FLAIT

The Payroll Tax Cut *

2011-12-15T13:18:00.016-05:00

I was against the temporary payroll tax cut a year ago because the funding source for Social Security (and Medicare) should not be messed with. Ever. So I oppose extending it for a number of reasons.

I know the deal was that general revenues - or this time around, a tax increase on millionaires - would be used to replace whatever the trust fund lost to the tax cut. But that's a horrible precedent to set. And even more important, since Republicans and some Democrats would like nothing more then to cut Social Security, I feared that there was a good chance this "promise" of putting every penny back into the Social Security trust fund would not happen. If politicians would steal from the trust fund as they have over the decades, surely they would go back on promise like this.

So if/when the money wasn't replaced, and the trust fund began to run out of money faster then once thought, "we'll have no choice but to cut Social Security." How convenient.

But since Republicans never met a tax cut they didn't like, and their goal is to starve Social Security of funds so they can force cuts to it, why are they opposed to extending this one? That's easy: to 1) hold it hostage, threaten a government shut down and gain concessions from Democrats as they capitulate, and 2) force Obama to give away so much that the GOP can claim victory as well.

So once again, Republicans get everything they want, including a tax cut that takes from Social Security. Meanwhile, Democrats get hosed, again.

That said, when did the Democrats and the left become so passionate about tax cuts? Actually, this happened last year too when Republicans got Obama to extend the Bush tax cuts - the same tax cuts that Democrats blasted for 10 years as unfair because the wealthy got the bulk of them while the poor and middle class had to settle for the crumbs. But after the tax cuts were extended, Obama and the Democrats celebrated it as an extension of "tax cuts for the middle class!" What tax cuts for the middle class?

So why is there this knee-jerk support from the left for the payroll tax cut? Because "If it benefits working folks, and 'the rich' are paying for it, well, that's enough for me!" First, that's extremely selfish. And second, that is class warfare. Hey, if it's wrong Republicans engage in it, it's wrong when Democrats engage in it too.

Once the Democrats capitulate to the GOP's monthly hostage-taking-or-else-we'll-shut-the-government-down threat, I'm sure there will be a celebration on the left because the GOP "caved". But that will show two very important things: 1) how lost the Democrats are because of what they had to give up to get the extension, and 2) how low the bar is set.

The country is in desperate need of initiative, investment and massive rebuilding. And this pip-squeak of a tax cut - a tax cut! - is the best they can come up with? That's what they're fighting over? How sad. And we wonder why the country's in the shape it's in.

Another reason why I'm against the payroll tax cut is because it was unheard of before last year. It was never even floated as an idea. So it's not as if Democrats would be clamoring for it if wasn't implemented a year ago. So for Democrats and the tag-alongs on the left to make such a big deal about it doesn't make sense because for all intents and purposes there never should have been a payroll tax holiday to begin with.

And the GOP has a point in that you shouldn't raise taxes on the wealthy just to give tax cuts to the middle class. It's not fair; just like the Bush tax cuts weren't fair, and why gouging smokers with exorbitant taxes on cigarettes aren't fair (yes, cigarette taxes should be high because of their health consequences and costs, and to discourage people from smoking. But the tax can become excessive, and when it does, that's gouging. Politicians get away with it because no one opposes higher and higher cigarette taxes; except smokers, of course. But is there not a point in which even a cigarette tax can be considered gouging? If not, then either raise the tax to $25, $50 or even $100 a pack, or ban them altogether because of how lethal they are. But that won't happen because all that tax revenue would be lost. Oh, by the way, no, I'm not a smoker.)

"Sticking it" to the rich, or smokers, isn't fair just like it's isn't fair to "stick it" to the poor, middle class, unions and seniors in the form of budget cuts and cuts to pensions, Social Security and Medicare.

Yes, the rich should pay their fair share in taxes; yes, the Bush tax cuts should have been allowed to expire a year ago; yes, hedge fund managers should be paying more then 15% tax on their millions; yes, corporations should pay their fair share, especially when they pay more for their Washington lobbyists then they do in taxes or ~~no taxes at all~~ a negative tax rate; and yes, since the 1% have had economics tilt very much in their favor for the last three decades at the expense of the 99%, you can argue the 1% should get "stuck" now. And I don't have a problem with that. But gouging or "sticking it" to the rich, or anyone, by raising their taxes "because they can afford it," to pay for a tax cut is unfair. Yes, just like the poor and middle class can be treated unfairly, it is possible to treat "the rich" unfairly too.

In the Preamble to the Constitution it says, promote the general Welfare. How does "sticking it to the rich" or gouging smokers "promote the general Welfare"? (How does running TV commercials for the lottery "promote the general Welfare"?)

To me, those four wonderful words mean that government should not rip off any of its citizens (or tell them to buy lottery tickets). All taxes and government fees should be fair and above board; not unfair, excessive, hidden and used as a cash cow. I know that's not the way it is, but it should be (and good luck finding a politician who even realizes that the Preamble to the Constitution is their job description.)

So yes, a liberal can believe a tax cut for the poor and middle class that's paid for by taxing the rich is wrong. Oh, by the way, I'm not rich. Not even close. Not even close to close. But just because you're not rich doesn't mean you can't admit that a tax cut for those who need it most, that's paid for by the rich, is wrong. It's called honesty and being for "good responsible government" instead of the selfishness we see from, well, everyone (and we wonder why the country's in the shape its in). It would be like a wealthy person admitting the Bush tax cuts should have been allowed to expire, or a hedge fund manager admitting he should be paying a higher tax rate.

A justification from Democrats for the extension is that it's "popular" and "helps the poor and middle class." First, so would cutting gas taxes so why isn't the left demanding that they be cut too (actually, gas taxes should have been a lot higher a long time ago)? And second, just because it's "popular" and "helps the poor and middle class" doesn't mean it's right. Politics and governance isn't a popularity contest; well, at least it shouldn't be. It's supposed to be about responsibility and being the adults in the room (if only we had one or two).

Another justification is that it will stimulate the economy and create jobs. But since when did Democrats and the left believe that? In fact, every time Republicans call for tax cuts for those reasons, Democrats scoff at it. And Democrats are right. Tax cuts don't stimulate the economy much at all; and they don't create that many jobs, if any. Hell, Bush cut taxes, and Obama cut taxes, twice - so where's the booming economy and all the jobs?

The only thing we get from tax cuts are higher deficits.

And it's not only at the Federal level that "Democrats" are reciting GOP talking points and implementing the Republican agenda. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo:

...we need to reform the code in a way that creates jobs and grows our economy. To do that, we need to put more money in New Yorkers' pockets and inject it back in to the economy. There are also tax credits that can incentivize private-sector job growth.

Along with Obama's Republican record, this is more proof that Democrats have moved so far to the right, that they've become Republicans. But that's another story.

And remember, the economy was booming after President Clinton raised taxes so much that Republicans said it would cause the economic sky to fall in (turns out they couldn't have been more wrong, as usual).

It's funny. Last year when Republicans wanted to extend the Bush tax cuts, they accused Democrats of wanting to "raise taxes" because they didn't want to extend them. Democrats scoffed at that accusation too. "No, it's not a tax increase," they said, "because the tax cuts were set to expire." But now, Democrats and the left are accusing Republicans of "raising taxes" because they oppose extending the expiring payroll tax cut!

This was a temporary tax cut. So unless it's made permanent, whoever allows it to expire, whenever that is, will be "raising taxes". So Democrats will be "raising taxes" when, and if, they let it expire.

Of course, Republicans are being hypocrites with the payroll tax cut too. They insist on it "being paid for." But I thought when you cut taxes, it increases revenue? So why does the payroll tax cut have to be paid for? And how come the Bush tax cuts didn't have to be paid for? See how Republican propaganda and talking points ties them up in knots?

Ezra Klein via Paul Krugman:

There are two very different tax-policy conversations playing out in the Republican Party right now. In Washington, House Republicans are arguing with each other over how small of a temporary tax cut to give the middle class. Out on the primary trail, the Republican presidential candidates are arguing over how huge of a permanent tax cut to give the wealthy...

All of which leaves the Republican Party in an odd place: skeptical of a temporary tax cut for the middle class that carries a price tag in the low hundreds of billions of dollars and is fully paid for but apparently enthused over permanent tax cuts for the rich that cost trillions of dollars and aren’t paid for at all.
But it’s not odd at all, once you realize that the GOP is not now, and never has been (at least not since the 1970s) concerned about the deficit. All the fiscal posturing of the last couple of years has been about using the deficit as a club to smash the welfare state, with the secondary goal of frustrating any efforts on the part of the Obama administration to help the struggling economy.

The entire debate has been fake. If you don’t understand that, or can’t bring yourself to admit it, you’re missing the whole story.

And since Republicans wouldn't raise taxes after a terrorist attack, in times of war, after a city was lost to a hurricane, when the economy is booming and the government is running surpluses, or when the economy is in a recession and deficits are exploding - all occasions/reasons/justifications for tax cuts - I'd like to know the circumstances under which Republicans would support a tax increase. But that too is another story.

But cutting taxes isn't enough for the GOP. Because as already stated, Bush cut taxes and Obama has cut taxes, twice. And then Republicans call for more tax cuts. And when they get them - like the payroll tax cut extension - they'll call for another one. Then another. Then another. So why bother? Republicans will never be satisfied until there are no taxes...at least on corporations and the wealthy.

I'd say that Obama and the Democrats are wasting too much time and political capital on a tax cut the country can not afford, will do little to spur the economy, and possibly imperil the long term solvency of Social Security. But going into an election year, this is really about Obama bribing independent middle class voters and making them forget that he not only turned his back on them, the lousy economy and those forced out of their homes, but joined the GOP's obsession with tax cuts and spending cuts...in a recession. So once again it comes down to politicians doing the wrong thing for the wrong "popularity contest" reason. And we wonder why the country's in the shape it's in.

Bottom line is that you can't cut taxes for some Americans and raise it on others at the same time. It's not right and it is class warfare, which divides the country. If you're going to raise taxes it should hit everyone (well, almost everyone). And it should be done fairly. And the money should be used to really stimulate the economy by rebuilding America; not handed out as pandering tax cuts to ~~"those who need it"~~ voters.

Just because I'm liberal doesn't mean I'm going to break out the pom-poms and cheer Democrats when they call for something that's unfair, won't stimulate the economy, further divides the country and could jeopardize Social Security's long term solvency. With so much selfishness, hypocrisy, ignorance, corruption and incompetence in our governance and political system, I call 'em as I see them, regardless of which side I'm on. If it's wrong when Republicans do it, then it's wrong when we do it too. And if it's wrong when the rich do it to us, it's wrong when we do it to them.

If only we had honesty and selflessness like that in our country and our politics.

Note: The capitulation has begun! Democrats have given up on the millionaire tax increase that was (supposedly) going to cover the Social Security trust fund payroll tax cut. So, as always, the GOP wins, in a number of ways: 1) if they don't agree to another funding source to replenish the trust fund's lost revenue, eventually "we'll have no choice but to cut social Security", which means 1B) the Democrats will have to give up even more to secure that alternative funding source, and 2) millionaires don't get their taxes raised!

To all the liberals who supported this "stick it to the rich" payroll tax cut extension: other then getting hosed, again, what do Obama and the Democrats have to show for all the time, effort, pandering and capitulating they've put into it, and will put into it?

Note II: Told ya. House Speaker John Boehner:

I appreciate the fact that they gave up on their millionaires' surtax, but they didn't give anything up because they never had it.

Meaning that the Democrats are going to have to come up with more ransom if they want the payroll tax cut extended.

December 18 insert:

In exchange for forcing Obama to commit one way or another to the XL pipeline, the Senate has agreed to to extend the tax cut for two months. So we'll have to go through this crap again in February. And that benefits Republicans because partisan confrontation with Obama and Democrats is what keeps their moronic base in perpetual state of rage at Obama and Democrats. So Republicans win again.

Assuming it passes the House, instead of sticking millionaires with a tax increase to pay for the tax cut, they're going to stick anyone who takes out a new mortgage or refinances by making them pay about $17 more a month.

So even if this tax cut stimulates the economy, it'll be lessened by the fact that families will have $17 a month less to spend.

Yup, all this bickering, partisanship and horse-trading for all that. And they're not done yet. See what happens when politicians do the wrong things for the wrong reasons?

And we wonder why the country's in the shape it's in.

December 24 insert:

As expected, John Boehner caved and the Democrats celebrated for extending the tax cut...for two whole months!

You know, maybe if Washington spent half as much time on infrastructure, mass transit, green technology and lowering the cost of a college education - you know, things that are kinda important - the country wouldn't be in the shape it's in. But they just had to give Americans their (selfish) payroll tax cut. And if took weeks to get it ~~done~~ extended for two months, so be it. Tax cuts take priority over, well, everything. And it'll be the priority again in February when Congress spends the entire month arguing about it, again, only to agree at the last possible moment, again, to extend it through the end of 2012.

Meanwhile, those sounds you hear are bridges creaking all over the country.

Yup, this is what governance is these days. This is where I'd say America should be embarrassed but we passed that a long time ago.

I'd like to add another point.

I don't want to hear that if the payroll tax cut was allowed to expire, it would have effected economic growth in the first quarter of 2012 by 1.5% and cost up to 1 million jobs. First, I refer you to Bill Clinton's tax increases and what they did for the economy. And second, if that's true, why not double or triple the payroll tax cut? Heck, cut it by 99%, permanently, and get even more growth and create even more jobs!

It's the same logical argument I used to explain that the Republican dogma that "cutting taxes brings in more revenue" is absurd. I never thought I'd have use that to prove the left wrong. Goes to show how far right the "Democratic Party" and the left has gone.

Idea for the Occupy Wall Street Protestors

2011-11-14T13:31:00.007-05:00

While I fully support the Occupy Wall Street protestors, I do have issues with their tactics. Protesting is one thing. But I don't believe they should be allowed to take over public parks, set up tents and move in. No one should be allowed to live in a park or any public place. The homeless wouldn't, so why protestors (last winter's union protestors in Madison, Wisconsin shouldn't have been allowed to stay overnight inside the Capitol either)?

Even if the protestors get permission to live in the park, isn't that the same favoritism that the powerful corporations and wealthy receive every day? So you can't protest the powerful corporations and the wealthy for getting unfair preferential treatment when you're getting it yourself (assuming they are). And if the protestors remain in the park without permission, then that's the sort of selfish arrogance they're supposedly protesting.

Even though these protests are going to have to continue indefinitely before anything gets accomplished, who said a protest - even one with "occupy" in its title - had to be permanent? Besides, who wants to live in a park forever, especially when it can hurt the cause? Because the longer the protestors remain in the in the park, the more the public will want their park back and small businesses will want their customers back. And that's no way to build support.

So what I think OWS should do, is move out of the parks and schedule protests a few days in advance at different times at different places for different durations; ranging from a short 30 minute lunch demonstration to a protest lasting a few hours. They can be scheduled based on weather conditions (no sense scheduling a protest in a rain or snow storm) and coordinated with protests in other cities (or not).

There can be two protests/demonstrations/marches one day, four the next day, one the next day, none the day after that, and three the day after that. Whatever. But one massive protest, just one, should be scheduled on Saturdays and Sundays. As the weeks go by, they would get bigger and bigger.

I think by scheduling roving "99% protests" at different locations at different times on different days would not only bring more favorable attention and more protestors to the cause, but also give the parks back to the public and send customers back to small businesses. And that would help build public support as well.

November 18 insert:

Just because you have a right to burn the American flag, or the Koran, it doesn't mean you should. So just because you have a right to live in Zuccotti park, be it without tents and supplies, it doesn't mean you should.

Excessive force by the cops aside, some of the protestors at Zuccotti Park, in Oakland and other cities around the country have taken their right to assemble peacefully and turned it into a defiant stand against authority just for the sake of doing so. Politicians do the wrong things for the wrong reasons. Always. That's why the country's in the shape it's in. I was hoping the OWS protestors were smarter then that.

If the city wants the protestors to leave the park so it can be cleaned, then leave. What's the big deal? Nobody prevented the protestors from returning.

Then again, if federal prosecutors went after the Wall Street bankers responsible for crashing the economy with half the aggression mayors and cops are going after the OWS protestors, none of this would be necessary.

That said, living in the park, getting into clashes with police (right or wrong), getting arrested, and shutting down parts of the city will turn the public against OWS and its cause. And then OWS will be stuck with the number of protestors they have, and support will never grow they way it could, should and needs to.

Republicans and the right have called the protestors "mobs" and "anarchists." So the civil disobedience plays right into their hands as well.

So just because protestors are allowed to occupy the park, it doesn't mean they should, especially when it can be counterproductive.

Not to pick on OWS, but selfishness - where your side is always right and never does anything wrong - has become a national epidemic. Pick an issue...unions, guns, gays, abortion, religion, spending, taxes, Israel/Palestinians... Or a side...liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican... Everyone defends their side to a fault. They never concede a single point to the other, even a minor one, and never admit when their side is wrong or does something wrong by feigning incredulity, ignoring the hypocrisy (if applicable) and using deception.

Give me the person who's honest enough to admit when his side is wrong. It doesn't mean he's changed his mind on the issue, and it doesn't mean the other side is now right. All it means is that, in a particular instance, he's admitting his side is wrong.

If only we had ~~more~~ honesty like that in the country.

December 1 insert:

A couple of weeks ago, New York OWS protestors held a noisy rally outside Mayor Bloomberg's home because he threw them out of Zuccotti park the week before (for a few hours).

Regardless of what Mayor Bloomberg does, or the cops, I think it's a mistake to protest them. Actually, they probably welcome protests like that because it makes them look like victims.

Protesting the right to protest or "getting back" at those who you think are not letting you exercise your rights peacefully is a step backwards; and a waste of time. And that's what Mayors and Wall Street executives want OWS doing.

