you have any idea of what their stance is on fixing the economy I would like to know. There is one candidate who is no longer in the race that had a plan 9-9-9 but no one really took that seriously. Another candidate thinks that privatizing and deregulating everything is the answer to prosperity. One candidate says that we should relax child labor laws, fire school janitors and let the kids clean things up. Yet another candidate takes a more moderate stance on issues and is drowned out by everyone else. He has just 1% of the vote on a good day.

In the old days if you did not like something that someone was doing, you would propose an alternative idea. An idea that was reasonable and actually helped people. These ideas had to be plausible, have credibility and show merit. Nowadays the crazier the idea, the more airplay it gets. It is no longer about ideas, but about getting elected. Getting elected allows you to serve almost exclusively those who paid to put you there. What do we call the people who are proposing these crazy ideas? Republicans.

The Fox Guarding the Hen House

I watching 60 Minutes last week as I have done on many a Sunday nights for the past 35 plus years. I have to admit that the broadcast while still miles better than the competition has slipped a bit. But what caught my interest was the segment with Jeff Imelt the CEO of General Electric and President Obama's job czar.

The job czar position being one who advises the president on the best way to generate jobs. It would seem like a no brainer to appoint Imelt who runs one of the largest multi-national companies in the world, GE. GE makes everything from washing machines to jet engines for commercial and military aircraft to turbines to locomotives. Until recently they also owned a majority stake NBC/Universal which they recently sold (the majority) to Comcast. So naturally Imelt is a good choice for the job czar position that Obama has appointed him to, right?

The segment started out by showing a factory that Imelt was walking through that was recently built in the United States and provided jobs for US works at $13.00 plus an hour. The piece also followed Imelt around the globe to Brazil where GE has a large and growing presence and to China where they are partnering with that country to produce an airliner which may compete with Boeing and Airbus. At the end of the 15 minute report Imelt looks at Lesley Stahl, and inquires as to why the American people are not rooting for GE? He says that in Germany, the German people are rooting for Siemens (a Germany company). He cannot understand why the US people are not rooting for American companies and GE specifically?

Now it is understood that these reports are edited and since the segment included many global locations, it was taped over a several week period. But really, Mr. Imelt? You wonder why Americans don't root for GE's success?

Let's help you answer your question:

As one of the most stable companies in the modern era, GE's stock plummeted during financial melt down. Was it because it was following the rest of the market down? No. It was because GE Capital, GE's financial unit was caught up in the financial crisis much like the rest of Wall Street. That one unit dragged down the rest of the company and caused GE stock to fall to below $10 per share. Nothing like endearing the American public to your company by helping them loose hundred of millions of dollars in stock value by malfeasance of a destabilized financial division. But that is just for starters and is ancient news.

ABC News reports that GE laid off 19,000 workers in 2009. Now according to Mr. Imelt GE is growing again. He further acknowledged that he is putting people back to work again in the US. But he is growing even faster in Brazil where a whole city has sprung up to service the needs of GE's growing worldwide business. Guess where the workers are being hired?

It is widely known that GE paid no US taxes in 2010. They were not alone. Neither did Ford or Ebay and several other notable US logos. It is also widely known that GE hires former IRS and tax law experts who have expertise in the tax code to help Congress write tax legislation that helps benefit GE. Additionally GE and other US companies park billions of dollars of off shore profits that will never enter this country and therefore are not subject to US taxation. Yet with all this favorable treatment and having paid no taxes in 2010 Imelt still would like to see a "tax holiday" for businesses who want to bring that money back to the US. He further acknowledges that he does not know whether this additional benefit would lead to any significant US job growth.

Note that nothing in the behavior listed above is necessarily exclusive to GE. Other companies engage in the same or similar activity. Additionally, nothing GE has done is illegal, however the fact that their lobbyists and tax experts are writing or supporting tax legislation that is directly benefiting them is something that you or I would find impossible to do.

So why is America not rooting for GE Mr. Imelt? Well to begin with I do not know that this is exactly true. I am sure your investors and employees are firmly behind you. But I am pretty sure that if you are 1 of the 19,000 who were laid off and your job is in Brazil, China or India you are not exactly rooting for GE. If you lost thousands of dollars in GE stock because GE wrote off bad loans, then you are not rooting either. If Americans see technology transferred to China that might result in a loss of even more US jobs in the future you probably are not rooting for GE. If as an average American you see this happening over and over again by American companies like GE and at&t (they proudly told their stockholders that they would cut 40,000 US jobs if the acquired T-Mobile USA), then you might begin to understand why Americans are not rooting for American companies like GE. Ask the employees of Airborne Express who had their company purchased by DHL. DHL eventually shut down their US hub and put hundreds out of workers out of a job and caused a ripple effect of foreclosures, financial devastation and even suicide. Ask the employees of Whirlpool who had their jobs moved to Mexico. Ask the thousands of nameless workers who get pink slips for no other reason than some corporate accountant decides that a division is not profitable enough so they close it.

Americans love to root for something. They especially love to root for the home team. Just ask many football, baseball, hockey and basketball fans who either live near or grew up near the local team. Ask any student who roots for their school well after they have graduated. Ask the workers who built automobiles in the US just to see manufacturing go just across the border to Mexico in the name of maximized profits. We are a fiecely loyal bunch.

But loyalty is not blind and we are not going to cheer for companies that continually send jobs away from America. It is just becoming more difficult to figure out exactly who the home team is. Contrary to popular worldwide opinion Americans are not stupid. We see what is going on in corporate America. But you know as well as anyone that, at one time, people did root for GE. So, Mr. Imelt if you indeed don't feel like we are rooting for your company maybe now is the time, and your opportunity as the job czar, to give us a reason to root for GE and American business again.

Something Just Does Not Seem Right

My parents were both immigrants. My mother was a refugee who learned and embraced a new culture and language and became an American citizen. My father did the same. So I understand the challenges of breaking through barriers cultural, religious and otherwise to be considered a American citizen. This was done in a time that was often considered even less hospitable and kind to immigrants than what is faced today. It is only recently that political correctness became part of the American lexicon.

