How Republicans Screwed the Pooch
Republicans say they want to save the country from Obama’s reckless spending. But as Paul Begala argues, it’s the GOP’s policies that have driven the nation into the ground.
From The Daily Beast -- July 30, 2011:
There it sits, lonely and forlorn on my shelf. A leather-bound copy of the 1999 Budget of the United States of America. A gift from President Clinton to the folks on his team, it was the first balanced budget in decades.
But it wasn't supposed to be the last. Indeed, experts projected surpluses as far as the eye could see: $5.7 trillion in surpluses, to be exact. The surpluses were so strong that deep into the future—in 2009—the entire national debt was going to be zero. For the first time since Andy Jackson was president, the United States of America would not owe a dime.
It didn't quite work out that way, did it? As Washington seems paralyzed, our economy stagnates, and America's full faith and credit is on the brink, it is useful to recall how we got here. This was not an act of nature. There was no unforeseen earthquake, no tsunami, no hurricane that wiped out our surplus. It was instead a Republican House, a Republican Senate, and a Republican president who squandered the surplus. In full possession of the federal government for the first time since Eisenhower, the GOP—with, to be fair, some help from some very foolish Democrats—systematically dismantled the economic and fiscal policies that produced the strongest economy and largest budget surplus in our history.
Specifically, they did four things: cut taxes (with a heavy tilt toward the rich), waged two wars on the national credit card (one of which was against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and posed no serious threat to America), passed a prescription drug benefit with no pay-for (the first entitlement in American history without a revenue source), and deregulated Wall Street (which helped turn the American economy into a casino and touched off the Great Recession).
I recap all that not to further depress you, Dear Reader. But it is striking how absent that history has been from the coverage of our current crisis. I can understand why the GOP doesn't want to remind folks of how they screwed the pooch. Indeed, they have a competing myth—that Washington went on a spending binge; radical young President Barack Obama went crazy with the national credit card. That, of course, is nonsense. But too few Democrats—and almost no media commentators—have countered the mendacious right-wing storyline.
Just as bad as ignoring how we got here, we risk missing the story of precisely where the GOP wants to take us. In the coverage of the game (Will Boehner find the votes? Will the Tea Party really drive us off a cliff? Will Eric Cantor lead a revolt?) we sometimes neglect the substance of the proposals. Just what kind of country do the Republicans seek to build? Instead of seeing it as a bargaining chip, perhaps we should treat the GOP proposal as a serious governing document.
What the GOP seeks is a banana republic: a toxic blend of right-wing populism, anti-intellectualism, debt defaults, and an end to the ladder of economic opportunity.
Bob Greenstein, the widely respected president of the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, has done just that. His conclusion: The Boehner-GOP plan is "tantamount to a form of ‘class warfare.’ If enacted, it could well produce the greatest increase in poverty and hardship produced by any law in modern U.S. history."
Think about that. As the economy teeters on the precipice of a double-dip recession, as millions of Americans search in vain for a job, as tens of millions of homeowners are underwater, as poverty soars and the middle class is hammered, the Speaker of the House is pushing a proposal that—let me repeat Greenstein's analysis—“could well produce the greatest increase in poverty and hardship in modern U.S. history.” Deep cuts in every domestic priority—from education for disabled children to food safety to homeland security to clean air and water. Followed by painful cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. But not a dollar in new revenue. Not one corporate loophole closed, not one billionaire asked to pay one penny in higher taxes.
Oh, and if they don't get their way they will cripple the Treasury's ability to pay the debt—the debt, I hasten to add, that their policies created.
It has become a trope of the right to accuse Obama and the Democrats of trying to remake America in the image of Europe. That, of course, is silly as well as insulting to the people who gave us the Magna Carta and the Enlightenment, not to mention spaghetti. But in whose image would the radical Republicans remake us? Certainly not in the image of the Founding Fathers. The Republicans are already seeking to make Swiss cheese out of Mr. Madison's masterpiece, littering the Constitution with amendments on budgeting, the line-item veto, gay marriage, abortion, school prayer, restricting birthright citizenship, and more.
Seems to me the GOP seeks a banana republic: a toxic blend of right-wing populism, anti-intellectualism, debt defaults, and an end to the ladder of economic opportunity. They would divide us into a few Haves and a lot of Have-Nots. And they would slowly crush the heart of progressive America—the rising middle class created by Democratic economic policies of education and empowerment. All while preserving, protecting, and defending a tiny oligarchy of millionaires and billionaires.
The right wing should ditch the tricorn hats and replace them with mirrored sunglasses. They truly are Banana Republicans.
l
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Saturday, July 30, 2011
President Obama's Accomplishments, Continued
From "Active Questions" Site:
So what all has Obama done since he took office?
I'm sick and tired of people asking "What has Obama done?" So here's a list of things he's done since he's been in office. Remember: He was elected President. He wasn't elected Jesus! The list is still growing. Let me know if I missed anything.
1. Saved the collapse of the American automotive industry by making GM restructure before bailing them out, and putting incentive money to help the industry.
2. Shifted the focus of the war from Iraq to Afghanistan, and putting the emphasis on reducing terrorism where it should have been all along.
3. Relaxed Anti-American tensions throughout the world.
4. Signed order to close the prisoner "torture camp" at Guantanamo Bay.
5. Has made the environment a national priority, and a primary source for job creation.
6. Has made education a national priority by putting emphasis and money behind new ideas like charter schools, but speaking directly to school children in telling them they have to do their part.
7. Won the Nobel Peace Prize.
8. $789 billion economic stimulus plan.
9. Appointment of first Latina to the Supreme Court.
10. Attractive tax write-offs for those who buy hybrid automobiles.
11. Authorized construction/opening of additional health centers to care for veterans.
12. Beginning the process of reforming and restructuring the military 20 years after the Cold War to a more modern fighting force. this includes new procurement policies, increasing size of military, new technology and cyber units and operations, etc.
13. Better body armor is now being provided to our troops.
14. "Cash for clunkers" program offers vouchers to trade in fuel inefficient, polluting old cars for new cars; stimulates auto sales.
15. Changed the failing/status quo military command in Afghanistan.
16. Closed offshore tax safe havens.
17. Deployed additional troops to Afghanistan.
18. Ended media "blackout" on war casualties; reporting full information.
19. Ended previous policy of awarding no-bid defense contracts.
20. Ended previous policy of cutting the FDA and circumventing FDA rules.
21. Ended previous practice of forbidding Medicare from negotiating with drug manufacturers for cheaper drugs; the federal government is now realizing hundreds of millions in savings.
22. Ended previous practice of having White House aides rewrite scientific and environmental rules, regulations, and reports.
23. Ended previous policy of not regulating and labeling carbon dioxide emissions.
24. Ended previous policy of offering tax benefits to corporations who outsource American jobs; the new policy is to promote in-sourcing to bring jobs back.
25. Ended previous policy on torture; the US now has a no torture policy and is in compliance with the Geneva Convention standards.
26. Ended previous practice of protecting credit card companies; in place of it are new consumer protections from credit card industry's predatory practices.
27. Ended previous "stop-loss" policy that kept soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan longer than their enlistment date.
28. Energy producing plants must begin preparing to produce 15% of their energy from renewable sources.
29. Established a National Performance Officer charged with saving the federal government money and making federal operations more efficient.
30. Established a new cyber security office.
31. Expanded the SCHIP program to cover health care for 4 million more children.
32. Expanding vaccination programs.
33. Families of fallen soldiers have expenses.
34. Federal support for stem-cell and new biomedical research.
35. Funds for high-speed, broadband Internet access to K-12 schools.
36. Immediate and efficient response to the floods in North Dakota and other natural disasters.
37. Improved housing for military personnel.
38. Improved conditions at Walter Reed Military Hospital and other military hospitals.
39. Improving benefits for veterans.
40. Increased infrastructure spending (roads, bridges, power plants.) after years of neglect.
41. Increasing opportunities in AmeriCorps program.
42. Increasing pay and benefits for military personnel.
43. Increasing student loans.
44. Instituted a new policy on Cuba, allowing Cuban families to return "home" to visit loved ones.
45. Limited salaries of senior White House aides; cut to $100,000.
46. Limits on lobbyists' access to the White House.
47. Limits on White House aides working for lobbyists after their tenure in the administration.
48. Lower drug costs for seniors.
49. Making more loans available to small businesses.
50. Many more press conferences and town halls and much more media access than previous administration.
51. Negotiated deal with Swiss banks to permit US government to gain access to records of tax evaders and criminals.
52. New Afghan War policy that limits aerial bombing and prioritizes aid, development of infrastructure, diplomacy, and good government practices by Afghans.
53. New federal funding for science and research labs.
54. New funds for school construction.
55. Ordered all federal agencies to undertake a study and make recommendations for ways to cut spending.
56. Ordered a review of all federal operations to identify and cut wasteful spending and practices.
57. Phasing out the expensive F-22 war plane and other outdated weapons systems, which weren't even used or needed in Iraq/Afghanistan.
58. Reengaged in the agreements/talks on global warming and greenhouse gas emissions.
59. Reengaged in the treaties/agreements to protect the Antarctic.
60. Removed restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research.
61. Renewed loan guarantees for Israel.
62. Restarted the nuclear non-proliferation talks and building back up the nuclear inspection infrastructure/protocol s.
63. Returned money authorized for refurbishment of White House offices and private living quarters.
64. Sent envoys to Middle East and other parts of the world that had been neglected for years; reengaging in multilateral and bilateral talks and diplomacy.
65. Signed national service legislation; expanded national youth service program.
66. States are permitted to enact federal fuel efficiency standards above federal standards.
67. Students struggling to make college loan payments can have their loans refinanced.
68. Successful release of US captain held by Somali pirates; authorized the SEALS to do their job.
69. The FDA is now regulating tobacco.
70. The missile defense program is being cut by $1.4 billion in 2010.
71. The public can meet with federal housing insurers to refinance (the new plan can be completed in one day) a mortgage if they are having trouble paying.
72. The "secret detention" facilities in Eastern Europe and elsewhere are being closed.
73. US financial and banking rescue plan.
74. US Navy increasing patrols off Somali coast.
75. Visited more countries and met with more world leaders than any president in his first six months in office.
76. Improved relations with Iran.
77. Improved U.S. policy on climate change.
78. Set timetable for exiting Iraq (already started removing troops).
79. Improved relations with Russia.
80. Improved relations with the Islamic World.
81. Made progress towards grater cooperation on limiting nuclear proliferation.
82. Economic stimulus plan has created jobs. (Unemployment rate decreasing).
83. Drastically slowed down the recession.
84. Saved Wall Street.
85. Passed the Lilly Ledbetter Act (equal work for equal pay).
86. HEALTHCARE REFORM.
87. Forced the arrogant General Stanley McChrystal to resign and replaced him with the more competent General David Petraeus.
88. Ended the Iraq war that Bush got us into like he promised and formulated a plan to keep an eye on things there with 50,000 troops.
By the way, the recession ended in June 2009. I'm sorry to the job situation didn't improve overnight, but he stated that it would take awhile. John Boehner and Mitch McConnell aren't helping matters; neither are Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or any of those Tea Partiers.
Once again, this is a lot to accomplish in such a short amount of time. He was elected President, he wasn't elected Jesus.
So what all has Obama done since he took office?
I'm sick and tired of people asking "What has Obama done?" So here's a list of things he's done since he's been in office. Remember: He was elected President. He wasn't elected Jesus! The list is still growing. Let me know if I missed anything.
1. Saved the collapse of the American automotive industry by making GM restructure before bailing them out, and putting incentive money to help the industry.
2. Shifted the focus of the war from Iraq to Afghanistan, and putting the emphasis on reducing terrorism where it should have been all along.
3. Relaxed Anti-American tensions throughout the world.
4. Signed order to close the prisoner "torture camp" at Guantanamo Bay.
5. Has made the environment a national priority, and a primary source for job creation.
6. Has made education a national priority by putting emphasis and money behind new ideas like charter schools, but speaking directly to school children in telling them they have to do their part.
7. Won the Nobel Peace Prize.
8. $789 billion economic stimulus plan.
9. Appointment of first Latina to the Supreme Court.
10. Attractive tax write-offs for those who buy hybrid automobiles.
11. Authorized construction/opening of additional health centers to care for veterans.
12. Beginning the process of reforming and restructuring the military 20 years after the Cold War to a more modern fighting force. this includes new procurement policies, increasing size of military, new technology and cyber units and operations, etc.
13. Better body armor is now being provided to our troops.
14. "Cash for clunkers" program offers vouchers to trade in fuel inefficient, polluting old cars for new cars; stimulates auto sales.
