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.