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.
Monday, August 8, 2011
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
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.
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.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
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?
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?
Sunday, February 6, 2011
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.
Friday, January 7, 2011
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.
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.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Meet the New Boss...Same as the Old Boss
P.T. Barnum once said that you can fool some of the people all the time, all of the people some of the time, but you can never fool all of the people all of the time. The last part of the quote by Barnum is becoming less and less true. It does appear that you can fool most of the people most of the time. Look no farther than the most recent election for proof.
The GOP, Tea Party and the conservative press rallied the American voter to the cry of government should be smaller and spend less. It was a simple message that many could not argue with. We were and continue to spend more money than we take in as a government. The budget has only been balanced in one administration in the past 40 years. The rally cry has become so strong that the right is going to take a shot at repealing the Heath Care Bill, legislation that every President back to Nixon has publicly shown support for.
But running for office is one thing, being in office is another. It is the same old story. Two items have come up in the past two weeks since the election: Will you stop asking for earmarks, known as "pork" and subsidies to farmers and big oil, for example who receive billions in support for sometimes not growing a crop? The answer to that question has been remarkably muted. It would seem that those who have been among the most vocal and powerful in saying that spending is out of control are now backing away from pledges of spending less when it comes to representing their own districts or states even if it means continuing to spend. The premise in the first place is ridiculous. A representative's job is to bring back money and jobs to their district or state. THAT is one of the primary functions when sent by us to Washington.
But when you say that you are going to Washington to clean up the corruption and stop the out of control spending and then still want the same old money for your district, nothing has changed. That is nothing more the pure hypocrisy. The loudest squawkers were once again the Republications. For the past two years they have sat with their hands crossed refusing to help bail out the economy. They railed against the stimulus and even pledged very publicly not to participate in it. But when it came to actually getting the money, they lined up quietly and took it like everyone else. They went back to their districts and states and stood in front of the golden shovels as the ground was being broken, posed for the photos that appeared in the local paper and took credit for all the great new projects happening locally. Then they went back to Washington and criticized the administration for spending too much money. This is speaking out of both sides of your mouth at its best.
But now that the Republicans are no longer the minority party in the House of Representatives and have added to the seat count in the Senate their actions are going to be more visible.
So let's start with Mitch McConnell (R) Kentucky. He recently said that his biggest priority was to get Obama out of the White House in two years. You would think that he would be a big opponent of earmarks and higher spending. Well, if you have ever seen him on a Sunday morning political talk show, you know that he is a master of dodging questions and issues. McConnell has requested 158 separate earmarks during the past two years totaling just over $957 billion. He recently said that stopping these earmarks would not save any money but reluctantly said that he will heed the wishes of the GOP and Tea Party and support a ban on these very same earmarks.
13 Democrats on the House Farm Committee lost their jobs earlier this month. Among the new crop of new congresspeople, Vicki Hartzler of Missouri supported by the Tea Party. The Hartzlers own a farm equipment business and a farm and received $750,000 in over the past 15 years. She beat Ike Skelton Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Speaking out of both sides of her mouth, she said that she is committed to reduce government spending but added that farming is a matter of national security. Food needs to be grown in the US. If you take that tact isn't pretty much everything a matter of national security? Health care, Jobs, manufacturing. After all isn't "Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happiness" in our Bill of Rights?
Next up further proof you can really fool some of the people in Minnesota all of the time. Michelle Bachmann. She herself is a critic of farm subsidies but her family has received as much as $50,000 in farm subsidies. She listed the subsidies on her personal income statement as part of the Bachmann family farm. He father in law has received as much as $250,000 in farm subsidies although Bachmann herself has not been involved. Good for Michelle. She recently stated that she is for extending the Bush tax cuts for the most wealthy but would oppose an extension on jobless benefits. Let them eat cake, right Michelle?