15. Changed the failing/status quo military command in Afghanistan.
16. Closed offshore tax safe havens.
17. Deployed additional troops to Afghanistan.
18. Ended media "blackout" on war casualties; reporting full information.
19. Ended previous policy of awarding no-bid defense contracts.
20. Ended previous policy of cutting the FDA and circumventing FDA rules.
21. Ended previous practice of forbidding Medicare from negotiating with drug manufacturers for cheaper drugs; the federal government is now realizing hundreds of millions in savings.
22. Ended previous practice of having White House aides rewrite scientific and environmental rules, regulations, and reports.
23. Ended previous policy of not regulating and labeling carbon dioxide emissions.
24. Ended previous policy of offering tax benefits to corporations who outsource American jobs; the new policy is to promote in-sourcing to bring jobs back.
25. Ended previous policy on torture; the US now has a no torture policy and is in compliance with the Geneva Convention standards.
26. Ended previous practice of protecting credit card companies; in place of it are new consumer protections from credit card industry's predatory practices.
27. Ended previous "stop-loss" policy that kept soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan longer than their enlistment date.
28. Energy producing plants must begin preparing to produce 15% of their energy from renewable sources.
29. Established a National Performance Officer charged with saving the federal government money and making federal operations more efficient.
30. Established a new cyber security office.
31. Expanded the SCHIP program to cover health care for 4 million more children.
32. Expanding vaccination programs.
33. Families of fallen soldiers have expenses.
34. Federal support for stem-cell and new biomedical research.
35. Funds for high-speed, broadband Internet access to K-12 schools.
36. Immediate and efficient response to the floods in North Dakota and other natural disasters.
37. Improved housing for military personnel.
38. Improved conditions at Walter Reed Military Hospital and other military hospitals.
39. Improving benefits for veterans.
40. Increased infrastructure spending (roads, bridges, power plants.) after years of neglect.
41. Increasing opportunities in AmeriCorps program.
42. Increasing pay and benefits for military personnel.
43. Increasing student loans.
44. Instituted a new policy on Cuba, allowing Cuban families to return "home" to visit loved ones.
45. Limited salaries of senior White House aides; cut to $100,000.
46. Limits on lobbyists' access to the White House.
47. Limits on White House aides working for lobbyists after their tenure in the administration.
48. Lower drug costs for seniors.
49. Making more loans available to small businesses.
50. Many more press conferences and town halls and much more media access than previous administration.
51. Negotiated deal with Swiss banks to permit US government to gain access to records of tax evaders and criminals.
52. New Afghan War policy that limits aerial bombing and prioritizes aid, development of infrastructure, diplomacy, and good government practices by Afghans.
53. New federal funding for science and research labs.
54. New funds for school construction.
55. Ordered all federal agencies to undertake a study and make recommendations for ways to cut spending.
56. Ordered a review of all federal operations to identify and cut wasteful spending and practices.
57. Phasing out the expensive F-22 war plane and other outdated weapons systems, which weren't even used or needed in Iraq/Afghanistan.
58. Reengaged in the agreements/talks on global warming and greenhouse gas emissions.
59. Reengaged in the treaties/agreements to protect the Antarctic.
60. Removed restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research.
61. Renewed loan guarantees for Israel.
62. Restarted the nuclear non-proliferation talks and building back up the nuclear inspection infrastructure/protocol s.
63. Returned money authorized for refurbishment of White House offices and private living quarters.
64. Sent envoys to Middle East and other parts of the world that had been neglected for years; reengaging in multilateral and bilateral talks and diplomacy.
65. Signed national service legislation; expanded national youth service program.
66. States are permitted to enact federal fuel efficiency standards above federal standards.
67. Students struggling to make college loan payments can have their loans refinanced.
68. Successful release of US captain held by Somali pirates; authorized the SEALS to do their job.
69. The FDA is now regulating tobacco.
70. The missile defense program is being cut by $1.4 billion in 2010.
71. The public can meet with federal housing insurers to refinance (the new plan can be completed in one day) a mortgage if they are having trouble paying.
72. The "secret detention" facilities in Eastern Europe and elsewhere are being closed.
73. US financial and banking rescue plan.
74. US Navy increasing patrols off Somali coast.
75. Visited more countries and met with more world leaders than any president in his first six months in office.
76. Improved relations with Iran.
77. Improved U.S. policy on climate change.
78. Set timetable for exiting Iraq (already started removing troops).
79. Improved relations with Russia.
80. Improved relations with the Islamic World.
81. Made progress towards grater cooperation on limiting nuclear proliferation.
82. Economic stimulus plan has created jobs. (Unemployment rate decreasing).
83. Drastically slowed down the recession.
84. Saved Wall Street.
85. Passed the Lilly Ledbetter Act (equal work for equal pay).
86. HEALTHCARE REFORM.
87. Forced the arrogant General Stanley McChrystal to resign and replaced him with the more competent General David Petraeus.
88. Ended the Iraq war that Bush got us into like he promised and formulated a plan to keep an eye on things there with 50,000 troops.
By the way, the recession ended in June 2009. I'm sorry to the job situation didn't improve overnight, but he stated that it would take awhile. John Boehner and Mitch McConnell aren't helping matters; neither are Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or any of those Tea Partiers.
Once again, this is a lot to accomplish in such a short amount of time. He was elected President, he wasn't elected Jesus.
Friday, July 29, 2011
President Barack Obama's Accomplishments
When Barack Obama took office in January 2009, the United States faced the worst recession since the Great Depression. Four million jobs had been lost in the prior six months, the financial system was on the verge of collapse, and the U. S. auto industry was about to be liquidated.
The stimulus plan and other programs which Obama and the Democrats passed saved the American economy. Now, things have turned around. Over the past 14 months, two million new jobs have been added by the private sector. The near-defunct auto industry is profitable and is now hiring new workers. The stock market has rebounded and is about 70% higher than it was when Obama took office. The financial system has stabilized, and taxpayers have already made a profit from the bank bailout.
Health care reform was a major accomplishment, providing health coverage to millions of people who did not have it before. "Obamacare" is an excellent name for this program, assuring that Obama will get full credit for this new health policy which will save millions of American lives.
Combat operations in Iraq were ended, and they will soon end in Afghanistan, too.
On the other side, you have the Republicans battling to cut education funding by 25 percent, transportation funding by 30 percent, and investments in clean energy by 70%. Republicans want to repeal Medicare and increase costs for seniors in order to pay for more tax breaks for millionaires.
The only thing that has prevented our economy from truly booming now is that Republicans blocked the economic stimulus from being even greater, as it should have been, in order to fund a full, swift and complete economic recovery. Such a full recovery, had the Republicans allowed it, would have increased tax revenues substantially and by itself have reduced our current budget deficit.
Republicans also want to impose their narrow social and "religious" views on everyone else, by denying Gays the right to marry and denying women their freedom of choice. Republicans are truly the "Us Against Them" Party, demonizing minorities in order to smokescreen the fact that their only real goal is to re-distribute more of America's wealth to its wealthiest families.
Considering that he is up against this army of plutocrats, it's amazing that Obama has accomplished as much as he has. Hopefully, America will wake up and repudiate all these Billionaire's Representatives in the next election.
The stimulus plan and other programs which Obama and the Democrats passed saved the American economy. Now, things have turned around. Over the past 14 months, two million new jobs have been added by the private sector. The near-defunct auto industry is profitable and is now hiring new workers. The stock market has rebounded and is about 70% higher than it was when Obama took office. The financial system has stabilized, and taxpayers have already made a profit from the bank bailout.
Health care reform was a major accomplishment, providing health coverage to millions of people who did not have it before. "Obamacare" is an excellent name for this program, assuring that Obama will get full credit for this new health policy which will save millions of American lives.
Combat operations in Iraq were ended, and they will soon end in Afghanistan, too.
On the other side, you have the Republicans battling to cut education funding by 25 percent, transportation funding by 30 percent, and investments in clean energy by 70%. Republicans want to repeal Medicare and increase costs for seniors in order to pay for more tax breaks for millionaires.
The only thing that has prevented our economy from truly booming now is that Republicans blocked the economic stimulus from being even greater, as it should have been, in order to fund a full, swift and complete economic recovery. Such a full recovery, had the Republicans allowed it, would have increased tax revenues substantially and by itself have reduced our current budget deficit.
Republicans also want to impose their narrow social and "religious" views on everyone else, by denying Gays the right to marry and denying women their freedom of choice. Republicans are truly the "Us Against Them" Party, demonizing minorities in order to smokescreen the fact that their only real goal is to re-distribute more of America's wealth to its wealthiest families.
Considering that he is up against this army of plutocrats, it's amazing that Obama has accomplished as much as he has. Hopefully, America will wake up and repudiate all these Billionaire's Representatives in the next election.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
The Republican Party will Fight to the Death to Preserve the Record Profits of Big Oil and Destroy Every Other American
From The Progress Report --- July 28, 2011:
Big Oil Hits A Gusher
No ‘Shared Sacrifice’ for Big Oil
While the government’s coffers are nearly empty (not unlike the wallets of millions of Americans), Big Oil is still flush with cash — including some of the $4 BILLION in taxpayer-funded handouts they’ll get from Uncle Sam this year. This week, the government-subsidized oil giants once again reported tens of billions of dollars in profits.
As the nation teeters on the brink of default, the GOP wants us to “kiss Medicare goodbye” (along with Medicaid and Social Security), but they still refuse to touch a dime of the $77 BILLION in taxpayer handouts that we’ll give to the most profitable industry the world has ever known over the next 10 years.
Here are the numbers you need to know:
$3.4 BILLION
ConocoPhillips’ second quarter profit.
$5.6 BILLION
BP‘s second quarter profit, which investors called “disappointing.”
$8 BILLION
Shell’s second quarter profit.
$10.7 BILLION
ExxonMobil’s second quarter profit.
17.6 Percent
ExxonMobil’s effective federal tax rate.
20.4 Percent
The average American’s individual effective tax rate.
41 Percent
The increase in ExxonMobil’s second quarter profits.
$77 BILLION
The cost of taxpayer-funded subsidies for Big Oil from 2011-2021.
In one sentence: Even as ExxonMobil made more than $118 MILLION a day in profits last quarter, it is still paying a lower tax rate than the average American.
Big Oil Hits A Gusher
No ‘Shared Sacrifice’ for Big Oil
While the government’s coffers are nearly empty (not unlike the wallets of millions of Americans), Big Oil is still flush with cash — including some of the $4 BILLION in taxpayer-funded handouts they’ll get from Uncle Sam this year. This week, the government-subsidized oil giants once again reported tens of billions of dollars in profits.
As the nation teeters on the brink of default, the GOP wants us to “kiss Medicare goodbye” (along with Medicaid and Social Security), but they still refuse to touch a dime of the $77 BILLION in taxpayer handouts that we’ll give to the most profitable industry the world has ever known over the next 10 years.
Here are the numbers you need to know:
$3.4 BILLION
ConocoPhillips’ second quarter profit.
$5.6 BILLION
BP‘s second quarter profit, which investors called “disappointing.”
$8 BILLION
Shell’s second quarter profit.
$10.7 BILLION
ExxonMobil’s second quarter profit.
17.6 Percent
ExxonMobil’s effective federal tax rate.
20.4 Percent
The average American’s individual effective tax rate.
41 Percent
The increase in ExxonMobil’s second quarter profits.
$77 BILLION
The cost of taxpayer-funded subsidies for Big Oil from 2011-2021.
In one sentence: Even as ExxonMobil made more than $118 MILLION a day in profits last quarter, it is still paying a lower tax rate than the average American.
Conservative Republicans are Destroying America Far More Effectively than Al Quaida Ever Could
Don’t Fall for the GOP Lie: There is No Budget Crisis. There’s a Job and Growth Crisis.
By Robert Reich -- JULY 28, 2011
A friend who’s been watching the absurd machinations in Congress asked me “what happens if we don’t solve the budget crisis and we run out of money to pay the nation’s bills?”
It was only then I realized how effective Republicans lies have been. That we’re calling it a “budget crisis” and worrying that if we don’t “solve” it we can’t pay our nation’s bills is testament to how successful Republicans have been distorting the truth.
The federal budget deficit has no economic relationship to the debt limit. Republicans have linked the two, and the Administration has played along, but they are entirely separate. Republicans are using what would otherwise be a routine, legally technical vote to raise the debt limit as a means of holding the nation hostage to their own political goal of shrinking the size of the federal government.
In economic terms, we will not “run out of money” next week. We’re still the richest nation in the world, and the Federal Reserve has unlimited capacity to print money.