But there something that really bothers me that is coming from both the right and the left. While it cannot yet be called a trend, the two cases illustrated in the following paragraphs really are troubling.

This concerns illegal immigrants and illegal immigration. This is not a case of racism but one of survival for the middle class. I will begin by saying that we need immigrants legal and otherwise in this country. "Otherwise" meaning that we should have a formal guest worker program but do not. The only program I agreed with proposed by G.W. Bush in his eight years was a guest worker program that was dismissed by his own party. As a result we have a very weak immigration and immigration enforcement policy here. Though we are 250 years away from our country's founding, the US was and to a large extent is a nation of immigrants.

But there are cases today where business owners, farmers for example who say that they are having to let crops rot because they cannot get anyone to pick them. Americans do not want those jobs (perhaps another column sometime) and illegal immigrants are now too afraid to come to this country or apply for those jobs because they do not want to be harassed or deported. Arizona and Alabama are two states that have taken it upon themselves to write immigration policy that restricts illegal immigration beyond that of national guidelines and in large part will hurt their economies.

It is a huge failing of this country and a national disgrace that our national legislative body does not produce legislation to address the obvious needs of business owners who have relied on illegal immigration to support their businesses. It is naive, by the way, to think that this work would be done by Americans. This type of work has not been done by American workers for years. The prices for fresh fruit and hotel rooms just to name a few of the goods and services reliant on illegal labor would skyrocket if we paid Americans to complete the tasks required.

But here is where I have a huge problem. Note that I have not called these people "undocumented." They are not undocumented. They are illegal. No temporary work permit or citizenship, then you are an illegal alien. I would like to consider myself an open minded citizen of the world, but that is not the way the world works. If I go to Germany or Mexico or Japan I am a guest. That means I stay for a defined period whether I am working or vacationing there. They do not welcome you in as a citizen of the world and allow you to receive publicly funded health insurance, apply for work or get an education that citizens of their country are entitled to.

Two examples are what have me thinking: Just this week Jerry Brown, a democrat and Governor of California signed a bill that would allow illegal immigrants to accept private scholarship money for a college education. The hope here is this will lead to a second step which will allow those same illegal immigrants to receive public money and grants for a college education. The second example is claim by Rick Perry, republican Governor of Texas that he proud to extend in-state status to illegal immigrants who are accepted to public Texas state universities. He made no apologies for extending this benefit to illegal immigrants at a recent republican debate.

Would I be against these example in either case if there were unlimited funds or unlimited slots for college? No. But the reality is that there is just so much money and so many available seats in today's colleges and universities. Who does this hurt the most? The middle class who is already under siege as a group.

Private and public funds are limited. If you make $90,000, firmly middle class, and have two children to send to college you are already under water. As a bread winner you are too wealthy to receive grants and loan options are limited. If your child is not an overachiever who will be receiving scholarships, good luck. The only way to attend post high school education is to borrow, go to a community college or go without. Stories of students leaving college with six figure debt are becoming common. So if you hear as I did that illegal immigrants are now eligible to receive private college funding are you wondering why the middle class once again is being left out in the cold? What do we tell these people? If you live out of state and want to send your child to a public university in Texas are you wondering why your student will have to pay more than someone who is not even a citizen of the US or Texas? It just does not seem right.

I have heard some who were brought here illegally as children claim that they know nothing else than the American way of life and consider themselves Americans. I truly do feel for these individuals and think that there should be a path to citizenship for them. But the fact remains that their parents made a tragic decision and they unfortunately, according to our laws are not Americans. Should American tax payers foot the bill both literally and figuratively for the mistakes of their parents while themselves having to tell their children that college is unaffordable? The answer should be no. Maybe in another time but now with deficits and shortfalls in budgeting for education reaching emergency proportions, we simply cannot absorb those who are not here illegally.

Could you send your child to Ecuador or Germany and expect to receive local grants for college? Doubtful.

No one is entitled to a free college education in this country. People who did not plan for their children's higher education are feeling the same pain, with no relief, and no one is sending their children to school. Yet somehow those how are here illegally are getting a chance that our citizens are not. Sometimes the answer should just be no.

Truly an Endangered Species

Like pollution, global warming or the spotted owl, perhaps the latest endangered species seems to be the middle class in the United States.

No one seems to be talking about it. Not the media, not the bloggers or the internet sites. What does seem to have the national discourse right now is cut, cut, cut. For some reason cutting the deficit seems to be the highest priority among our nation's representatives. For example, this morning Representative Eric Cantor (R) Virginia proposed cutting the loan program to the auto industry so that disaster relief dollars could be moved from that program to help those impacted by hurricane Irene. This proposal is a shameless shot across the bow of the middle class which is being pummelled by idelology to seek its demise. So which program should take priority? Both.

The government has spent a lot of money in the form of loans to keep the auto industry buoyant again and it is working. Auto companies have been saved, auto jobs are coming home again and car companies are building cutting edge cars like the Nissan Leaf right here in the USA. They are doing so at a profit. So why would someone like Eric Cantor want take money away from an industry that is creating jobs to pay for disaster recovery in another part of the country? The answer may be that there are few auto industry related jobs in Virgina. But the more curious response might be that the middle class has a faint voice in today's political discourse. And who are the middle class? It is both white collar and blue collar auto jobs. Many (but not all) of the blue collar jobs are union jobs.

But since the 1980's the real incomes of middle class Americans have remained flat. Wages have only risen 11% in the past 30 years according to the Economic Policy Institute while each worker has contributed 59% more to the GDP. This statistic alone tells the story of how middle class workers are working harder with less to show for it.