The last two, freshmen representatives somehow got away with unseating their opponents railing against government spending while themselves being on the government dole. Newly elected representative Kristi Noem (R) South Dakota has taken $3 million over the past 15 years although gave up her share in the ranch that received the subsidies just last year. Finally the last newly minted representative, gospel singer Stephen Fincher of Tennessee. His family has taken $3.2 million in the past ten years.
Isn't it great that when poor folks get a handout it is called welfare. But when farmers or oil companies get a handout it is a subsidy. Where are these free market Republicans when money is getting passed out to big business? The reality is that if they contribute to you at election time, you better contribute to them!
The good news is that a new five year Farm Bill is up for debate in 2012. This bill known for subsidizing farmers and guaranteeing them a price and in some cases paying them for NOT growing crops will be contentious. Call on Bachmann, Noem, Hazler and Fincher will be the first to say that we should end subsidies for farmers and all who are committed to a free market economy. If you are concerned about socialism or communism this is where you might just want to begin.
But the you've got to be kidding me award actually goes to the private sector. The Ricketts family owns the Chicago Cubs. Daddy Joe was founder of TD Ameritrade. So all that stock market money you made and lost last decade allowed Joe and son Tom to purchase the Chicago Cubs. Tom runs the Cubs as Chairman. Tom wants $300 million in taxpayer money in the form of bonds to renovate Wrigley Field. Now this would be only mildly irritating if the story stopped there. But dad Joe took part of your money lost in the stock market and now his money in the form of commissions and profits and put it to good use: he has been an outspoken critic of taxpayer earmarks. In a matter of fact he put his money where his mouth is and founded Taxpayers Against Earmarks. The sole purpose of this foundation is to educate americans about wasteful spending in government. Perhaps he should start with a stern lecture to his son.
Who is to blame for allowing this hypocrisy to continue? The press. It is their job to ask tough questions and get answers that are direct. It is all too often that the questions are just dodged or not asked at all.
Remember, we are entitled to the best government we deserve.
The GOP, Tea Party and the conservative press rallied the American voter to the cry of government should be smaller and spend less. It was a simple message that many could not argue with. We were and continue to spend more money than we take in as a government. The budget has only been balanced in one administration in the past 40 years. The rally cry has become so strong that the right is going to take a shot at repealing the Heath Care Bill, legislation that every President back to Nixon has publicly shown support for.
But running for office is one thing, being in office is another. It is the same old story. Two items have come up in the past two weeks since the election: Will you stop asking for earmarks, known as "pork" and subsidies to farmers and big oil, for example who receive billions in support for sometimes not growing a crop? The answer to that question has been remarkably muted. It would seem that those who have been among the most vocal and powerful in saying that spending is out of control are now backing away from pledges of spending less when it comes to representing their own districts or states even if it means continuing to spend. The premise in the first place is ridiculous. A representative's job is to bring back money and jobs to their district or state. THAT is one of the primary functions when sent by us to Washington.
But when you say that you are going to Washington to clean up the corruption and stop the out of control spending and then still want the same old money for your district, nothing has changed. That is nothing more the pure hypocrisy. The loudest squawkers were once again the Republications. For the past two years they have sat with their hands crossed refusing to help bail out the economy. They railed against the stimulus and even pledged very publicly not to participate in it. But when it came to actually getting the money, they lined up quietly and took it like everyone else. They went back to their districts and states and stood in front of the golden shovels as the ground was being broken, posed for the photos that appeared in the local paper and took credit for all the great new projects happening locally. Then they went back to Washington and criticized the administration for spending too much money. This is speaking out of both sides of your mouth at its best.
But now that the Republicans are no longer the minority party in the House of Representatives and have added to the seat count in the Senate their actions are going to be more visible.
So let's start with Mitch McConnell (R) Kentucky. He recently said that his biggest priority was to get Obama out of the White House in two years. You would think that he would be a big opponent of earmarks and higher spending. Well, if you have ever seen him on a Sunday morning political talk show, you know that he is a master of dodging questions and issues. McConnell has requested 158 separate earmarks during the past two years totaling just over $957 billion. He recently said that stopping these earmarks would not save any money but reluctantly said that he will heed the wishes of the GOP and Tea Party and support a ban on these very same earmarks.