Nor is there any economic imperative to reach an agreement on how to fix the budget deficit by Tuesday. It’s not even clear the federal budget needs that much fixing anyway.
Yes, the ratio of the national debt to the total economy is high relative to what it’s been. But it’s not nearly as high as it was after World War II – when it reached 120 percent of the economy’s total output.
If and when the economy begins to grow faster – if more Americans get jobs, and we move toward a full recovery – the debt/GDP ratio will fall, as it did in the 1950s, and as it does in every solid recovery. Revenues will pour into the Treasury, and much of the current “budget crisis” will be evaporate.
Get it? We’re really in a “jobs and growth” crisis – not a budget crisis.
And the best way to get jobs and growth back is for the federal government to spend more right now, not less – for example, by exempting the first $20,000 of income from payroll taxes this year and next, recreating a WPA and Civilian Conservation Corps, creating an infrastructure bank, providing tax incentives for small businesses to hire, expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, and so on.
But what happens next week if Congress can’t or won’t deliver the President a bill to raise the debt ceiling? Remember: This is all politics, mixed in with legal technicalities. Economics has nothing to do with it.
One possibility, therefore, is for the Treasury to keep paying the nation’s bills regardless. It would continue to issue Treasury bills, which are our nation’s IOUs. When those IOUs are cashed at the Federal Reserve Board, the Fed would do what it has always done: Honor them.
How long could this go on without the debt ceiling being lifted? That’s a legal question. Republicans in Congress could mount a legal challenge, but no court in its right mind would stop the Fed from honoring the full faith and credit of the United States.
The wild card is what the three big credit-rating agencies will do. As long as the Fed keeps honoring the nation’s IOUs, America’s credit should be deemed sound. We’re not Greece or Portugal, after all. We’ll still be the richest nation in the world, whose currency is the basis for most business transactions in the world.
Standard & Poor’s has warned it will downgrade the nation’s debt from a triple-A to a double-A rating if we don’t tend to the long-term deficit. But, as I’ve noted, S&P has no business meddling in American politics – especially since its own non-feasance was partly responsible for the current size of the federal debt (had it done its job the debt and housing bubbles wouldn’t have precipitated the terrible recession, and the federal outlays it required).
As long as we pay our debts on time, our global creditors should be satisfied. And if they’re satisfied, S&P, Moody’s, and Fitch should be, too.
Repeat after me: The federal deficit is not the nation’s biggest problem. The anemic recovery, huge unemployment, falling wages, and declining home prices are bigger problems. We don’t have a budget crisis. We have a jobs and growth crisis.
The GOP has manufactured a budget crisis out of the Republicans’ extortionate demands over raising the debt limit. They have succeeded in hoodwinking the public, including my friend.
By Robert Reich -- JULY 28, 2011
A friend who’s been watching the absurd machinations in Congress asked me “what happens if we don’t solve the budget crisis and we run out of money to pay the nation’s bills?”
It was only then I realized how effective Republicans lies have been. That we’re calling it a “budget crisis” and worrying that if we don’t “solve” it we can’t pay our nation’s bills is testament to how successful Republicans have been distorting the truth.
The federal budget deficit has no economic relationship to the debt limit. Republicans have linked the two, and the Administration has played along, but they are entirely separate. Republicans are using what would otherwise be a routine, legally technical vote to raise the debt limit as a means of holding the nation hostage to their own political goal of shrinking the size of the federal government.
In economic terms, we will not “run out of money” next week. We’re still the richest nation in the world, and the Federal Reserve has unlimited capacity to print money.
Nor is there any economic imperative to reach an agreement on how to fix the budget deficit by Tuesday. It’s not even clear the federal budget needs that much fixing anyway.
Yes, the ratio of the national debt to the total economy is high relative to what it’s been. But it’s not nearly as high as it was after World War II – when it reached 120 percent of the economy’s total output.
If and when the economy begins to grow faster – if more Americans get jobs, and we move toward a full recovery – the debt/GDP ratio will fall, as it did in the 1950s, and as it does in every solid recovery. Revenues will pour into the Treasury, and much of the current “budget crisis” will be evaporate.
Get it? We’re really in a “jobs and growth” crisis – not a budget crisis.
And the best way to get jobs and growth back is for the federal government to spend more right now, not less – for example, by exempting the first $20,000 of income from payroll taxes this year and next, recreating a WPA and Civilian Conservation Corps, creating an infrastructure bank, providing tax incentives for small businesses to hire, expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, and so on.
But what happens next week if Congress can’t or won’t deliver the President a bill to raise the debt ceiling? Remember: This is all politics, mixed in with legal technicalities. Economics has nothing to do with it.
One possibility, therefore, is for the Treasury to keep paying the nation’s bills regardless. It would continue to issue Treasury bills, which are our nation’s IOUs. When those IOUs are cashed at the Federal Reserve Board, the Fed would do what it has always done: Honor them.
How long could this go on without the debt ceiling being lifted? That’s a legal question. Republicans in Congress could mount a legal challenge, but no court in its right mind would stop the Fed from honoring the full faith and credit of the United States.
The wild card is what the three big credit-rating agencies will do. As long as the Fed keeps honoring the nation’s IOUs, America’s credit should be deemed sound. We’re not Greece or Portugal, after all. We’ll still be the richest nation in the world, whose currency is the basis for most business transactions in the world.
Standard & Poor’s has warned it will downgrade the nation’s debt from a triple-A to a double-A rating if we don’t tend to the long-term deficit. But, as I’ve noted, S&P has no business meddling in American politics – especially since its own non-feasance was partly responsible for the current size of the federal debt (had it done its job the debt and housing bubbles wouldn’t have precipitated the terrible recession, and the federal outlays it required).
As long as we pay our debts on time, our global creditors should be satisfied. And if they’re satisfied, S&P, Moody’s, and Fitch should be, too.
Repeat after me: The federal deficit is not the nation’s biggest problem. The anemic recovery, huge unemployment, falling wages, and declining home prices are bigger problems. We don’t have a budget crisis. We have a jobs and growth crisis.
The GOP has manufactured a budget crisis out of the Republicans’ extortionate demands over raising the debt limit. They have succeeded in hoodwinking the public, including my friend.
Meet Another Republican Tea Party Low-Life Creep Who Smears Obama and Slimes Everybody Else
From The Huffington Post -- Ju;y 28, 2011:
Joe Walsh Sued For More Than $100,000 In Child Support
CHICAGO (AP) -- Illinois Rep. Joe Walsh, the tea party-backed Republican who squeaked into office last year by vowing to bring fiscal responsibility to Washington and who has been one of President Barack Obama's most outspoken critics during the standoff over the debt ceiling, is being sued for more than $100,000 in unpaid child support, a newspaper reported.
The freshman congressman's ex-wife, Laura Walsh, filed the claim against him in December as part of their divorce case, saying he owed $117,437 to her and their three children, the Chicago Sun-Times reported in a story published Wednesday. She contends that Walsh loaned his own campaign $35,000 and took international vacations but said he couldn't afford child support payments because he was between jobs or out of work.
"Joe personally loaned his campaign $35,000, which, given that he failed to make any child support payments to Laura because he `had no money' is surprising," Laura Walsh's attorneys wrote in the motion. "Joe has paid himself back at least $14,200 for the loans he gave himself."
Walsh, whose campaign was marked by allegations of financial mismanagement, said he thought he and his ex-wife were coming to an agreement on the money owed, according to a February court filing. His attorney, R. Steven Polachek, denied that the congressman owed $117,437 in back child support and interest and said the amount was much less.
"I dispute that he owes the child support that she's claiming or anywhere near that amount," Polachek said. "Joe Walsh hasn't been a big-time wage-earner politician until recently – he's had no more problems with child support than any other average guy."
Joe and Laura Walsh were married for 15 years when she filed for divorce in 2002. He has since remarried.
A phone message left Thursday at Walsh's congressional office wasn't immediately returned, and his spokeswoman did not immediately respond to an e-mail seeking comment.
Walsh, 49, unexpectedly captured his northeastern Illinois district last year by a slim margin, campaigning on a promise to reign in government spending and promoting his conservative values, among other things. He has recently gained notoriety for speaking out against the president and accusing him of lying about the impact of not raising the national debt ceiling.
"President Obama, quit lying," he said in a video posted online this month. In it he also asks Obama, "Have you no shame, sir?"
Walsh said there is "plenty of money" to pay debt and cover Social Security even if the limit isn't raised, and that Obama won't get congressional approval to increase the $14.3 trillion debt limit unless the Democratic president backs a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, which Obama opposes. Obama says the country will default if Congress doesn't raise the ceiling by Aug. 2.
The congressman's alleged financial problems made headlines while he was campaigning last year, when at least one staffer claimed he would "spend, spend, spend uncontrollably." His campaign manager quit and sued for $20,000 in nonpayment, and two other staffers who quit accused him of not properly disclosing a 2008 home foreclosure and traffic citations to the public, taking their grievances public. Walsh also bounced checks, including one to a Republican fundraiser.
Joe Walsh Sued For More Than $100,000 In Child Support
CHICAGO (AP) -- Illinois Rep. Joe Walsh, the tea party-backed Republican who squeaked into office last year by vowing to bring fiscal responsibility to Washington and who has been one of President Barack Obama's most outspoken critics during the standoff over the debt ceiling, is being sued for more than $100,000 in unpaid child support, a newspaper reported.
The freshman congressman's ex-wife, Laura Walsh, filed the claim against him in December as part of their divorce case, saying he owed $117,437 to her and their three children, the Chicago Sun-Times reported in a story published Wednesday. She contends that Walsh loaned his own campaign $35,000 and took international vacations but said he couldn't afford child support payments because he was between jobs or out of work.
"Joe personally loaned his campaign $35,000, which, given that he failed to make any child support payments to Laura because he `had no money' is surprising," Laura Walsh's attorneys wrote in the motion. "Joe has paid himself back at least $14,200 for the loans he gave himself."
Walsh, whose campaign was marked by allegations of financial mismanagement, said he thought he and his ex-wife were coming to an agreement on the money owed, according to a February court filing. His attorney, R. Steven Polachek, denied that the congressman owed $117,437 in back child support and interest and said the amount was much less.
"I dispute that he owes the child support that she's claiming or anywhere near that amount," Polachek said. "Joe Walsh hasn't been a big-time wage-earner politician until recently – he's had no more problems with child support than any other average guy."
Joe and Laura Walsh were married for 15 years when she filed for divorce in 2002. He has since remarried.
A phone message left Thursday at Walsh's congressional office wasn't immediately returned, and his spokeswoman did not immediately respond to an e-mail seeking comment.
Walsh, 49, unexpectedly captured his northeastern Illinois district last year by a slim margin, campaigning on a promise to reign in government spending and promoting his conservative values, among other things. He has recently gained notoriety for speaking out against the president and accusing him of lying about the impact of not raising the national debt ceiling.
"President Obama, quit lying," he said in a video posted online this month. In it he also asks Obama, "Have you no shame, sir?"
Walsh said there is "plenty of money" to pay debt and cover Social Security even if the limit isn't raised, and that Obama won't get congressional approval to increase the $14.3 trillion debt limit unless the Democratic president backs a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, which Obama opposes. Obama says the country will default if Congress doesn't raise the ceiling by Aug. 2.
The congressman's alleged financial problems made headlines while he was campaigning last year, when at least one staffer claimed he would "spend, spend, spend uncontrollably." His campaign manager quit and sued for $20,000 in nonpayment, and two other staffers who quit accused him of not properly disclosing a 2008 home foreclosure and traffic citations to the public, taking their grievances public. Walsh also bounced checks, including one to a Republican fundraiser.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
While Republicans are Destroying America, Obama Is Destroying Al Quaida
News Alert: U.S. officials believe al-Qaeda on brink of collapse
July 26, 2011 10:17:13 PM
U.S. counterterrorism officials are increasingly convinced that the killing of Osama bin Laden and the toll of seven years of CIA drone strikes have pushed al-Qaeda to the brink of collapse.
The assessment reflects a widespread view at the CIA and other agencies that a relatively small number of additional blows could effectively extinguish the Pakistan-based organization that carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks — an outcome that was seen as a distant prospect for much of the past decade.
http://link.email.washingtonpost.com/r/TNGYL1/0GA4QH/IEA7IF/CBX5EM/K7265/T3/h
July 26, 2011 10:17:13 PM
U.S. counterterrorism officials are increasingly convinced that the killing of Osama bin Laden and the toll of seven years of CIA drone strikes have pushed al-Qaeda to the brink of collapse.