While the Republicans continue to beat the drum for lower taxes for corporations, one Congressman, Louie Gohmert (R) of you guessed it, Texas, advocates for a 0% corporate tax. This in a time when corporations are seeing record profits. But has corporate America rushed to the aid of the American worker? Not exactly. There are well publicized examples of companies like GE, Ford and eBay that pay no taxes. In a glaring example of how the private sector has actually become a job killer, at&t bragged that they would cut 40,000 jobs in their proposed acquisition of T-Mobile USA. These are good high paying jobs that existed within the corporate structure of the acquired company. When at&t got wind that the justice department would block the merger, at&t backpedaled saying that they would bring call center jobs back to the US, luckily it was too little too late. But has the final chapter on that acquisition been written? We will see.


But there are others. United Airlines buying Continental. Southwest buying Airtran. Look at the banking business merger/acquisition/purchases even before the financial crisis which are too great to count or even track. Where did all those good jobs go? Cisco Systems purchase of dozens of companies among the Flip Video which was closed down by Cisco just two years after it was purchased. What happened to all those workers? Sometimes it is a good thing that one company purchases another to save it from ruin. But more often than not, it kills competition and just puts good people out on the streets. Innovation? We cannot reinvent business, industry or ourselves fast enough to keep pace with the consolidation of our bigger companies.

I for one have never been a big fan of higher taxes. But I saw a banner the other day on a BMW that read "Please Raise My Taxes." The ridiculousness of the right in refusing to raise any one's taxes for any reason ever is just not realistic. Smaller government? It is funny that those in a position to seriously advocate for smaller government are themselves employees of the government. Even the patron saint of the conservative movement raised taxes between five and seven times depending on who you listen to. But the bottom line was he did raise taxes and he left this country with record deficits when he left office.

This is capitalism. So the question should be asked: Does capitalism exist to support the citizenry or does the citizenry exist to support capitalism? While I have never lived under another form of government, I have studied other forms of government and spoken to enough people who have that say yes, capitalism and especially the form of capitalism that exists here is the most desirable. But just because it is the best, it does not mean that it cannot be improved on. What? How do you improve on capitalism and the free market?


Well, free market capitalism is being improved on by our government who gives out subsidies to farmers and oil companies to name just a few. That is right. I have pointed out in previous posts that some of the same representatives the criticize subsidies, tax increases, refuse to back stimulus for regular workers, and align themselves with the Tea Party actually have received subsidies for themselves. Now I have to assume that some of the subsidy money trickles down to their workers but that would be just an assumption. So what is wrong with subsidizing through tax money or incentives programs that create jobs for the middle class?

The US Post Office has been the butt of many jokes and the scene of several tragic episodes. But what is also represents are hundreds of thousands of good middle class jobs and a system to deliver mail to every mail box in the country. Would those be government jobs? Yes and no. The US Post Office is supposed to be self supporting and has been. It is also required, unlike other federal agencies to make an annual payment of more than $5 billion as an advance contribution to future retiree medical costs and has a $6.9 billion surplus. It also supports 8 million private sector jobs that depend on the mail. Is the US Mail Service easily replaced? Sure you say, FedEx and UPS will pick up the slack. Think again the US Postal service is required to deliver to all addresses in the US and 20,000 new added every year. FedEx has a minimum of over $15 to deliver an envelope. Will Congress vote to help the post office and the many middle income jobs that are directly and indirectly dependent upon it? Don't bet on it.


Earlier this year it was the states that were the battleground for white collar jobs. It was in the
State of Wisconsin. Under attack were teachers but more specifically unions. Schools have been under siege ever since early in the Bush administration when the No Child Left Behind Act was passed. Since that time teachers and school districts have complained that the resources to educate have been severely limited and stretched to the limit while expectations have been unreasonably high. So in Wisconsin they decided not only to cut teachers' salaries but to no longer allow for the union to represent them in collective bargaining. It was shameless how some of the conservative media chided the teachers for being over paid public servants while just months before defended Wall Streeters who potentially would forgo their giant bonus as a result of the financial meltdown. Unlike Wall Street, the teachers were willing to give back some of their already meager salaries to help with the state's economic problems but to outlaw collective bargaining was too much. Two State Senators Dan Kapanke and eastern Wisconsin Senator Randy Hopper were successfully recalled in a backlash against the legislation.

I spoke with someone the other day who works in the medical field. They told me that they were going on strike next week. They said that the health care insurance provider they worked for made $900 million in profits last year. So I figured that the least they could do would be to give out small cost of living raises. "No," they said, "We are just trying to keep even."

As a middle of the road voter, what has our government or the private sector done to at least preserve middle class jobs in this country and help the poorest of the poor? After all isn't this one of the main reasons we send representatives to state capitals and Washington, D.C.? You would think so. But take John Boehner a now very high profile representative and Majority Speaker in the House of Representatives. You would think that he would represent the constituents of the 8th District in Ohio; his district. But while vigorously opposing the Obama stimulus package and most recently the Obama jobs bill, he has over 90 bridges in his district that are structurally unsound. Tina Osso the Executive Director of the Executive Harvest Food bank which resides in Representative Boehner's district recently wrote Boehner outlining the impact the cuts would have on the poorest of the poor and inviting him to meet with her. Boehner has not responded.

The middle class is under attack. No one will save us if we will not save ourselves. As the middle class disappears we should not do so without a fight. While many of us are working well over 40 hours per week or two jobs to stay even, there is little time to even get on the phone or write an e mail. We may be losing our voice but it is not yet gone. Write your Congressman and Senator and make an occasional call to the White House and let them know that for now we are still out there and we vote.

We used to take pride in helping those that were down on their luck. Now we just yell at them. During a recent Republican Presidential candidate debate sponsored by the Tea Party Congressman and Presidential Candidate Ron Paul was asked if a coma victim should be left to die if they did not have insurance? Before he could answer someone from the audience yelled "yes!" Paul himself answer "no" but did not offer any suggestions as to what should be done. The responses are telling. Is this really what we want? Is this is where this country is headed? After one of the largest transfers in wealth in our history during the past 10 years. Now those that have are taking it to a higher level. Use the power that they have gained through lobbying to squash the middle class making America a land of have's and have nots. In the past 100 years this country was built by people helping people but also by the government who helped us do for ourselves. We were the strongest when we worked together to make America and the world a better place. That is something we should all think about as we head into this election season.

