The Empty Chair

So, most of you have heard about the odd performance piece Clint Eastwood put on at the Republican National Convention, where he cross examined an imaginary President Obama signified by an empty chair. I like Clint, even if I don't agree with his politics and, as Bill Maher pointed out the other night, he went up there with no prompter and a chair and he got good responses from the audience, so you gotta give him credit for stepping out there. But it wasn't till I was watching The Daily Show with Jon Stewart this weekend that I realized the significance of Eastwood's conversation with the empty chair. A significance that is obviously lost on the Republicans themselves.

As Jon Stewart put it, "Eastwood finally revealed the cognitive dissonance that is the beating heart and soul and fiction of [the Republican] party.   . . . I could never wrap my head around why the world and the President, that the Republicans describe bears so little resemblance to the world and the President that I experience. And now I know why. There is a President Obama that only Republicans can see. And while the President, the rest of us see has issues, apparently this President, invisible to many, is bent on our wholesale destruction." This theory is startlingly true. And it's been true since the campaign began. No, let's be honest, it's been true since January 20th, 2009. The GOP has based the majority of its attacks, not on the actual policies President Obama has championed or put into place, but instead, they have continually referred to a mythical, alternate reality version of Obama. Always exaggerating anything he said or did, and shockingly, often telling outright lies!

I can't even count the number of 'scandals' pushed, and often generated from thin air by Fox News and other GOP leaning sources that were completely untrue. And I mean proven false by objective investigation. But Republicans, and especially Fox News, know one very important thing about Americans and the media. They know that a salacious lie told today will be remembered, even if it's completely debunked tomorrow. Get your version out there first and proclaim it loudly and repeatedly. Then even if irrefutable proof arises later, you simply let it go without comment and your viewers and supporters will never even notice. Any proof offered later will be considered liberal propaganda. It's simple, and it works.

Look, I have a number of issues with Obama and his policies. I'm ticked off that the Gitmo gulag is still in operation. I'm ticked that we have made it OK to execute Americans via drone with little oversight. I'm ticked that we are still expected to be in Afghanistan for years to come, when we really aren't doing any lasting good and really don't have any control over the stability of the Karzai government. I'm pissed that the Bush tax cuts are still in place and continuing to feed the deficit. That's just what comes immediately to mind. Though even some of those items bear the fingerprints of the GOP. My point is that I can understand reasoned disagreement with the policies of this President. What I cannot understand is how much time is spent by Conservatives ranting and raving about policies Obama never proposed or on intentional misinterpretations of policies that actually were implemented. If we can't even agree on the basic facts, then how can we ever agree on anything else?

As an American, you must decide this November who you will support for President. I'm not asking that you blindly vote to reelect Barack Obama. But I do ask that you base your voting decision on facts. Not sound bites. Not some off the cuff remarks by Mike Huckabee or Sean Hannity. Not some unconfirmed headline you read on the Drudge Report. Not a Crossroads GPS funded attack ad. Base it on facts, that is all I ask. Wanna know the details on past and current fiscal policies and how they affect the deficit now and in the future? Actually go to the official sites and find the info! Don't pull it from breitbart.com! Visit the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which is the non-partisan organization that is relied on by both parties for 'scoring' legislation. You want to hear some level-headed analysis of a Supreme Court ruling? Don't wait for Nancy Grace to enlighten you, go to the SCOTUS Blog, where experienced law scholars parse through the dense rulings and discuss the repercussions without adding partisan spin. Hear about a scandal that sounds shocking? Then investigate it through non partisan sources, or at least across a wide swath of sources, to see if maybe the reason it's so shocking is because it's made up! Vote for who you think is best for America, going forward. Just make sure you're basing your decision on factual information and not single sourced from a partisan pundit with an axe to grind.

By Any Other Name

Well, the verdict is in, much to the relief of the Administration and the chagrin of the GOP. The Supreme Court has upheld the Affordable Care Act, aka 'ObamaCare'. Not surprisingly in a 5 to 4 decision, but the actual makeup of that judicial split was a bit unexpected. Instead of Justice Kennedy acting in his usual role as the swing vote between the conservative and the liberal wings of the court, it was Chief Justice Roberts who decided it. That's right, conservative, Bush 43 appointee John Roberts stood up to affirm the constitutionality of health reform!

The Individual Mandate, the item everyone agreed was the keystone of the health reform law that could, if struck down, render the entire effort untenable, survived. Though, surprisingly not under the Commerce Clause, as was assumed. Chief Justice Roberts declared that it did not survive scrutiny under that clause, but was rather covered under the government's tax authority. Of course the GOP has already started its effort to reframe their opposition, based on it being a tax. And we all know what Republicans think of taxes, regardless of how necessary they are to the functioning of a government. They are nothing if not quick off the mark. But the truth is that to you and I, it doesn't really matter whether it's constitutional under the commerce clause, tax authority or the right to keep and bear arms, as long as it is judged to be covered under some part of the Constitution.

So now it's time for anyone who sees 'ObamaCare' as some diabolical, anti-democratic, freedom killing, evil to cry and mourn the death of the Republic. No, really, I'm serious. There are those who actually see it that way. Despite the fact that it actually gives private sector insurance companies even more business, thus working within the capitalistic framework. Despite the government not in any way forcing you to give up any of your current insurance coverage or in any way taking over the actual insurance business. In fact, if you lay out all the individual provisions, and ask people about those pieces completely on their own, you will hear overwhelming support. Go figure.