The assessment reflects a widespread view at the CIA and other agencies that a relatively small number of additional blows could effectively extinguish the Pakistan-based organization that carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks — an outcome that was seen as a distant prospect for much of the past decade.
http://link.email.washingtonpost.com/r/TNGYL1/0GA4QH/IEA7IF/CBX5EM/K7265/T3/h
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Meet the Right-Wing Extremists who are Trying to Take Over America --- Meet the Real Fockers
From The Progress Report -- July 12, 2011:
Meet The Radical Group Driving The GOP Primary
Who Is The FAMiLY LEADER?
Much of the news around the 2012 Republican primary over the past few days has been driven by a highly controversial pledge offered by a radical conservative group in Iowa, the the FAMiLY LEADER (the lowercase “i” represents individual submission before God). Here’s what you need to know about the group and its leader, Bob Vander Plaats.
WHO: Bob Vander Plaats is a thrice-failed Iowa gubernatorial candidate who successfully led a campaign last year to oust three of the nine Iowa Supreme Court justices who backed a unanimous decision in favor of marriage equality. Vander Plaats then took over leadership of the FAMiLY LEADER and is now positioning himself as the 2012 Iowa caucus kingmaker, having led Mike Huckabee’s successful 2008 caucus campaign. More recently, Vander Plaats has also tried to position himself as a Tea Party leader.
Other fast facts on Vander Plaats:
Bob Vander Plaats has said that homosexuality is a “public health risk” akin to smoking.
Despite its conservative, anti-government views, the FAMiLY LEADER and its predecessor organizations accepted more than $3 million in government funds.
Bob Vander Plaats has even tried to blame gays for the national debt.
WHAT: The FAMiLY LEADER, a Christian conservative group with radical anti-gay, anti-Muslim, and other extreme views.
WHERE: The group and its affiliated organizations are based just outside Des Moines, Iowa.
WHY THEY MATTER: Social conservatives dominate the GOP base in Iowa, and Vander Plaats is angling to be the gatekeeper for those voters.
The FAMiLY LEADER has been hosting a presidential lecture series for the past several months, with each candidate coming to Iowa in turn and traveling the state with Vander Plaats to speak to conservative audiences. The candidates who participated in these events were Tim Pawlenty, Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich.
The group will host its own presidential debate in November, after which Vander Plaats will make his endorsement.
WHAT IS IN THEIR PLEDGE: Last week, the FAMiLY LEADER unveiled an extremely controversial 14-point “Marriage Vow” pledge that any candidate who wants to be endorsed by the group must sign. Here are its key elements (more details can be found here):
Black children born into slavery were better off than black children born today (The group deleted this “misconstrued” provision after massive public outcry.)
Personal fidelity to his/her spouse
Married people have better sex and lead healthier lives
Homosexuality is a choice
Homosexuality is a public health threat
Homosexuality is like polygamy, adultery, and polyandry
Porn should be banned
“Sharia Islam” must be rejected
Must uphold the Defense of Marriage Act and refuse to define marriage as anything other than one man, one woman
Appoint strict constitutionalists as judges
Shrink the size of government
WHO HAS SIGNED THE PLEDGE: Bachmann and Santorum almost immediately signed the pledge (including its offensive pro-slavery provision); Jon Huntsman declined on the grounds that he does not sign any pledges; thrice-married Gingrich declined to sign during an appearance yesterday with Vander Plaats, citing the need for unspecified “across the board” changes to the pledge; and Gary Johnson attacked it as discriminatory and “un-Republican.” Others have until Aug. 1 to respond.
WHAT IT SAYS ABOUT THE GOP: Its Christian conservative base has become extreme, out-of-touch, and fixated on things of little concern to most Americans.
WHAT IT SAYS ABOUT THE 2012 CANDIDATES: Most of them are willing be to directly associated with extreme, highly-offensive views in order to win over the most conservative segment of the GOP base during the primary.
Meet The Radical Group Driving The GOP Primary
Who Is The FAMiLY LEADER?
Much of the news around the 2012 Republican primary over the past few days has been driven by a highly controversial pledge offered by a radical conservative group in Iowa, the the FAMiLY LEADER (the lowercase “i” represents individual submission before God). Here’s what you need to know about the group and its leader, Bob Vander Plaats.
WHO: Bob Vander Plaats is a thrice-failed Iowa gubernatorial candidate who successfully led a campaign last year to oust three of the nine Iowa Supreme Court justices who backed a unanimous decision in favor of marriage equality. Vander Plaats then took over leadership of the FAMiLY LEADER and is now positioning himself as the 2012 Iowa caucus kingmaker, having led Mike Huckabee’s successful 2008 caucus campaign. More recently, Vander Plaats has also tried to position himself as a Tea Party leader.
Other fast facts on Vander Plaats:
Bob Vander Plaats has said that homosexuality is a “public health risk” akin to smoking.
Despite its conservative, anti-government views, the FAMiLY LEADER and its predecessor organizations accepted more than $3 million in government funds.
Bob Vander Plaats has even tried to blame gays for the national debt.
WHAT: The FAMiLY LEADER, a Christian conservative group with radical anti-gay, anti-Muslim, and other extreme views.
WHERE: The group and its affiliated organizations are based just outside Des Moines, Iowa.
WHY THEY MATTER: Social conservatives dominate the GOP base in Iowa, and Vander Plaats is angling to be the gatekeeper for those voters.
The FAMiLY LEADER has been hosting a presidential lecture series for the past several months, with each candidate coming to Iowa in turn and traveling the state with Vander Plaats to speak to conservative audiences. The candidates who participated in these events were Tim Pawlenty, Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich.
The group will host its own presidential debate in November, after which Vander Plaats will make his endorsement.
WHAT IS IN THEIR PLEDGE: Last week, the FAMiLY LEADER unveiled an extremely controversial 14-point “Marriage Vow” pledge that any candidate who wants to be endorsed by the group must sign. Here are its key elements (more details can be found here):
Black children born into slavery were better off than black children born today (The group deleted this “misconstrued” provision after massive public outcry.)
Personal fidelity to his/her spouse
Married people have better sex and lead healthier lives
Homosexuality is a choice
Homosexuality is a public health threat
Homosexuality is like polygamy, adultery, and polyandry
Porn should be banned
“Sharia Islam” must be rejected
Must uphold the Defense of Marriage Act and refuse to define marriage as anything other than one man, one woman
Appoint strict constitutionalists as judges
Shrink the size of government
WHO HAS SIGNED THE PLEDGE: Bachmann and Santorum almost immediately signed the pledge (including its offensive pro-slavery provision); Jon Huntsman declined on the grounds that he does not sign any pledges; thrice-married Gingrich declined to sign during an appearance yesterday with Vander Plaats, citing the need for unspecified “across the board” changes to the pledge; and Gary Johnson attacked it as discriminatory and “un-Republican.” Others have until Aug. 1 to respond.
WHAT IT SAYS ABOUT THE GOP: Its Christian conservative base has become extreme, out-of-touch, and fixated on things of little concern to most Americans.
WHAT IT SAYS ABOUT THE 2012 CANDIDATES: Most of them are willing be to directly associated with extreme, highly-offensive views in order to win over the most conservative segment of the GOP base during the primary.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Republicans Want to Destroy the US Economy and Blame Obama -- Are the American People Retarded Morons who will Fall for all that GOP Snake Oil?
From Media Matters for America -- July 11, 2011:
Right-Wing Media Figures Pushed Boehner To Abandon Debt Talks
Prominent media conservatives such as Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh have been pressuring House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) not to accept a $4 trillion debt deal that would stave off economic catastrophe by allowing Congress to raise the debt ceiling and prevent the government from defaulting on its obligations. On July 9, these conservatives met success, as Boehner abandoned negotiations aimed at a $4 trillion debt deal.
Palin, Limbaugh, And Others Urged Boehner Not To "Cave" On Debt Ceiling
Palin "Made It Clear That She's Against Any Deal That Raises The Debt Ceiling." From Newsweek:
Back in the private dining room in Pella, Palin shared some of those policy positions. On the debt ceiling, she takes the hardline view. "It is not the apocalypse," she said, and questioned the need for the urgent negotiating sessions Republicans and Democrats were conducting in search of a debt-limit agreement (ongoing at press time). "The fact is that we have $2.6 trillion in revenue coming in, and if we just use some common sense there -- take that revenue, service the debt first, take care of national priorities -- we don't have to increase debt."
Palin made it clear that she's against any deal that raises the debt ceiling and would hold House Speaker John Boehner's feet to the fire if he agreed to one. "No, we have to cut spending. It is imperative, and I will be very, very disappointed if Boehner and the leaders of the Republican Party cave on any kind of debt deal in the next couple of months." [Newsweek, 7/10/11]
Fox Nation: "Palin Issues Stern Warning To Boehner About Debt Ceiling." Linking to an article in The Hillreporting on Palin's comments to Newsweek, Fox News' website The Fox Nation posted the following headline:
Weasel Zippers: "Ditto That." The right-wing blog Weasel Zippers endorsed Palin's remarks, saying, "ditto that."
Limbaugh: If Republicans "Cave" And Accept Debt Deal, "You Can Say Goodbye" To The RNC. From the July 8 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: I just want to tell you with extreme confidence that if any of this happens, if there is a cave by House Republicans on this debt limit -- if Obama gets what he wants, all of what he wants, as Kristol is alluding to here, and was backed up by other reports, then you can say goodbye to the Republican National Committee. It will implode. People will stop sending it money. You can say hello to an Obama second term, because there will be a third party. The Tea Party will organize as a third party, if there is a cave on this.
We could lower the debt ceiling and make our debt payments as I detailed yesterday. We are not at risk of default. We are not in danger of default. Anybody, either party, who says we are is engaging in demagoguery and the same classic Washington tactic of creating to you a crisis, an apocalyptic crisis, that has to be solved now or else. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 7/8/11]
Big Government On Potential Deal: "Strength Is On The GOP's Side. Don't Cave." In a July 5 post on Andrew Breitbart's Big Government website, contributor Michael Angley wrote:
The White House and the Democrats may be at it again! Senate Republican leaders are worried the White House will shovel a last-minute budget deal into the Congress shortly before the August 2, 2011 debt ceiling deadline. The GOP fears an "urgent" proposal on the eve of this date will give the Congress little time to review what's in it, and the exigent nature of the deal will hamstring them into rushing it through to a vote.
They are right to worry. In all likelihood, the White House (and its willing accomplices among Democratic lawmakers) will pork-up a deal with "investments" (spending increases) and tax hikes. Both are anathema to the GOP right now, and the desperadoes of the left will see this as the only way to continue 60 years of progressive policies. Any deal from the White House is bound to be a Trojan Horse.
The GOP must demand a timely budget input, or simply leave the White House in the dust and vote on their own proposal. They must rally all GOP lawmakers and find a few defectors from the other side to defeat an unacceptable offer should one come, even if it means risking the "end of the world!" After all, the last White House budget went down in unanimous flames in the Senate: 0-97 votes. No one from Obama's party voted for it. Strength is on the GOP's side. Don't cave. [Big Government, 7/5/11]
National Review Warned GOP To Walk Away From A Deal If It's Not Cut On Their Terms. From a July 7 National Review article headlined, "Budget Danger Ahead," and subheadlined, "How Republicans could get snookered again":
In the debt-limit talks, Republicans need to be very wary of confusing meaningless Medicare and Medicaid "cuts" with actual reforms that will make a difference. If the president and his allies have ruled out all variants of genuine reform -- and the recent Medicare proposal from Sens. Joe Lieberman (I.) and Tom Coburn (R.) certainly counts as a first step toward genuine reform -- then Republicans should make it clear that they have no incentive at all to make concessions.
If that means that a "large" deficit-cutting deal can't be struck on the debt limit, so be it. A $2 trillion or $3 trillion package, heavy on tax hikes and the usual assortment of Medicare and Medicaid regulatory tinkering, should be the Republicans' worst nightmare. It will hand the president a huge political victory, leave the entitlement monolith just as it is, further entrench central government management of the health sector, and burden taxpayers even more.
It would be far better to find a way to cut whatever spending can be cut sensibly with some Democratic support, raise the debt limit modestly, and leave the big questions on entitlement reforms and taxes to the collective judgment of the voting public in 2012. [National Review, 7/7/11]
Politico: Boehner Walked Away From Debt Deal "Under Pressure From The Right"
Politico: "Boehner, Under Pressure From The Right And Facing Resistance From His Own Deputies, Backed Away" From Debt Deal. From Politico:
House Speaker John Boehner, under pressure from the right and facing resistance from his own deputies, backed away Saturday from a bold $4 trillion deficit-reduction package that he once hoped would resolve the August debt ceiling crisis and give a shot in the arm to a lagging economy.