Tea Party...Be Careful For What You Wish

I was driving this past weekend in the Sierra Foothills of California. It was a great and scenic drive. Since it was a rural trip, the roads between the small towns I passed were recently paved and sealed and the bridges over the creeks and rivers were recently redone and widened. In the small towns that I stopped in the police were driving modern patrol vehicles that looked to have the latest in technology. As I passed through the rolling hills I spotted a recently built firehouse with up to date fire trucks and equipment in the garage which read "Volunteer Fire Department."

I also passed something that I have not seen much of in the suburbs. A sign on the side of the road that read "Tea Party Meeting," giving a time, date and location. The Tea Party whose slogan is "we're mad as hell and we are not going to take it anymore." The Tea Party who is for smaller government and less taxes.

It got me thinking. If you really want to draw out this theory of smaller government and less taxes, we should start with the rural areas of which there are many. There are even many rural states. The greater populous is situated in larger cities. It is somewhat ironic that some of the more rural states receive more than their fair share of tax dollars. What, "fair share?" That's right. If we have smaller government and less taxes that means less money to go around. So it would seem that the states which contribute less to the Federal government should receive fewer federal dollars if there is less to go around. These states happen to be some of the more rural: North Dakota, South Dakota, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Alaska and others all receive more than $1.50 for every $1.00 that they pay in Federal taxes. Take that Sarah Palin. Your state takes from the Federal government $1.82 for every dollar it pays to Uncle Sam. There is one state, North Dakota that receives more than $2.00 for every dollar paid to the Federal government.

There are over 30 states that received more money than they paid to The US Government in the most recent collection of data. In an ironic twist many of these states voted for a presidential candidate in 2008 that would cut federal spending and taxes.

Taxes were never a pay to play proposition...until now. Our tax dollars were distributed somewhat evenly. What this is is a re-distribution of wealth. Money comes from the wealthy states (i.e. California, New York, Minnesota, etc.) and lands in some of the rural states (Montana, Mississippi, Utah, etc.). Well, what the Tea Party stands for is lower taxes, smaller government and the ability to keep their hard earned cash.

So under this new reality it would make sense that money that comes to the Federal government should stay in the states from where it has come or have it distributed more equitably. Or at very least those that rely on a more than 1:1 ratio of our tax dollars would no longer receive more than they pay in. If we are taking this argument to its full extension, should not cities and counties that collect and pay to the state the most sales tax and property tax also receive the better services while rural cities and counties who contribute less, receive less as a result? It would appear so based on this new reality of non re-distributed wealth.

Throughout this country, whether you are in Hawaii, California, Alaska or New York there are certain standards that remain constant. You can drink the water in any of these states; it is safe. No matter if you are in the big cities or the most rural of counties you have access to safe electricity, water and other public utilities. Wherever you are, there is modern plumbing or standard inspected septic. If you go to a high school in Alabama and get good grades and high scores on your SATs you are eligible for the same schooling that someone in Connecticut or New York qualifies for. That is because our education standards are roughly the same. Every state in the country has a robust interstate highway system, safe roads and streets and our public safety services remain constant. It does not matter if you are in a "poor" state, county or city. This is the result of our system of taxes (and spending). It has been the method by which wealth and a standard of living in the form of taxes have been re-distributed. Who maintains this semblance of order between urban and rural? Our government.

So if you are member of the Tea Party and you live in the city, you will continue to be pretty comfortable. If your Tea Party brethren live in the country then, you might want to reconsider your position because you are about to lose some pretty significant tax dollars and services.

Back to the drive this past weekend. Under this new political reality that is the Tea Party, that wide, two lane rural road that I was driving on would be a thing of dreams because with little tax money to spend on roads less traveled, within a couple of years it will be a poorly maintained little better than dirt road. The bridges I were driving across, would more have resembled a path across a river or creek. That remodeled new fire station with new equipment would have been an old house with at best recycled equipment that was no longer fit for the big city from where it came. No new fire house, no jobs to build it. That would include the patrol cars too, also recycled second hand no longer able to be used in the larger metropolitan areas from the big city. So while the department may have been volunteer, the equipment was well worn, even unreliable with no real money to maintain and repair facilities or equipment. These are just some of the more visible services you will lose. Good luck getting a building or business permit or finding a courtroom in a timely manner.

If this all sounds vaguely familiar, think about a couple of places where this circumstance might exist. The biggest democracy in the world, India. It is a country of contrasts; a very wealthy and a very poor class. It is a place where those with money live in gated communities and are comfortable with modern amenities. In stark contrast many more live in slums the size of big cities with little to eat, no running water and open sewers. Think about Mexico, where pictures from Mexico City show a populated metropolitan city and in contrast where rural towns are comprised of adobe shacks, sporadic electricity and dirt roads that run for miles until they meet up with what we would consider to be a highway in disrepair. Is this the type of society we want to be a part of?

It could never happen in America? Think again and think hard. Because, that, Tea Party is what you are advocating for. There is only so much money to go around and if you have your way there will be even less. So the next step is for those who pay the greatest taxes in the most populated areas receive theirs first. They have the votes after all. Who does that leave out in the cold? Be careful for what you wish.

Now That The Dust Has Settled

With perhaps the most embarrassing moment in our modern history behind us for now, maybe we should look behind the scenes of the debt ceiling debate and talk about some of the connected issues. The debate goes beyond raising the debt. It goes beyond lowering our deficit.

We are still trying to climb out of what has been the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. President Barack Obama's entire presidency has been largely defined by having to clean up an economic mess that was created by the previous administration and a six year reign of Republican leadership in the House and Senate. Contrast this with what was left for G.W. Bush in 2001; a healthy economy and a balanced budget.