- Insurance companies can't deny you coverage for pre-existing conditions? Great!

- They cannot kick you off your coverage for getting sick? Excellent!

- Kids can stay on their parents insurance till they are 26? Nice idea!

- Cost free preventative services, to ensure you catch problems early? Oh, yeah!

- A way to compare health plans and have them compete on a level playing field? It's there all right.

- Eliminate lifetime limits? Yep!

- Require insurance companies to use at least 80 - 85% of premiums on actual benefits? Good!

- Increase access to Medicaid for low income Americans? Outstanding!

There is really only one part of the Affordable Care Act that gets GOP hackles up, and it's the one they came up with in the first place! The Individual Mandate. This requires everyone to have insurance coverage of some sort, either employer provided or individually purchased. You know, like many Americans already have to do for car insurance! This provision has been harped on as some sort of tyrannical over-reach, yet in truth it's just another way of saying 'no freeloading'. As it is now, if you don't have insurance, that's your choice, but if you do get sick and show up at the Emergency Room they have to treat you. And the rest of us have to pay for it! Why doesn't anyone in the GOP or on Fox news scream and inveigh about all the cheapskates being given free medical care? It's actually a conservative idea, damn it! Take responsibility for your own healthcare because we don't want to pay for it any more. Someone please explain to me how this is tyranny!

The bottom line is that the current system, with Emergency Rooms used as emergency insurance, is far more socialist than the Affordable Care Act! It gives people a way to get care while foisting the bill on the rest of us. Isn't the Individual Mandate more fair, responsible and downright conservative? So Americans love 99% of the provisions of the law, but some just can't stand 'ObamaCare'. They can't give a cogent reason or articulate their disagreement without using GOP talking points, but they just don't like it. Look, if you have insurance coverage . . . it's not really going to affect you. If you don't, then it will almost certainly help you get it. It will also guarantee the private insurance companies millions of additional customers, thus taking the sting out of their additional requirements under the law. So if you just can't stand 'ObamaCare,' maybe you should take a look at the Affordable Care Act instead.

A Platform in Knots

I can't be the only one who gets dizzy trying to follow some of the twisted and contradictory Republican policy positions. I've always noted a few that didn't make sense, but it seems to be getting worse. I'm not sure if it's because they are trying to appeal to too many different groups within the party or not, but it sure is confusing.

The backbone of conservative thinking is 'small government'. The idea that the federal government only does the minimum needed. It's generally talked about as keeping the government out of your life. And yet, there appear to be a number of caveats to this idea. They are famously on record for wanting to remove regulations on financial institutions, roll back environmental protections and any number of other corporate related areas. Yet, oddly, the small government zeal ends rather abruptly at the edge of your personal life. And it is odd, since I would think that keeping government out of your personal business would be more important than keeping it out of corporate business.

And yet there are GOP led initiatives to deny, by law, the right of two people who love each other from getting married simply because they are the same sex. The reason for this seems to always boil down to either theological interpretations or just the fact that it makes some people uncomfortable. Neither is a good reason to deny citizens the same rights as their fellow Americans. There are a lot of things in this world that make me uncomfortable, but you don't see me trying to make them all illegal. I've always loosely interpreted the idea of 'liberty' as the right to live your life as you want, as long as it doesn't violate someone else's rights. Two men or two women getting married has no impact on the rights of Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee or any other conservative, as far as I can tell. So, to my mind, it's not any of their business. I'm sorry, but being creeped out by homosexuality doesn't give you the right to make gay Americans second class citizens.

Then we have the fringes of the anti-abortion debate. Since the conservatives haven't been able to overturn Roe v. Wade after 40 years, they decided to make the process as psychologically and physically stressful as possible for any woman attempting to exercise their Constitutional rights. So we end up with bills like the one Virginia proposed recently. It would have had the VA state government dictate medically unnecessary procedures, even against medical advice or the objections of the patient, to include an INTERNAL, vaginal ultrasound. In other words, a state government wanted to force a woman to undergo a procedure whereby she is penetrated against her will. That's what you call a government that's not just small enough to drown in a tub, but actually small enough to fit inside a vagina! The bill was only scuttled, after passing all the way to the Governor's desk, due to a sudden deluge of national attention and outrage. Similar bills, without the penetration component, have already passed in a number of other states. These exist for only one purpose, to coerce and psychologically abuse a woman when she is at her most vulnerable. Sounds exactly like small government to me!

This election cycle we've seen yet another example of twisted policy, this time about birth control of all things. Yes, we are suddenly debating the availability of birth control in the year 2012. When did this become controversial, outside of Vatican City? Condoms have been in use since perhaps as far back as the 15th century, in some form or another, and female contraception has a history that stretches to ancient Egypt. This isn't a 'Liberal' agenda item, it's established and accepted history. One thing it isn't though is the business of any government or faith to dictate! I'm unable to grasp how a party that claims to value individual liberty can turn around and begin making noises about the legality of birth control. But the discussion gets really psychedelic when people like Rick Santorum starts babbling about the availability of birth control being related to increases in abortion rates. Huh?! I'm no doctor, but I'm pretty sure that contraception, by its very design and definition, prevents fertilization of an egg and thus any resulting fetus. If you're against abortion, than you damn well should be Pro-Contraception!! Just trying to parse the conservative logic on this is enough to induce a migraine.