So regardless of what mayors and cops do to disrupt OWS, they should not become the focus of the protests.

Matt Taibbi has an excellent column on the para-military like response to OWS and other protests, class justice (and injustice), and how we've allowed the government to systematically erode our civil liberties, no questions asked.

Speaking of other protests, I wanted to comment on the students at UC Davis who took a page from OWS by occupying campus grounds and were pepper sprayed while protesting escalating tuition costs.

What I noticed was what the protestors were wearing, and how they were wearing it. They were all bundled up in sweatshirts, some hooded. I also noticed that the protestors didn't flinch much at all while being sprayed.

What I take from the way they were dressed, how they were dressed and the way they reacted to the macing (they didn't), leads me to think that they were looking for a confrontation (and get maced).

Anyone looking for a confrontation with the police, right or wrong, even protesting peacefully, can't complain when they get into one; especially when it looks as if they were warned that they would be pepper sprayed, right or wrong.

So assuming these protestors were looking for a confrontation, what does getting pepper sprayed have to do with rising tuition?

Now for the cops.

These protestors, students actually, were just sitting there, posing no threat whatsoever, to anyone. And they weren't in tents. So what the hell were the cops even doing there? With mace? Wearing riot helmets?

Just being there, with mace, wearing helmets, gives more attention and credibility to the protestors and their cause. Had the cops not been there, the protestors would have barely been noticed. It would have been like, "who are those idiots sitting on the path?" And nothing would have happened. So there's times when protestors can and should be ignored.

Maybe the cops were there because they were looking for a confrontation too. And if it's wrong for protestors to want a confrontation, then it's also wrong when cops go looking for one as well.

It appeared that the protestors were sitting on a walking path, which I assume leads to a building. And since the building was probably closing at the time, they could have sat there all weekend if they wanted. What would have been the big deal? At least it wouldn't have been a big deal until Monday morning when they would have had to get off the path so students and faculty could get to the building.

But if the protestors refused to move, then what? And this is where OWS comes in. Does the "right to protest peacefully" mean you can block a walking path as long as you're not violent? A main street? Fifth Avenue? Of course not.

Having been allowed to sit there all weekend, would the protestors have moved if the cops arrived at 7:00 Monday morning and asked them to? I don't know, especially if they were indeed looking for a confrontation.

Regardless of what's being protested, this is where protestors - even peaceful protestors - should wise up. You can't block a path, road or major thoroughfare. When the cops ask you to move, then move. What's the big deal?

Under no circumstances should you lock arms and be willing to take the consequences just for the sake of getting into a confrontation with police. Again, it'll accomplish nothing, take attention away from the objective, and in OWS's case, turn the public against the cause.

This notion that protestors are not allowed to "back down" to the cops because it'll look bad is ridiculous. Moving when the cops tell you to move will not hurt the cause. Quite the opposite in fact.

So just because you think protestors can never do any wrong, it doesn't mean blocking a path peacefully - or road or major thoroughfare - is right.

The Right and Occupy Wall Street*

2011-11-12T12:00:00.030-05:00

One of the continuing themes of this blog has been that Republicans and the right must oppose and attack whatever Democrats and the left are saying. They have to, or else whatever sense the liberals were making would resonate and prove right-wing propaganda and talking points wrong. And they can not, under any circumstances, allow that to happen.

As I wrote in that 2010 link above:

The 1988 Presidential election between George Bush and Michael Dukakis was a turning point in electoral politics because it wasn't just the beginning of ruthless attack politics, but showed what would happen to a candidate and his campaign if those attacks went unanswered. The Bush campaign bombarded Dukakis with one attack after another but he didn't respond to any of them. And the rest is history.

The Republican "Party" and their propaganda machine learned a lot from that. Not only that you must respond to every single attack, but that you can use the same strategy to keep the truth from resonating. For example, if someone believes the world is flat, and you want them to continue to think that, you can attack and tear at the credibility of anyone who says the world is round.

Because facts and the truth aren't unfair attacks based on lies, it's not entirely like responding to an unfair political attack based on lies because in this case you're firing the first salvo as if it was an unfair attack based on lies. And that's the key. It's an offensive attack against the truth, not a defensive response against lies...

We all know (the 2008 stock market/economy crash) was caused by deregulating the banks, investment banks and insurance companies (for "competition" reasons) and also a lack of regulation of the derivative markets (credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations). So the right took a big hit because it was their entire mantra - "competition," "free markets," "less government," "deregulation," "no regulation," and "let the industry police itself" - that was responsible for bringing the global economy to its knees. So they had to come up with something to deflect that blame and pin it somewhere else. And that's exactly what they did when they blamed it on the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act which required banks to lend money in low income neighborhoods. So the financial collapse was all Jimmy Carter's fault. And Bill Clinton's (even though he strengthened the CRA). And ACORN's!

But the CRA, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and ACORN (obviously) had nothing to do with the crash. The right made it up.

Paul Krugman explains this revisionist history:

...the way to understand the "Barney Frank did it" school of thought about the (financial) crisis is that it's an attempt to turn a huge defeat for conservative ideas into a win. The reality of the financial crisis was that deregulation...led to an economic catastrophe of the kind that just didn’t happen during the 50 years or so when we had effective bank regulation.

So the right's answer is to claim not just that the government did it, but that it caused the crisis by its attempts to reduce inequality! It's kind of a masterstroke, in an evil way. (Bold mine.)

Mr. Krugman provides an example of how GOP talking points gets them all tangled into knots.

...Republicans — who normally insist that the government can’t create jobs, and who have argued that lower, not higher, federal spending is the key to recovery — have rushed to oppose any cuts in military spending. Why? Because, they say, such cuts would destroy jobs...

At a fundamental level, the opponents of any serious job-creation program know perfectly well that such a program would probably work, for the same reason that defense cuts would raise unemployment. But they don’t want voters to know what they know, because that would hurt their larger agenda — keeping regulation and taxes on the wealthy at bay. (Bold mine.)

And prevent their rhetoric from being called out for what it is.

So the right will take the opposite opinion of the left's, the extreme opposite opinion, because they have to, then make stuff up to defend that position regardless of how hypocritical (also here), ignorant, wrong (also here) and foolish it makes them look. That creates the conflict and confrontation they're looking because it gives them the opportunity to fire the first salvo by attacking their enemies credibility. And on cue, the well trained right-wing base will grab their torches and pitchforks and come to their "party's" aid, no questions asked. So whatever the left was saying gets lost in all the noise. And that's what they're trying to do with the Occupy Wall Street protests.

Republican Rep. Peter King:

"The fact is these people are anarchists. They have no idea what they're doing out there," King said. "They have no sense of purpose other than a basically anti-American tone and anti-capitalist. It's a ragtag mob basically." King, whose Long Island district includes many Wall Street commuters, dismissed the demonstrators as "a bunch of angry 1960s do-overs" trying "to create chaos and take away the focus on the Obama record."

Republican Majority Leader, Eric Cantor, whose top contributor is Wall Street:

"If you read the newspapers today, I for one am increasingly concerned about the growing mobs occupying Wall Street and the other cities across the country," he said. Cantor appeared (to) try and connect the protests to the cries of "class warfare" Republicans are lobbing at President Obama’s jobs bill and his Buffett Rule. He attacked Nancy Peolsi for praising the protests yesterday.

"Believe it or not, some in this town have actually condoned the pitting of Americans against Americans," Cantor said.

(Cantor did retreat a bit from his comments.)

Glenn Beck also got into the action:

"It will be the Night of Long Knives. It will be a purging of this country." This was a seeming reference to the political murders carried out by the Nazis in 1934. Beck then turned to "capitalists," and here his warning was even starker and more graphic:
"Capitalists, if you think that you can play footsies with these people, you're wrong. They will come for you and drag you into the streets and kill you...they're Marxist radicals...these guys are worse than Robespierre from the French Revolution...they'll kill everybody."

And naturally Fox "News" did their part:

According to Fox News, the thousands of Communists, anarchists, eco-feminists, malingerers, and professional protesters taking part in OWS are actually being guided by a reconstructed ACORN. The "fair and balanced" news organization alleges that OWS is being funded and controlled by former ACORN activists under new names who are using shady practices to collect money for OWS under false pretenses. Will this turn out like that time that a certain prominent news organization alleged George Soros was funding OWS?

Hey, Fox left out big government socialists.

(November 19 insert: Fox identified the White House shooter as the "Occupy shooter" even though he didn't have ties to OWS. Actually, his "thinking" is more in line with Fox "News" viewers and Tea Party supporters. The right did the same thing when they stuck a liberal label on the Tucson shooter, Jared Loughner, even though he too had more in common with right-wing extremists.)

The right has also tried to discredit OWS and divert attention of their cause by accusing it of anti-semitism. They also tried to "mock and undermine" the movement by deliberately causing a ruckus at a Washington D.C. protest.

So the right has used a barrage of attacks, lies, spin, exaggerations and mischief to try and discredit and demonize OWS. Whatever it takes. It's pretty much the same strategy the right always uses. But with the anti-semitism accusations, the incident in Washington and the incessant attacks, it goes to show how desperate they are to ensure that the message the protestors are trying to get across doesn't; or at least destroy their credibility. And they have the propaganda machine to do it.

It's incredible. How can anyone oppose what OWS is protesting? Wall Street destroyed the economy because of massive fraud, greed and recklessness. And while millions of Americans lost their jobs and homes because of it - including jobs and homes held by right-wing conservatives, I'm sure - the bankers responsible weren't only bailed out by taxpayers, made whole and received their million dollar bonuses, but weren't investigated, weren't prosecuted and weren't thrown in jail. And to top it off, the poor, middle class and senior citizens have to pay for all those sweetheart deals and all that government largess in the form of spending cuts, pension cuts, and possible cuts to Social Security and Medicare, not to mention losses to their retirement accounts. And yet, the right is doing everything in its power to destroy OWS as if they're responsible for wrecking the economy (I recommend watching this clip of comedian George Carlin predicting much of this in 2005. NSFW.).

Robert Scheer on this lunacy:

(Robert) Rubin was rewarded for his efforts on behalf of Citigroup with a top job as chairman of the bank’s executive committee and at least $126 million in compensation.

That was "compensation" for steering the bank to the point of a bankruptcy avoided only by a $45 billion taxpayer bailout and a further guarantee of $300 billion of the bank’s toxic assets.

In another column, Mr. Scheer writes:

There is no three-strikes law for crooked bankers, not even a law for a fifth strike, as The New York Times reported in the case of Citigroup, cited last month in a $1 billion fraud case. Unlike the California third-striker I once wrote about whom a district attorney wanted banished forever to state prison for stealing a piece of pizza from the plate of a person dining outdoors, Citigroup executives get off with a fine and by offering a promise not to do it again, and again and again...

This time, the fine against Citigroup was $285 million, which may sound like a lot except that the bank raked off as much as $700 million on this particular toxic securities deal...

...that corporation was not the only serial offender. "Citigroup has a lot of company in this regard on Wall Street," the Times noted, "nearly all of the biggest financial companies—Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, J.P. Morgan Chase and Bank of America among them—have settled fraud cases by promising that they would never again violate an antifraud law, only to have the SEC conclude they did it again a few years later."

In a story well worth reading that praises the judge for not allowing these "settlements," Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi goes into more detail:

Over the last decade, Citi has repeatedly been caught committing a variety of offenses, and time after time the bank has been dragged into court and slapped with injunctions demanding that they refrain from ever engaging the same practices ever again. Over and over again, they’ve completely blown off the injunctions, with no consequences from the state – which does nothing except issue new (soon-to-be-ignored-again) injunctions.

In this current case, this particular unit at Citi had already been slapped with two different SEC cease-and-desist orders barring it from violating certain securities laws...

But the SEC avoided the issue of the 2003 injunction by charging Citi with a different type of fraud. But, as Bloomberg points out, it probably wouldn’t have mattered much if they had accused Citi of violating the 2003 injunction, since the bank had already done that once and not been punished for it...

Hunter over at Daily Kos asks some obvious questions about this:

...it begs the question of why on earth the SEC even exists...How much profit can a company make, via fraudulent behavior? If a company can be as crooked as it wants, and the only punishment government will inflict is a small tax on their crookedness, then why would anyone be the slightest bit surprised if the whole damn encompassing industry turned out crooked?

The SEC's lax enforcement of its own rules, coupled with the constant trafficking of personnel to and from the very companies being regulated, leads to the obvious question: Is the SEC, itself, crooked? Are they going out of their way to procure such lenient settlements, and to willfully ignore past infractions, as some sort of banks-are-better-than-us economic policy—or just as personal favor to those same banks?

This is exactly what the Occupy movement, not to mention most of the rest of the public, is talking about. There is no substantive punishment for crooked behavior on Wall Street. Even when that behavior threatens the entire nation's economy, which should be a damn scary thought right there, it will be met only with an easily payable cash fine, and nothing else. Bonuses will remain the same. Nobody in a position of significant power will go to jail. No past injunctions will be enforced, no serious obstacles to committing similar frauds in the future will be enacted ... nothing. Not a damn thing. (Bold mine, italics his.)

'Nuff said.

Just prior to OWS, the right attacked Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren, hard, because of her emotional viral video diatribe in which she went after conservative "ideals" and explained what America's social contract should be (actually, Republicans have been attacking her before she even announced her run for Senate. It began when she became a fierce advocate for the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau because protecting consumers from complicated financial products and its fine print is ~~big government~~ long overdue. So the GOP not only attacked her and the CFPB, but blocked her or anyone else from becoming its administrator because ~~it's socialism~~ A) the banks don't want any regulation, and B) Republicans are afraid it would work and prove them wrong, as usual). They attacked her credibility and blasted her for engaging in "class warfare." Of course they did, they had to, because for once an intelligent liberal called out right-wing propaganda and talking points for what they are and it scared the hell out of them. So they had to go on the attack to prevent what she said from resonating with the public at large; or at least their right-wing base. And, on cue, they joined the fight.

So first they go after Mrs. Warren, an intellect who took on right-wing propaganda head on. And then they went after the OWS protestors. Wait for it...three...two...one...Republicans attack Elizabeth Warren for Occupy Wall Street.

Here's another: Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS attack ad links Elizabeth Warren and Occupy Wall Street.

Goes to show how concerned and panicked the right is with Mrs. Warren. Of course they are, they've always been; because unlike the rest of the liberals, she's smart, articulate and not afraid to take on Republicans and their propaganda. So she's a threat to the conservative establishment.

But that's all they got: anger, intimidation and confrontation. Just like school yard bullies.

So as I've pointed out, and proven, Republicans and the right pick fights with Democrats and the left solely to protect their conservative propaganda and dogma. They have to because if it's ever be called out for what it is, and ~~it goes unchallenged~~ they don't attack it and the "liberal" who said it, they fear it'll resonate, and consequently, lose their millions of supporters, torches and pitchforks (fat chance as it is).

The right's attacks on OWS has also confirmed another of this blog's themes.

Whenever Republicans/the right accuse Democrats/the left of, well, anything, it's A) not true and B) an indictment of themselves. Because whatever accusation they make, they're ~~usually~~ always describing themselves. Don't take my word for it, take theirs: "anarchists", "mob," "anti-American tone," "(trying) to create chaos," "class warfare," and "pitting Americans against Americans." This blog has proven that it's Republicans and the right who are the anarchists, mobs, use anti-American tones, create chaos (on purpose) and engage in "class warfare" every single day by pitting Americans against Americans. Heck, with their tax policies always overwhelmingly benefiting the wealthy, and dividing Americans along racial, social, financial, regional and religious lines, Karl Rove and the Republicans invented class warfare!

Florida GOP Senate candidate, Adam Hasner, couldn't describe his own "Party" any better when called all OWS supporters "anarchists," "extremists" and "thugs." 'Nuff said.

And with his Nazi comparisons, Mr. Beck has proven me right, yet again.

What's ironic, is that the right assumes that OWS is liberal and therefore "pro-Obama," which forces them to angrily oppose and attack it. And while the Republican "Party" has always looked out for the interests of the wealthy and corporate America, Salon's Glenn Greenwald points out that President Obama does too:

In March, 2008, The Los Angeles Times published an article with the headline "Democrats are darlings of Wall St", which reported that both Obama and Clinton "are benefiting handsomely from Wall Street donations, easily surpassing Republican John McCain in campaign contributions." In June, 2008, Reuters published an article entitled "Wall Street puts its money behind Obama"; it detailed that Obama had almost twice as much in contributions from "the securities and investment industry" and that "Democrats garnered 57 percent of the contributions from" that industry. When the financial collapse exploded, then-candidate Obama became an outspoken supporter of the Wall Street bailout.

And Obama has continued to suck up to Wall Street. The 2010 banking legislation that was supposed to address the market collapse and what caused it was weak, watered down and has a Volker "too big to fail" Rule filled with loopholes. So it won't prevent the next financial meltdown. And not only has the Obama administration failed to prosecute a single banker for the biggest theft of the American Treasury in history, as I already said, but has pressured New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to agree to a slap-on-the-wrist settlement with these crooks and end his investigation.

If Obama really wanted to hold the bankers accountable, he could have. But instead, he gave them a "get out of jail free card" and is trying to get them another.

Also, if Obama and the Democrats really opposed oil companies receiving billions of dollars in subsidies, corporations paying ~~little or no taxes~~ a negative tax rate, and billion dollar hedge fund managers paying just a 15 percent tax rate (as opposed to 35 percent), then they could have done something about all that too in 2009 and 2010 when Democrats held enormous Congressional majorities. But they didn't because A) Obama's a Republican, and B) Obama and the Democrats were/are so frightened of the GOP, they're implementing the conservative agenda.