But here is the strange thing. Take John Boehner, now the Speaker of the House. Has he always been that fiscal conservative that he claims to be? It may surprise you that Boehner and his way right of center friends voted enthusiastically for two wars in the last ten years that the Bush administration put on our respective national debt laden credit card. He also voted for President G.W.'s prescription drug program which was completely unfunded and also added to our debt. He even voted for the financial bailout in 2008 when it was proposed by G.W. and railed against the vary same bailout when Barack Obama was administering it. So why this great change of ideology? Why are the republicans so anti spending all of a sudden? After all, only one president in the past 40 years has balanced a budget and it was not a republican.

We can get past the fact the republicans needed a partner in the Tea Party because they were so badly damaged coming out of the 2008 election. That is the obvious answer to the anti spending band wagon that they are now adopting as their own. But is the obvious answer the real answer?

There are two other advantages of showing what fiscal tight-wads the right has become since Barack Obama was elected. Presidents get re-elected showing that the general welfare of our country has inproved from election cycle to election cycle. Often this happens as the result of funds given to states, counties, cities and individual groups such as the unemployed and the elderly or to voting blocks such as unions, teachers, government workers, etc. G.W. Bush and the republicans mastered this strategy. They started two wars which made the defense industry happy. States saw a huge uptick in money coming to them for defense and Homeland Security spending. Remember all those small rural towns that got armored trucks, tasers, fences etc. because they had money they had to spend given to them by the Federal Government? An enormous hiway spending bill was passed enthusiastically by the House and Senate and signed by the President. But the best move by G.W. was giving a tax refund to the American people because the government actually had a surplus after Clinton left the White House. Paying down the debt which was smaller at that time would have won nothing for him politically. He gave many a refund and told us to go spend it. G.W. squandered an opportunity to pay down our debt because the administration knew that it would be but a footnote when running for re-election. But if he gave everyone money, that would almost be as good as buying a future vote. Where was the republican party then? Standing on the sidelines cheering the President on. What about the Tea Party? There was no Tea Party. There is no denying that when there is money to spend everyone is happy. Never mind that the money was borrowed, unbudgeted, and added to the deficit.

So how does that effect us now? It is after all the job of the legislative branch to spend our tax money. That is what they do. But according to the republicans the well is dry. All the money has been been spent and the government is now all of a sudden so irresponsible and untrustworthy. Even temporary tax reductions put into place by G.W. (giving back even more money to the weathlty) should be extended. They are simply starving the current administration of the ability to do its job. Whether you want to believe it or not, a stimulus package is a tool every president in modern times has used to re-energize the economy. Few would argue that our economy does not need stimulating. So why have the Republicans simply become the party of "no?" Do they really believe in a balanced budget and a zero deficit? History, especially recent history and the deeds contained herein would show otherwise. So why are the republicans so against the Obama agenda?

It is time we really talk about what is behind this unprecedented gridlock that we have seen not only while debating the budget last year but on this most recent stalemate which would have the republicans shutting down or having us default on our bills rather than come up with a compromise on a debt ceiling increase. Is it that they do not want a democrat to pull us out of a recession and bring down an employment level that hovered around 10%? Maybe. Is it that they do not want Democrats (Obama/Pelosi) to stimulate the economy nursing it back to health? Possibly.

But the real issue here is the issue no one dares bring up at all, most of all the President, that of race. The republicans have found a way to make sure that an African American is not successful in his job: Starve him of the ability to do it.

Never has a president has been thwarted at every turn with regards to leading the people that elected him. The debt ceiling has been lifted 73 times since the early 1960's. Yet for some reason now is the time to push our nation into default if the president does not capitulate to far right demands? Every president since Richard Nixon has proposed a national health plan, but Barack Obama who actually made it reality is called a socialist for getting that legislation passed (all but begging republicans,who refused to work him, to participate in the process). No president has ever had his birth certificated scrutinized or his place of birth questioned by the far right as this president.

All this has been a distraction so that the republicans can wait out the clock and call Obama an ineffective President knowing full well that it is their inaction that prolongs our country's economic recovery. While unemployment remains at 9.2% as this is written, not a single jobs bill has been authored in the Republican House of Representatives with repeated requests from the administration to send something to the White House to help those who are desperately looking for jobs.

It is 2011 yet we still have an undertone of racism in this country.

It started just a couple of weeks after the new president was sworn in. He had barely moved into the White House. With the banks still faltering and a question of whether two out of three auto companies would survive, Rush Limbaugh said that he hoped Obama would fail. After some negative publicity surrounding this comment, he later corrected himself saying that he hoped Obama's policies would fail. But the message was received.

In April of this year an Orange County Republican Committee official, Marilyn Davenport, sent out an e mail depicting Obama as a monkey saying, "now you know why no birth certificate." She refused to resign saying that she simply found it amusing.

Just yesterday Doug Lamborn a Colorado Congressman referred to touching Barack Obama as not wanting to touch a "tar baby." He made these comments on a local Colorado radio program.

Mitch McConnell the Republican Minority Leader in the Senate has made it known on several occasions that his number one objective as minority leader is to make Barack Obama a one term president. Not bringing down unemployment, not making America a better place and not bringing down the deficit, but rather making sure that the presidency of Barack Obama is not successful.

Finally, also yesterday Pat Buchanan in an interview with Al Sharpton on MSNBC referred to Obama as "your boy." Sharpton, not missing a beat, pointed out that Barack Obama was our president. These examples are just what has made it into the public domain. One can only wonder what has been said behind closed doors?

Even if our country's reputation has been tarnished in the eyes of the world over the past 10 years, the rest of the world does look to our government and its functionality a beacon of civility. As a society we should be better than this. Those who represent us should be better and serve as leaders. We should demand better whether we are republicans or democrats. The presidential election is over a year away. But it is not too early to examine what has gone on over the past three years. Do you want these people that have favored the rich, forgotten the middle class and ignored the poor and unemployed to occupy the White House? Never in modern times have we needed government to work better. Because of obstructionist policies on the right and racism that bubbles just below the suface by those just not wanting to see a black man succeed, we all lose as a nation.