13 Democrats on the House Farm Committee lost their jobs earlier this month. Among the new crop of new congresspeople, Vicki Hartzler of Missouri supported by the Tea Party. The Hartzlers own a farm equipment business and a farm and received $750,000 in over the past 15 years. She beat Ike Skelton Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Speaking out of both sides of her mouth, she said that she is committed to reduce government spending but added that farming is a matter of national security. Food needs to be grown in the US. If you take that tact isn't pretty much everything a matter of national security? Health care, Jobs, manufacturing. After all isn't "Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happiness" in our Bill of Rights?
Next up further proof you can really fool some of the people in Minnesota all of the time. Michelle Bachmann. She herself is a critic of farm subsidies but her family has received as much as $50,000 in farm subsidies. She listed the subsidies on her personal income statement as part of the Bachmann family farm. He father in law has received as much as $250,000 in farm subsidies although Bachmann herself has not been involved. Good for Michelle. She recently stated that she is for extending the Bush tax cuts for the most wealthy but would oppose an extension on jobless benefits. Let them eat cake, right Michelle?
The last two, freshmen representatives somehow got away with unseating their opponents railing against government spending while themselves being on the government dole. Newly elected representative Kristi Noem (R) South Dakota has taken $3 million over the past 15 years although gave up her share in the ranch that received the subsidies just last year. Finally the last newly minted representative, gospel singer Stephen Fincher of Tennessee. His family has taken $3.2 million in the past ten years.
Isn't it great that when poor folks get a handout it is called welfare. But when farmers or oil companies get a handout it is a subsidy. Where are these free market Republicans when money is getting passed out to big business? The reality is that if they contribute to you at election time, you better contribute to them!
The good news is that a new five year Farm Bill is up for debate in 2012. This bill known for subsidizing farmers and guaranteeing them a price and in some cases paying them for NOT growing crops will be contentious. Call on Bachmann, Noem, Hazler and Fincher will be the first to say that we should end subsidies for farmers and all who are committed to a free market economy. If you are concerned about socialism or communism this is where you might just want to begin.
But the you've got to be kidding me award actually goes to the private sector. The Ricketts family owns the Chicago Cubs. Daddy Joe was founder of TD Ameritrade. So all that stock market money you made and lost last decade allowed Joe and son Tom to purchase the Chicago Cubs. Tom runs the Cubs as Chairman. Tom wants $300 million in taxpayer money in the form of bonds to renovate Wrigley Field. Now this would be only mildly irritating if the story stopped there. But dad Joe took part of your money lost in the stock market and now his money in the form of commissions and profits and put it to good use: he has been an outspoken critic of taxpayer earmarks. In a matter of fact he put his money where his mouth is and founded Taxpayers Against Earmarks. The sole purpose of this foundation is to educate americans about wasteful spending in government. Perhaps he should start with a stern lecture to his son.
Who is to blame for allowing this hypocrisy to continue? The press. It is their job to ask tough questions and get answers that are direct. It is all too often that the questions are just dodged or not asked at all.
Remember, we are entitled to the best government we deserve.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Congratulations Republicans
It is the day after. It is a different type of hangover. What happened last night? There is no way to positively spin it. The democrats, with the exception of California, took a beating last night. What happened and why, this blogger will leave to the pros to spin in either direction.
But what is worth looking into is where we have been and where we are going between now and the next big election in 2012 which is just two short years from now.
Two years ago: The stock market was at lows not seen in decades. Americans' 401K and IRA values melted like ice in a tavern urinal on St. Patrick's Day. Stocks like General Electric were at historic lows. The American banking system was about three days away from collapse making the dollar worthless (think about THAT!). General Motors, an employer of half a million people was bleeding cash and would file bankruptcy. Chrysler was in danger of shutting its doors forever and shedding nearly sixty-thousand jobs. Between these two iconic automobile companies and Ford, nearly two-thousand dealerships across America were closed because cars were not selling. American jobs were being lost at a monthly rate unseen since the Great Depression. We were also fighting a war in Iraq that was costing billions and many felt was unwarranted. Most importantly there was no plan to turn any of this around.