We're supposed to have a Government of the people, by the people, for the people... Not an Oligarchy of the plutocrats, by the plutocrats, for the plutocrats. But that's what we got. And it's an embarrassment that Americans have to take to the streets to get the government, our government, to realize that.

Is there not a single politician out there who's honest and cares enough to change "the system"? Of course not, because trying to find honesty in Washington is like trying to find a clean place to sit in a garbage dump.

But with a self-inflicted economic collapse; a suspicion that our financial markets are manipulated and rigged on behalf of the crony capitalists; the SEC "punishing" banks with fines that are a fraction of what they made from their crimes; the SEC ignoring information about Bernie Madoff's $50 billion Ponzi scheme for 10 years; more and more money being pushed up to the wealthiest Americans; corruption, criminality and ~~political contributions~~ legalized bribery running rampant among, and between, politicians, ~~donors~~ corporations, lobbyists and special interests; a presidential election where the votes couldn't be counted; insane billion dollar presidential campaigns that take almost two years (and not a single candidate, or President, even questions it); Congressional and state legislative districts drawn specifically to keep them safe for one party or the other and to keep incumbents in power for life (Soviet-style); presidents usurping unconstitutional power, authorizing torture, conducting sham trials (we call them "military commissions"), instituting indefinite detention and
warrantless wiretapping, engaging in secret wars, political assassinations and cyber terrorism, and with the complicity of party leaders (and an appeasing media), committing felonies and war crimes and sweeping them under the rug; a two-tiered justice system - elites on one side and everyone else on the other; the most asinine and expensive health care system in the world where only the privileged can access the best it has to offer, while others - even with insurance - are forced into bankruptcy; a crumbling infrastructure, five million Americans in the process of losing their right to vote; (Dec. 6 insert: a post office that can't deliver the mail on time;) (Dec. 7 insert: Donald Trump hosting a Republican presidential debate. [Dec. 28 insert: That was later canceled]); and an arcane and dysfunctional legislative process purposely paralyzed by gridlock, sabotage and political terrorism, what do you expect?

Congratulations America, we're a banana republic. U-S-A!...U-S-A!...U-S-A!...

While I have issues with some of OWS's tactics and don't believe they should be allowed to pitch tents and live in parks and public places (November 14 insert: I go into detail, here), the rage and anger they're expressing is certainly understandable. So understandable that anyone who opposes, attacks and demonizes anyone else for expressing that rage and anger is either not paying attention, or convinced themselves into believing that OWS is (boo-goody, boo-goody, boo!) liberal, and therefore, must be attacked and ridiculed. Hey, that's what cults get you to do.

America is sick and tired of on-the-take politicians constantly doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons by catering to the whims of the rich and powerful, and having the poor, middle class and elderly pay for it. Who can possibly disagree with that?

Republicans. Because they have to protect their propaganda and talking points at all costs. And with their propaganda machine they do by keeping their moronic base perpetually enraged at Democrats, liberals, Occupy Wall Street, Elizabeth Warren, or whoever their manufactured enemy of the ~~week~~ ~~day~~ hour happens to be.

November 16 insert:

Hunter and OWS protestor/spokesman Jesse LaGreca have posts worth reading on the afraid-of-their-own-shadow/capitulating/corporate suck-up "Democrats".

What you can take from both of them is this: when power is split, Republicans get what they want. When Republicans hold enough power (George Bush never had "60 votes" in the Senate either), Republicans get what they want. And when Democrats hold enormous power, Republicans get what they want.

E-Mail to Senate Candidate Elizabeth Warren

2011-10-19T11:08:00.003-04:00

I sent this e-mail to Elizabeth Warren twice through her campaign web site. I made some changes and sent it a third time, for a reason I explain in the e-mail, and will keep sending it.

To whom it may concern:

Even though I'm a liberal, I wasn't sure if I wanted Mrs. Warren to run for Senate. Not because I didn't think she'd make a good Senator, but because she's too good for the Senate. I'm serious.

Also, my fear was that once she decided to run, Mrs. Warren would do the knee-jerk thing and raise millions of dollars and turn into a typical politician. I'm sure she'd deny that, at least the latter, but I'm a cynic when it comes to politics and would have to believe it to see it. And that's why I'm writing. I have a few ideas for her campaign. They're a bit wild, but all I'm asking for is that whoever is reading this, make sure she gets it.

(I sent this twice last month but I'm sure whoever read it, deleted it, and didn't pass it on to Mrs. Warren. So I wanted to give it another shot.)

Mrs. Warren, I'm sure you hate what Congress has become and don't consider yourself a politician. So don't become one. Don't hire a team of political consultants who tell you what to say and how to say it. Don't talk like a press release. And don't hold focus groups. Be real. Talk to the voters like you do to your family around the dinner table. Admit that you alone will not change Washington (because you, alone, can't). And please don't say you're going to "fight for (fill in the blank)" because it makes you look like a politician.

Admit that you don't have all the answers, especially on issues you may not be familiar with. So be honest. Novel idea, huh? And admit that you're - gasp! - a liberal. Hey, you're going to be accused of being one, so you might as well embrace it and prove what you believe in by using the truth, the facts and reason, not lies, spin and talking points.

A political candidate running on truth, facts, honesty and the power of persuasion. Who'da thunk it?

The point I'm trying to make is that you should run on YOUR terms; not the knee-jerk "Politics 101" "stay on message" scripted campaigns we see from every typical politician. Be your own campaign manager.

I have another idea. It's even more wild.

The money in politics is obscene. It's everything that's wrong with our system. And we're never going to clean up the system until the money is taken out of the process. And the only way to get the money out is to ban all paid TV and radio campaign advertising. I know, I know, "the First Amendment." But if Congress can get the tobacco and liquor industries to agree to stop running TV and radio ads, then there's no reason why "We the People" can't get political candidates who have polluted the airwaves for decades to do the same. No paid ads by the candidates or the parties, and no ads by individuals or groups on behalf of a candidate or party. No ads means, no ads. Period (since they wouldn't be able to raise money, the DNC and RNC would no longer exist. Hey, so much the better!).

While it's too late to have this legislated for your campaign, assuming it could be, there's nothing stopping you from doing this on your own. Please, just hear me out. So this means:

1) You will only accept contributions from residents of Massachusetts and only up to the maximum allowed (so you'd have to return all the money you've received so far from contributors outside Massachusetts). These contributions will pay your day to day campaign expenses.
2) You will not run any TV or radio ads. And you will instruct stations NOT to run ads on your behalf by individuals, groups, corporations or the Party. And mean it. You can't get on your high horse and say you won't run TV ads but allow someone else put up ads on your behalf. That's the sort of thing I'd expect out of a typical politician.

I know what you're thinking. How will the voters get to know you? That's easy. 1) Shaking hands and kissing babies, 2) streaming Internet video campaigning and conferencing, 3) town hall meetings (also streamed via the internet), 4) the news, 5) the free media, where you can get onto every TV and radio show in the region, and 6) debates.

Nobody's putting a gun to the head of political candidates forcing them to run campaign ads. So there's nothing preventing you, or any other candidate, from not running any.

This idea doesn't mean an end to ads altogether. Invite your supporters to make their own ads and put them on the internet. It's the paid TV and radio advertising that has to go because that would remove the reason for having to raise this obscene amount of legalized bribery. And if you win, you'd be the only one in Washington who wouldn't be beholden to a single special interest. In fact, your "lobbyists" would be the residents of Massachusetts.

These rules would also apply to your primary, so challenge your opponents to do the same. Assuming you win, challenge Scott Brown to follow the same rules. He won't, but so what? Let him raise millions of dollars from corporations, let him flood the airwaves with his moronic ads, and let him be the candidate who's bought and paid for. You can be the smart and honest candidate that has ideas - remember them? - and backs them up with facts.

You can challenge Sen. Brown to a series of debates beginning next summer, including "single issue" debates (or at least debates divided into two, three or four issues) so you can spend more then 60 seconds on health care, the economy and Social Security. And assuming he doesn't agree to that - and he won't - then what would he be afraid of? He can't defend his opinions in real debates?

If you did this, you would inspire other smart, honest, creative non-politicians across the country to run for public office under these same strict self-imposed rules (candidates for House seats would only be allowed to raise money from residents within the district). And as more and more candidates run their campaigns this way, it would eventually shame life-long politicians into doing it as well. So this idea can be implemented without any legislation at all. Therefore, the First Amendment would be rendered irrelevant (even though the tobacco and liquor TV and radio advertising bans were legislated).

Hey, if this is what it takes to clean up the system AND send better and smarter men and women to office, so be it. It would be best gift any (non) politician ever gave to her (perspective) constituents. And I'd take it as a slap in the face by any politician - Democrat or Republican - who wouldn't do it.

This would be a bold and somewhat risky move on your part, no doubt. But I think it would pay off, big, because this is exactly what Americans are are looking for. Someone who's honest, who won't take a penny of corporate or out-of-state money, who won't run nauseating TV ads that insult the public's intelligence, who won't sling mud (because that's the only way they can win), and who is so smart, she can support her opinions by using facts, logic, intelligent thought and the power of persuasion, not lies, spin and talking points. Isn't that what honest debate, campaigns and governance should be about?

I have another idea. This one isn't wild, it's radical. But I think you can get away with it in Massachusetts.

Take on the NRA. Yes, yes, I know, "gun control is a loser for Democrats." But how did it become such a loser? It's an issue that Democrats have been intimidated into either ignoring or becoming gun nuts themselves. Ted Kennedy never even brought it up. And in the meantime, the NRA has hijacked the Second Amendment, bullied whatever gun control movement there was into silence, and call the shots, so to speak, on the country's weakened gun laws. I'm tired of Democrats abandoning the issue altogether. So it's time to take the issue back; or at least try to.

Sure, if you go through with my ideas you could lose. But you could lose running a "typical politician's" "talking point" "stay on message" multi-million dollar campaign too. And you'd lose your credibility in the process.

But I think you'd have a great chance - even a better chance - to win this election by implementing these ideas. Especially in Massachusetts.

Again, this comes down to running and hopefully winning on your terms. And that means not raising millions of dollars, not running a single TV or radio ad, not running as a typical politician, not running away from what you believe in, and using the truth and the facts to support your positions. So it also means a campaign void of spin and talking points. Imagine that.

But this also means that you shouldn't pander to the left either. Yes, if it's fair and good for the country, then by all means support it. But if not - and no group should get everything - then no. Somebody has to be the adult in the room.

You can stand politics and the Democratic Party on its head with a campaign like this. It's called honesty and integrity. And that's exactly what the country and the Occupy Wall Street protestors are looking for.

So how about it?

Letter to the Editor *

2011-10-15T10:25:00.004-04:00

This is a Letter to the Editor that I wrote. It was published but almost half was omitted. Here it is, in its entirety.

I couldn't disagree more with the Oct. 5 letter, "Al-Awlaki ceded civilian rights". Nowhere in the Constitution does it give Presidents the authorization to create a secret, lawless committee, without oversight of any kind, for the purpose of coming up with American "kill lists"; nor does it allow a President, without presenting a shred of evidence in a single court, to act on such a list and sign off on the assassination of an American citizen. Besides, assassination is illegal under American law.

As much as I despise Mr. al-Awlaki's terrorist-inspiring rants and what they provoked, like it or not, that speech is protected under the First Amendment. And even if it wasn't, I didn't know that death, without due process, was the penalty for such a crime.

And if you want to use "treason" to justify Mr. al-Awlaki's assassination, according to the Constitution, either "two witnesses" or a "confession in open court" is required to prove it.

If Mr. al-Awlaki was truly guilty of everything the Obama administration says, why not go through proper legal channels and get an indictment in either open court or a secret FISA court? Why hide behind slander and leaks from "anonymous government officials" who not only admitted that "some of the intelligence" against Mr. al-Awlaki is patchy, but have an interest in the public believing that he plotted terrorist attacks? And why use legal roadblocks to prevent Mr. al-Awlaki's father from challenging the government's decision to target his son?

When a President takes his oath, he's obligated to protected, preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States. But since 9/11, both Presidents Bush and Obama have used fear and the threat of terrorism as an excuse to circumvent the Constitution, usurp power and strip away civil liberties. For instance, they've been spying on Americans without a warrant, harassing, intimidating and subpoenaing reporters and Wikileaks to prevent them and future whistleblowers from disclosing government criminality, rescinded habeas corpus, conveniently declared prisoners, regardless of where they were captured, as "enemy combatants" and locked them up without charges and trial (indefinite detention), and have repeatedly misused the "state secrets" excuse to keep information on detainees and their treatment from becoming public (when China, North Korea and Iran do those things they're "evil"; but when we do it, it's justified). And what do we have to show for all that? Rising U.S. casualties in Afghanistan, endless war in a number of countries, and we have to go through a mugging before we can get on to an airplane.

Regardless of what Mr. al-Awlaki was truly guilty of, I think it's frightening that we have a President who ordered the assassination of an American citizen in Yemen without due process. Imagine if a "President Cheney" had that power. Now, he would.

But what could be more frightening, is that Americans on both sides of the political aisle, including the Oct. 5 letter writer, not only wrap themselves in the flag and applaud this systematic evisceration of our First, Fourth and Fifth ("due process") Amendment guarantees, no questions asked, but have the nerve to mock those of us who question such a blatant grab of illegal and unconstitutional presidential power.

In the final portion of the Oct. 5 letter, the writer doesn't realize that America is also responsible for "making war, especially against innocent civilians." A lot more war (and don't forget torture). But for some reason it's justified when we do it. And we wonder why they hate us.

Note: Also see this and this (October 20 insert: and this), and in regards to "using fear and the threat of terrorism," this (October 20 insert: and this).

Sickening Display of Republican Ignorance*

2011-10-06T12:13:00.015-04:00

This blog has shown what the Republican "Party" and its conservative movement has become. But you don't have to take my word for it because there were three recent incidents, all during Republican Presidential primary debates, in which the right told us exactly who they are.

The first one was when moderator Brian Williams brought up the 234 executions (~~now~~ 236 , at least as of a couple of weeks ago) that have taken place in Texas while Rick Perry has been governor. It received a round of applause from the audience.

Even if you support capital punishment, executions are nothing to be proud of. Actually, it's an embarrassment. But the right doesn't know any better. So that sick, blood-thirsty applause is rooted in deep, deep ignorance; and the Middle Ages.

But the reaction is also rooted in political pettiness. Since liberals oppose the death penalty, conservatives not only have to disagree with them, but poke them in the eye when given the chance. And that's what the applause was also all about. Take that you soft on crime liberals!

The second incident was when moderator Wolf Blitzer brought up a hypothetical 30-year old who came down with a costly illness but didn't have health insurance (which is not all that hypothetical). Ron Paul responded by saying that not having insurance was about "freedom," and government "can't take care of everybody." That too was applauded. But when Mr. Blitzer follow-up by asking if we should just "let him die," members of the audience shouted "yes!"

What a disgrace. And remember, these audiences are pro-life and oppose "death panels." Go figure.

But of course that was the reaction because liberals want all Americans to have universal health coverage, and the only way for that to happen is with "big government" "socialism." And arrogant, sanctimonious conservative Republicans must oppose that (or else, they fear, they'd be proven wrong when "big government" "socialist" universal health care worked). So it was another opportunity to poke liberals in the eye (Republicans crack me up. They're always bitching and moaning about their "tax dollars going to the welfare state." But I guess as far as Mr. Paul is concerned, he has no problem that his tax dollars - not to mention higher insurance costs, deductibles and co-pays - are going to pay for the "freedom-loving" "anti-government" uninsured when they turn up at the emergency room. Yup, sounds like more Republican logic to me!).

Conservatives have poked liberals in the eye before. It happened in 2010 when they mocked Al Gore and global warming during a snowstorm. And it happened at the 2008 Republican convention when the delegates chanted "Drill, baby, drill." Of course they did because they knew it would tick off liberals.

Mark Sumner of Daily Kos and I are reading each others minds:

If you're fortunate, you were until this moment unaware that there was once such a thing as the Rush Limbaugh television show. If you are so unlucky as to have seen an episode, you may remember a charming segment devoted to cutting down trees. Not harvesting timber or splitting firewood, mind you, just knocking over trees. In this repeating bit, cameras focused on some little pine or oak, often bearing a sign with a message to "tree huggers" or a personal note for Al Gore. Then, with a roar of chain saws and a nice cloud of two-stroke smoke, the tree was dispatched.

Killing a tree for no visible purpose never failed to generate guffaws from Limbaugh and his audience. Perhaps they pictured liberals as shivering in front of their televisions, biting their lips in horror as the poor-widdle-twee went boom. Perhaps they thought it made Al cry. Whatever they visualized, the point of the nightly tree-felling was clear: they ran the bit not because they thought it helped anyone, but because they thought it would be painful to those who cared about the environment. It was the video equivalent of pulling the wings off flies...

They don't shout "drill, baby, drill" because they think it will make gas cheaper. They don't create signs in which cap and trade (a program designed by Republicans of a different era) is bracketed by a hammer and sickle because they think capturing carbon will cost jobs. They do it because they think it will piss you off. They do it even when they know what they're doing is causing real and lasting damage. They do it because hurting liberals is more important than doing the right thing. Hell, as far as today's GOP is concerned, hurting liberals is the definition of doing the right thing. If you like it, they're against it, even if "it" is breathable air, clean water, or a climate not racing toward irrevocable harm. They've generalized the idea that liberals are pro-livable planet. So Republicans have given screwing the Earth a priority position on their to-do list. (Bold mine, underline his.)

This is how the right mobilizes their base on contentious, partisan issues. Take the country's sick obsession with guns, for example. It's built on nothing but ticking off those "gun grabbing" liberals (~~all three of them~~ there aren't any).