A Liberal President? We Can Fix That

You would think that with the spotlight on the President of the United States nearly every day, he would be largely the focus of the concentration of power in this country. While that is what we are led to believe, it is what we learned as far back as High School that is playing out in the modern day political landscape. Each branch of government is extremely powerful and can drive not only an agenda, but political will throughout the country.

Since the early days of the Obama administration, it had become clear that the Republicans in the House of Representatives and the Senate would do anything they could to obstruct an economic recovery effort by the new President. This so that any achievements in returning the country to prosperity could not be credited to a democratic president. What did they need to do achieve their objective? Nothing. What "nothing" means is that every proposal and every idea proposed by the President and the democratically controlled House and Senate to help drive the country out of the ditch was summarily opposed by the minority party in the two houses.

Were the ideas proposed by the administration and supported by the legislative branch's democratic majority radical or unusual? You would have thought so if you had listened to the republican minority but in reality the proposals made were no different than any other president or legislature in modern times had proposed, democrat or republican. The cost to turn around our economic problems may have been a bit higher due to the more dire nature and depth of the downturn but nothing radical was proposed. Yet the opposition screamed that these solutions represented a socialistic trend set by our president.

In one of the most glaring examples of a double standard and contradiction, John Boehner who was the Minority Leader in the last two years of the Bush administration cheered on the bailout as it was being presented and proposed by his party's chief executive. Just months later as this program was being rolled out and administered by the new President Obama, he railed against the identical proposal.

In another astounding example of hypocrisy Mitch McConnell, the Minority Leader in the Senate just stated that now that a war or military action was being proposed by a Democratic Commander In Chief, he and his party felt that they were free to oppose it. This from a party that gave the Bush administration a blank check to fight two wars.

But the conservative ideology and its effect on us is not just limited to a minority legislative branch. The Supreme Court has also weighed in on a couple of very important decisions in the past year. The first involves what the court deemed as "free speech." For nearly 100 years a law had been in place saying that corporations needed to limit the amount of money they contributed to political campaigns. This so that individuals, actual people, could compete with the deep pockets of our country's largest corporations. Over the years there was very little opposition to this rule of law and the results were considered equitable. But in a case brought before the Supreme Court, the court overturned this law. It said that essentially that money was speech. That if corporations were unable to use their money to promote their political point of view, that this was a restriction of freedom of speech. Therefore the limits placed on corporations to fund political campaigns was considered unconstitutional. Constitutional scholars were surprised and caught off guard by the decision wondering how corporate entities could be considered people. But John Boehner, now Majority Leader called it a great day for free speech.

The Supreme Court also struck down a class action lawsuit by women who were passed over for promotion saying that the suits were too broad and required them to file lawsuits individually. The judgement effectively said that these women cannot band together to file a class action because the details of their discrimination are all different. This while Walmart, the defendant, uses their size and scope to squeeze vendors across the globe for the lowest wholesale prices. Now since filing a lawsuit is so costly many who have been potentially discriminated against will never have the chance to have their stories told in a court of law.

This is not to say that the president and the Executive Branch has had the chance to affect change. While he ran a campaign of change back in 2008, many do not believe that the change has gone far enough. While campaigning and governing are two different matters the President has gotten through several pieces of important legislation since he replaced George W. Bush. They would include a stimulus package that has resulted in a slow but steady economic recovery. Some say that a stronger package, blocked by republicans, would have meant a greater and more rapid recovery. He passed landmark health care legislation, that despite the outrage by some, had been called for in some form by every president since Richard Nixon. He also ended the policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in the military. While some said it did not go far enough, it was a big step forward for civil rights for gays who serve our country.

These are just a few examples of legislative victories by the Obama administration. But one glaring example fell short because of minority opposition. Obama pledged to end tax breaks for anyone making over $250,000 a year in salary. Because of republican opposition and a possible government shutdown, republicans in the House of Representatives who were in the minority and in a position to block a new budget wielded their power and retained tax breaks for the most wealthy in this country. Since the Republicans in House have become the majority as of this past January, nothing has gotten through of any consequence. Most recently a jobs bill was shot down by the republican majority and will not be passed this session further stunting the economic recovery.

So if you think that the country has gone left in the past three years since Barak Obama has become President, you would be wrong. If you think that the President is soley to blame for a lackluster economic recovery, you would also be wrong. Now more than ever, the minority has a louder voice than every. The legislative branch and the judicial branch continue to erode the rights of the little guy. If that were not enough, you can point to the states where an assault on organized labor is taking place by republican governors in both Wisconsin and Ohio. Just be tuned in and ask yourself if you want these guys to run country again in two years?

Happy Birthday Ronald Reagan

The Ronald Reagan Legacy at 100

Why is Ronald Reagan so important after leaving office nearly 22 years ago? The short answer is that his actions and legacy are barely relevant nearly a generation later. But due to a few vocal pundits who figure the masses will believe whatever is said, he seems to have become the patron saint of the modern conservative movement. Never mind that today he may be considered a moderate if not a liberal . It is time to set the record straight on former President Ronald Reagan. While much is written about Reagan’s presidency, it is time to sort through the facts on his presidency and judge him for what really took place during that time.

What was the real legacy that Ronald Regan left behind during the time he occupied the White House and what, if any lasting effect did it have on today’s economy, society, and political climate?

Ronald Reagan beat Jim Carter in the 1980 general election after Jimmy Carter served a single term in office. He succeeded Gerald R. Ford who himself took over for Richard Nixon and was the only unelected president in US history. With the 1970’s being one of the most politically tumultuous periods since World War II the country’s morale and economy was still reeling from Watergate. While Carter had moved forward the mid east peace process, he was unable to stimulate a lack-luster economy. During the national election in 1979 – 1980, Carter faced the Iranian hostage crisis and a botched rescue attempt. He retreated into the White House and Reagan won the election easily.

Americans were eager for a clean sheet of paper putting Watergate, a stagnate economy and the 1970’s behind them.