Tax policy disputes were at the center of the collapse, including differences with the White House over President Barack Obama's demand that future tax reforms must maintain or increase the progressivity of the tax code. But for days Boehner has been under relentless pressure from conservatives to step away from the deal, which Saturday's Wall Street Journal editorial writers dubbed "Boehner's Obama Gamble."
The setback would appear a clear victory for conservatives in Boehner's conference and in the Republican leadership.
Limbaugh And Other Conservative Media Figures Previously Cheered On Default
Bolling: "I Say Let Them Default." As a guest co-host on Fox & Friends, Eric Bolling told Stuart Varney, "I say let them default. ... What's going to happen?" Varney replied, "Armageddon's going to happen." From the April 13 edition of Fox & Friends:
VARNEY: There's a great danger in that. As you approach this deadline, if you're even talking about default, as even a possibility, a remote possibility, you really spook the world's money people. You really spook them.
BOLLING: I say let them default.
VARNEY: Really?
BOLLING: Let them go. What's going to happen?
VARNEY: You're a brave guy.
BOLLING: What's going to happen?
VARNEY: Armageddon's going to happen.
BOLLING: How is it going to be Armageddon? Let's talk about that for a second.
VARNEY: OK. If we fail to allow ourselves to borrow any more money --
BOLLING: I know the process. And then everyone raises their hands and says, "Oh my God, the U.S. is going to default." Well -- where are they going to go? If the U.S. defaults, every other country in the world is going to default, too.
VARNEY: We're paying out --
BRIAN KILMEADE (co-host): That sounds like Armageddon.
VARNEY: We're paying out -- yeah, exactly.
BOLLING: My point is they're going to get the -- the theory that let's let it go and see what happens -- I like it. I like it. Because we could default and then get the spending under control. Get everything we want in default. It's -- for my -- for my dollar, let them go. Let them get to the point where --
KILMEADE: We can't get a credit card for seven years after that. As a country.
BOLLING: We'll get it the next day. China will be on our doorsteps saying, when can we give you money again?
VARNEY: You think?
BOLLING: Yeah, I do.
VARNEY: OK. If you don't allow us to borrow any more money, you've got $350 billion every month going out and only $200 billion coming in.
BOLLING: That's got to stop. That will force it to stop. That will guarantee --
VARNEY: So you've got an immediate $150 billion cut every month.
BOLLING: That will guarantee in order for it to come out of default, you have to stop spending. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 4/13/11]
Limbaugh: "All [Defaulting] Means Is We Won't Be Able To Borrow Anymore." From the April 20 edition of Limbaugh's radio show:
LIMBAUGH: Here's the point, it's a scare tactic. It really isn't possible, there is always money coming in. The government can count on tax revenue from any number of sources and activities, there will always be money coming in. They can always print money. This default business is a straw dog, it's a straw man they're throwing out there to you. You want to know what the actual manifestations of an official default would be --
CALLER: Yeah, absolutely. Because, I mean, just looking in recent history, we were listening to the media and they're talking about how bad a government shutdown would be --
LIMBAUGH: It just -- all it means is we won't be able to borrow anymore. That's all it means. All it means is we have to live within our means.
CALLER: Well I don't think that would be too bad then.
LIMBAUGH: No, it's not. You know, the whole business -- I shocked a lot of people yesterday when I said not raising the debt limit is an option. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 4/20/11]
Hannity: "I Just Don't Have The Great Fear" That Potential Default "Is Going To Be A Calamity." From the April 21 edition of Sean Hannity's Fox News show:
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: The real issue here is this, what should the Republicans demand in return for the debt limit? And what I think the Republicans ought to be doing right now, the House and the Senate leadership in the week or two between now and decision day, or at least when they're going to have to come back and talk about it, is to find one proposal, a single one, not eight or 10, a range here to there, that everybody agrees on and says, here's what we want in return for the debt limit. And I think it should be something really strong like a spending cap that could require a super majority to overturn, something like that. You are not going to get something revolutionary. But you've got to start with that.
HANNITY: I don't know what's worse though in my mind. I'm getting so concerned about these numbers. You know, is it worse that we default now and get our budget balanced or that America keeps continually taking on trillion in debts? It is a dangerous scenario evidenced by the S&P this week. And I just don't have the great fear that others do that this is going to be a calamity.
KRAUTHAMMER: No, I think in the end, if you don't raise it, it will be a calamity. We are the number one currency, the reserve currency in the world. It gives us tremendous advantages. If there's any default even for an hour that will undo 100 years of reliability. You don't want to do that. And politically, again, if you're seen as irresponsible - you always have to look at it from the ordinary American, the centrist American, the independent who's in the middle of the road. If the Republicans are seen as irresponsible, they are going to lose in 2012 and you are going to have six years of this and we are really going over a cliff. You have to keep your eye on the prize.
HANNITY: That's a frightening scenario.
Right-Wing Media Figures Pushed Boehner To Abandon Debt Talks
Prominent media conservatives such as Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh have been pressuring House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) not to accept a $4 trillion debt deal that would stave off economic catastrophe by allowing Congress to raise the debt ceiling and prevent the government from defaulting on its obligations. On July 9, these conservatives met success, as Boehner abandoned negotiations aimed at a $4 trillion debt deal.
Palin, Limbaugh, And Others Urged Boehner Not To "Cave" On Debt Ceiling
Palin "Made It Clear That She's Against Any Deal That Raises The Debt Ceiling." From Newsweek:
Back in the private dining room in Pella, Palin shared some of those policy positions. On the debt ceiling, she takes the hardline view. "It is not the apocalypse," she said, and questioned the need for the urgent negotiating sessions Republicans and Democrats were conducting in search of a debt-limit agreement (ongoing at press time). "The fact is that we have $2.6 trillion in revenue coming in, and if we just use some common sense there -- take that revenue, service the debt first, take care of national priorities -- we don't have to increase debt."
Palin made it clear that she's against any deal that raises the debt ceiling and would hold House Speaker John Boehner's feet to the fire if he agreed to one. "No, we have to cut spending. It is imperative, and I will be very, very disappointed if Boehner and the leaders of the Republican Party cave on any kind of debt deal in the next couple of months." [Newsweek, 7/10/11]
Fox Nation: "Palin Issues Stern Warning To Boehner About Debt Ceiling." Linking to an article in The Hillreporting on Palin's comments to Newsweek, Fox News' website The Fox Nation posted the following headline:
Weasel Zippers: "Ditto That." The right-wing blog Weasel Zippers endorsed Palin's remarks, saying, "ditto that."
Limbaugh: If Republicans "Cave" And Accept Debt Deal, "You Can Say Goodbye" To The RNC. From the July 8 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: I just want to tell you with extreme confidence that if any of this happens, if there is a cave by House Republicans on this debt limit -- if Obama gets what he wants, all of what he wants, as Kristol is alluding to here, and was backed up by other reports, then you can say goodbye to the Republican National Committee. It will implode. People will stop sending it money. You can say hello to an Obama second term, because there will be a third party. The Tea Party will organize as a third party, if there is a cave on this.
We could lower the debt ceiling and make our debt payments as I detailed yesterday. We are not at risk of default. We are not in danger of default. Anybody, either party, who says we are is engaging in demagoguery and the same classic Washington tactic of creating to you a crisis, an apocalyptic crisis, that has to be solved now or else. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 7/8/11]
Big Government On Potential Deal: "Strength Is On The GOP's Side. Don't Cave." In a July 5 post on Andrew Breitbart's Big Government website, contributor Michael Angley wrote:
The White House and the Democrats may be at it again! Senate Republican leaders are worried the White House will shovel a last-minute budget deal into the Congress shortly before the August 2, 2011 debt ceiling deadline. The GOP fears an "urgent" proposal on the eve of this date will give the Congress little time to review what's in it, and the exigent nature of the deal will hamstring them into rushing it through to a vote.
They are right to worry. In all likelihood, the White House (and its willing accomplices among Democratic lawmakers) will pork-up a deal with "investments" (spending increases) and tax hikes. Both are anathema to the GOP right now, and the desperadoes of the left will see this as the only way to continue 60 years of progressive policies. Any deal from the White House is bound to be a Trojan Horse.
The GOP must demand a timely budget input, or simply leave the White House in the dust and vote on their own proposal. They must rally all GOP lawmakers and find a few defectors from the other side to defeat an unacceptable offer should one come, even if it means risking the "end of the world!" After all, the last White House budget went down in unanimous flames in the Senate: 0-97 votes. No one from Obama's party voted for it. Strength is on the GOP's side. Don't cave. [Big Government, 7/5/11]
National Review Warned GOP To Walk Away From A Deal If It's Not Cut On Their Terms. From a July 7 National Review article headlined, "Budget Danger Ahead," and subheadlined, "How Republicans could get snookered again":
In the debt-limit talks, Republicans need to be very wary of confusing meaningless Medicare and Medicaid "cuts" with actual reforms that will make a difference. If the president and his allies have ruled out all variants of genuine reform -- and the recent Medicare proposal from Sens. Joe Lieberman (I.) and Tom Coburn (R.) certainly counts as a first step toward genuine reform -- then Republicans should make it clear that they have no incentive at all to make concessions.
If that means that a "large" deficit-cutting deal can't be struck on the debt limit, so be it. A $2 trillion or $3 trillion package, heavy on tax hikes and the usual assortment of Medicare and Medicaid regulatory tinkering, should be the Republicans' worst nightmare. It will hand the president a huge political victory, leave the entitlement monolith just as it is, further entrench central government management of the health sector, and burden taxpayers even more.
It would be far better to find a way to cut whatever spending can be cut sensibly with some Democratic support, raise the debt limit modestly, and leave the big questions on entitlement reforms and taxes to the collective judgment of the voting public in 2012. [National Review, 7/7/11]
Politico: Boehner Walked Away From Debt Deal "Under Pressure From The Right"
Politico: "Boehner, Under Pressure From The Right And Facing Resistance From His Own Deputies, Backed Away" From Debt Deal. From Politico:
House Speaker John Boehner, under pressure from the right and facing resistance from his own deputies, backed away Saturday from a bold $4 trillion deficit-reduction package that he once hoped would resolve the August debt ceiling crisis and give a shot in the arm to a lagging economy.
Tax policy disputes were at the center of the collapse, including differences with the White House over President Barack Obama's demand that future tax reforms must maintain or increase the progressivity of the tax code. But for days Boehner has been under relentless pressure from conservatives to step away from the deal, which Saturday's Wall Street Journal editorial writers dubbed "Boehner's Obama Gamble."
The setback would appear a clear victory for conservatives in Boehner's conference and in the Republican leadership.
Limbaugh And Other Conservative Media Figures Previously Cheered On Default
Bolling: "I Say Let Them Default." As a guest co-host on Fox & Friends, Eric Bolling told Stuart Varney, "I say let them default. ... What's going to happen?" Varney replied, "Armageddon's going to happen." From the April 13 edition of Fox & Friends:
VARNEY: There's a great danger in that. As you approach this deadline, if you're even talking about default, as even a possibility, a remote possibility, you really spook the world's money people. You really spook them.
BOLLING: I say let them default.
VARNEY: Really?
BOLLING: Let them go. What's going to happen?
VARNEY: You're a brave guy.
BOLLING: What's going to happen?
VARNEY: Armageddon's going to happen.
BOLLING: How is it going to be Armageddon? Let's talk about that for a second.
VARNEY: OK. If we fail to allow ourselves to borrow any more money --
BOLLING: I know the process. And then everyone raises their hands and says, "Oh my God, the U.S. is going to default." Well -- where are they going to go? If the U.S. defaults, every other country in the world is going to default, too.
VARNEY: We're paying out --
BRIAN KILMEADE (co-host): That sounds like Armageddon.
VARNEY: We're paying out -- yeah, exactly.
BOLLING: My point is they're going to get the -- the theory that let's let it go and see what happens -- I like it. I like it. Because we could default and then get the spending under control. Get everything we want in default. It's -- for my -- for my dollar, let them go. Let them get to the point where --
KILMEADE: We can't get a credit card for seven years after that. As a country.
BOLLING: We'll get it the next day. China will be on our doorsteps saying, when can we give you money again?
VARNEY: You think?
BOLLING: Yeah, I do.
VARNEY: OK. If you don't allow us to borrow any more money, you've got $350 billion every month going out and only $200 billion coming in.
BOLLING: That's got to stop. That will force it to stop. That will guarantee --
VARNEY: So you've got an immediate $150 billion cut every month.