So in a matter of a just few seconds, the right not only gave the country a clear indication as to their level of their intellect, but their level of maturity as well; because as these reactions showed, they will politicize everything, out of spite. Of course they do, they have to since they're unable to engage in a mature, intelligent, reasoned, factual debate about anything, including guns and health care. So the only way they can "win" an argument, is to create enough noise, and make up enough lies, not to lose it. And with a massive propaganda machine that orchestrates a bellicose and hypocritical (also here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here) get-out-in-front attack offense, they don't.

How can we possibly address the country's problems seriously and practically with a movement that cheers executions and wants someone without insurance to just die? Is that the mentality we want ~~addressing the country's complicated problems~~ behind the country's (pugnacious right-wing dominated) political system? Is that the sentiment and objectives we want the country to have? Of course not, that's not what America's about. At least it wasn't until the right got control of it.

This isn't about the death penalty and health care. It's about the audience reactions. They've given us great insight as to how much the right cares about their country and fellow citizens. Americans should be embarrassed, and angered, at such a sickening display of ignorance, selfishness and immaturity. America's supposed to be smarter then that. A lot smarter. But the right has proven that wrong. They should be ashamed of themselves. But they're not because in a third debate, a gay soldier who asked a question via YouTube received a smattering of boos. And like the two previous incidents, it wasn't denounced by any of the three Republican candidates. And that's all you need to know about the Republican ~~"Party"~~ Cult.

December 27 insert:

Other examples of this immature right-wing pettiness are "Freedom Fries" and "Freedom toast," and the delegates at the 2004 Republican convention mocking John Kerry and his Vietnam purple heart by putting band-aids on their faces. But there was a political strategy behind those instances: to make France look like they were wrong for not taking part in the Iraq war, and to make George Bush's (non-existent) war record look better then Kerry's.

This sort of "na-na-na-na-na" behavior is more commonly seen in kindergarten. But it's designed to distract, divert attention and defuse an issue in which the right is on weak ground. It's the conservative talk radio type attitude where the "Party" can call a Democrat (or their enemy of the hour) a name, and with the help of Fox "News," get their base to join in. And that's important; because when base conservatives are frothing at the mouth and go on the attack (mock or ridicule), it will never occur to them that they're on the wrong side of the issue.

Guns are a great example. Gun owners are whipped into such a brainwashed, paranoid frenzy, that guns are wonderful and any talk to the contrary - or haven forbid, gun control...if there was any talk of gun control - is bad and shouted down as un-American.

Getting the followers involved in "the cause" and keeping them busy is how cults stay intact.

Republican Double Standards*

2011-09-19T12:19:00.033-04:00

One of the themes behind this blog, especially my most recent posts, has been that Republicans aren't just always wrong, but they couldn't be more wrong. Without her realizing it, Rachel Maddow couldn't illustrate this any better, here.

She explains that Glenn Hubbard, who was George W. Bush's economic adviser from 2001-2003, was behind Bush's wartime tax cuts. It was those tax cuts, and other Republican policies, that have fueled the exploding deficit .

Hubbard did such a wonderful job with the tax cuts, and our economy, that he left the White House to work for Goldman Sachs. And in 2004, he wrote that the mortgage "casino" Wall Street was running would "enhance the stability of the U.S. banking system" and that "recessions are less frequent and milder when they occur."

Repeat after me: Republicans aren't just always wrong, they couldn't be more wrong!

You'd think a record that couldn't be more wrong, especially for a White House economist, would force Mr. Hubbard into hiding. But it didn't. These days, being consistently and horribly wrong is a Republican badge of honor. Of course it is, it has to, or else it would be an admission that conservatism was wrong and - gasp! - liberalism was right. And the GOP can never admit that. So Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has hired Mr. Hubbard as his chief economic adviser. Of course he did, because wartime tax cuts for the wealthy and failing to regulate Wall Street were liberal ideas.

What's going on here? Conservatives never have to defend their arguments when they're wrong, but liberals have to defend theirs 100% when they're right. And that's an impossible standard to meet because no one's 100%. Not even me. But that's what the right is counting on because they're just looking for a hole in a liberal argument to exploit.

As I wrote in May:

...conservatives and conservatism can be proven wrong over and over again, but the one time something happens that vindicates their side of an issue, they turn it into New Year's Eve. It would be like the 1962 Mets breaking out the champagne and having a parade every time they won a game.

But I guess if I was "vindicated" once out of every 10 ~~100~~ ~~200~~ ~~500~~ 1000 times, I'd make a big deal out of it too. Take for instance the elections in Iraq that were used to justify a disastrous war that should never have been fought, and the 2010 snow storms that were used to mock Al Gore and global warming.

And then there's times that "being right" is the result of just making stuff up; such as the emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit that the right took out of context to show that global warming is a hoax.

Readers of liberal economist Paul Krugman's columns and blog can tell that he works very hard proving his Keynesian economic philosophy. He has to. Because the one time he leaves himself open, or says something conservatives don't like, the right will exploit that opening and attack his credibility.

Sometimes Mr. Krugman knows what the attack from the right will be, so he responds to it before it's even fired. But he fights with facts. The right fights with propaganda. So the right has taken advantage of "lies making it ~~around the world~~ to their brainwashed base before the truth gets its pants on" (not just with Mr. Krugman but with all their enemies).

By having to prove his arguments over and over again, in so many different ways, it's gotten to the point that Mr. Krugman is beating his head against the wall. Because for all his facts, and for all his reasoning, it's as if he spends ~~most~~ all his time defending his views. Perhaps, that's the right's objective. Because if they keep a Nobel Prize economist like Mr. Krugman all tied up and perpetually on the defensive, conservatives will think there are holes in his arguments, and therefore, won't believe a word he says. And they don't. Mission accomplished.

In a slightly different way, 9/11 and the Iraq war are other double standards the right takes advantage of.

Do you know what would have happened to a Democratic President if, despite numerous warnings, he failed to pick up a phone and demand specifics that may have prevented the 9/11 attacks? Do you know what would have happened to a Democratic President if he made stuff up so he can start an unnecessary war...that turned into a colossal disaster?

He would have been impeached and the Democratic Party would have been finished, the Republican Party would have made sure of it.

On the flip side, do you know what would have happened if WMD's were found in Iraq, thus justifying George Bush's war? And a peaceful democracy emerged, and our troops, suffering minimal casualties, all returned home by the end of 2003? And a stable Iraqi government that respected minority rights had been elected and actually governed responsibly? And a McDonald's, Starbucks and Marriott were opening on every other street corner in Baghdad? I'll tell you what would have happened: the Democratic Party wouldn't have been heard from again - the Republican Party would have made sure of it - because their credibility would have been shot.

Not only that, but GOP would have reminded the country, every hour on the hour, that they were right on Iraq and liberals couldn't have been more wrong (Eric Alterman's recent American Progress column illustrates just how wrong the right was on Iraq, how right a handful of liberals were and how little credit and notoriety they got).

However, Iraq didn't turn out that way, it was a colossal disaster. George Bush and the Republicans couldn't have been more wrong. As usual. But they weren't finished as a Party and George Bush was re-elected. And after losing the 2006 and 2008 elections, badly, Republicans regained the House last year and are gearing up to retake the White House in 2012. So whatever credibility they lost, they got back. But had a Democratic President started that disastrous war based on lies, you can be certain that the Democratic Party wouldn't have been heard from again.

Oh wait, I'm wrong. The Democratic Party would have been finished because of 9/11. Either way, what hypocrites (also here , here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here).

So despite 9/11, despite how wrong and disastrous the Iraq war was, and despite what tax cuts (budget deficits), deregulation (Wall Street), unenforced regulation (the BP oil spill), and the "free market" (our asinine health care system, Lehman Brothers, Enron, Bernie Madoff, etc.) have done to the country, the Republican Party, because of this double standard, is never held accountable.

And despite the sorry ass record that "less government" and "lower taxes" has, Republicans continue to call for "less government" and "lower taxes." And aren't called on it. Not by Democrats and not by the so called "liberal" media. It would be like a compulsive gambler on the verge of bankruptcy saying he'll "win the lottery tomorrow" and his family believing him.

But, of course Republicans are still calling for "less government" and "lower taxes." They have to, or else it would mean conservatism was wrong and - gasp! - "tax and spend" "big government" liberalism was right. And they can never, ever admit that, regardless of what the facts are.

So unlike Mr. Krugman, liberals and Democrats, Mr. Hubbard, conservatives and Republicans (Sept. 27 insert: or the Wall Street Journal's editorial page) never have to defend their arguments or their disastrous record.

Meanwhile, the left's record, opposite of the right's, is much better. And yet, who's listened to? Who's taken seriously? Who has the power? Who does the "liberal" media chase after? Who manipulates, controls and dominates policy "debates"? And who's allowed to be wrong...all the time?.

Who's ignored? Who's not taken seriously? Who has to be right 100% of the time (and still wouldn't be good enough)? And who do the "liberal" media and the country roll the eyes at?

But wait there's more.

Ronald Reagan raised taxes eleven times, added $3 trillion to the debt, and grew the size of government. Barack Obama has cut taxes, even more then George Bush did during his first term. And yet, Reagan's the Republican icon and Obama's the socialist.

How did this happen?

For the last thirty years, the right's massive propaganda machine has been on the offensive 24/7. They've done an excellent job spinning, distracting, attacking, deflecting blame, rewriting history, intimidating the mainstream media, raising fears (of all the right's manufactured enemies), handing their brainwashed right-wing base talking points, and keeping them in a perpetual state of rage (at all of the right's manufactured enemies). They've also put Democrats on the defensive. And since the left is always being challenged, and forced to defend their arguments, 100%, the right doesn't have to (if you're a lousy singer, just keep pushing other singers on to the stage so you never have to).

The right has also done an excellent job making up their own "facts" and decimating them to their followers via the conservative media. So every political "debate" starts with the right grossly misinformed and, well, wrong. But they have to be misinformed and wrong, so in their twisted and corrupted minds they can be "right" (and Ronald Reagan can be a Republican icon and Barack Obama a socialist). And we wonder why the country's problems are never addressed responsibly. Mrs. Maddow illustrates this and shows just how wrong Republicans are with their "facts," here.

Since Democrats never call out the GOP on any of this, they are always on the defensive. And it allows the right's lies and propaganda to become the starting point for political "debate" and "negotiation". This is why the left doesn't get anywhere (Sept. 27 insert: resulting in this. September 28 insert: And this.). Just ask Mr. Krugman and the rest of the liberals who opposed the Iraq war, opposed the Bush tax cuts, opposed deregulating Wall Street, and want more corporate regulation, especially on the banks and off-shore oil drilling.

I'd say that it's about time the left called out the right and put them on the defensive for a change. But since liberals and Democrats have been thoroughly intimidated by conservatives and Republicans, and can be found all rolled up into the fetal position, it'll never happen. And even if they did, the right would unleash a massive counter-attack that would create so much noise that nothing would resonate. And the country would be "disgusted at all that partisanship in Washington" and "blame both parties". Mission accomplished.

But if Democrats ever did decide to take the Republicans on, they'd need to do a few things. First they need to put a chip on their shoulder and dare the right to knock it off. Second, they need a bold, massive and sustained offensive attack of their own. And third, call out the right for what it is: a God damn cult, or worse. And then maybe the country would finally start listening to them.

Unfortunately, they don't even realize something like that needs to be done. But it doesn't matter because they don't have the guts to do it anyway. And besides, Democrats couldn't argue themselves out of a wet paper bag. So forget it. We're doomed.

Oh, Republicans aren't just wrong, they couldn't be more wrong, again, here. And who can forget this and this (also here)?

How much proof do you need?

I'd hate think of the circumstances under which the country finally "got it" and stopped listening to conservatives and started listening to - gasp! - liberals.

Note: It's only fair to point out that some Democrats supported the Iraq war, and Democratic Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Larry Summers convinced Bill Clinton to sign the legislation that deregulated Wall Street. And they didn't lose any credibility either. In fact, Mr. Rubin and Mr. Summers wound up either working for President Obama or advising him.

So Democrats couldn't have been more wrong too. But only because they've consistently supported the conservative Republican agenda. And foolishly continue to do so.

October 9 insert: Besides his economic record, George Bush's foreign policy wasn't just wrong, it couldn't have been more wrong a bigger disaster! So naturally, Mitt Romney hired a bunch of the schnooks responsible for those policies for his campaign (and along with Mr. Hubbard would undoubtedly be part of his administration should he win the Presidency).

October 11 insert: Mr. Krugman calls out the right-wing Tax Foundation, and a conservative colleague, for "deliberate fraud," proves conservative economic dogma wrong, again, and then proceeds to bang his head against the wall, again.

October 13 insert: Mr. Krugman proves right-wing dogma wrong again and again.

October 22 insert: Eric Alterman:

What we have here is a prime example of what I have called "on the one-handism," what Paul Krugman calls "the cult of the balance" and what James Fallows calls the problem of "false equivalence." The phenomenon derives from a multiplicity of causes but rests on two essential insights.

First, conservatives have figured out that even the most high-minded members of the media will publish their claims without prejudice, even if they lack any credible supporting evidence. They will do this because they consider it both "unfair" and nonobjective to take a position between the two parties even when it involves passing along a falsehood.

Second, because of the relentless effectiveness of the right’s effort to "work the refs," reporters and editors are particularly reluctant to invite the hassles and angry accusations certain to arrive whenever anyone prints an unfavorable truth about anyone associated with the right. Conservatives have gotten so good at this, as a matter of fact, that they even get reporters to thank them for it—as well as to misidentify their complaints with those of average everyday American citizens.

October 28 insert: Republicans are proven wrong, again, here, and Mr. Krugman calls out GOP hypocrisy, again, here (October 30 insert: And follows up here).

October 29 insert: Rachel Maddow couldn't prove the point behind this post any better, here. She lists all the times Bush Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz wasn't just wrong on everything he said about Iraq, but couldn't have been more wrong; but now has enough credibility to write an article about what our strategy in Afghanistan should be. The clip is well worth watching, if for no other reason then Mrs. Maddow's incredulousness.

I must apologize for all these insets. But I can't help it if Republicans keep proving me right.

November 8 insert: Mr. Krugman admits to banging his head against the wall, here.

November 12 insert: Couldn't pass this one up.

Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has proposed privatizing the V.A. Mr. Krugman explains why it makes zero sense to do so and then sums it up perfectly:

So, our serious Republican is committed on ideological grounds to demolishing successful programs and replacing them with conservative fantasies that have failed repeatedly in the past.

November 18 insert: Once more, Mr. Krugman:

And in the end, (Rep. Paul) Ryan’s answer is that we need strong economic growth, the kind that we get by cutting taxes on the rich. Because that’s why the Clinton years were an economic disaster and the Bush years so prosperous.

November 29 insert:

Okay, I know this is getting ridiculous, but Mr. Krugman proves Republican propaganda and talking points wrong again and again, and that Alan Greenspan wasn't just wrong, but couldn't have been more wrong.

And here's Mr. Krugman on Grover "shrink government down to the size it can be drowned in the bathtub" Norquist:

And it really is very disturbing that arguments like this, arguments that were thoroughly refuted three generations ago, are playing a major role in political debate. I mean, what’s next? Will they start rejecting the theory of evolution? Oh, wait.

Seriously, are Republicans ever right, about anything (not including their political leanings, of course)?

December 15 insert:

Okay, I just couldn't pass this one up. Once again, Mr. Krugman:

...(Republican Presidential candidate Ron) Paul is unique among the GOP contenders, or for that matter among politicians in general, in making monetary policy his signature issue. So it’s worth noting that he is among those who have been wrong about everything in this slump...

I’m sure that the Paulistas will find a way to claim that their man has been right about everything, even though his predictions have been all wrong. But he really has built his political career around the notion that he’s an expert in a subject about which he actually understands nothing.

December 18 insert:

I wanted to underscore one of this post's main points, that the left has to be right 100% of the time while the right and Republicans never have to. And it doesn't matter.

In regards to Iraq. Not only were there no WMDs, but Iraq didn't get uranium from Africa, and the aluminum tubes that Iraq had attempted to purchase weren't for building a nuclear centrifuge, as we were told. So liberals and those who were against the war were right three out of three times. Conservatives and those who were for the war were wrong three out of three times. And we invaded Iraq anyway. And somehow, Republicans kept their credibility while liberals don't have any.

See how things work?

Same exact thing happens with the GOP's obsession with austerity and tax cuts. In a post worth reading, Hunter at Daily Kos explains.

December 19 insert: Mr. Krugman in terms of Ireland's slight economic rebounds via government spending cuts:

What all this shows is how much people want to believe in successful austerity, and the way they seize on the tiniest piece of evidence as confirmation of their beliefs. (Bold mine.)

In other words, the Republicans and the right would be like the 1962 Mets had they thrown a parade every time they won a game.

In a different post:

It is indeed frustrating that after three years in which Keynesian predictions have been spectacularly correct, pundits insist on reading the evidence as a rejection of Keynes...

...I know that many people can’t bring themselves to even consider the possibility that Keynes was right — or, for that matter, that I personally might have gotten anything right. But reality has been really clear here.

The Debt Ceiling "Deal"

2011-08-09T09:39:00.033-04:00

This is a continuation of last week's post about the debt ceiling fiasco. I wanted to make a few points about the final ~~deal~~ surrender papers.

1) John Boehner: "I got 98 percent of what I wanted."

So if when the economy still stinks next year, or goes into recession, it'll be Obama's fault?

It certainly won't be the Republican's fault. You can be sure of that.

On a related note, right or wrong, S&P has now downgraded America's credit rating.

Hmmm....what was it that John Boehner said? "I got 98 percent of what I wanted." So let me guess. The downgrade will also be Obama's and the Democrat's fault and not the GOP's .

Yup, that didn't take long.

Jed Lewison of Daily Kos:

I guess their logic goes like this: We're going to destroy the economy if you don't give us what we want. And when you do capitulate, and things go to shit, we're going to blame you for the consequences of your capitulation. Just because we held you hostage doesn't mean you shouldn't get blamed.