On yet another front is the constant push to wedge theology into government and use that to dictate a specific moral view for the entire country. Santorum, and he's hardly alone in this mindset, recently declared that, "We have Judeo-Christian values that are based on biblical truth. ... And those truths don't change just because people's attitudes may change". First off, who's this 'we' of which you speak? Not sure if he realizes this or not, but America's citizens represent just about every theological point on the compass. In other words, 'we' aren't all 'Judeo-Christian,' shocking as that may be to hear. Secondly, I'm sorry, I was under the impression that the Constitution was based on the laws of man, not a completely unsupported theological text filled with barbaric customs that include stoning, fratricide and slavery, among many others. Shall we bring those back too? After all, they are also "biblical truth," are they not? Oh, I forgot! You get to pick and choose what parts to live by, don't you? Look, if you are for small government, you can't then be for dictating theology as policy or as the basis for national law. Faith is a personal choice and that's where it should begin and end.

It's this sort of contradictory thinking that drives me nuts, short drive that it is. I don't expect absolute consistency, but this is just a spaghetti bowl of random ideas. Maybe it stems from trying to house both ultra-conservative evangelicals under the same roof as secular moderates. But whatever the reason, it's insane. To paraphrase a line from one of my favorite movies, you keep using that phrase, 'small government.' "I don't think it means what you think it means."

Motivational Dysfunction

I have to give Republicans their due. Without a doubt, the GOP is the clear winner when it comes to playing the game of politics. While individual Democrats are skilled, the party as a whole often seems completely out of its depth. Mostly I think that comes from being much less unified than the GOP. The Democrats are far more inclusive of views that fall outside the core party platform, making unified movement challenging at times. A bigger tent, as some like to say.  The Republicans may snipe at each other around primary time, but when dealing with a Democratic challenge, they close ranks like an ancient Greek phalanx!

I don't know how much is follow-the-leader and how much is good old fashioned authoritarian decree, but ever since the Obama Administration took office the GOP has moved as a single entity. They recognized that the economic collapse of 2008 gave them a priceless opportunity to attack the new, popular President from day one. Despite not being sworn into office till after the financial bailout (TARP) had already been passed, the GOP immediately began laying full responsibility for everything related to the economic collapse at Obama's doorstep. Phrasing even TARP related criticism as if it was all Obama's idea and neatly sidestepping their own votes for the Bush era package. This would become the Republican model for everything that has come since.

Despite a stimulus package that economists have repeatedly claimed created or saved upwards of 2.7 million jobs, the GOP to this day continues to deride it as useless. They did this even as a number of them quietly submitted requests for stimulus money for projects they themselves explicitly claimed would create jobs! But publicly the Republicans maintained a solid front in claiming the stimulus did nothing and that this proved that government was powerless to do anything positive, thus making any attempt at passing a second stimulus a political impossibility. From the beginning, the GOP economic recovery plan has consisted of only a single refrain, cut taxes on the 'job creators'. These would be the same 'job creators' who were, and still are, laying off workers not because of high taxes, but because of limited demand. So there they were, proposing policies that would benefit them politically by buddying up to big business while ensuring that the economic status quo remained undisturbed. Put simply, the GOP claimed the President was at fault for the continuing economic trouble while simultaneously blocking any proposal he put forth that might have made a difference. I'd rate the GOP at one out of ten for job performance, but ten out of ten for political finesse!

The problem is that I don't think any of the men with a hand in framing our Constitution ever envisioned a situation where roughly half the legislature would see political advantage in maintaining a recession level economy. But that's where we are! I'm sure there are those who will read this and scream 'partisanship'! But think about it, who would benefit from a recovering economy? Sure the GOP could try and claim some hand in it, but it's pretty widely accepted that voters will judge a President on the state of the economy. If it's booming, he can claim credit, no matter which party controls the House or Senate. If it's a bust, he must also take the blame, no matter who controls the House or Senate. So the GOP has everything to gain and nothing to lose, politically anyway, by maintaining the current state of affairs. They know that if Obama goes into the 2012 election with unemployment at 9%, it will seriously hurt his chances for re-election. And, unfortunately for all those millions of Americans looking for work, this is all about elections. Senate Minority Leader McConnell has explicitly said, on several occasions, that preventing Obama from winning a second term is his primary political goal. I have to give him points for being honest, but this reminds me of a line from the movie Ocean's 11. Rusty is confronting Danny about trying to pull this huge casino heist while simultaneously winning back his ex-wife in the same operation. Rusty asks him, "So what happens if you can't have them both? Which one are you going to choose?" Senator McConnell, the most powerful Republican in the Senate, has clearly stated what his choice would be if forced to pick between improving the economy or defeating President Obama's re-election. The truth is that the GOP, as a whole, has long since made their choice and it's not looking good for the economy.