BOLLING: That will guarantee in order for it to come out of default, you have to stop spending. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 4/13/11]
Limbaugh: "All [Defaulting] Means Is We Won't Be Able To Borrow Anymore." From the April 20 edition of Limbaugh's radio show:
LIMBAUGH: Here's the point, it's a scare tactic. It really isn't possible, there is always money coming in. The government can count on tax revenue from any number of sources and activities, there will always be money coming in. They can always print money. This default business is a straw dog, it's a straw man they're throwing out there to you. You want to know what the actual manifestations of an official default would be --
CALLER: Yeah, absolutely. Because, I mean, just looking in recent history, we were listening to the media and they're talking about how bad a government shutdown would be --
LIMBAUGH: It just -- all it means is we won't be able to borrow anymore. That's all it means. All it means is we have to live within our means.
CALLER: Well I don't think that would be too bad then.
LIMBAUGH: No, it's not. You know, the whole business -- I shocked a lot of people yesterday when I said not raising the debt limit is an option. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 4/20/11]
Hannity: "I Just Don't Have The Great Fear" That Potential Default "Is Going To Be A Calamity." From the April 21 edition of Sean Hannity's Fox News show:
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: The real issue here is this, what should the Republicans demand in return for the debt limit? And what I think the Republicans ought to be doing right now, the House and the Senate leadership in the week or two between now and decision day, or at least when they're going to have to come back and talk about it, is to find one proposal, a single one, not eight or 10, a range here to there, that everybody agrees on and says, here's what we want in return for the debt limit. And I think it should be something really strong like a spending cap that could require a super majority to overturn, something like that. You are not going to get something revolutionary. But you've got to start with that.
HANNITY: I don't know what's worse though in my mind. I'm getting so concerned about these numbers. You know, is it worse that we default now and get our budget balanced or that America keeps continually taking on trillion in debts? It is a dangerous scenario evidenced by the S&P this week. And I just don't have the great fear that others do that this is going to be a calamity.
KRAUTHAMMER: No, I think in the end, if you don't raise it, it will be a calamity. We are the number one currency, the reserve currency in the world. It gives us tremendous advantages. If there's any default even for an hour that will undo 100 years of reliability. You don't want to do that. And politically, again, if you're seen as irresponsible - you always have to look at it from the ordinary American, the centrist American, the independent who's in the middle of the road. If the Republicans are seen as irresponsible, they are going to lose in 2012 and you are going to have six years of this and we are really going over a cliff. You have to keep your eye on the prize.
HANNITY: That's a frightening scenario.
Rush Scumballs Crows about Michelle Obama's Diet
From The Washington Post
Rush Limbaugh binges on anti-Michelle Obama vitriol
DANA MILBANK
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Rush Limbaugh thinks Michelle Obama is a big, fat idiot.
The broadcaster announced during his show Monday that the first lady "took the kids out to Vail on a ski vacation, and they were spotted eating, and they were feasting on ribs - ribs that were 1,575 calories per serving with 141 grams of fat."
Actually, the restaurant put the calorie count at 600, but Rush was determined to chew out Obama. "The problem is - and dare I say this? - it doesn't look like Michelle Obama follows her own nutritionary, dietary advice," he said. "I'm trying to say that our first lady does not project the image of women that you might see on the cover of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue."
Limbaugh is in an excellent position to make this observation, being perhaps the finest example of the male form since Michelangelo sculpted David. In 2009, he went on a fad diet, full of controversial supplements but little exercise, and lost 90 pounds. Such crash diets are dangerous - and, sure enough, Limbaugh wound up in the hospital at the end of the year with chest pains. Judging from recent video footage, he has regained most of the bulk.
But Limbaugh isn't the only one who thinks the first lady is hypocritical to campaign for healthy eating while indulging in the occasional burger. A week earlier, Andrew Breitbart's Big Government Web site published a cartoon showing an overweight Obama devouring a heaping pile of hamburgers and fries.
"I've stepped up my efforts to control America's eating habits by telling restaurants to lower portion sizes and fat content," she tells her husband in the drawing.
The president, poking at vegetables, tells her that she is "going to annoy a lot of people."
"Shut up and pass the bacon," the first lady says.
A few days before that, the American Spectator criticized "Food Nanny" Obama for an e-mail to supporters saying she looked forward to having barbecue at the Democratic convention in Charlotte in 2012. "Michelle Obama praising Carolina barbecue? That's like Gandhi praising mixed martial arts fighting."
Fox News contributed the additional knowledge that barbecue is "not known to be diet food" and that "studies show a barbecue meal weighs in at around 2,500 calories."
Now, I'm not accustomed to defending Lady Arugula. When I ridiculed as elitist her acquisition of pricey (and certified-organic) Tuscan kale at a downtown Washington farmers' market, her spokeswoman informed me that I wasn't "invited back" to other first lady events.
But on this point, the first lady's detractors don't have a legitimate beef. She's never told people to cut out junk food; she's suggested they eat junk less often and exercise more. "I like to talk about my obsession with french fries because I don't want people to think that 'Let's Move' " - her anti-obesity campaign - "is about complete, utter deprivation," she told reporters over a recent lunch. "It is about moderation."
Moderation? It is a concept that causes dyspepsia in the first lady's critics.
Fox News mistook her moderation for hypocrisy when it posted a story titled "Michelle Obama OKs Americans to Eat Pie on Thanksgiving." On the other side, nutritionists mistook her moderation for weakness when they told the Boston Globe that they were "wondering why Obama didn't set a better example" than serving bratwurst, deep-dish pizza and Buffalo wings at the White House Super Bowl party.
In other words, the food criticism is an extension of politics. On the left are the purists who think a single tortilla chip is an unacceptable compromise. On the right are those who think any nutritional recommendation amounts to a food dictatorship. The first lady, taking a sensible approach, is sandwiched.
In Limbaugh's case, politics is like a fad diet: He crows when the facts are supporting his beliefs (or when he's losing weight), and, when the facts are discrediting his ideology (or when he's yo-yoing back to obesity), he talks about something else. In politics, as in weight loss, fad dieting rarely works.
During Tuesday's broadcast, Limbaugh resumed commenting on the first lady's figure. "Some people are suggesting that my comments are below the belt," he said of the woman he has called "Moochelle" and "Michelle My Butt." Limbaugh continued: "Well, take a look at some pictures. Given where she wears her belts - she wears 'em high up there around the bust line - isn't just about everything about her below the belt, when you look at the fashion sense she has?"
The corpulent critic giggled and concluded: "Yes, every square inch of my glorious, naked body oozes with the truth." Let's hope they keep him out of the swimsuit issue.
Rush Limbaugh binges on anti-Michelle Obama vitriol
DANA MILBANK
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Rush Limbaugh thinks Michelle Obama is a big, fat idiot.
The broadcaster announced during his show Monday that the first lady "took the kids out to Vail on a ski vacation, and they were spotted eating, and they were feasting on ribs - ribs that were 1,575 calories per serving with 141 grams of fat."
Actually, the restaurant put the calorie count at 600, but Rush was determined to chew out Obama. "The problem is - and dare I say this? - it doesn't look like Michelle Obama follows her own nutritionary, dietary advice," he said. "I'm trying to say that our first lady does not project the image of women that you might see on the cover of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue."
Limbaugh is in an excellent position to make this observation, being perhaps the finest example of the male form since Michelangelo sculpted David. In 2009, he went on a fad diet, full of controversial supplements but little exercise, and lost 90 pounds. Such crash diets are dangerous - and, sure enough, Limbaugh wound up in the hospital at the end of the year with chest pains. Judging from recent video footage, he has regained most of the bulk.
But Limbaugh isn't the only one who thinks the first lady is hypocritical to campaign for healthy eating while indulging in the occasional burger. A week earlier, Andrew Breitbart's Big Government Web site published a cartoon showing an overweight Obama devouring a heaping pile of hamburgers and fries.
"I've stepped up my efforts to control America's eating habits by telling restaurants to lower portion sizes and fat content," she tells her husband in the drawing.
The president, poking at vegetables, tells her that she is "going to annoy a lot of people."
"Shut up and pass the bacon," the first lady says.
A few days before that, the American Spectator criticized "Food Nanny" Obama for an e-mail to supporters saying she looked forward to having barbecue at the Democratic convention in Charlotte in 2012. "Michelle Obama praising Carolina barbecue? That's like Gandhi praising mixed martial arts fighting."
Fox News contributed the additional knowledge that barbecue is "not known to be diet food" and that "studies show a barbecue meal weighs in at around 2,500 calories."
Now, I'm not accustomed to defending Lady Arugula. When I ridiculed as elitist her acquisition of pricey (and certified-organic) Tuscan kale at a downtown Washington farmers' market, her spokeswoman informed me that I wasn't "invited back" to other first lady events.
But on this point, the first lady's detractors don't have a legitimate beef. She's never told people to cut out junk food; she's suggested they eat junk less often and exercise more. "I like to talk about my obsession with french fries because I don't want people to think that 'Let's Move' " - her anti-obesity campaign - "is about complete, utter deprivation," she told reporters over a recent lunch. "It is about moderation."
Moderation? It is a concept that causes dyspepsia in the first lady's critics.
Fox News mistook her moderation for hypocrisy when it posted a story titled "Michelle Obama OKs Americans to Eat Pie on Thanksgiving." On the other side, nutritionists mistook her moderation for weakness when they told the Boston Globe that they were "wondering why Obama didn't set a better example" than serving bratwurst, deep-dish pizza and Buffalo wings at the White House Super Bowl party.
In other words, the food criticism is an extension of politics. On the left are the purists who think a single tortilla chip is an unacceptable compromise. On the right are those who think any nutritional recommendation amounts to a food dictatorship. The first lady, taking a sensible approach, is sandwiched.
In Limbaugh's case, politics is like a fad diet: He crows when the facts are supporting his beliefs (or when he's losing weight), and, when the facts are discrediting his ideology (or when he's yo-yoing back to obesity), he talks about something else. In politics, as in weight loss, fad dieting rarely works.
During Tuesday's broadcast, Limbaugh resumed commenting on the first lady's figure. "Some people are suggesting that my comments are below the belt," he said of the woman he has called "Moochelle" and "Michelle My Butt." Limbaugh continued: "Well, take a look at some pictures. Given where she wears her belts - she wears 'em high up there around the bust line - isn't just about everything about her below the belt, when you look at the fashion sense she has?"
The corpulent critic giggled and concluded: "Yes, every square inch of my glorious, naked body oozes with the truth." Let's hope they keep him out of the swimsuit issue.
Republicans are Turning the USA into a Communist Country --Everything for the Few at the Top and Nothing for Anybody Else
From The Washington Post:
How Grover Norquist hypnotized the GOP
By Deval Patrick, Published: June 30, 2011
At our 25th college reunion in 2003, Grover Norquist — the brain and able spokesman for the radical right — and I, along with other classmates who had been in public or political life, participated in a lively panel discussion about politics. During his presentation, Norquist explained why he believed that there would be a permanent Republican majority in America.
One person interrupted, as I recall, and said, “C’mon, Grover, surely one day a Democrat will win the White House.”
Norquist immediately replied: “We will make it so that a Democrat cannot govern as a Democrat.”
In a way, Republicans have accomplished that. This spring, in an effort to reduce the deficit, a Democratic president proposed to cut $2 trillion in spending, much of it from domestic programs Democrats have long championed. Last week, Republican leaders withdrew from talks with the vice president on a bipartisan plan to reduce the deficit because, as another part of the solution and like every bipartisan budget deal for decades, the president proposed to raise revenue. Specifically, he proposed to raise $1 in new revenue (through closing loopholes or ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans) for every $2 in spending cuts. In response to that modest proposal, Republican leaders walked out.
It is now clear that the Republican strategy is to drive America to the brink of fiscal ruin and then argue that the only way out is to cut spending for the powerless. Taxes — a dirty word thanks to Norquist’s “no new taxes” gimmick — are made to seem beyond the pale, even as the burden of paying for our society shifts disproportionately to the middle class and working poor. It is the height of fiscal folly. It is also not who we are as a country.
For nearly a decade, our federal government paid for two wars and a costly prescription drug benefit with borrowed money. Our government paid for the Bush tax cuts with borrowed money. Now, after exhausting the budget surplus left by the Clinton administration, the only spending Republicans are willing to discuss cutting is spending that helps the poor and vulnerable — meaning anything that does not touch the interests of large corporations and the very rich. Last December, Republican hard-liners held hostage benefits for people out of work in exchange for an agreement to extend the Bush tax cuts for those who make a million dollars or more a year. Last month, many of the same lawmakers rallied to protect special tax benefits for oil companies that have made record profits on high gas prices.
Meanwhile, some mom-and-pop stores and college students pay more in taxes than some of our largest corporations. Still, taxes are sin to the hard-liners, though they have difficulty demonstrating a correlation over the past decade between tax cuts and economic growth.