Republicans are wrong again, this time about the balanced budget amendment, here, proving yet again they're not just always wrong, but can't be more wrong.

2) Mitch McConnell admits taking hostages works.

3) Congress has tried to address the deficit before. And there was always a balance of spending cuts and tax increases. This time was no different. Obama said he would A) only sign a bill that included both spending cuts and tax increases on the super rich that included the closing of corporate tax loopholes, and B) was willing to have a split of 75% spending cuts and 25% tax increases. Republicans countered with an 85/15 split.

What Obama finally agreed to was a 100/0. I don't think I have to tell you which is the 100 and which is the zero (Chris Hayes explains all this here).

That would be like a car salesman taking a few bucks off the sticker price of a new car, but after further negotiations you wind up paying sticker price.

Um, Mr. President, when you negotiate a deal, you're supposed to get something in return.

And no, raising the debt ceiling is not "something."

4) After every one one of these partisan battles, Obama always believes that the Republicans learned their lesson and will "play nice" next time. But they never do (it's Lucy, Charlie Brown and the football every single time). So you can be certain that Republicans didn't learn any lessons from the debt ceiling "negotiations," except of course that taking hostages and demanding a high price in ransom works (see the McConnell link above).

With that in mind, if this "Super Congress" doesn't agree on specific spending cuts and tax increases by late this year, it will automatically trigger drastic spending cuts that neither party likes, including from the sacred defense budget. But these triggered cuts will not change GOP behavior. Heck, it's all set up to be another long, dragged out partisan fight with Democrats, which is exactly what Republicans need to keep their moronic base in that perpetual state of anger, at Democrats. And they're not about to miss an opportunity like that. So next Thanksgiving, Republicans will be taking us over the cliff once again.

My guess is Republicans will follow the same pattern. They won't agree to any tax increase or the closing of a single corporate tax loophole, will demand more and more cuts to domestic spending, won't give an inch on anything - firing up their base in the process - and force the triggered cuts, which wouldn't kick in until 2013. And in 2012, pass a defense spending bill in the House that replaces most, if not all, of whatever was cut by the trigger. And when Obama and the Democrats oppose it, Republicans will run TV ads saying, "Obama and the Democrats are soft on defense," which they would have run anyway.

Also, defense spending could include foreign aid which Republicans despise so they'll gladly let that go.

So there's ways around defense cuts, and with "Democrats" are firmly on the Republican's side, you can be sure the GOP will find them. So don't worry, one way or another, Republicans will get the cuts they want, with Democrats getting nothing in return. As usual.

5) Oh my God, what have they done?

All this GOP-manufactured panic over the debt and deficit forced Washington into this mode of austerity and budget cutting. And it took this horrible deal for Wall Street to finally realize that not only was growth more important then the deficit, and the S&P downgrade, but that only the government can come to the economy's rescue:

Paul Krugman:

Where was growth supposed to come from? Consumers, still burdened by the debt that they ran up during the housing bubble, aren’t ready to spend. Businesses see no reason to expand given the lack of consumer demand. And thanks to that deficit obsession, government, which could and should be supporting the economy in its time of need, has been pulling back.

All we've been hearing since the debt ceiling "deal" went through last week is, "what can the government do now to create jobs and grow the economy?" Um, it's a little late for that. Why wasn't that question being asked in 2009 and 2010?

When Obama took office, the economy was on lying on its back in intensive care needing round the clock attention. But after he got the too small and too boring stimulus through, he thought he was done and basically said, "Okay, now that that's over, let's address the deficit." So he turned his back on the depressed economy and those who lost their jobs and homes. Meanwhile, the bailed out banks and Wall Street firms who caused the economic meltdown were not only made whole by the taxpayer, but resumed making billions in profits.

So how's that austerity, no-strings-attached corporate welfare and non-prosecuted corporate fraud working out for ya?

And now with the credit downgrade, it's just another excuse for the right to call for more spending cuts. So we keep repeating the same destructive cycle.

Had government spending increased the last couple of years, and we invested in America, the economy would have grown, and therefore, lowered the deficit over the long run. But all this austerity and cuts in spending will just increase the deficit short and long term. All you have to do is learn from history.

David Woolner of Salon:

Just under three quarters of a century ago, a group of conservative economic advisers close to Franklin Roosevelt informed the President that they were worried about the rapid rate of growth in the US economy. Since 1933, when FDR took over at the height of the Great Depression, the economy had been expanding steadily, at an average rate of 14 percent per year. Schooled as most of these advisors were in the tenets of economic orthodoxy (which called for cuts in spending during an economic downturn), and unsure of the effects of the Keynesian-style deficit spending that the administration had been engaged in under the terms of the early New Deal, the President was advised to cut the budget, reduce deficit spending and tighten the money supply as a means to stave off inflation. Heeding their word (and no economist himself), FDR did just that.

The results were an unmitigated disaster.

Whatever Obama does now will be too little too late. He had his chance. Forget putting a chip on his shoulder and daring the GOP to knock it off. He's such a sap that he and his Treasury Secretary not only avoid blaming Republicans for this debt ceiling fiasco, but blamed it on - good grief - "both sides."

Obama's listened to Republicans, appeased Republicans and capitulated to Republicans, while giving liberals the finger, the back of his hand and toe of his shoe. And now we're stuck. But by all means, let's keep listening to Republicans.

August 12 insert: Paul Krugman sums up the last couple of years perfectly.

...there’s another emotion you should feel: anger. For what we’re seeing now is what happens when influential people exploit a crisis rather than try to solve it.

For more than a year and a half ...we’ve had a public conversation that has been dominated by budget concerns, while almost ignoring unemployment. The supposedly urgent need to reduce deficits has so dominated the discourse that on Monday, in the midst of a market panic, Mr. Obama devoted most of his remarks to the deficit rather than to the clear and present danger of renewed recession...

What the market was saying — almost shouting — was, "We’re not worried about the deficit! We’re worried about the weak economy!"...

So how did Washington discourse come to be dominated by the wrong issue?

Hard-line Republicans have, of course, played a role. Although they don’t seem to truly care about deficits — try suggesting any rise in taxes on the rich — they have found harping on deficits a useful way to attack government programs...

Check out the opinion page of any major newspaper, or listen to any news-discussion program, and you’re likely to encounter some self-proclaimed centrist declaring that there are no short-run fixes for our economic difficulties, that the responsible thing is to focus on long-run solutions and, in particular, on “entitlement reform” — that is, cuts in Social Security and Medicare. And when you do encounter such a person, you should be aware that people like that are a major reason we’re in so much trouble...

...So when the crisis struck and led to big budget deficits — because that’s what happens when the economy shrinks and revenue plunges — many members of our policy elite were all too eager to seize on those deficits as an excuse to change the subject from jobs to their favorite hobbyhorse. And the economy continued to bleed.

What would a real response to our problems involve? First of all, it would involve more, not less, government spending for the time being — with mass unemployment and incredibly low borrowing costs, we should be rebuilding our schools, our roads, our water systems and more. It would involve aggressive moves to reduce household debt via mortgage forgiveness and refinancing. And it would involve an all-out effort by the Federal Reserve to get the economy moving, with the deliberate goal of generating higher inflation to help alleviate debt problems.

The usual suspects will, of course, denounce such ideas as irresponsible. But you know what’s really irresponsible? Hijacking the debate over a crisis to push for the same things you were advocating before the crisis, and letting the economy continue to bleed.

6) For the last week, I've heard the left lamenting the fact that Democrats didn't get an extension of the one-year Social Security payroll tax holiday. Republicans wouldn't go for it, mainly because it's not a tax cut for the wealthy. (August 27 insert: And because Obama's for it.)

But Democrats crack me up. They've always said that tax cuts don't stimulate the economy; and they don't, at least not as much as repairing bridges would. So why is the left so upset about this not being part of the final deal? Besides, this the best idea Democrats can come up with?

But you see how things work these days? Now Democrats think tax that cuts stimulate the economy too. The next time Republicans agree with Democrats on ~~a real jobs program~~ anything, it'll be the first time.

Anyway, Obama got this temporary payroll tax holiday as part last December's budget ~~"deal"~~ capitulation. It was unprecedented. Never before had the funding source for Social Security been shifted.

The government is supposed to replace all that lost money to the Social Security trust fund. But my guess is, it won't, and why Obama wants to extend the holiday. Because with the trust fund "losing" more and more money, it will force - you got it - cuts to Social Security.

See how things work?

Tax holidays - especially corporate tax holidays - are not holidays. While some tax cuts are better the others, such as tax credits for installing solar or wind power, income tax cuts don't stimulate the economy all that much. They also explode the deficit and balloon the debt, they don't create enough jobs (if any) to make them worthwhile and just force cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education, infrastructure, transportation, aid to the states, etc. (everything but defense spending), which is exactly what Republicans and Obama want.

7) For some reason, self-identified Democrats approve of this destructive debt ceiling deal by an amazing 63/32 clip. What deal are they looking at? I'd hate to think of the deal Obama would have had to cut for Democrats to overwhelmingly oppose it.

By contrast, Republicans who "got 98 percent" of what the Speaker "wanted" approved it 35/58.

Incredible.

8) Liberals and the left have to stop making excuses and admit it: Obama's a conservative Republican! How much proof do you need?

9) Comedian George Carlin saw this thirty year assault on the middle class in 2005. I strongly, strongly recommend watching it, here (NSFW).

August 13 insert: Not to toot my own horn, but in 2005 I wrote:

So I was right - The Truth Behind George W. Bush - this is the GOP's strategy: Cut taxes, borrow and spend, start an unnecessary war, ignore the country's infrastructure, including the levees around New Orleans, so one way or another - by war and/or a natural disaster and refusing to raise taxes to pay for them - it'll put the country on the brink of bankruptcy. And the only way out is to make drastic cuts in Social Security and Medicare, thus fulfilling the GOP's goal of dismantling those nasty "big government" social programs; a process which they compassionately call "starving the beast."

The Takover of American Politics and Government*

2011-07-30T14:29:00.035-04:00

As I showed in 2010 and earlier this year, there's been a monumental shift in power to the far right because Democrats have ceded ground and capitulated to the Republicans on every issue.

Regardless of how much electoral power the GOP has, they control the levers of actual power. They get what they want, they demand more each time, and will not allow anything they oppose to get through; at least not without a long, dragged out fight.

Last year's budget and this fiasco surrounding the debt ceiling have moved the "debate," and politics, so far to the right, that the Democratic Party is now to the right of Ronald Reagan's GOP of the 1980s.

It's not a bargaining chip

Putting a budget together and raising the debt ceiling have to be done. They're like tax returns and paying the mortgage. Who would mess with things like that?

Well, Republicans.

Since it's in their partisan interests to run the country into the ground, the GOP has cleverly forced Democrats into turning the budget and debt ceiling into bargaining chips of their own. In other words, if Democrats want a budget and if Democrats want to raise the debt ceiling, they're going to have to agree to trillion dollar domestic spending cuts and tax cuts for corporations and the super rich, while not increasing a single tax or closing a tax loophole. It would be like a husband who's looking to get into a fight with his wife, telling her that he won't pay the mortgage until she agrees to get a second job and stops going to the mall so he can play more golf. And he won't budge off those demands because what he really wants is a divorce.

So even though the debt ceiling has to be raised, or else risk global economic calamity, Republicans turned it into a hostage and demanded a ransom, that they won't accept. And Obama and the Democrats are poised to pay it anyway. As usual.

As long as Democrats hold some power, Republicans will always oppose ~~budgets and a rise of the debt ceiling~~ everything until Democrats capitulate to Republican demands. Since Democrats caved on the 2009 stimulus, caved on the public option, caved on financial "re-regulation," and caved last December on the budget, why would Republicans ever agree to anything Democrats want? They might as well hold it hostage and demand ransom because they know Democrats will pay it.

This just in: Republicans taken another hostage. The F.A.A..

The wrong side of the wrong argument

In a recession, the government should be spending more, not less, especially when interest rates are so low. So contrary to what you've heard from Republicans, Democrats, President Obama and the so called "liberal media," the deficit and debt are not the problems right now. We have bigger, more immediate concerns: unemployment and the dismal economy. So deep spending cuts - now known as "austerity" - is the wrong response.

Mark Sumner of Daily Kos:

There is no fiscal crisis. Everyone should be clear on that.

The United States is not bankrupt. Social Security is not about to founder. Wall Street is not on a precipice, the IMF is not standing by demanding massive shifts in our government, and U.S. bonds are not trading 1:1 with Charmin. There is nothing wrong.

Nothing except that the Republican Party is prepared to slice the nation's throat to get its way.

Real crises do exist. There are moments in a nation's history where the government must take abrupt action, either military or fiscal, to prevent disaster...

That's not the case this time. Not only does solving the issue at hand not require the launching of a single ship, it doesn't require the expenditure of a single dime. Raising the debt limit does not commit the United States to any debt it has not already incurred. Refusing to raise that limit is no more an act of fiscal prudence than refusing to pay the restaurant for a meal already eaten.

Not only is the money already spent, the Republicans are the ones who spent it. It's not Social Security that drove up the debt over the last decade. Social Security is responsible for 0% of the deficit. Make that 0.00%, to be exact. The deficit that the Republicans are railing against is driven by the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and by the cost of the recently extended Bush tax cuts. You know what (will) happen if we cut Social Security? We'll get less Social Security, not less deficit.

It's funny that politicians on both sides of the aisle keep demanding that "everything be on the table," when what they really mean is that "everything not responsible for the problem be on the table." Not that it matters. The truth is that Republicans aren't interested in solving the problem. They're making the problem. They invented it from thin, hot air and they're entirely invested in seeing that the problem gets worse...

If Republicans were actually concerned about the fiscal health of the nation, they would sign onto raising the debt ceiling without hesitation or condition. Because there's nothing wrong, and because raising the limit would cost nothing. Instead they've created a completely artificial problem as nothing more than an excuse to extend the damage they've already caused. It's really a wonderful little game they've created: drive the nation so far into debt that there's no choice but to raise the limit, then use raising the limit as an excuse to create more debt. (Bold mine. Underline his.)

Funny that the deficit and debt never mattered when a Republican was President. See how things work? And even though Republicans are mainly responsible for exploding the debt in the first place, and have zero credibility on deficits, spending and debt, historically, Obama and the Democrats joined the GOP - back in early 2009 - and shifted policy, from spending more to spending less.

Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz:

I was among those who hoped that, somehow, the financial crisis would teach Americans (and others) a lesson about the need for greater equality, stronger regulation, and a better balance between the market and government. Alas, that has not been the case. On the contrary, a resurgence of right-wing economics, driven by ideology and special interests, once again threatens the global economy—or at least the economies of Europe and North America, where these ideas continue to flourish...

As Greece and other countries face crises, the medicine du jour is simply timeworn austerity packages and privatization, which will merely leave the countries that embrace them poorer and more vulnerable. This medicine failed in East Asia, Latin America, and elsewhere, and it will fail in Europe, too. Indeed, it has already failed in Ireland, Latvia, and Greece.

There is an alternative: an economic-growth strategy supported by the European Union and the International Monetary Fund. Growth would restore confidence that Greece could repay its debts, causing interest rates to fall and leaving more fiscal room for further growth-enhancing investments. Growth itself increases tax revenues and reduces the need for social expenditures, such as unemployment benefits. And the confidence that this engenders leads to still further growth.

Regrettably, the financial markets and right-wing economists have gotten the problem exactly backward: They believe that austerity produces confidence, and that confidence will produce growth. But austerity undermines growth, worsening the government's fiscal position, or at least yielding less improvement than austerity's advocates promise. On both counts, confidence is undermined, and a downward spiral is set in motion.

Do we really need another costly experiment with ideas that have repeatedly failed? We shouldn't, but increasingly it appears that we will have to endure another one nonetheless. A failure of either Europe or the United States to return to robust growth would be bad for the global economy. The failure of both would be disastrous—even if the major emerging-market countries have attained self-sustaining growth. Unfortunately, unless wiser heads prevail, that is the way the world is heading.

Nobel economist Paul Krugman:

...if all you did was listen to (Obama's) speeches, you might conclude that he basically shares the G.O.P.’s diagnosis of what ails our economy and what should be done to fix it. And maybe that’s not a false impression; maybe it’s the simple truth.

One striking example of this rightward shift came in last weekend’s presidential address, in which Mr. Obama had this to say about the economics of the budget: “Government has to start living within its means, just like families do. We have to cut the spending we can’t afford so we can put the economy on sounder footing, and give our businesses the confidence they need to grow and create jobs.”

That’s three of the right’s favorite economic fallacies in just two sentences. No, the government shouldn’t budget the way families do; on the contrary, trying to balance the budget in times of economic distress is a recipe for deepening the slump. Spending cuts right now wouldn’t “put the economy on sounder footing.” They would reduce growth and raise unemployment. And last but not least, businesses aren’t holding back because they lack confidence in government policies; they’re holding back because they don’t have enough customers — a problem that would be made worse, not better, by short-term spending cuts.

Greg Sargent of the Washington Post:

Today’s jobs report is terrible...

The RNC immediately sent out a statement blaming “out of control spending” for the problem, which is a little like telling a starving person he or she needs to lose a little more weight. It’s even more perverse that at a time when the economy is backsliding,

Democrats in Washington are focused on reaching a “grand bargain” with Republicans on the debt ceiling that will result in even more spending cuts.

Republicans reiterating the same talking points day after day is one thing. What’s worse is that the White House has not only failed to rebut the GOP’s arguments on spending, it has practically endorsed them. As Paul Krugman writes today (above), rather than pointing out that cutting spending right now means shedding jobs and further slowing the recovery, the White House has embraced the idea that spending is the problem.