Reagan put together a conservative dream team many of whom were from his home state of California. They included James Baker, Edwin Meese and Michael Deaver. While in office he also brought in heavy weights Casper Weinberger as Secretary of Defense and George Schultz as Secretary of State both with extensive business and conservative think tank experience. Some of these individuals held different positions during the two terms Reagan spent in office. Baker, Deaver and Meese spent the first four years as Regan’s closest advisors in the White House.*

In a precursor to his two terms in office, and just months into his presidency President Reagan addressed a serious labor dispute between the US Government and the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Association founded in 1968 by F. Lee Bailey. In August 1981 after a work stoppage, Reagan declared their strike a violation of law even though other government agencies had struck for higher wages in the past. He required them to return to their positions within 48 hours or be fired. Just 10% of the 13,000 responded to the president’s order and returned to work. As a result Reagan made good on his threat and the rest were fired. Reagan had successfully broken the union. While claiming that it would take just two years to re-staff the control towers and FAA flight control centers, it took nearly 10 years to restore the experience that former controllers held. Previous controllers were able to re apply for their positions but not before 1986, five years after they were let go from their prior positions. The great irony in all this was that during the election, less than a year earlier, PATCO refused to endorse Jimmy Carter because of their ongoing labor dispute and his unwillingness to respond to their work demands. As a result, they threw their support behind Reagan, who at the time showed support for the controllers. The Teamsters and other labor organizations also broke ranks with the Democratic Party and Carter who they viewed as unfriendly to labor. One year later over 11,000 air traffic controllers were out of a job and the flying public was without experienced personnel controlling US airspace.

Another mess that Reagan ultimately claimed full responsibility for but said he had no knowledge of was the Iran Contra scandal. Simply put this affair had the US selling arms to Iran illegally and taking some of the proceeds from the sale to illegally fund Contra (anti communist) rebels in Nicaragua. Both actions were forbidden by US law. It was just nine years before that that Iranian “students” held US Embassy personnel in the embassy with the endorsement of the Iranian Revolutionary government. At the time of the scandal and to this day, we have no formal relations with Iran. Direct funding of the Nicaraguan rebels was also made illegal by several legislative bills know as the Boland Amendment during the early 1980’s. But that did not seem to matter to Reagan’s people. Colonel Oliver North, a member of the National Security Council, operated a clandestine operation from the basement of the White House to sell arms to Iran and fund a secret guerilla war in Central America. 14 would be charged with crimes associated with Iran Contra including North and 11 would be convicted. But no one would implicate the president. Casper Weinberger, Reagan’s friend and Secretary of Defense was also implicated and convicted. North’s conviction was overturned on appeal by a technicality. All were later pardoned by then president George H.W. Bush who served as Vice President under Ronald Reagan. Similar to Watergate, this enormous breach of US law was swept under the rug as a result of some of its instigators being within the highest levels of the government.

Unless you were an air traffic controller or somehow involved with Iran or the Contras neither of these two events changed your lives. But while showing ruthlessness for organized labor and a total disregard for US law should not be taken lightly, it does begin to paint a picture of the Reagan policies where ideology does not seem to get in the way of the rule of law.

What was to come next was the vaunted Tax Reform Act of 1986. Sold to Americans as a tax neutral piece of legislation supported by both parties, it was one of two tax bills passed during the Reagan administration. While driving down the tax rate of the highest income wage earners, one of the corner -stones of the legislation was the phasing out of the deduction of consumer debt. This was a tax increase on the poor and working class. So if you were to have the means to pay by cash, you would not be hurt by this legislation. But for those who carried a balance on their credit cards or purchased vehicles by borrowing, those loans were no longer deductable. So while the rich had their tax rates lowered, the working poor and middle class had their taxes increased. Conservative talk show pundits and some historians point to this legislation as a landmark in lowering the taxes of Americans. They say that the result of this legislation was economic stimulation that proves that tax cuts are the answer to stimulating the economy and increased tax revenue. They say that as the Result of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 revenue grew shortly after the Act was implemented. While that may be true, it was done by collecting billions of dollars from the poor and middle classes who were no longer able to write off consumer debt and was in fact a tax increase. Even with the additional tax revenue, the Reagan administration left the American people in 1989 with record deficits.

The Tax Reform Act was just part of Reagan’s overall thoughts regarding the economy. He and his economic advisors, led in part by Budget Director David Stockman were big believers in “Supply Side Economics” which was really a cover for the term “trickle-down economics.” Stockman himself later renounced supply side economics. Trickle-down economics was the theory that if you primed the pump, appropriating money at the top of the economic spectrum, it would trickle down to those at the middle class. Therefore many of the tax breaks Reagan believed in were directed toward the top wage earners. Along with the democratically controlled congress, Reagan signed legislation that moved the highest tax bracket from 70% to 28% (the democrats had it both ways too). During the primary elections in 1980 Reagan touted his theory of supply side economics. His opponent and later Vice President George H.W. Bush called this “voodoo economics.” The result being that to this day, the wealthy pay a lower, disproportionate amount of taxes compared to that of the middle class. During the 1980’s the top income gains went to 1 to 2 percent of the wealthiest in the population.

As a result of the Reagan era tax strategy and out of control spending much of it on military spending, the US had the slowest economic growth decade since the end of World War II. But that was not all. National debt as a percentage of the overall economy, doubled under his presidency. The damage would not cleared up for a decade, and done so under democrat president Bill Clinton.

America changed dramatically under Ronald Reagan; but not necessarily for the better. Some want to deify him. It is certainly true that a lot has been named after him. A large government office building in Washington D.C. that was conceived during his time in office (and was completed late and over budget) was named after him. Shortly after leaving office the airport in Washington D.C. was named after Reagan. Since he was the Commander and Chief he has had an aircraft carrier named after him. But that is not all. Others want his picture on US currency. In California, someone is trying to rename a 4,000 ft. peak after him crowning it Mt. Reagan. Of course he has his library and one of two jets used as Air Force One while he was president as a featured attraction.