Everyone knows that we have to reduce the deficit. Everyone also knows that reducing government spending and addressing revenue shortfalls have to be a part of the plan. This isn’t partisan; it’s pragmatic. Some might even call it conservative. But Norquist and the rest of the radical right have so hypnotized the Republican leadership that they can’t come out and say it. For them, maintaining their rhetoric about spending cuts is more important than preserving the civic investments that make America stand out from the rest of the world.
That political calculus has consequences for the rest of us.
If the deficit is reduced by spending cuts alone and there is no deal to raise the debt ceiling, here’s a sampling of what happens: We stop paying our soldiers or supporting our veterans. We stop feeding the neediest children and families. We stop providing nursing-home care to seniors. We stop inoculating schoolchildren. We stop helping young people go to college. The unemployed are on their own. Roads and bridges continue to crumble. And we jeopardize the creditworthiness of our economy at one of the most fragile moments in history. All to protect the marginal benefits of the most fortunate and the political purity of the radical right.
I remember sitting in the Dunster House dining hall at Harvard with Norquist when we were sophomores or juniors in college, while he explained his view of government, or lack thereof. It sounded logical — the notion that we could live independently of each other, making our own decisions in our own self-interest. But then who puts out the fires? Who answers the calls to 911? Who educates poor children? Who helps people with disabilities?
I’d like to think that the most prosperous nation in human history can have both freedom and security. I think we have reached a point where my personal success is not threatened by a program to help our parents retire with dignity. Voters are smart enough to see that taxes are one of the ways we get those things. They are the price we pay for civilization.
How Grover Norquist hypnotized the GOP
By Deval Patrick, Published: June 30, 2011
At our 25th college reunion in 2003, Grover Norquist — the brain and able spokesman for the radical right — and I, along with other classmates who had been in public or political life, participated in a lively panel discussion about politics. During his presentation, Norquist explained why he believed that there would be a permanent Republican majority in America.
One person interrupted, as I recall, and said, “C’mon, Grover, surely one day a Democrat will win the White House.”
Norquist immediately replied: “We will make it so that a Democrat cannot govern as a Democrat.”
In a way, Republicans have accomplished that. This spring, in an effort to reduce the deficit, a Democratic president proposed to cut $2 trillion in spending, much of it from domestic programs Democrats have long championed. Last week, Republican leaders withdrew from talks with the vice president on a bipartisan plan to reduce the deficit because, as another part of the solution and like every bipartisan budget deal for decades, the president proposed to raise revenue. Specifically, he proposed to raise $1 in new revenue (through closing loopholes or ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans) for every $2 in spending cuts. In response to that modest proposal, Republican leaders walked out.
It is now clear that the Republican strategy is to drive America to the brink of fiscal ruin and then argue that the only way out is to cut spending for the powerless. Taxes — a dirty word thanks to Norquist’s “no new taxes” gimmick — are made to seem beyond the pale, even as the burden of paying for our society shifts disproportionately to the middle class and working poor. It is the height of fiscal folly. It is also not who we are as a country.
For nearly a decade, our federal government paid for two wars and a costly prescription drug benefit with borrowed money. Our government paid for the Bush tax cuts with borrowed money. Now, after exhausting the budget surplus left by the Clinton administration, the only spending Republicans are willing to discuss cutting is spending that helps the poor and vulnerable — meaning anything that does not touch the interests of large corporations and the very rich. Last December, Republican hard-liners held hostage benefits for people out of work in exchange for an agreement to extend the Bush tax cuts for those who make a million dollars or more a year. Last month, many of the same lawmakers rallied to protect special tax benefits for oil companies that have made record profits on high gas prices.
Meanwhile, some mom-and-pop stores and college students pay more in taxes than some of our largest corporations. Still, taxes are sin to the hard-liners, though they have difficulty demonstrating a correlation over the past decade between tax cuts and economic growth.
Everyone knows that we have to reduce the deficit. Everyone also knows that reducing government spending and addressing revenue shortfalls have to be a part of the plan. This isn’t partisan; it’s pragmatic. Some might even call it conservative. But Norquist and the rest of the radical right have so hypnotized the Republican leadership that they can’t come out and say it. For them, maintaining their rhetoric about spending cuts is more important than preserving the civic investments that make America stand out from the rest of the world.
That political calculus has consequences for the rest of us.
If the deficit is reduced by spending cuts alone and there is no deal to raise the debt ceiling, here’s a sampling of what happens: We stop paying our soldiers or supporting our veterans. We stop feeding the neediest children and families. We stop providing nursing-home care to seniors. We stop inoculating schoolchildren. We stop helping young people go to college. The unemployed are on their own. Roads and bridges continue to crumble. And we jeopardize the creditworthiness of our economy at one of the most fragile moments in history. All to protect the marginal benefits of the most fortunate and the political purity of the radical right.
I remember sitting in the Dunster House dining hall at Harvard with Norquist when we were sophomores or juniors in college, while he explained his view of government, or lack thereof. It sounded logical — the notion that we could live independently of each other, making our own decisions in our own self-interest. But then who puts out the fires? Who answers the calls to 911? Who educates poor children? Who helps people with disabilities?
I’d like to think that the most prosperous nation in human history can have both freedom and security. I think we have reached a point where my personal success is not threatened by a program to help our parents retire with dignity. Voters are smart enough to see that taxes are one of the ways we get those things. They are the price we pay for civilization.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
The Republican Party Would Destroy the USA to Win Elections
From The Daily Beast -- July 11, 2011:
Our Pathetic Debt Debate -- By John Avlon
John Avlon on the childish rhetoric that’s pushing America to the brink.
A grand bargain on the deficit was crushed when Speaker Boehner pulled out of talks, refusing to budge on revenue increases.
A cataclysmic game of chicken. Negotiating with a gun to your head. A Thelma & Louise-style full throttle off a cliff.
The dire metaphors for the debt-ceiling debate proliferate as we get closer to the August 2nd due date.
President Obama seemed determined to try and draw up a grand-bargain, and for a while Speaker Boehner did as well, knowing that this may be their last, best chance. After all, the closer we get to Election Day—a short-term ‘mini-deal’ would require a second round of negotiations in just a few months—the more silly season grandstanding will intrude.
But late yesterday, Speaker Boehner announced that no grand bargain was in his cards—he could not get his conference to agree on anything other than a short-term solution. That’s pathetic.
It’s pathetic that being “the adult in the room” is now a compliment in Washington, but that’s where we are a nation because of polarization. The activist class and ideologues of both parties throw tantrums and hold the nation hostage.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that the way to reduce the long term deficit and debt requires at least three things—spending cuts, revenue increases and entitlement reform. Economic growth is the final X-factor essential component.
But one side effect of all the hyper-partisan Kool-Aid drinking in D.C. is that compromise is now considered collaboration.
House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio and President Barack Obama at a meeting with Congressional leadership to discuss the debt on Thursday, July 7, 2011., Pablo Martinez Monsivais / AP Photo
But one side effect of all the hyper-partisan Kool-Aid drinking in D.C. is that compromise is now considered collaboration. Dick Armey’s once scandalous statement that “bipartisanship is another name for date rape” is approaching accepted Washington conventional wisdom.
Conservatives refuse to consider revenue increases and Democrats refuse to consider entitlement reform. The deficit continues to grow, impacting our long-term financial stability, as the fiscal cliff that is the debt-ceiling vote gets closer.
Here’s the worst part: The hyper-partisans in both parties actually think they can gain tactical advantage by having our nation default.
Some Republicans see the failure as an indictment of Obama’s leadership that will compound economic problems and help make the case for a new president in 2012. Some Democrats see default as the political equivalent of the government closure during the Clinton years, an ideological over-reach which will provoke a massive Main Street backlash.
The sick thing about all this political strategizing is that everyone agrees that not raising the debt ceiling will actually make our fiscal problems much worse. It will deepen the national debt and make economic recovery—i.e., job creation—much more difficult and distant.
So it’s time for a little truth-telling that takes the absolutists in both parties out to the woodshed.
First, the Republicans have chosen to make the once routine debt ceiling vote a matter of national crisis—essentially creating a problem where there never was any before when Bush took us from surplus to deficit. That is evidence of partisanship, not principle.
But what is most offensive is the shifting definition of tax increase, which shows just how far fiscal responsibility and fiscal conservatism have become de-linked.
Tax reform has always been the obvious opportunity for a grand bargain—closing loopholes and possibly reducing some rates as a way of stimulating growth while raising revenue. It is an achievable compromise.
But Eric Cantor’s newest negotiation stance seems to be say that any tax simplification that closes loopholes must be offset by an equivalent amount of tax cuts—essentially making them revenue neutral, which ignores the entire purpose of this forced fire drill: to reduce the deficit. It's more evidence that the GOP would rather demagogue the deficit than actually deal with it.
This is idiotic and intellectually dishonest—evidence of the all-or-nothing school of negotiation, which is not negotiation at all. So let’s be honest: Eric Cantor, and now John Boehner, is letting Grover Norquist determine the terms of debate. This is what happens what a Grand Old Party starts to look like a cult—it is held hostage by ideological absolutists. This is also called Stockholm Syndrome.
But the liberal Democrats are proving to be almost as intractable as they accuse President Obama of being insufficiently ideological by even considering entitlement reforms as part of a grand-bargain.
Nancy Pelosi’s statement that “we are not going to balance the budget on the backs of America’s seniors, women and people with disabilities” was an epic bit of color-by-numbers pandering that surely still left some groups out. Nonetheless, she was far from alone—Obama is basically being called a traitor by the far-left these days, again exposing the surreal schizophrenia of our political debates, where the president is called a communist by conservatives and a corporate sell-out by liberals.
Let’s take a closer look at Social Security reform as a way of re-centering this debate. Here are the facts, straight from the mouth of the former Comptroller General of the United States, David Walker. “Social Security is now negative cash flow and is adding to annual deficits. These deficits will increase in the future. In addition, Social Security has a $9 trillion funding gap in current dollar terms for the next 75-years of which about $2.6 trillion is backed by USG securities. The balance is a naked promise to pay that is not protected according to the Supreme Court.”
Here’s the thing: Everyone agrees that keeping Social Security solvent is a pretty simple process that wouldn’t affect anyone within a decade plus of retiring, but still have a significant impact on our long-term deficit and debt.
First, change the pay-out formula from indexing to wage indexing to price indexing (sounds scary, I know.) Second, allow Social Security to be means tested. This reform is consistently popular in polls—Bill Gates doesn’t need your tax-payer dollars. Finally, raise the retirement age to 69 in 2075, a la the Simpson-Bowles Commission, with exemptions for folks who work in manual labor, etc.
For some reason, this last option inspires the biggest freak-out, despite the fact that almost no one alive today will be affected. Liberals scream that such a reform would gut the New Deal, but here’s something to consider. When FDR implemented Social Security with an implement age of 65, the life expectancy was 63. To really be true to FDR’s original formulation, the retirement age should actually be 75. Any takers? Didn’t think so. The takeaway? Everybody take a deep breath and calm down.
The American economy will improve when we are on a better fiscal footing. That means dealing with our long-term deficit and debt—as well as showing the world that we can actually govern, which in a democracy means being able to reason together. The hyper-partisan all-or-nothing crowd is killing our credibility as the leading democratic republic on earth. Remember, the world’s sole super-power cannot be the world’s largest debtor nation indefinitely.
There will be economic benefits that will come with a grand bargain as well as political benefits. A broad-based plan of tax reform that raises revenues, cuts spending (that includes the Pentagon) and reforms entitlements would be a win-win for the nation, both now and into the future. The Simpson-Bowles plan remains the best model for moving forward. It should have enjoyed the support of the president and congressional Republicans from the beginning, instead of only lip service.
The biggest obstacle is the nihilistic all-or-nothing crowd that sees tactical advantage in taking our nation over the cliff, putting special interests over the national interest. The inmates are running the asylum. President Obama’s willingness to be reasonable is not being rewarded by Republicans. This will only push us further apart and closer to the brink.
Our Pathetic Debt Debate -- By John Avlon
John Avlon on the childish rhetoric that’s pushing America to the brink.
A grand bargain on the deficit was crushed when Speaker Boehner pulled out of talks, refusing to budge on revenue increases.
A cataclysmic game of chicken. Negotiating with a gun to your head. A Thelma & Louise-style full throttle off a cliff.
The dire metaphors for the debt-ceiling debate proliferate as we get closer to the August 2nd due date.