See how things work? We're "debating" how much taxes should be cut on multi-national corporations, not if they should be cut at all. We're "debating" how much spending should be cut on seniors, not if it should be cut at all. Forget the "debate" about the size of another, long overdue stimulus. That's not happening.

It's always about cutting the social safety net, cutting regulation, cutting spending, and most of all, cutting taxes on corporations and the super rich, even though Obama, that "Socialist/liberal", already cut taxes, twice, first in the stimulus and then again last December when he gave into GOP demands.

This goes to show just how hypocritical Republicans are. Even though one-third of the 2009 stimulus was tax cuts, just three Republican Senators, and none in the House, voted for it (that's worth repeating: Republicans voted against tax cuts!). And now, they're blasting the stimulus by saying "it didn't work". Then there was the $858 billion tax cut last December.

Hmm, I thought tax cuts created jobs.

Anyway, you see how this works? Republicans demand tax cuts, get them, and when they don't work, blame Obama. And when the government takes in less money, it forces - gee, what do you know? - spending cuts. And then they demand more tax cuts, they get them, and the insane cycle repeats itself.

And what did Democrats get out of all those tax cuts? A stimulus that was too small and too boring, a three month budget "deal" that forced another round of "negotiations" (in which Republicans threatened a government shutdown) and a showdown over the debt ceiling.

So even though Democrats act like Republicans, they'll never be able to please Republicans. So why bother?

In exchange for raising the debt ceiling, Republicans were demanding $4 trillion in spending cuts that included cuts to Social Security and turning Medicare into a voucher program, a corporate tax holiday, and protecting tax loopholes for billion dollar hedge fund managers and corporate jets .

Paul Krugman:

Over the last two years profits have soared while unemployment has remained disastrously high. Why should anyone believe that handing even more money to corporations, no strings attached, would lead to faster job creation?

Nonetheless, trickle-down is clearly on the ascendant — and even some Democrats are buying into it. What am I talking about? Consider first the arguments Republicans are using to defend outrageous tax loopholes. How can people simultaneously demand savage cuts in Medicare and Medicaid and defend special tax breaks favoring hedge fund managers and owners of corporate jets?

Well, here’s what a spokesman for Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, told Greg Sargent of The Washington Post: “You can’t help the wage earner by taxing the wage payer offering a job.” He went on to imply, disingenuously, that the tax breaks at issue mainly help small businesses (they’re actually mainly for big corporations). But the basic argument was that anything that leaves more money in the hands of corporations will mean more jobs. That is, it’s pure trickle-down.

And then there’s the repatriation issue.

U.S. corporations are supposed to pay taxes on the profits of their overseas subsidiaries — but only when those profits are transferred back to the parent company. Now there’s a move afoot — driven, of course, by a major lobbying campaign — to offer an amnesty under which companies could move funds back while paying hardly any taxes. And even some Democrats are supporting this idea, claiming that it would create jobs.

As opponents of this plan point out, we’ve already seen this movie: A similar tax holiday was offered in 2004, with a similar sales pitch. And it was a total failure.

But that wasn't enough...for Obama. He also called for $4 trillion in spending cuts, put Social Security and Medicare cuts on the table and offered to extend the Bush tax cuts even further out.

In addition to his lunch money, that would be like the wimp handing the bully his watch and mother's jewelery too!

While Republicans are demanding more largess for the wealthy and corporate elite, and Obama forcing the poor, middle class and senior citizens to pay for it, Medicaid has already been cut in many states and they want to slash it even more. And we found $1 billion to bomb Libya. See how this works?

Columnist Robert Scheer :

How deceptive for politicians to stress “entitlements” when they talk about gutting Social Security and Medicare, two programs long paid for by their beneficiaries. The Republicans make it sound as if they’re doing us a favor, cutting government waste by seeking to strangle America’s two most successful domestic programs. And now Barack Obama seems poised to join their camp in undermining the essential lifeline for most of the nation’s seniors, many of whom lost their retirement savings in the banking meltdown.

These threatened programs are not government handouts to a privileged class, like defense contractors and bailed-out bankers, who do feel eminently entitled to pig out at the federal trough...

Social Security is a particularly weird whipping boy for what ails us, since the program has been solvent since its inception and will be so for the next quarter of a century. Is there any other public or corporate entity that we can guarantee will be in as good shape for the next 25 years, and even at that point be able to pay 75 percent of its obligations? Presidents both Republican and Democrat have routinely dipped into the Social Security trust fund to float the national debt, and yet critics from both parties have the effrontery now to treat as some sort of indulgence a program for which seniors, current and future, have paid. Seniors are as much “entitled” to the payback on their investment as the folks who buy Treasury notes, people who will be at the forefront of those protected by a rise in the debt ceiling.

Maybe if George Bush and members of his administration were prosecuted for war crimes; maybe if the Wall Street bankers were held accountable and thrown in jail for destroying the economy, the biggest theft of the American Treasury in history, and costing millions of Americans their jobs and homes; maybe if billion dollar subsidies for the oil companies were taken away; maybe if tax loopholes that allow billion dollar hedge fund managers and millionaire CEO's to pay a lower tax rate (or lower taxes, period) than their secretaries were closed; maybe if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire; and maybe if we rebuilt America and the economy recovers, then we can talk about entitlements. But until then, why should those who had nothing to do with the the deficit, the debt, the economic collapse and the lousy economy have to pay for all this austerity...that we shouldn't even be doing in the first place?

And remember, Social Security is running a surplus, is solvent for 25 years, and doesn't add a single penny to the deficit. And the Medicare "cuts" they're talking about only shifts costs and is really an "unfair form of taxation".

But the right cracks me up. They're always in this panic that "Obama's going to take my guns away," and "Obama's going to take my health care away." But when Obama and the Republicans are going to cut their Social Security and take their Medicare away, ~~we don't hear a peep out of them~~ that's what they want.

Republicans have been trying to cut Social Security and Medicare ever since they were enacted. Who could have ever predicted that they'd get the Democrats to do it for them? And watch, just like with tax cuts, the GOP will come back in the next hostage drama and demand even more cuts. Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson must be spinning in their graves.

So forget who will win and lose this battle. The Democrats lost. They lost in 2009 when they joined the Republicans and agreed to address the "deficit crisis" when the economy was on its knees. So Democrats are not only on the wrong side of the argument, it's the wrong argument!

The political consequences

When Republicans called to replace Medicare with a voucher system, then voted to implement it, and called for cuts to Social Security, it gave Democrats an enormous opportunity, politically. They couldn't have asked for a bigger bat to hit Republicans over the head with. In fact, it was already paying off. But with Obama going along with them, it's an opportunity lost.

It would be like the wimp telling the bully that "I'm going to tell the principal that I hit you and took your lunch money, watch and mother's jewelery"!

John Aravosis of Americablog:

First off, it's not entirely clear how the President is going to spin this deficit fiasco as a victory when even Democrats are now saying it's the President who wants to cut Social Security and Medicare.

Second, it's not clear how Democrats are going to being able to use Social Security and Medicare in the next election now that the President has taken the lead as bad-guy-in-chief. Third, Republicans can now legitimately claim that it's Democrats who want to cut both programs, thus using the argument against us (and they already are). And fourth, it's not clear how the President is going to avoid blame for the economy next year when it's Democrats who are now blaming the President for not just refusing to focus on unemployment, but for embracing GOP policies that will actually increase unemployment and put a damper on already lackluster growth. (Italics his.)

In another post by John Aravosis:

That didn't take long. The President endorsed the Republicans' agenda to cut Social Security and Medicare, and he cut back on his promised health care reform and stimulus package to woo Republican support, and now the President is being blamed for cutting Social Security, rising health care costs, and increased joblessness.

Typically, the President does this, endorses the GOP talking point, thinking it's going to woo him friends on the GOP side of the aisle and, more generally, force Republicans to be nicer to him. Instead, Republicans attack him for doing what they told him to do.

Which is what most of us predicted would happen. But the President keeps doing the same thing over and over, with the same, and increasingly, disastrous consequences.

But that's what happens when Democrats A) try and act like Republicans, B) have been bullied and intimidated by the thugs on the right, and therefore, C) try and appease Republicans for the same reason a a child tries to appease an abusive father.

It's gotten so bad that Democrats, liberals especially, and what they used to stand for has been steamrolled into irrelevance, something snicker at. Want proof? The Democratic Progressive Caucus has the only budget plan that eliminates the deficit in 10 years. Sure, you can debate the details, but that's not the point. I bet you didn't even hear about it (Obama didn't. Either that or he didn't care and would rather keep pandering to Republicans.).

So the "liberal media" gives attention and credibility to the anarchists on the right who want to turn the country back to the 18th century, but give ~~little~~ no attention and no credibility to a pragmatic plan from liberals. See how this works?

The last time a liberal idea was considered was...? The last time liberal ideas - you know, the ones like "big government" regulations and tax increases that have proven to work - were considered was...?

If anything, we're doing the opposite by cutting taxes (that the government relies on), cutting domestic spending (that the economy relies on), cutting social programs (that the economy and most Americans rely on) and cutting regulation (that investors, depositors, home owners, consumers and Gulf Coast wildlife and fisherman rely on). Congratulations, America, we've become George Costanza.

And it's actually become very easy, like taking candy away from a baby because Democrats are the baby!

So the Democrats had the obvious political advantage on Social Security and Medicare until Obama gave it right back because the left is irrelevant and worth nothing more then a cynical roll of the eyes.

See how this works?

Lawrence Lewis of Daily Kos:

Austerity fever swept through Washington. The economy continued to falter, but a second stimulus was now unthinkable. The only question was what would be cut. The president had said that he took John Boehner at his word not to hold the debt ceiling hostage, but that was exactly what Boehner ended up doing. And if the president really had taken Boehner at his word, he must have been the only one who was surprised when Boehner broke it. As if the man who had held middle class tax cuts and unemployment benefits hostage for a ransom of tax cuts for the wealthy had any sense of honor and decency and could have in any way been trusted to do anything else. After the president had given the Republicans tax cuts in exchange for an inadequate stimulus, after he had negotiated himself down to a Republican health insurance plan that not a single Republican ended up supporting, after he had given Republicans the Bush tax cuts and put the Republican talking points of deficits and austerity at the center of the economic conversation, when it came to the debt ceiling there wasn't much mystery as to how the Republicans would play it.

The president could have stood tall and declared that he would not play games or negotiate over the extension of a debt ceiling that had won bipartisan support every time it had ever come up, but he didn't. He could have put responsibility for blowing up the economy squarely on the Republicans' shoulders, but he didn't. No one expected he would. Certainly the Republicans didn't expect that he would. Everyone knew that if the Republicans again fought dirty the president would give nice speeches, then give them much of what they wanted. How could he not? He was playing their game, on their field, on their terms, in their language. Deficits. Budget cuts. Everything on the table. Except for serious revenue enhancements. Except for a second stimulus. With unemployment and foreclosures still devastating the lives of tens of millions. (Bold mine.)

Hunter at Daily Kos:

So I don't know how much of a shock it should really be to anyone that unemployment is still at 9.2%, which, you may remember, was considered a near-apocalyptic worst case scenario not all that long ago, but is now considered the new normal. Even our "stimulus" package was only really designed to shore things up from getting catastrophically worse—a fine goal, mind you—but it didn't include much that might make the jobs situation markedly better. For that, we'd need to pump much more money into direct economic stimulus, like infrastructure programs, and those things are considered anathema by one of the two parties.

None of that's on the table. Instead, both parties have fallen firmly into the "austerity now" framework, in which the only acceptable discussions center around cutting the deficit right now, during massive unemployment, and only by using (1) tax cuts, for absolutely no logical reason, and/or (2) cutting government spending. The first is just the usual mumbo jumbo that blessed us with this deficit in the first place, discredited at this point as anything but voodoo class warfare for the sake of voodoo class warfare. The second is going to directly undo the stimulus measures above, forcing government to directly trim jobs as opposed to shoring them up...

Jobs, though? Not on the table. You know how Democrats and Republicans have been running around telling us what is and isn't "on the table" during these debt ceiling negotiations? Creating new jobs hasn't even rated a substantive mention. That table is apparently big enough to hold tax cuts, tax increases, tweaks to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, trade treaties, proposed constitutional amendments and what have you, but that damn table has at no point had any robust mechanism for additional jobs on it.

Short version: everything they're talking about is going to do nothing for our current unemployment situation, or will directly make it worse. Nothing they're talking about is going to boost demand, which is necessary to boost employment numbers—but a lot of what they're talking about may shrink demand under the banner of "austerity." (Italics his.)

Of course, because only the anarchists on the right who exploded the deficit are listened to and taken seriously.

Arguing with a hockey puck

Incredibly, the GOP leadership can't take yes for an answer because their insane base is in a frenzy and won't allow any deal that raises the debt ceiling, even one that gives them what they want!

This is what we're dealing with here. My God, just look at what Obama has given away. Then look at what he gave away when it wasn't enough. And that wasn't enough!

So while Republican leadership knows the debt ceiling has to be raised, House ~~Republicans~~ hockey pucks won't release the hostage (I must apologize for this insulting characterization...to hockey pucks. They're are a lot smarter then Republicans.)

Paul Krugman:

A number of commentators seem shocked at how unreasonable Republicans are being. “Has the G.O.P. gone insane?” they ask. Why, yes, it has. But this isn’t something that just happened, it’s the culmination of a process that has been going on for decades...

And may I say to those suddenly agonizing over the mental health of one of our two major parties: People like you bear some responsibility for that party’s current state.

Let’s talk for a minute about what Republican leaders are rejecting. President Obama has made it clear that he’s willing to sign on to a deficit-reduction deal that consists overwhelmingly of spending cuts, and includes draconian cuts in key social programs, up to and including a rise in the age of Medicare eligibility. These are extraordinary concessions. As The Times’s Nate Silver points out, the president has offered deals that are far to the right of what the average American voter prefers — in fact, if anything, they’re a bit to the right of what the average Republican voter prefers!

Yet Republicans are saying no. Indeed, they’re threatening to force a U.S. default, and create an economic crisis, unless they get a completely one-sided deal...

...the modern G.O.P. fundamentally does not accept the legitimacy of a Democratic presidency — any Democratic presidency. We saw that under Bill Clinton, and we saw it again as soon as Mr. Obama took office.

As a result, Republicans are automatically against anything the president wants, even if they have supported similar proposals in the past. Mitt Romney’s health care plan became a tyrannical assault on American freedom when put in place by that man in the White House. And the same logic applies to the proposed debt deals.

This goes to show that these "negotiations" and partisan bickering have absolutely nothing to do with the deficit or debt at all. It's really about hurting the economy, hurting Obama and shrinking the size of government down to the point it can be drowned in the bathtub.

With Republicans backing themselves into a corner, it's possible there won't be "grand bargain," but a smaller deal, with Democrats still capitulating of course. Or the GOP could allow Obama to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling. Or, Obama will force Republicans to accept what he and the GOP wanted all along: a deal that's farther to the right (I just checked. Obama ran for President as a Democrat. Amazing, isn't it?).

Hey, I have an idea. It's a little radical and I don't think it would go over too well because it's kinda drastic. But let me throw it out there anyway: why don't they just pass a debt ceiling increase (without political strings attached) like they always do, and put off these trillion dollar tax and spending talks for another day? They could do it in half an hour and it would put an end to this crazy, unnecessary game of chicken.

Oh wait, that is drastic. Makes way too much sense and the only winners would be ~~America~~ the whole world. Can't have any of that in Washington. What was I thinking? Never mind.

The consequences to America

At this point, it doesn't even matter what the final agreement will be because whatever it is, it'll be a horrible deal for the country. It'll not only weaken an economy that already stinks, but quite possibly, put us back into a recession.

Also, cutting trillions of dollars from the biggest government behemoths at the 11th hour, with a gun pointed at the head of the hostage, using back-of-the-envelope calculations, with or without the Congressional Budget Office running the numbers in this chaos to see exactly what this will mean in dollars and cents to the the average senior, is just asking for unintended consequences. When the cuts turn out to be too much or the wrong kind that hits the wrong income, who's going to fix it? The Republicans won't. And they won't let the Democrats do it.

And cutting billions from education, research, infrastructure, food inspection and various forms of regulation enforcement is impractical, short-sighted and just asking for trouble.

Yup, this is how Washington "solves" extremely complicated budget issues: arbitrary deadlines, last minute seat-of-the-pants "negotiations" with ~~ignorant and unreasonable Republicans~~ political terrorists who have to appease their "hockey pucks" who are itching to pull the trigger, and trying to avert self-inflicted economic catastrophe, all at the same time. Sure inspires confidence, doesn't it?

Failing to raise the debt ceiling has already put America's credit rating in jeopardy. It could raise everyone's interest rates (homes, cars, credit cards) and force the Treasury Department to pay higher rates to finance the debt, now and in the future. And that will just force the government to spend more, which increases the deficit. If that's not enough, it could also have the same effect on the financial markets that the collapse of Lehman Brothers had. Oh, and it's entirely self-inflicted. Great going, guys.

Paul Krugman:

For those who know their 1930s history, this is all too familiar. If (the European and our)...current debt negotiations fails, we could be about to replay 1931, the global banking collapse that made the Great Depression great. But, if the negotiations succeed, we will be set to replay the great mistake of 1937: the premature turn to fiscal contraction that derailed economic recovery and ensured that the Depression would last until World War II finally provided the boost the economy needed.

What a disaster - a man-made disaster. But by all means, let's keep listening to anarchists and political terrorists, and ignoring progressives who've been right all along.

Progressive Democrat Barney Frank (at 11:40):

I voted against the war in Iraq, a trillion dollars. I voted against tax cuts for millionaires (the Bush tax cuts). I didn't vote for Bush's drug program (Medicare Part D) which was unfunded. So my debt limit, I got a couple of trillion left to go.