The Wrong Problem

America has a bunch of pressing problems. We have unemployment topping 9.2%, the national debt at around $14 Trillion, budget deficits pushing a Trillion per year and an economy that may have climbed out of the hole, but remains prostrate and panting in the dirt. Now one of these problems is key to solving all the others. No, it's not the budget deficits or the debt itself. It's the economy! As long as the economy is immobile we cannot solve any of the others.

It's easy to try and compare the federal government's budget to a business or an individual's finances, but it's also nonsensical to do so because there are significant differences. If you and I get into debt, our main options are to cut our spending or increase our income by getting a better or second job. Or better yet, both. So far so good, but here is where the paths diverge. For you and I, this is pretty much all we need to do, since we are only responsible for ourselves and immediate family. The federal government, however, must balance the needs of the country and the complex interplay of finances, services and policies that affect the entire US economy. Every cut you make ripples outward across the country and sometimes even beyond our borders. Now when the economy is cruising along, these ripples are fairly easily absorbed with minimal shock. But the more fragile the economy the harder it is for the system to ride out the spikes and dips caused by large changes in federal fiscal policy.

The thing that gets lost in the brain bleeding cacophony of the budget fight and debt 'negotiations', and I use that term loosely, is that none of this happens in isolation. It's all connected. When the economy is bad and the unemployment rate is high, as it is now, it's a bad idea to start cutting federal and state jobs like a madman. This only makes the problem worse by reducing the total jobs available and increasing those looking for work. Conservatives like to pretend that government jobs aren't 'real' jobs, but that's just part of the 'government is bad' propaganda they like to spew. These are real people doing real work. So while cutting government programs, and thus public sector jobs, will indeed reduce overhead costs what's forgotten is that this only takes them off the government payroll and puts them on unemployment. This means more people drawing unemployment checks and more people flooding the job market. So really, you're just moving them from one government ledger to another. Their drop in income will lead directly to more bankruptcies and more foreclosures. This also leads to less consumer buying and thus more pressure on companies who are seeing their sales of goods and services continue to slide. Inevitably this leads to more layoffs as companies hunker down to ride out the storm. Oh, and let's not forget that people out of work and not buying equals less tax money being collected, which makes federal and state budgets even worse! It's a very logical and vicious downward spiral that is often completely ignored in the press and on the Sunday talk show circuit. Partly because it's an inconvenient hiccup to the Conservative narrative and partly because it doesn't fit into a one sentence sound byte.

Yes, we have lots of problems and the debt is certainly one of them. But while it is a problem, it is not THE problem. The debt is not going to destroy anything today, tomorrow or next year. However, not getting the economy moving and getting people back to work only makes the debt issue more intractable and increases pressure on future deficits. None of this should be surprising. This is simple economics. Just basic cause & effect that anyone willing to use that ten pound lump on their shoulders should be able to work out. We don't need more anti-abortion laws or any of the hundreds of other things the GOP controlled House has wasted time on this year! What we need is action to resurrect our economy before it stumbles back into the abyss from whence it came!

Oath to CSPAN Ruled Non-Binding

In an astounding moment in the GOP's first day on the job after taking control of the House of Representatives, two Congressmen somehow managed to skip the official swearing in. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), a returning member, and Mike Fitzpatrick (R- Pennsylvania) a new arrival apparently decided that it was more important to be down the hall at a Fitzpatrick fundraiser/gathering than attending to the most basic of Constitutional duties, being sworn into office. In a leap of illogic that is particularly astounding for a veteran House member like Sessions, they 'took their oath' to CSPAN. Literally standing in front of a TV running the televised swearing in ceremony! No, really! Then proceeded to go about their business casting votes that, since they were not officially sworn in, were no legal. This of course caused a problem when it all came out and both geniuses had cast a number of votes that were meaningless. Oh, and did I mention that Sessions is on the House Rules Committee? Or that if the gathering actually met the definition of a 'fundraiser' than Fitzpatrick violated House rules again for hosting it in the Capital building?

In my opinion they should both have been barred from voting for 30 days, then have to go through a formal swearing in on the floor in front of the entire House of Representatives. A little public humiliation might do them both a world of good.

Lame Duck, Better than No Duck at All

A surprisingly productive 'Lame Duck' session of Congress has come to an end. It's been called the most productive Lame Duck session ever, though I can't speak to that myself. But it's without a doubt the most productive this Congress has been over the last year. That is the sad part. After a year of near absolute stone walling on even the most vanilla bills and nominations, it's astonishing how fast things can be passed under threat of being forced to work over the holidays. Democrats certainly have their issues, but I must say that the way the GOP crumbles like overcooked ginger snaps every Christmas is both pathetic and endlessly amusing. So much for integrity and sticking by your values.