Today: As this is written the stock market is over 11,000 and the Fortune 500 have record amounts of cash on hand. Bailed out banks and insurance companies are paying back the money lent to them by the government and our financial system has been stabilized. Once the money is all paid back, it will be done so at a PROFIT to the American taxpayer. General Motors most recently reported a profit and Chrysler is now part of one of the largest car companies on the planet, Fiat, and continues to produce vehicles and employ workers. While few would argue that job creation and unemployment is where is needs to be, this country is no longer bleeding jobs and jobs are being created. As for the war in Iraq, we are no longer involved in day-to-day combat operations in that country. All this and we now have a health care program in place that for starters makes health care available to 30-million people who would not be able to afford it. Insurers can no longer cancel or disallow the insured for existing conditions and children up to the age of 26 can now remain on their parents' policies.
IF YOU THINK THIS IS SPIN, GOOGLE EACH OF THESE ITEMS. Now I ask when had so much been done for so many in such a short time? It was accomplished with the refusal of the Republicans to participate in any meaningful way.
You really have to hand it to the Republicans though. How can these accomplishments in the past two years by a Democratic Executive and Legislative branch be woven into a negative story, sold by the Republican who were largely responsible for the economic meltdown in the first place, and roll to a landslide victory last night? I will leave that to each of you. But I have a pretty good idea about what will happen over the next two years.
I am reminded of the 1972 movie, The Candidate starring Robert Redford. At the end of the movie, Redford playing lawyer turned just elected candidate Bill McKay standing in a closet and asks "What do we do now?"
A friend of mine, a conservative told me how happy they were that the Republicans were going to win in this election cycle. But they added, "they better come up with a plan because I have not heard any plan from the Republicans." This pretty much sums up the blind devotion and blind faith that so many conservatives, independents and the misguided so-called tea partiers had during this election. If we do not make progress in the next two years, blame gridlock. Because that it was was voted for last night. There was no plan by the Republicans during the past two years (and extending back to the Bush administration) and there is no plan now.
So what will happen in the next two years? Well a friend of mine put it best: "The Republicans are great at winning, and bad at governing." So see them continue to campaign for the presidency in the next two years. They will continue to be the party of "no." But now that they control the lower house of Congress, they will not allow any legislation to pass that has any meaningful consequence. As the election cycle kicks in for 2012 they will blame the Obama administration for doing nothing and the continued suffering of the American people. Whether they can sell that in 2012 remains to be seen.
If history is any indication though, Democrats may have a glimmer of hope. A very similar political scenario played out in the mid-1990's. Bill Clinton was trying to clean up the Reagan/Bush 1 mess of the 1980's. It was no easy task either. He also lost Congress in 1994. By the turn of the century we were seeing unprecedented growth from a Democratic Executive branch and a Republican Legislative branch so there is some hope in a positive future. But times have changed. Back then the American people's well being seemed to be the common denominator between the two parties.
With a have/have-not mentality today of the conservative movement, that commonality may be gone.
From the middle what can we do? Demand an agenda from the Republicans. Ask your elected officials Democrat or Republican what they are going to do. How are they proposing to make America a better place in this irreversible global economy? Hold them accountable. If you are going to reduce government spending, where are you going to reduce it from? Ask them if they plan to reduce taxes, how are we going to pay off the debt that they are so adamantly against?
Ask tough questions and get direct answers. If nothing else we deserve that.
But what is worth looking into is where we have been and where we are going between now and the next big election in 2012 which is just two short years from now.