See how things work?

Sausage-making run amok

Americans should look back at this sickening display of American "governance" in disgrace.

They say the legislative process is like making sausage (who said it has to be that way?). But for the last couple of months, big chunks of debt ceiling sausage meat have been shooting out of the Capitol and White House like fireworks. And the stench can be detected all over the country.

America should be embarrassed.

You think Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson would allow a this fiasco? You think they'd come close to default and putting American's credit rating in jeopardy? Heck, even the twit George Bush didn't. He raised the debt ceiling five times!

Granted, Obama's dealing with political suicide bombers who are more then willing to blow up the economy so they can become Tea Party martyrs. But he allowed these "negotiations." He allowed them to drag out. He allowed Republicans to turn health care, the budget and the debt ceiling into hostages. He paid the ransoms. And he failed to use his bully pulpit to make sure the debt ceiling was raised months ago, simply and without fanfare, like it always is. He's the President for Christ's sake and allowed the GOP to usurp his power! So he empowered them!

So while the GOP deserves the blame for putting us into this precarious position, much of this embarrassing legislative dysfunction and disarray the last ~~few months~~ two-and-a-half years is his fault.

Hey, when there's a complete void of Presidential leadership, it gets filled by hostile Republican anarchists who are just looking for a fight. It's like a city abandoning a neighborhood and allowing it to deteriorate. Gangs fill the void by moving in and taking control with their guns and drugs.

Obama could have been the adult in the room ~~months ago~~ from the day he took office. The country needed him to stand up to the GOP, take them on, and call them out for what they are. But he didn't. Instead, he did the opposite. He's tried to work with these political terrorists by placating them, appeasing them and capitulating to them, while dumping on the left. How's that worked out so far?

His ineptitude, weakness and lack of leadership allowed the GOP to fill the void and take him on instead. So just like a neglected neighborhood, the gangs - Republicans, in this case - moved in and took control. From Capitol Hill to the White House, Pennsylvania Avenue is littered with disgusting sausage meat. And it shouldn't be.

While Republicans are playing politics with America's credit, Obama hasn't been entirely honest either. Along with the rest of the Democrats, Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling during the Bush years (but Democrats didn't hold it hostage and didn't filibuster).

And now as president, Obama's probably glad that the GOP did hold the debt ceiling hostage. This way he'd be "forced" to "cave" and "capitulate" and pay the ransom so he can implement the tax cuts and deep spending cuts to Social Security and Medicare that he wanted all along.

Also, if Obama and the Democrats really had a problem with billion dollar subsidies for oil companies, multi-national corporations paying little or nothing in taxes and tax loopholes for corporate jets and hedge fund managers, why didn't they do something about it when they had enormous Congressional majorities in 2009 and 2010?

Oh, that would have angered Republicans, the deep minority Republicans, and Democrats aren't allowed to do that. Never mind. How convenient...for Obama.

The GOP always wins

Republicans not only get what they want in these contentious partisan battles, but they also win politically in a number of ways.

As this blog has pointed out, their priority is to keep their mindless and gullible base in a perpetual state of rage against Democrats, government, the media, or whoever the enemy of the hour happens to be. And they can do that by stringing out health care, the budget and debt ceiling "negotiations" because it creates that partisan confrontation with Democrats that the base lives for.

What do Republicans care if there's no budget or the government defaults on its bills? In the bizzaro Republican world, those are good things, something to celebrate and be proud of because it's seen as Republicans sticking it to Democrats. In fact, if the government was shut down, Republicans would run political ads taking credit for it.

That's how much this ~~"Party"~~ cult cares about responsibility, governing and the country.

But there's also an added benefit to these drawn out partisan battles: it wastes a lot of time.

If the debt ceiling was raised months ago - simply, without fanfare like it always is, even by that Socialist/liberal, Ronald Reagan who raised it 18 times - House Republicans would have been forced to tackle the country's complicated problems, such as the economy, jobs, education, energy, green technology, the environment, health care, our crumbling infrastructure, transportation etc. (Oh, did I say transportation? Republicans are trying to cut it. And did I say the environment? Republicans want to cut that too.)

But since all those complicated problems require mature, intelligent thought and ideas (remember them?), the GOP is unable to have those discussions.

Forget the fact that the conservative/Republican solution to everything is "less government" and "lower taxes." Forget the fact that they haven't just been wrong on everything, they couldn't have been more wrong on everything and therefore, can't argue the facts. And forget the fact that Republicans aren't intellects and unable to think maturely, creatively, imaginatively, intelligently and responsibly.

Conservatives/Republicans are neanderthals who are part of a massive cult. So they have no desire to think maturely, creatively, imaginatively, intelligently and responsibly!

So to avoid mature, honest, intelligent policy discussions, and most important, responsibility, they create enemies, diversions, disagreement, obstacles and gridlock. And because they're dealing with feeble, afraid-of-their-own shadow Democrats, they get away with it. Just look at all that sausage meat.

One-sided politics

Despite having enormous Congressional majorities in 2009 and 2010, Democrats allowed Senate Republicans to block everything and force "negotiations" through them. So whatever reached Obama's desk, was weak, watered down and Republican~~-leaning~~ (didn't matter anyway, because with control of the House, the GOP is trying to rip apart health care reform and financial "re-regulation," including the Consumer Financial Protection Board. They won't even allow the CFPB director's position to be filled because A) in the bizzaro GOP world, consumer protection agencies that police the banks and protects consumers are very bad and must be stopped, B) we have a gutless president who is so frightened of the GOP, he yanked the nomination of the highly qualified Elizabeth Warren for the top job even though he could have made her director, without Senate approval, via a recess appointment, so he C) nominated Richard Cordray, who Republicans immediately declared D.O.A.. This is what we're dealing with here.).

There's many other examples of Democrats passing Republican~~-leaning~~ legislation.

With the help of Democratic Congressional majorities, banking deregulation began under Ronald Regan and it led to a number of bank failures in the 1980s.

In 1998 the Democrats went along with the Wall Street ("let the free market decide") deregulation that the Republican majority was pushing and Bill Clinton signed the legislation. That led, in part, to the 2008 banking and economic collapse that we're still paying dearly for today.

In 2003 a good number of Democrats went along with Bush's Iraq war, and his extremely conservative Supreme Court nominees went right through, no questions asked. If there were, Republicans would have shouted them down, demanding an "up or down vote."

Anyone see a pattern here?

Meanwhile, look at how much trouble it took to get Obama's judges through. Neither was extremely liberal, definitely not as liberal as John Roberts and Samuel Alito were conservative. And when Obama nominated Godwin Liu, a liberal, for a lower court bench seat, he had to be withdrawn because the GOP wouldn't allow an "up or down vote" (should one of the conservative judges on the Supreme Court retire while Obama is President, mark my words: there will be blood in the streets because the thugs on the right will not allow a moderate, let alone a liberal, to replace him. It'll be over the N.R.A's dead body. That's how things work in Washington today.).

So despite Republicans having a record that couldn't be more disastrous - 9/11, Iraq, terrorism, Wall Street deregulation, health care, the environment, taxes, budgets and deficits - Democrats are going along with Republicans and implementing their insane 18th century agenda.

Meanwhile, Republicans never go along with Democrats and make Obama's judicial and governmental nominee confirmations as difficult as possible. Or in Liu's case, Warren's case and Cordray's case, no, not, never. See how this works?

This massive right-wing Republican cult has put legislative politics into a vice that they control. Gridlock is the norm, except when the GOP wants something done. They hold the only key.

Notice that when Democrats control the Senate it takes 60 votes to pass legislation. But when Republicans control the chamber, or it's something they want, only 50 votes are needed.

Notice that "compromise" for Democrats means capitulation and giving more and more and more to Republicans. "Compromise" for Republicans means holding out until they get just about everything they want.

See how things work?

Partisan battles have become the proverbial bull in a china shop. But this bull has been trained to only stampede Democratic glassware. And to ensure that Republicans always get their way, in or out of power, they bully, they attack, they intimidate and they incite rage. This couldn't encapsulate what the right is any better (and how they'll react if a conservative Supreme Court judge retires while Obama is President.)

This mob mentality has paralyzed the left, leaving Democrats either whimpering in the corner or all curled up the fetal position. No wonder politics has become a one-sided fight.

Democrats are so frightened of Republicans that they don't want to fight (while Republicans count on them). So they not only cede ground and wave the white flag at the beginning of "negotiations," but ignore and shy away from anything that would upset Republicans. Want proof? Besides Obama's wars (secret, legal or unconstitutional), his war on whistleblowers, continuation of the NSA's warrantless wiretapping, and all this, when was the last time Republicans acquiesced and supported anything Democrats wanted the same way Democrats support Republican~~-leaning~~ legislation? When was the last time Republicans didn't obstruct Democratic legislation? When was the last time Republicans were asked to "compromise" the same way Democrats ~~compromise~~ capitulate? When was the last time Republicans acquiesced and allowed a solid liberal piece of legislation to sail through on abortion rights or gun control?

Oh wait, Democrats are too scared to even mention abortion rights or gun control. See what I mean?

Actually, with states repealing gun laws, and passing a record number of anti-abortion laws (for all intents and purposes, banning abortion), the country's going in the opposite direction.

See how things work? When Republicans have the power, they get their way. When Democrats have power, Republicans get their way.

To top it off, Obama's new Democratic Secretary of Defense was so frightened of the backlash he'd get from the right for telling our troops why they were sent to Iraq, he repeated the Bush lies.

Do you believe this? The last time a Republican recited Democratic lies, spin and talking points because he was afraid to upset the left was...?

Anyone see a pattern here? A one-sided pattern? Hello, Democrats? Anyone there? Hello...?

As this blog has proven, Republicans have no intention of governing ~~responsibly~~. Ever. Jobs, the economy, the debt, the deficit and responsible governance doesn't even crack their top 10 ~~100~~ 1000. Two years before the 2012 Presidential election, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said "the "single most important thing" for Republicans in the next Congress will be to make sure President Obama "is a one-term president." And that's exactly what the GOP has done from the day Obama took office. They don't care if the economy tanks. Heck, that's what they've been trying to do because a bad economy will be "Obama's fault" (in a way it is since he allowed the GOP to get away with their destructive politics).

So, obviously, Republicans have been deliberately trying to destroy Obama, the Democrats, the economy, the government's institutions and infrastructure, and in effect, the country (and Obama and the Democrats have allowed them to do it). So I don't know how a Democrat can possibly think that they can extend a hand and work with Republicans. But here's Obama earlier this month on Speaker John Boehner regarding the debt ceiling negotiations:

We haven’t gotten the kind of cooperation that I’d like to see on some of those ideas and initiatives.

No. Really?

But I’m just going to keep on trying and eventually I’m sure the Speaker will see the light.

See how this works?

Double standards

For the most part, when Democrats get into personal trouble, such as Eliot Spitzer or Anthony Weiner, the scandal turns into a hysterical media circus (this is a benefit of "working the refs," which the right has done for decades. It forces the media to hype and exaggerate negative stories on Democrats, or else be branded "liberal," which the right would say anyway.). And with all the "distractions" caused by the so called "liberal media," they're forced to resign. But when Republicans are caught with prostitutes, in embarrassing situations in public restrooms, or having affairs that involves hush money, felonies and other Republicans, there's little media attention, there's no media circus and they're not forced to resign (Sen. Ensign only resigned, years later when Congress was about to expel him).

See how this works? But wait, there's more. As I wrote on February 29:

Can you imagine if it was Bill Clinton that lied us into a disastrous war and was wiretapping Americans without a warrant (oh wait, I already did). Clarence Thomas is another example. He's taking heat (at least he was) for not reporting his wife's income (and then a possible conflict of interest emerged on the Citizens United case). Had he been a liberal judge we'd be talking about hearings and possible impeachment, the GOP, the right-wing propaganda machine and the conservative base would have made sure of it. But since Thomas is a conservative judge, an extremely conservative judge, it ~~won't~~ didn't get that far. And if it did, the barrage of attacks against "the left" who's "out to get Thomas" would have been quick, loud and angry, the GOP, the right-wing propaganda machine and the conservative base would make sure of it. (March 17 insert: John Aravosis at Americablog has more examples of these double standards.)

Since then, more cases involving a possible conflict of interst for Thomas have surfaced. And the "liberal media's" nowhere to be found (another benefit of "working the refs" and intimidating the media by the right).

Recently, I realized just how big this double standard is when Obama tactfully called out the Republicans for playing games with debt ceiling during one of his press conferences. The next day, MSNBC's Mark Halprin called Obama a "dick" for the way Obama "lectured" Republicans.

So, as this blog has proven, Republicans can be "dicks" every single day (and that's being kind). But when Obama, who begged Republicans to take part in everything that's gone through Congress - the stimulus, health care, financial regulation - and capitulated to the GOP on every bit of it, calmly and maturely calls the Republicans out for playing with fire over the country's obligations to pay its bills, he's the dick.

See how this works? And remember, the media's liberal.

Republicans, naturally, threw a tantrum for being "lectured" by Obama. But it's nothing new because the few times a Democrat does question or call out the Republicans, the right goes into immediate spin and damage control mode. A massive counter-attack is unleashed from all directions - including Fox "News" and talk radio - to discredit the accuser and the media. And with the conservative media, its massive and powerful propaganda machine and a compliant "liberal media," they make sure whatever was said gets lost in all that noise.

For example, in 1995, Democratic Rep. Jack Murtha, a supposed hawk, had the nerve to question the disastrous Iraq war. He was met by an orchestrated barrage of attacks that accused him of wanting to "cut and run," as if there's something wrong with "cutting and running" (it is "pro-life" after all, and Ronald Reagan "cut and ran" from Lebanon in 1984. I guess it's okay for Republican presidents to "cut and run.").

Another example is Fox "News" going on the attack and blaming the "liberal media" for its coverage of the News Corp. phone hacking scandal.

Even when a Christian commits a mass killing, the right has to go on the offensive and A) con/spin the public into believing he wasn't a Christian (who cares?!), and B) it's the "liberal media's" fault for "labeling" him a "Christian extremist" because they're "anti-Christian" (Jon Stewart does an excellent job calling out Fox "News" on this).

The right has to unleash these attacks because they can not, under any circumstances, allow a single truth or fact about them, their policies, their interests, or even Christianity (how petty is that?), to resonate, at least among their mindless and gullible base/viewers/listeners. Or else, they fear, they'd wise up and leave this cult (fat chance as it is).

(Aug. 21 insert: After Warren Buffett said the super rich has been "coddled" and should pay higher taxes, a Fox "News" anchor suggests he's a Socialist. Of course he did. He had to, to discredit Buffett.)

(Aug. 27 insert: Eric Alterman:

...as I noted in this column in December of last year, when President Barack Obama noted in 2008 that the science underlying man-made global warming was “beyond dispute,” the libertarian Cato Institute took out a full-page ad in The New York Times to attempt to undermine what was then a statement of fact—just a warning shot in a campaign that has resonated with considerable success throughout the mainstream media.

Jane Mayer notes in her profile of the Kochs in The New Yorker that Cato scholars have been particularly energetic in promoting the Climategate scandal...

In the two weeks after the emails went public, one Cato scholar gave more than 20 media interviews trumpeting the alleged scandal. In fact, the researchers have since been exonerated as has the data....

Meanwhile, the phony Climategate controversy led to significant questioning of the worldwide scientific consensus on global warming and led more Americans than any time since 1997 to question its reality. The Kochs promote this statistic on their company’s website, Mayer noted, but fail to come clean about their own role in creating it. [Bold mine.])

The right has figured out that best defense is a rapid, overwhelming attack offense. It allows them to get away with their lies, blatant hypocrisy and double standards, as well as the GOP's historically disastrous record. They live by one set of rules and hold the left to an entirely different set. And because ~~Democrats~~ the pathetic saps never fight back, and because the "liberal media" has been intimidated into treating the right's hypocrisy and lies on the same level as the truth and the facts (Aug. 14 insert: and equates succession with national health care) the right gets away with it.

Paul Krugman:

We have a crisis in which the right is making insane demands, while the president and Democrats in Congress are bending over backward to be accommodating — offering plans that are all spending cuts and no taxes, plans that are far to the right of public opinion.

So what do most news reports say? They portray it as a situation in which both sides are equally partisan, equally intransigent — because news reports always do that. And we have influential pundits calling out for a new centrist party, a new centrist president, to get us away from the evils of partisanship.

The reality, of course, is that we already have a centrist president — actually a moderate conservative president. Once again, health reform — his only major change to government — was modeled on Republican plans, indeed plans coming from the Heritage Foundation. And everything else — including the wrongheaded emphasis on austerity in the face of high unemployment — is according to the conservative playbook.

What all this means is that there is no penalty for extremism;...

You have to ask, what would it take for these news organizations and pundits to actually break with the convention that both sides are equally at fault?...

...The “both sides are at fault” people have to know better; if they refuse to say it, it’s out of some combination of fear and ego, of being unwilling to sacrifice their treasured pose of being above the fray. (Bold mine.)

No, it's out of fear of the right and afraid of being branded "liberal" (as if they wouldn't be labeled "liberal" anyway). So the media doesn't have the guts to report Republicans lies as lies.

And when "both sides are playing nasty partisan politics," when "both sides are to blame," when "both sides are 'extreme'" (yea, Democrats are extreme...extreme Republicans!), and when "both sides have to 'compromise,'" the GOP wins in a number of ways. It's like the bully and the wimp both getting sent to the principal's office. The bully won because he got the wimp's lunch money, watch and mother's jewelery, wasn't the one who got beat up and is so feared on the schoolyard, he rules it. Just like Republicans use fear to rule Washington.