"I will not compromise!" (Generic GOP Senator)

"We will stay and work through the holidays till we get this settled!" (Dem Majority Leader)

"Hey, look at the time! Let's ink this deal!" (Generic GOP Senator)

To add to the fun, there are a number of GOP Congresspersons really ticked off at how well they were played this Holiday season. This includes the ever amusing and often nonsensical Representatives Steve King (R-Iowa) and Michele Bachmann (R- Min). Seeing as they are deeply offended by pretty much anything that doesn't originate from their own spokesman, I generally ignore them both. A shame voters in their states failed to do the same. The general sentiment is that Democrats didn't play fair by actually trying to legislate after the mid-terms. How dare they continue to work till closing time! The GOP has this weird idea that Congressional work should stop the instant the elections are certified. I'm sure they wouldn't feel that way if the November results were reversed, but hypocrisy is a respected tradition for Republicans, so no surprise there. Democrats do it as well, but rarely with the same style and commitement. What is interesting is that at least one Republican House member, Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-Kansas), has 'tweeted' her intention to re-introduce a motion to dismantle the Lame Duck altogether. In other words Congress would adjourn for the elections and not reconvene till January, thus giving us two months without a functioning Congress. Sorry, I meant to say sitting Congress. It hasn't really functioned consistently for several years now.

Talk about 'taking my ball and going home'! It's these stupid things that have wasted way too much political time lately. Ideas that are pointless and only matter to specific people or parties at this specific moment in time. I might, I stress might, understand if the Dems had rushed through a bunch of controversial bills in December over the unified opposition of Republicans, but they didn't. Remember the Dems only really controlled the House. The Senate, while having a Dem majority, has that wonderful filibuster rule that allows the minority to pretty much prevent anything they don't like from even being discussed. This has been invoked at least 136 times during the now ended session of Congress. More than doubling its use from any previous session. But the real kicker is that these bills that passed were only controversial politically. Polls showed Americans firmly behind them all and even most Republicans would admit that they supported them in principle. But they blocked them out of pure political calculation.

- Tax Cut Bill to extend the current tax rates for a further 2 years. Passed with 37 Republican votes. Not surprising considering it was made up heavily of pro-Republican tax provisions, many of which will grow the deficit significantly over the next few years. Typical of Republican 'fiscal responsibility'.

- 'New START' Treaty to renew the US-Russian nuclear inspection and arms reduction agreement. Passed with 13 Republican votes.

- 9/11 First Responder bill to provide healthcare assistance to those who developed serious illnesses as a direct result of their weeks and months breathing in toxic dust at the ground zero World Trade Center site. Incidentally this bill was fully paid for yet seemed to have been nearly killed by Republican obstruction till a last surge, led by Jon Stewart of the Daily Show among others, shamed Congress into action. In the end it garnered Yes votes from ALL Republican Senators.

- Bill to Repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell', which had been fought tooth and nail despite as much as 70% public support and the support of the President, Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Passed with 8 Republican votes.

No Experts Needed

There are a lot of issues that require some level of expertise when you delve into the details. This is especially true with finance and economic related policies. However, it requires no specialized knowledge to see when theories defy logic itself. The recent debate over the so called 'Bush Tax Cuts' are a perfect example. They were originally enacted to help restart a sluggish economy, but really did very little in this regard. On top of that, they were unpaid for and therefore were mainlined directly into the deficit and ultimately the national debt. To add insult to stupidity, these cuts disproportionately helped those earning over a million dollars a year. Hardly the segment hurt most by economic troubles. This is what is known to Conservatives as the theory of Trickle Down Economics, made famous under the Reagan administration. To everyone else, it's simply known as Help the Wealthy and hope they feel generous towards the little people.

If there is one economic idea that should be run through the shredder it's Trickle Down Economics. Let's set aside the example of its abject failure in the mid-late '80s and instead just think for a moment. A capitalist based economy is powered by the engine of consumerism. People buy houses, cars, TVs, computers, beer, clothes, etc. That demand means companies who supply these items need to make more of them and create improved versions. To do this they hire workers to design and produce the items. Those workers get paid for this work and use that money to buy houses, cars, TVs and so on. With me so far? So the corporations make money by selling items to people who have money to spend. The more money consumers have to spend, the more they can buy and the more luxuries they will desire. Corporations make more money by providing these items. As demand rises, they find it profitable to add more factories, hire more workers and produce more. The new workers spend their paychecks on more items, from necessities to luxuries. From food to diamonds. The capitalist version of the circle of life. Simplified, but you get the idea.

Now for the Trickle Down Economics in this scenario. This theory says that to stimulate the economy you should give tax cuts to the corporations and the wealthy so that they will use that money to expand factories and create jobs. What should be obvious by now is that this goes against even the most basic idea of capitalism. Wealthy individuals and corporations don't create factories and the resulting jobs because they have extra cash on hand this year, they do it when there is DEMAND! It doesn't matter how many tax cuts you give them, if there is no one shopping for jewelry, it's unlikely that Kay Jewelers is going to be opening any new stores anytime soon. You can 'trickle' all you want and all you'll accomplish is to make the corporations richer. This is not particle physics, it's logic on par with 1+1=2.

So here we are, two years into a colossal recession. Unemployment is pushing 10% and the credit markets might as well not exist for all the lending that's going on. Bankruptcies and foreclosures are at eye watering levels. The deficit, and therefore the national debt, is skyrocketing as the Federal government keeps pumping money into the economy like a winter driver trying desperately to keep the engine running on a December morning. So what is the plan being pushed by Conservatives? Trickle Down Economics in the form of the Bush administration's disproportionate tax cuts for the wealthiest 2%! They spew forth all sorts of political babble to confuse us into thinking that keeping tax cuts in place for this tiny section of America is vital to reviving the economy.