So what is the real Reagan legacy? The term “plausible deniability” was coined from the Iran Contra scandal. It meant that if subordinates operated a clandestine mission and did not tell the boss about it, the chief executive could claim that he had no knowledge of the operation itself. This, knowing all along that it furthered policy supported by the chief executive himself. It was also an era where public relations coined terms that were the opposite of was really being done. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 was really a tax hike on the poor and middle classes. But before anyone really realized what was happening they were all too happy to have their taxes cut. Too bad it just was not for most of them. “The Patriot Act” was a similar term coined by George W. Bush. It allowed sweeping reforms on our claims to privacy and walked right up to the line in terms of protections guaranteed us by the Constitution of this country. All of us wanted to be considered patriots. Little did we know it was little more than a give-back of our personal freedoms. The terminology of re-badging bad as good was not originated by Reagan, but he added to it use and helped perfect this phraseology which is all too commonplace today.

So while there was a great military build-up during Reagan, there was also a great consolidation of military facilities. Much of the consolidation decisions were made for political reasons leaving intact bases and installations that resided in conservative districts. This consolidation economically devastated many communities across the country. To this day these cities and towns are struggling to recover from Reagan era base closures. While we bankrupted the Soviet Union ending Soviet communism which culminated during the Reagan era, we nearly bankrupted ourselves in the process. But if you were a defense contractor, the 1980’s where the good old days. Parts and tools such as screws, wrenches and even toilet seats were being billed to the government at rates hundreds if not thousands of times their cost with nearly no oversight from military procurement officials. While the few benefited greatly from Reagan’s economic policies and military build up, many more were left with less.

Throughout history there have been haves and have not’s. But the United States had always been the land where someone could make it with hard work and determination. The playing field had largely been leveled and a relative peace had been reached between labor and management. Each had carved out a comfort zone for themselves in the decades following World War II. It was not until Reagan became president and supply side economics had given one side an advantage over another had this tentative detente between labor and management been broken. Setting conservatives up against liberals and playing their ideologies against each other became a Reagan trademark that has reached new heights today. That may be the great legacy left by President Ronald Reagan.

*James Baker went on to spend the second term as Secretary of the Treasury. Michael Deaver left public service to start his own lobbying firm and was known to have the ear of the first lady. Edwin Meese became Attorney General.

Same Old Crazy People

Let's welcome the 112th Congress. Did you think anything new was really going to happen? How many times can we be disappointed? There was even an attempt at some bipartisan cooperation during the lame duck session back in '010. But I guess bipartisan only meant that rich people were going to continue to receive the tax breaks brought about by King George the Bush.

There was tough talk throughout the campaign season by the Republicans. We are going to show those liberals how it's done. No more earmarks. $100 billion in budget savings. They were going to clean up Washington. Everyone was going to have "adult conversations." So that led everyone to believe that they were going to act like adults, right?

Not so fast.

John Boener was sworn in earlier this week as the new Speaker of the House. The outgoing Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, gave him an over sized gavel to over compensate for what may not be an undersized appendage, but rather a non-existent agenda or a plan for continuing to turn around the economy and cutting the budget. The larger and louder the noise from the gavel, the more effective you are? One can believe I guess.

In case you cannot remember Boener's list of hits from the 111th Congress where he served as Minority Leader, here are a few of brilliant thoughts and ideas:

* First said that he did not want a health care bill. Then said that Republicans wanted to be part of the process. Then when they were included in the process said that they should start over.

* When the Supreme Court overturned a 100 year old law limiting the amount of money corporations could spend political campaigns (knowing that corporations had deep pockets), Boener said that "...it was a great day for free speech."

* Said that he did not believe in having to compromise.

So is it really a surprise despite the tough campaign talk that he and his Republican colleagues have no plan for the next two years other than to oppose the President. When you have no plan or agenda, what is the first thing you do? Read the Constitution of the United States in the gallery of the Congress of the United States. Cost to the taxpayer: $1.4 million. That is a nice way to start things off. Shouldn't our representatives already have a working knowledge of The Constitution. As someone so appropriately put it, isn't this like reading the alphabet to students each fall when they come back to school? Congress will now require any bill that is introduced must first quote the Constitutional provision that allows it to proceed.

In showing that he can wield a pretty gnarly knife, Boener made a bold statement by cutting the Congressional budget by a mere 5% saying that it was a symbolic gesture. This gesture was thought to affect the now generous flow of office supplies to congressional offices. A few less paper clips will be available to congressional staffers. Those of us who use office products feel for the staffers who will have to use staples instead.

Also this week, promising to make government more "transparent," the Republican Congress decided to make the details of their health plan secret. Could they quote the provision in the Constitution that allows them to do that?

Speaking of Health Care, rather than doing something productive, one of the first orders of business next week will be to introduce a bill that repeals President Obama's health care initiative. It has not chance of even making it out of the Senate. But this is what is important to Republicans. Good thing they have health care.

What else do they have in store for us? Remember that $100 billion they promised they were going to cut? Well in an epic case of doublespeak, they are furious at even the hint of them not being able to achieve that savings. But they admit now that they will be lucky to find $70 billion. By the time all that is said and done that number will also seem ambitious. Especially after they take all the earmarks that they promised not to take but have already started taking.

Even the conservative media is getting into the mix. Now that the election is over their primary job is to distract. They are getting everyone thinking about stupid things that are just not true. Bill O'Reilly this week said that the tides are proof of God's existence. They move in and out and do not skip a beat. Bill needs to attend grade school again. It is called the earth's gravitational pull, Bill. O'Reilly claims to once have been a teacher. Ever wonder where all the uneducated come from?

So here is the real issue. Where is that outrage that got these guys elected? These geniuses have not even been in office a week and they are backtracking on every pledge except the pledge to continue to say "no." And no just means do nothing. If you support or vote for these clowns, where is your voice? You will probably sit on the sidelines and complain about someone who is just trying to do something to make things better. Then when election time comes around again, the right wing media will get you all frothed up so that you vote the same idiots back in.

The do nothing marry go round continues.