President Obama seemed determined to try and draw up a grand-bargain, and for a while Speaker Boehner did as well, knowing that this may be their last, best chance. After all, the closer we get to Election Day—a short-term ‘mini-deal’ would require a second round of negotiations in just a few months—the more silly season grandstanding will intrude.
But late yesterday, Speaker Boehner announced that no grand bargain was in his cards—he could not get his conference to agree on anything other than a short-term solution. That’s pathetic.
It’s pathetic that being “the adult in the room” is now a compliment in Washington, but that’s where we are a nation because of polarization. The activist class and ideologues of both parties throw tantrums and hold the nation hostage.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that the way to reduce the long term deficit and debt requires at least three things—spending cuts, revenue increases and entitlement reform. Economic growth is the final X-factor essential component.
But one side effect of all the hyper-partisan Kool-Aid drinking in D.C. is that compromise is now considered collaboration.
House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio and President Barack Obama at a meeting with Congressional leadership to discuss the debt on Thursday, July 7, 2011., Pablo Martinez Monsivais / AP Photo
But one side effect of all the hyper-partisan Kool-Aid drinking in D.C. is that compromise is now considered collaboration. Dick Armey’s once scandalous statement that “bipartisanship is another name for date rape” is approaching accepted Washington conventional wisdom.
Conservatives refuse to consider revenue increases and Democrats refuse to consider entitlement reform. The deficit continues to grow, impacting our long-term financial stability, as the fiscal cliff that is the debt-ceiling vote gets closer.
Here’s the worst part: The hyper-partisans in both parties actually think they can gain tactical advantage by having our nation default.
Some Republicans see the failure as an indictment of Obama’s leadership that will compound economic problems and help make the case for a new president in 2012. Some Democrats see default as the political equivalent of the government closure during the Clinton years, an ideological over-reach which will provoke a massive Main Street backlash.
The sick thing about all this political strategizing is that everyone agrees that not raising the debt ceiling will actually make our fiscal problems much worse. It will deepen the national debt and make economic recovery—i.e., job creation—much more difficult and distant.
So it’s time for a little truth-telling that takes the absolutists in both parties out to the woodshed.
First, the Republicans have chosen to make the once routine debt ceiling vote a matter of national crisis—essentially creating a problem where there never was any before when Bush took us from surplus to deficit. That is evidence of partisanship, not principle.
But what is most offensive is the shifting definition of tax increase, which shows just how far fiscal responsibility and fiscal conservatism have become de-linked.
Tax reform has always been the obvious opportunity for a grand bargain—closing loopholes and possibly reducing some rates as a way of stimulating growth while raising revenue. It is an achievable compromise.
But Eric Cantor’s newest negotiation stance seems to be say that any tax simplification that closes loopholes must be offset by an equivalent amount of tax cuts—essentially making them revenue neutral, which ignores the entire purpose of this forced fire drill: to reduce the deficit. It's more evidence that the GOP would rather demagogue the deficit than actually deal with it.
This is idiotic and intellectually dishonest—evidence of the all-or-nothing school of negotiation, which is not negotiation at all. So let’s be honest: Eric Cantor, and now John Boehner, is letting Grover Norquist determine the terms of debate. This is what happens what a Grand Old Party starts to look like a cult—it is held hostage by ideological absolutists. This is also called Stockholm Syndrome.
But the liberal Democrats are proving to be almost as intractable as they accuse President Obama of being insufficiently ideological by even considering entitlement reforms as part of a grand-bargain.
Nancy Pelosi’s statement that “we are not going to balance the budget on the backs of America’s seniors, women and people with disabilities” was an epic bit of color-by-numbers pandering that surely still left some groups out. Nonetheless, she was far from alone—Obama is basically being called a traitor by the far-left these days, again exposing the surreal schizophrenia of our political debates, where the president is called a communist by conservatives and a corporate sell-out by liberals.
Let’s take a closer look at Social Security reform as a way of re-centering this debate. Here are the facts, straight from the mouth of the former Comptroller General of the United States, David Walker. “Social Security is now negative cash flow and is adding to annual deficits. These deficits will increase in the future. In addition, Social Security has a $9 trillion funding gap in current dollar terms for the next 75-years of which about $2.6 trillion is backed by USG securities. The balance is a naked promise to pay that is not protected according to the Supreme Court.”
Here’s the thing: Everyone agrees that keeping Social Security solvent is a pretty simple process that wouldn’t affect anyone within a decade plus of retiring, but still have a significant impact on our long-term deficit and debt.
First, change the pay-out formula from indexing to wage indexing to price indexing (sounds scary, I know.) Second, allow Social Security to be means tested. This reform is consistently popular in polls—Bill Gates doesn’t need your tax-payer dollars. Finally, raise the retirement age to 69 in 2075, a la the Simpson-Bowles Commission, with exemptions for folks who work in manual labor, etc.
For some reason, this last option inspires the biggest freak-out, despite the fact that almost no one alive today will be affected. Liberals scream that such a reform would gut the New Deal, but here’s something to consider. When FDR implemented Social Security with an implement age of 65, the life expectancy was 63. To really be true to FDR’s original formulation, the retirement age should actually be 75. Any takers? Didn’t think so. The takeaway? Everybody take a deep breath and calm down.
The American economy will improve when we are on a better fiscal footing. That means dealing with our long-term deficit and debt—as well as showing the world that we can actually govern, which in a democracy means being able to reason together. The hyper-partisan all-or-nothing crowd is killing our credibility as the leading democratic republic on earth. Remember, the world’s sole super-power cannot be the world’s largest debtor nation indefinitely.
There will be economic benefits that will come with a grand bargain as well as political benefits. A broad-based plan of tax reform that raises revenues, cuts spending (that includes the Pentagon) and reforms entitlements would be a win-win for the nation, both now and into the future. The Simpson-Bowles plan remains the best model for moving forward. It should have enjoyed the support of the president and congressional Republicans from the beginning, instead of only lip service.
The biggest obstacle is the nihilistic all-or-nothing crowd that sees tactical advantage in taking our nation over the cliff, putting special interests over the national interest. The inmates are running the asylum. President Obama’s willingness to be reasonable is not being rewarded by Republicans. This will only push us further apart and closer to the brink.
Republicans Would Destroy America to Win Elections
From Daily Kos -- JUL 07, 2011:
The Roof, The Roof Is On Fire: Republican Priority Number 1 & The Strategy of Political Nihilism
By Dr Rhymes
When Senator Mitch McConnell announced, before the 2010 mid-terms, that priority Number #1 for Republicans was making Barack Obama a one-term president (a sentiment that has been echoed by other congressional Republicans), he gave us the prism through which most, if not all, Republican action has to be viewed. In an economic calamity unlike anything we’ve seen in about six decades, President Obama, not the American people, was and is their focus.
Your home is in foreclosure Mr. Smith? Sorry, we can’t help you; we have a president to defeat. Lost your job Ms. Jones? We can’t be bothered with a jobs program because easing your pain might win him votes. Medical bills stacking up Mr. Williams; Mrs. Carter? Obamacare may be the right answer for you, but it doesn’t do a thing for us. They are impervious to human suffering; they are unyielding in the face of catastrophic American need.
The song from which I plucked the title of this piece, has a line that says: We don’t need no water, let the __ burn (I’ll let you fill in the blank). This most aptly describes the sentiments expressed by this present band of congressional Republicans. The roof, that is the debt ceiling, doesn’t need to be raised... let the economy burn. And if it is to be raised it will only be after the President pays a steep price---and the currency used will be the backs of the poor, working and middle class of this nation.
Yes, I understand that the defeat of your political rivals is always an objective (and a tacit understanding that it is the objective), but in hard economic times, record joblessness, a pandemic of home foreclosures and three on-going military conflicts, easing the pain and suffering of the American people should have been priority number one. In a situation that cries out for statesmen and stateswomen, we are left with hypocritical partisans.
There appears to be no equivalent of Coach Yoast in current Republican circles, whose love for country trumps any disdain they have for President Obama. Yes, failing the nation, to them, pales in comparison to ensuring the failure of this president and the lives that are damaged in the process are deemed irrelevant collateral damage.
Is it only in the movies that we get to see someone, anyone, take a stand, even to the detriment of their own political self-interests, for the greater good? No, there doesn’t seem to be one Yoast in this Washington crowd of Republicans. Nevertheless, regardless of what happens in this present debt ceiling debate, what would it say about us as a nation if this nihilistic approach to governance is affirmed by winning more congressional seats and, dare I say, the White House?
Granted, for far too many times this President has acquiesced and capitulated to the demands of the Grand Obstruction Party, which doesn't generate much devotion from those who have supported him. Although I recognize the extremely difficult position he is in dealing with a party that is the 21st century equivalent of kamikaze pilots, he still appears to begin negotiations to the right of Alan They're-Sucking-On-The Teats-Of-Government Simpson. This simply is unacceptable and he will have to address that.
Maybe within Washington DC it is nearly impossible to come to some sort of understanding with a group that doesn't care who they hurt en route to obtaining their stated priority number one. I won't be holding my breath waiting for a moment of Yoast-like honesty and courage on the part of any Republican in our nation's capital.
There is a script to be written, however, by the irrelevant collateral damage, if you will, where this sort of arrogance and indifference is confronted at the polls and in the streets. Perhaps feeling the impact of the game being stolen from us and our long-suffering fellow-citizens, by a heartless crew, is just what we needed. Making sure that those who are tilting an already uneven playing field yet further are deprived of the opportunity of continuing to do so, should be high on our priority list.
The Roof, The Roof Is On Fire: Republican Priority Number 1 & The Strategy of Political Nihilism
By Dr Rhymes
When Senator Mitch McConnell announced, before the 2010 mid-terms, that priority Number #1 for Republicans was making Barack Obama a one-term president (a sentiment that has been echoed by other congressional Republicans), he gave us the prism through which most, if not all, Republican action has to be viewed. In an economic calamity unlike anything we’ve seen in about six decades, President Obama, not the American people, was and is their focus.
Your home is in foreclosure Mr. Smith? Sorry, we can’t help you; we have a president to defeat. Lost your job Ms. Jones? We can’t be bothered with a jobs program because easing your pain might win him votes. Medical bills stacking up Mr. Williams; Mrs. Carter? Obamacare may be the right answer for you, but it doesn’t do a thing for us. They are impervious to human suffering; they are unyielding in the face of catastrophic American need.
The song from which I plucked the title of this piece, has a line that says: We don’t need no water, let the __ burn (I’ll let you fill in the blank). This most aptly describes the sentiments expressed by this present band of congressional Republicans. The roof, that is the debt ceiling, doesn’t need to be raised... let the economy burn. And if it is to be raised it will only be after the President pays a steep price---and the currency used will be the backs of the poor, working and middle class of this nation.
Yes, I understand that the defeat of your political rivals is always an objective (and a tacit understanding that it is the objective), but in hard economic times, record joblessness, a pandemic of home foreclosures and three on-going military conflicts, easing the pain and suffering of the American people should have been priority number one. In a situation that cries out for statesmen and stateswomen, we are left with hypocritical partisans.
There appears to be no equivalent of Coach Yoast in current Republican circles, whose love for country trumps any disdain they have for President Obama. Yes, failing the nation, to them, pales in comparison to ensuring the failure of this president and the lives that are damaged in the process are deemed irrelevant collateral damage.
Is it only in the movies that we get to see someone, anyone, take a stand, even to the detriment of their own political self-interests, for the greater good? No, there doesn’t seem to be one Yoast in this Washington crowd of Republicans. Nevertheless, regardless of what happens in this present debt ceiling debate, what would it say about us as a nation if this nihilistic approach to governance is affirmed by winning more congressional seats and, dare I say, the White House?
Granted, for far too many times this President has acquiesced and capitulated to the demands of the Grand Obstruction Party, which doesn't generate much devotion from those who have supported him. Although I recognize the extremely difficult position he is in dealing with a party that is the 21st century equivalent of kamikaze pilots, he still appears to begin negotiations to the right of Alan They're-Sucking-On-The Teats-Of-Government Simpson. This simply is unacceptable and he will have to address that.
Maybe within Washington DC it is nearly impossible to come to some sort of understanding with a group that doesn't care who they hurt en route to obtaining their stated priority number one. I won't be holding my breath waiting for a moment of Yoast-like honesty and courage on the part of any Republican in our nation's capital.
There is a script to be written, however, by the irrelevant collateral damage, if you will, where this sort of arrogance and indifference is confronted at the polls and in the streets. Perhaps feeling the impact of the game being stolen from us and our long-suffering fellow-citizens, by a heartless crew, is just what we needed. Making sure that those who are tilting an already uneven playing field yet further are deprived of the opportunity of continuing to do so, should be high on our priority list.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