Nobody seems capable of explaining how this would work in the real world. Don't forget that these tax cuts are already in force and have been for the better part of a decade. All we are debating is if they should expire or be renewed. But to hear Republicans tell it, maintaining these cuts for the top earners will magically boost the economy. Remember that if the rates were to return to what they were before the cuts were enacted in 2001, they would be at the level they were during the economic boom of the 1990s. Hardly a dire situation. In fact, I'd say that generic tax cuts usually have minimal stimulative effect at the best of times. For most of the country the cuts usually only add up to a few dollars a paycheck which is barely noticeable. Certainly not likely to keep a family out of foreclosure or encourage them to spend on luxuries.

If the GOP were really worried most about the deficit and actually cared about being fiscally responsible, they would be the first in line to call for the Bush Tax Cuts to expire. The next best option is to keep them in place for income less than a quarter million dollars and let the rest lapse. This would erase about $800 Billion in projected costs over the next decade. But what are they actually calling for, nay, demanding? Keep 'em all, especially the cuts for the top 2%. They are so desperate to keep the wealthy well looked after that they have gone for a scorched earth policy in the Senate, refusing to consider any legislation until the tax issue is resolved. And by resolved I mean, all GOP demands met. What is so amazing about this is that they can still say the words 'fiscal conservative' without collapsing in laughter. It certainly is a joke, albeit a very bad one.

As I write this, and wallow in disgust, Congress has just passed a deal struck between the White House and senior GOP leaders that would renew the entire Bush Tax package for two more years. What did Obama get for giving in on a stand he and the Democratic leadership have been harping on since before the elections? A stand supported by a majority of Americans, according to more than one poll. Well, he got an agreement for a one year extension of Unemployment benefits and, uh... nope, that's about it. There are some assorted other tax related cuts and such, but most of them were things the GOP liked anyway, so from my standpoint a very lopsided deal. Actually not just from my standpoint. A good number of Democrats are pretty put out by this agreement, as are a few Republicans who seem irritated that Obama didn't just surrender the Presidency outright. Worse, at least for the future of the Obama Presidency, is that it gave the GOP a huge, undeserved victory and inspired the Democratic base to a collective "WTF?!" Most importantly though, it shows that if Republicans pick the right hostage, in this case the long term unemployed, the White House is likely to capitulate. By the way, in a post deal press conference it was Obama who used the hostage metaphor to explain the deal. This is particularly odd since as far as I know, if the hostage takers demand a jet as a trade for the hostages, we usually don't whistle up a Gulfstream 200 and wave goodbye as they depart. But perhaps I'm misinformed on these sorts of negotiations.

There is so much about this deal in particular, as well as Congressional incompetence in general, that leaves me stunned. As far as I can tell, the only real stimulative part of the proposal is the extension of unemployment benefits. This will put cash in the hands of those who not only want to spend it, but absolutely must. Think unemployment benefits are just a waste of money? First, let's remember that these benefits are only for those who have been laid off through no fault of their own. So we aren't dealing with lazy people who quit their jobs. These are the casualties of recession level downsizing. Second, the money these people get through unemployment is often the only thing keeping them housed and fed. Stopping unemployment benefits isn't just non-stimulative, it actually contributes to the recession. Soon after losing this life-line, individuals and families will start defaulting on mortgage and car loans. Going delinquent on rent. Some who have held on as long as possible will finally give in to Bankruptcy. Do any of these things sound good for the economy?

I had a tiny sliver of hope that this deal would be modified enough to be at least vaguely palatable. But that was way too optimistic of me as, despite angry words on both sides of the aisle, it passed both houses of Congress this week. The 111th Congress, from GOP obstruction and the ongoing 'War on Logic' to Democratic incompetence and spinelessness, is a poster child for all that's wrong with our government. And I didn't even mention the Supreme Court's ruling to give corporations many of the rights of individual citizens! I suppose Corporate suffrage can't be far off. We are in tough times, but we are not going to get out of them by shoring up the coffers of the wealthy or of big corporations. Huge corporate profits have not managed to resuscitate the economy thus far. Why? Because it doesn't matter how nice the detailing or how clean the engine is, if there's no fuel in the tank then the car ain't moving. The economic fuel is consumer spending. Everything boils down to this. Without it, we aren't going anywhere. Outside of the unemployment extension, I don't see anything in this deal that will improve matters, though it will spike the national debt to greater heights. Once again political victory brings little help to those most harmed by the recession while continuing to reward the mindset that got us into it.

Repeal of Intelligence

There are those for and those against the recently passed healthcare reform bill (HCR). That would be true of any legislation of course, but what makes this time so . . . interesting is that the side that lost is in the midst of a PR campaign that is virtually pointless in real terms. Well two prongs of the same campaign. First is the battle cry, which began before the final House vote when it was clear that HCR would pass, to "Repeal and Replace" the bill. Second, which started shortly after the final vote, that the law was unconstitutional and State Attorneys General would sue the Federal Government to overturn it.