Two years ago: The stock market was at lows not seen in decades. Americans' 401K and IRA values melted like ice in a tavern urinal on St. Patrick's Day. Stocks like General Electric were at historic lows. The American banking system was about three days away from collapse making the dollar worthless (think about THAT!). General Motors, an employer of half a million people was bleeding cash and would file bankruptcy. Chrysler was in danger of shutting its doors forever and shedding nearly sixty-thousand jobs. Between these two iconic automobile companies and Ford, nearly two-thousand dealerships across America were closed because cars were not selling. American jobs were being lost at a monthly rate unseen since the Great Depression. We were also fighting a war in Iraq that was costing billions and many felt was unwarranted. Most importantly there was no plan to turn any of this around.
Today: As this is written the stock market is over 11,000 and the Fortune 500 have record amounts of cash on hand. Bailed out banks and insurance companies are paying back the money lent to them by the government and our financial system has been stabilized. Once the money is all paid back, it will be done so at a PROFIT to the American taxpayer. General Motors most recently reported a profit and Chrysler is now part of one of the largest car companies on the planet, Fiat, and continues to produce vehicles and employ workers. While few would argue that job creation and unemployment is where is needs to be, this country is no longer bleeding jobs and jobs are being created. As for the war in Iraq, we are no longer involved in day-to-day combat operations in that country. All this and we now have a health care program in place that for starters makes health care available to 30-million people who would not be able to afford it. Insurers can no longer cancel or disallow the insured for existing conditions and children up to the age of 26 can now remain on their parents' policies.
IF YOU THINK THIS IS SPIN, GOOGLE EACH OF THESE ITEMS. Now I ask when had so much been done for so many in such a short time? It was accomplished with the refusal of the Republicans to participate in any meaningful way.
You really have to hand it to the Republicans though. How can these accomplishments in the past two years by a Democratic Executive and Legislative branch be woven into a negative story, sold by the Republican who were largely responsible for the economic meltdown in the first place, and roll to a landslide victory last night? I will leave that to each of you. But I have a pretty good idea about what will happen over the next two years.
I am reminded of the 1972 movie, The Candidate starring Robert Redford. At the end of the movie, Redford playing lawyer turned just elected candidate Bill McKay standing in a closet and asks "What do we do now?"
A friend of mine, a conservative told me how happy they were that the Republicans were going to win in this election cycle. But they added, "they better come up with a plan because I have not heard any plan from the Republicans." This pretty much sums up the blind devotion and blind faith that so many conservatives, independents and the misguided so-called tea partiers had during this election. If we do not make progress in the next two years, blame gridlock. Because that it was was voted for last night. There was no plan by the Republicans during the past two years (and extending back to the Bush administration) and there is no plan now.
So what will happen in the next two years? Well a friend of mine put it best: "The Republicans are great at winning, and bad at governing." So see them continue to campaign for the presidency in the next two years. They will continue to be the party of "no." But now that they control the lower house of Congress, they will not allow any legislation to pass that has any meaningful consequence. As the election cycle kicks in for 2012 they will blame the Obama administration for doing nothing and the continued suffering of the American people. Whether they can sell that in 2012 remains to be seen.
If history is any indication though, Democrats may have a glimmer of hope. A very similar political scenario played out in the mid-1990's. Bill Clinton was trying to clean up the Reagan/Bush 1 mess of the 1980's. It was no easy task either. He also lost Congress in 1994. By the turn of the century we were seeing unprecedented growth from a Democratic Executive branch and a Republican Legislative branch so there is some hope in a positive future. But times have changed. Back then the American people's well being seemed to be the common denominator between the two parties.
With a have/have-not mentality today of the conservative movement, that commonality may be gone.
From the middle what can we do? Demand an agenda from the Republicans. Ask your elected officials Democrat or Republican what they are going to do. How are they proposing to make America a better place in this irreversible global economy? Hold them accountable. If you are going to reduce government spending, where are you going to reduce it from? Ask them if they plan to reduce taxes, how are we going to pay off the debt that they are so adamantly against?
Ask tough questions and get direct answers. If nothing else we deserve that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)