As to the first prong of the Republican response to HCR passage, you have got to be kidding me. It doesn't take a constitutional scholar, in fact most eighth graders are up to the task, to realize that it takes two thirds majorities in BOTH houses of Congress to override the inevitable Presidential veto. Keeping in mind that Republicans don't even have close to a simple majority, much less two thirds. Even if you accept the assumption that Republicans may gain seats in the mid term elections, it would take a truly historic turnover to give them veto proof majorities. How historic? They would need a net gain of 26 seats in the 100 member Senate and 112 seats in the House. If the vote was held today, that would still be almost impossible. By the time November rolls around and HCR is starting to take affect kids will no longer be subject to insurance rejection from "pre-existing conditions", Medicare recipients will have gotten drug benefit refund checks and not one person will have been sentenced to die by a "Death Panel". They may gain some seats, but I don't think they're likely to gain the majority in either House much less the landslides needed to "Repeal & Replace".

Then we have the litigation angle. I think we are now up to 13 states who are filing lawsuits or have filed them against the Federal government. Again I'm no law expert, but seems telling that only 13 Republican Attorneys General are going in on this. Even some lawyers who say they don't support the bill are admitting that there really isn't a legal case for scrapping the law. In fact, when the University of Washington tried to put together a debate between legal experts on the legality of HCR, they couldn't find anyone to champion the unconstitutionality of the bill. And in another wild dust-up in Georgia, we have a State legislature and Governor talking about impeaching the GA Attorney General for not joining the madness. Attorney General Thurbert Baker, after investigating the legality of such a suit at the Governor's request, wrote the Governor to say:

"Based upon my understanding of the current Act, I am unaware of any constitutional infirmities and do not think it would be prudent, legally or fiscally, to pursue such litigation. I must therefore respectfully decline your request." He continued, "In short, this litigation is likely to fail and will consume significant amounts of taxpayers' hard-earned money in the process." (The full letter is available here) 

Speaking of tax payer's money, the Attorney General of Virginia, Kenneth Cuccinelli, actually put out a statement in response to cost concerns for his litigation against the HCR bill:

"The court filing fee for the case of Commonwealth v. Kathleen Sebelius in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia was $350.  There has been no additional cost above this amount, as the litigation is being handled entirely by the attorney general’s staff." (Full press release here)

The $350 is simply the charge for filing the paperwork with the court. Really, that's it? So I take it that the entire AG staff has agreed to do all work on this case on their own time and using none of the AG office's resources? Is that what he's claiming? Because if not, then, forgive my directness but, he's lying. Every moment one of the AG staff spends on this useless piece of litigation is time they are being paid by the VA taxpayers and time they are not working on other business. Every piece of paper used or Kilobyte of data sent while online is using AG resources that are paid for by the VA taxpayers. That adds up to way more that $350, even just for the initial filing.

Now are these guys really too stupid to know that all this is pointless? Of course not. They are well aware that they have a snowball's chance in hell of repealing this law as long as Obama sits in the Oval Office. They are also well aware that litigation is almost certainly a waste of time as well. So why are they wasting time and money on it? Actually I just answered my own question, at least in part. Money. There is a nice bit of anger still frothing out there and every riled up citizen is a potential source of campaign cash. The longer they can keep that outrage humming along, the more cash they can raise. Guess this is their idea of 'fiscal conservatism'. Spend thousands and thousands of dollars of our money so the GOP can make theirs. Guess they have to refill the RNC coffers emptied for 'Office Supplies' from Congressional Liquors and 'Entertainment Expenses' at the Voyeur erotic nightclub in CA. Not to mention the Hawaii based convention. Now that's what I call fiscally responsible!

I think what most amazes me about all of this is that the conservative base doesn't seem to care. They are lied to and they are unfazed. They are callously used to  perpetuate misinformation and disrupt any rational discussion of the issues at hand and they keep smiling and waving signs. Conservative corporations and political action committees hijack their demonstrations and they don't mind. The same politicians who voted consistently to enact huge unpaid for tax cuts during the Bush years are now billing themselves as the last bastions of fiscal restraint, yet their supporters don't care. I can fully understand policy concerns and differences. I can understand frustration at the current Administration. What I can't fathom is how so many are willfully blind to the utter lack of respect they receive from the conservative luminaries they support. The rational conservative base should demand more than what they are getting from people like John Boehner and Michelle Bachman who only exist to perpetuate themselves and their friends, whatever the cost to the nation.

Reaping What Was Sown

Well, it's done. The health reform bill is passed and signed. Even the 'sidecar' bill of tweaks to the Senate bill have been passed, following a brief Congressional two-step. So this long healthcare battle is over, right? Yes and no. The problem, you see, is that you can't spend the better part of a year telling people that America faces "Armageddon" from this "government takeover of healthcare" perpetrated by "Commu-Fasci-Socialists" that want to institute "Death Panels" to make grandma "shovel ready" and then walk away when the vote goes against you. Once you get all that fervor stirred up, it's difficult to shrug and move onto another topic.

The citizenry that the Republicans systematically turned rabid is still frothing and unsated. They now believe that it really was the end of our republic when the bill passed. They completely lost the subtext of the whole debate, which was that the GOP was intent on fighting, by any means necessary, every single initiative the Obama Administration proposed. This included misrepresentations and outright lies about the substance of the reform bills. They don't realize that it was mostly political theater or that the bill actually resembles previous Republican proposals for health reform. So why is this a problem? Well it started with spitting and assorted slurs directed at Democratic members of Congress as House members arrived for the final vote on health reform and continued with even GOP members of Congress yelling out comments in the House chamber, as if it was a middle school assembly.  Then came broken glass at Democratic offices around the country, quickly followed by an Alabama blogger who claimed some measure of credit for a brick thrown through the Democratic Committee's office in Rochester, NY. The brick had a note attached to it that quoted Barry Goldwater's famous statement: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." It's one of those statements that seems patriotic until you think on it, which I'm sure these fringe dwellers did not. I firmly believe that extremism of any kind is bad. Extremism is synonymous with zealotry and fanaticism and are the same words we use for Al-Qaida and other groups like them. Not the comparison I think I'd want to make.

But it's escalated from there. Congressional Democrats, in particular, are getting calls threatening violence and outright death threats. I heard a string of truly nasty messages left at the home of Representative Bart Stupak, appearing to focus on abortion. They called him 'baby killer' and the like, which is truly ironic considering that what finally got him on board with the House vote was an agreement by the President to put out an executive order that stated there would be no Federal funding for abortion. To clarify, there never was language in either the final House or Senate bills that would have allowed Federal funding for abortion, so it was always a manufactured issue. Yet here we have people calling Stupak and railing at him, in pretty graphic and violent terms, about an issue that was never a concern anyway. It illustrates quite well that the people behind these sorts of calls were getting all their info on the reform bill from Glenn Beck and GOP talking points. In another incident, a conservative blogger posted what he thought was a Democratic House member's home address online. Bad form in and of itself. But it turned out to be the address for the Congressman's brother and the family found that someone had cut the gas lines outside their house. Now I know that there are a lot of irrational people around and they will always be around. But having said that, there are individuals and groups who need to take some responsibility for the current state of things. And no, I'm not talking about the Democrats who voted for the bill.

But before you think I’ve gone irrationally partisan, I ask you to think back to the GOP rhetoric over the last year objectively. It was consistently laced with phrases like “government takeover” and “Death Panels”.  They continually used emotionally evocative terms like “socialist”, “communist” and "gulag", among many others. These were just the Republican members of Congress, mind you. Once you step outside the Capital building it went downhill even faster. Signs comparing health reform to Auschwitz and Nazi social policies. We saw images of the President of the United States portrayed as the sociopathic Joker from the last Batman movie and as Hitler. By the time the final vote arrived we had protesters with signs threatening armed violence if they didn’t get their way. Add that to the slurs, spitting and threats and you have a nasty situation. Now you can claim that the protesters were responsible for their own overzealous behavior, but that is only partly true. Republican politicians and pundits share responsibility because they not only encouraged this misguided and arguably irrational behavior but actually joined in throughout the year with many of these protests. Put simply, they took the reasonable concern of a minority segment of the American people and whipped them into a Mob, convinced that the nation’s very soul was at stake. The GOP and the various conservative pundits created this Mob to use against the President and the Democratic majority. At every turn the Becks and the Limbaughs of the conservative movement made wild, inflammatory and, more often than not, fabricated statements to keep the fury running as hot as possible. Even Congressional leaders like House Minority Leader Boehner and Senate Minority Leader McConnell continued the misinformation and emotional rhetoric. The problem comes now that the reform bill is passed and signed into law. Now what? At some point, after milking the movement of as many contributions as possible under the ridiculous banner of "Repeal & Replace", the GOP will want to move on to the next issue. But the Mob will still be there. Still looking for blood. They won't understand that it was all a big political game to their conservative representatives. And they won't understand when those same politicians stop talking about the "evil that was done to the Constitution".

It's all well and good to use public outrage to support your policies, but when you surrender all principle and common sense you create not a group of concerned citizens, but a mob of fanatics. A mob who are, in many cases, protesting about issues that don't even exist. Once you get to that level, the most extreme within that group will be the ones running it and guiding it. That's where you get scary people who cut people's gas lines or call their home to leave obscenity laced diatribes describing the horrible ways they wish this person will suffer and die. That's were you get militia-like groups of fringe dwellers who see nothing wrong with bringing weapons to political gatherings and making veiled threats of overthrowing the government. Even now, House Minority Leader Boehner and his fellow Republicans have only managed to make weak statements saying that violence is not good. No condemnations or calls for calm. In fact, he only mentioned that violence and threats are not appropriate after he made allowances for how upset everyone was about the bill's passage. Really? That's the best he could do? That's about as much of a condemnation as when a man flew his plane into the IRS building in TX, killing one and injuring many, and Representative Steve King babbled about how the IRS is a problem and he could understand how the guy might have been frustrated. Yeah, let's feel sympathy for the disturbed individual who thought flying his plane into an office building and killing someone was a good idea. What do you think Boehner and others will say if one of these individuals injures or kills someone out of, what he considers, justifiable anger? I suspect they'll set land speed records distancing themselves from it, even though they helped set the stage for it. When you are in a position of power and trust, there is a measure of responsibility that goes along with it. These people don't seem to realize that. Look, if you go camping and build a fire, but don't put it out properly and a few thousand acres of forest goes up in flames, you are held responsible. Words may seem benign, but they can be just as dangerous as a spark in a pile of leaves.