Also, when Americans get "fed up" with "both parties," they leave the political process. And that shrinks "pool" of voters, volunteers, organizers, protesters and contributors. The GOP knows their base voters and supporters aren't going anywhere. In fact, it's all the nasty partisan confrontations that keeps their base involved. But when moderates, independents and Democrats - too mature and too smart for this crap - throw their hands up in disgust and leave the process, the percentage of ~~right-wing conservatives~~ street thugs that are left to participate increases. So they'll make the most noise, and most importantly, have the numbers on election day.

There's a saying that goes, "Half of life is just showing up." And that's what the GOP counts on.

Then again, "numbers" aside, it sometimes comes down to perception, power, intimidation and clout.

For example, earlier this year, unions protested in mass all across the country over the assault of their bargaining rights. The capitol in Madison, Wisconsin was overflowing for weeks with outraged union members. But it didn't do any good. Republicans rammed the legislation through.

But a handful of Tea Party protestors can get Republicans to get the government to come dangerously close to default.

See how things work?

(The GOP's goal is to weaken unions because it's the only sizable voting block and organized fund raising machine that the Democratic Party has. Take it away, or at least dismantle it, and there's nothing left to the Democratic Party's main source of funding.)

How the hell did we get here?

The Republican "Party" has completely destroyed whatever assemblance of good governance the country had, on purpose. They had to because they don't have the maturity, intellect, responsibility or desire to govern ~~responsibly~~ at all. And since the Democrats never stood up to Republicans, it's gotten worse. A lot worse. Our entire the political system - from top to bottom - has been wrecked beyond repair. Mission accomplished.

But Republicans weren't always like this. Back in the 1980s there were Republicans like Warren Rudman, Howard Baker and Nancy Kassebaum, good senators, who actually cared about the country and took their jobs seriously. You think they'd play games with America's credit score?

Since then, Republicans, the entire right for that matter, have become political terrorists, assassins, arsonists, anarchists, demagogues and Christian fundamentalists. It probably started with the GOP's political strategist Lee Atwater. And Karl Rove picked up where he left off.

Rove figured out that if you took all the mud and dirty tactics from the campaigns, and applied them to every day politics, you could win there too.

What Rove has done during his career is so obscene that he doesn't have the character to take the White House tour, let alone work inside. He's the epitome of what's wrong with our politics and governance today. A mountain of lies, spin, talking points, hypocrisy, manipulation, double standards, attack politics, political assassination, dividing the electorate along regional, racial, social and economic lines, and dirty, nasty campaigns - that are conveniently void of any intellectual policy discussion and debate - have poisoned the political system, destroyed the legislative process and wrecked the government's ability to function, on purpose (because it validates the GOP talking point that government is bad and incompetent).

And then there's the corporate money that Rove pours into the campaign financing cesspool (aka "legalized bribery").

Just because it's legal and constitutional doesn't make it right. It also doesn't mean he has to do it. So instead of trying to be part of the solution and cleaning up the campaigns - getting the money out and putting intelligent discussion and honest debate in - Rove goes out of his way to make sure he pollutes they system with as much money as possible. He has to because the more lies, mud and attack ads there are in a campaign, the less mature, honest and intellectual debate there is. And since Republicans can't argue the facts and can't defend their record, that's exactly how they need it.

Rove's brand, tone, behavior and "playbook" have absolutely no place in America's politics. But instead of being embarrassed and removing him from his seat at the poltical table, Republicans and their moronic base cheer him on, admire him and treat him like a hero who did work inside the White House. So that's exactly what the GOP wants politics in America to be. And you don't have to look any further then the last ~~two months~~ ~~six months~~ ~~year~~ ~~two years~~ ~~five years~~ 20 years for proof of that.

So until Karl Rove and those who will surely follow in his footsteps are not welcomed, and kicked out of the "party's" political apparatus - this is worth a second look to see what I mean - we'll never be able to address the country's problems maturely, intelligently, practically and responsibly, let alone solve them. Of course, that will never happen; future "Karl Rove's" will always have a place in this "party." So everything wrong in this country will continue to be the liberal's fault, the Democrats fault, "big government's" fault, ACORN's fault, and/or the media's fault. Never the Republican's fault. Mission accomplished.

But it gets even worse.

What the GOP has figured out, is that the "party" benefits by recruiting the most conservative Republican candidates for office. Not only for Congress, but at the state level too (actually, Democrats also try and recruit the most conservative candidates. Want proof? More and more "Democrats" are pro-life, pro-gun, anti-union, and willing to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.).

Forget moderates. They have no place in the Republican "Party" (want proof? Where are they?). They want to run extreme right-wing conservative candidates because the more conservative they are, the more ignorant they are, the more stubborn they are and the bigger bully they are; and therefore, the less of an independent "thinker" they'll be. And that's exactly what the GOP is looking for: like-minded, extremely stubborn conservative conformity. Independents, individuality and intellects need not apply (proving even more that this political "party" is a God damn cult).

So when seats are filled by ignorant, stubborn, radical conservative Republicans, they'll all "think" alike and toe the party line, regardless of the issue because it doesn't matter. They don't give a crap about their districts, their states or the country. They only care about the unborn and the clinically dead. And if you're somewhere in the middle, then the hell with you, unless of course you're extremely wealthy or own guns.

So with all this corporate money already flowing in, Republicans are really playing to staunch conservative contributors and voters, nationally - pro-lifers, gun nuts, Christian fundamentalists and anti-government zealots - who listen to Rush Limbaugh and watch Fox "News" all day. All they need need to see and hear are confrontations with those evil, baby killing, gun grabbing, "tax and spend," "big government" Democrats and liberals who've destroyed the country (here's a perfect example). (Sept. 2 insert: Here's another.)

And when it comes to the elections, the GOP has them down to an exact science. They know what percentage of Republican voters a specific GOP candidate needs, and know how to get it and/or boost conservative turnout. They know what percentage of independents they need (to con), and know how to get it and/or suppress it. And they know how much they need to suppress Democratic turnout, and know how to do it. And now they're legislating it. (October 4 insert: Five million Americans could be disenfranchised.) And they don't miss a trick.

Sure they'll lose some races, but elections have become a computerized chess game to Republicans. And they're the programmers. Meanwhile, Democrats are wondering why the horse looks so funny.

Conclusion

The systematic takeover of politics and government in America by the right is complete. There is no left anymore.

And the way things are going, there won't be a middle class either.

Note: My views on the final debt ceiling ~~deal~~ surrender papers are here.

Aug. 12 insert:

You think I was kidding about Republicans blocking Obama's judicial and governmental nominees? The Nation's Ari Melber (and remember, Democrats control the Senate):

Republicans are holding symbolic sessions during their entire vacation in order to prevent recess appointments. This is just the latest ploy in a long obstruction campaign by the GOP. Since Obama came into office, Republicans have blocked an unprecedented number of nominees from ever getting a vote. Take judicial nominees. Republicans have blocked almost half of the nominees for judicial nominations, the worst obstruction rate in U.S. history...

...nominees for jobs shaping economic policy - obviously the No. 1 issue in this country - have been totally shut down. Obama nominated Nobel economist Peter Diamond to the Federal Reserve Board over a year ago. Republicans filibustered, he was renominated two more times, and he ultimately withdrew in disgust.

The top spot at the famous Consumer Protection Bureau remains empty. Republicans even brazenly blocked votes on nominees for the Board of Protection commissioner at the Homeland Security department and the head of Industry and Security at the Commerce department. Both of those posts were finally filled through recess appointments last year, but it's only gotten worse.

This week, White House officials openly said they need Tim Geithner to extend his term as Treasury Secretary, in part because Republicans would filibuster a vote on his replacement.

Look, you don't fight unemployment by trying to shut down one of the most important jobs on the president's economic team. The solution is pretty simple -- Senator Reid and President Obama should call the Senate back in session now...They should refuse to adjourn until there are votes on all these nominees. They can use quorum calls, break the silent filibuster that most Americans don't even know is happening, and they can keep every member working seven days a week and refuse to adjourn...(Bold mine.)

Yea, but that would take leadership...and Obama getting pissed off at Republicans. Can't have any of that!

August 20 insert: More on the GOP's obstruction of judicial nominees, and its consequences, is here.

Tortured Logic

2011-05-29T15:54:00.023-04:00

As this blog has shown, conservatives and conservatism can be proven wrong over and over again, but the one time something happens that vindicates their side of an issue, they turn it into New Year's Eve. It would be like the 1962 Mets breaking out the champagne and having a parade every time they won a game.

But I guess if I was "vindicated" once out of every 10 ~~100~~ ~~200~~ ~~500~~ 1000 times, I'd make a big deal out of it too. Take for instance the elections in Iraq that were used to justify a disastrous war that should never have been fought, and the 2010 snow storms that were used to mock Al Gore and global warming.

And then there's times that "being right" is the result of just making stuff up; such as the emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit that the right took out of context to show that global warming is a hoax.

Now, the right is saying that were it not for torture, Osama bin laden wouldn't have been located and killed. "You see? Torture worked! We were right and you bleeding heart liberals were wrong! Na-na-na-na-na-na!"

A few things. That's not true (also here, here, here, here, here, here). Torture did not lead to bin Laden's location (if it did, George Bush would have captured/killed bin Laden years ago).

But even if torture did lead to bin Laden's location, it A) would have been one of the few times, if any, that torture worked, and B) still wouldn't justify torture.

Also, as Glenn Greenwald points out, "there are far more effective ways to extract the truth from someone than by torturing it out of them." Another words, information could be learned through legal, non-tortuous 21st century techniques. But that takes intellect. Torture only takes ignorance.

So despite torture being wrong, ignorant and a colossal waste of time and resources, the right is constantly, and desperately, trying to prove that it works. So this is just another example of the right trumpeting one instance - an instance that isn't even true - of conservatives "being right."

If conservatives think they're always right, why do they make such a big deal out it the one time something (they make up) vindicates them? Why are Republicans proven wrong, liars, or both, all the time?

You know, maybe if George Bush didn't waste so much time torturing prisoners who didn't know much of anything anyway, and didn't go off on a wild goose chase in Iraq, and instead took a more practical and wiser approach (insert laughter here), bin Laden could have been found with old fashioned police and intelligence work a long time ago. But that brings me to my next point.

As this blog has proven, the Republican "Party" has made a political living on nothing but a mountain of lies, spin, fear, hate, bullying, hypocrisy and propaganda. And this is another time where their spin, lies and hypocrisy gets them all twisted into knots.

In March of 2002, George Bush said he was "not concerned" about bin Laden. And in 2005, he closed the C.I.A. unit that was focused on tracking bin Laden down. So Bush wasn't even trying to capture or kill bin Laden. And what was the reaction from the right about this? Crickets. Not a peep of outrage or anger.

What we can take from the right's passive reaction to Bush's soft on bin Laden approach is that capturing or killing him wasn't a priority at all. Therefore, how can conservatives now brag that "torture worked" in getting bin Laden?

But the GOP had to do that because they knew Obama would get a nice bounce in his poll numbers for killing bin Laden and they had to keep it to a minimum. So they put a damper on it by trying to make sure Bush got some of the credit.

Yup, Bush couldn't care less about getting bin Laden, and didn't even try, but the right wants to give him credit for it.

But this is what happens when you're a cult masquerading as a political party ~~that obviously has zero intention of governing~~ ~~responsibly~~. It forces them into a perpetual cycle of lies, spin and hypocrisy that is so twisted, it sometimes turns them into bleeding heart Commie pinko liberals.

Note: My views or torture can be found here.

June 11 insert:

This is another good example.

Despite numerous think tanks and the Congressional budget office saying otherwise, the right made a big deal about a consulting company study claiming that because of the new health care legislation, 30% of employers would stop giving health insurance to their workers.

Problem was, as Greg Sargent via Paul Krugman points out:

McKinsey’s finding is at odds with many other studies — and the company did not release key portions of the study’s methodology, making it impossible to evaluate the study’s validity.

So when the left is right, over and over and over and over again, it's not news and none of it counts. But the one time the right can trumpet one of their "studies" - just one - that had all the credibility of a three dollar bill, well, "You see? 'Obamacare' won't work! We told you so! Na-na-na-na-na-na..."

Implementing the Conservative Agenda*

2011-02-27T11:38:00.081-05:00

As I've already shown in this 2010 post, the right opposes the left not only because of ideology, but their stubborn, pigheaded pride. They have to disagree with the left, on everything; because if they didn't, it would be admitting that they were wrong and liberals were right. And they can't admit that. Ever. So to protect their propaganda, "arguments" and talking points, they attack, lie, spin (also here, here, here and here), use a mountain of hypocrisy (also here , here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here), and stand logic on its head. Whatever it takes.

But we're beyond the point of the right just protecting their propaganda, "arguments" and talking points. We're actually implementing their agenda despite its disastrous record.

For instance, "big government" regulation had kept our banks from failing and our financial markets stable ever since they were enacted after the 1929 stock market crash. It was those "anti-business" regulations on the banks and our financial markets, and the confidence they provided, that made our markets the envy of the world and why every country wanted to invest in America.

The regulations worked so well that we decided to repeal them in 1998 for "competition" reasons, and failed to regulate derivatives in the name of "free markets." And that led to the 2008 financial collapse and ensuing recession (which the right had to blame on the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, "big government," ACORN, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because they couldn't, under any circumstances, allow "competition" and "the free market" to take the blame).

(June 27 insert: A very good history lesson on all this is here.)

Paul Krugman:

The financial crisis of 2008 was a teachable moment, an object lesson in what can go wrong if you trust a market economy to regulate itself. Nor should we forget that highly regulated economies, like Germany, did a much better job than we did at sustaining employment after the crisis hit. For whatever reason, however, the teachable moment came and went with nothing learned. (Bold mine.)

How true. Because you'd think we'd learn from a banking and stock market crash, again, and implement strong regulation, again, so it doesn't happen, again. But after dilly dallying for two years, the new financial regulations passed in 2010 were weak, watered down, would not have prevented the collapse, will not prevent the next one and, believe it or not, assures the next bailout. And it's not surprising. Because if we implemented strong regulation with real oversight, prohibited "too big to fail" and regulated derivatives, it would have proven that deregulation, non-regulation and allowing the "free market to decide" wasn't such a good idea after all.

And despite the global financial meltdown, Republicans still call for "less government" every day. They have to. Not because they're ignorant and have nothing new, intelligent or worthwhile to say (okay, that too), but because if they stopped saying it, it would be admitting that it was wrong. And the GOP would rather run the country (further) into the ground, and blame "liberals" for it, then admit that (hell, making the country's problems worse and blaming Democrats, liberals, "big government" and ACORN for it is what the right lives for. Turn on Fox "News" at any given time and see for yourself.).

With SEC proposed budget cuts and constraints hampering their ability to enforce securities law, and new offices created under the legislation delayed, there was at least supposed to be a consumer financial protection agency. But after Republicans cut that too, it probably won't be able to do much at all (ah, who needs an agency that protects consumers against financial fraud these days anyway?). (May 10 insert: Told ya.) (March 21 insert: Republicans are naturally attacking the new agency and the highly qualified Elizabeth Warren who's in charge of setting it up. Of course they are. They have to attack and tear down intellectuals like Warren - exactly the type of person that belongs in government - and make her job as difficult as possible. Or else she'd prove Republicans wrong. These are the games, that waste so much valuable time, Republicans play; by design. And one way or another, Republicans will make sure this new agency doesn't do what Warren envisioned it to be.) (March 23 insert: Americablog's Gaius Publius explains the politics surrounding Warren and the agency. March 23 insert: Republicans: qualified intellectuals need not apply.)

So we're going to continue to cut government, dismantle government and allow "Wall Street to police itself" since it worked out so well the ~~first~~ second time. (March 16 insert: Told ya.) This way, they can keep saying that "less government" and "free markets" are the answers to all the country's problems even though that's what caused them.

Insane, I know. But that's only the beginning.

You know all that talk about how Social Security needs to be reigned in because costs are out of control? But Social Security works. It has a $2.5 trillion surplus, doesn't add a penny to the deficit and is solvent at least through 2037. Medicare works too. But the right can't afford to have facts like that get around because it contradicts their propaganda that "socialist, 'big government' entitlement programs" don't work.

Joe Conason:

Among the mysteries of modern politics in America is why so many of our leading pundits and politicians persistently seek to undermine Social Security...In the current atmosphere of budgetary panic, self-proclaimed “centrists” are joining with ideologues of the right in yet another campaign against the program—and yet again they are misinforming the public about its purposes, costs and prospects...

There is no reason to panic, and there is certainly no reason to consider wholesale changes in benefits.

Well, there is a reason, but only if your real aim is to destroy the system and replace it with something less useful but more profitable. Wall Street and its servants on Capitol Hill have lusted after Social Security’s revenues for many years. And they regard the current uproar over the budget as a fresh opportunity to get their hands on a trillion-dollar bonanza. Given their record in recent years, it is all too easy to imagine how badly that would work out for everybody—except them, of course. (Bold mine.)

So even though Social Security doesn't have to be cut, the right has drummed it into our heads that it has to. And since Republicans control the narrative, and the agenda, it'll be dismantled piece by piece (or held hostage and used to cut something else) (March 14 insert: Told ya) so 1) conservatives can be "proven" right and liberals wrong, and 2) looted by the rich and powerful. (March 6 insert: And Obama's going to help them.) (April 19 insert: And Democrats.)

(March 31 insert: GOP House leader Eric Cantor: "We're going to have to come to grips with the fact that [Social Security and Medicare] cannot exist if we want America to be what we want America to be.")

(April 5 insert: Paul Krugman on the GOP's plan to dismantle Medicare, and his lack of confidence in Obama and the Democrats to prevent it, here, here and here.)

You can always tell how wrong the right is by how pugnacious and cantankerous their ~~spin~~ ~~damage control~~ attacks are. Take for example the 2000 Florida recount, and how they protected George Bush for Iraq and his incompetence leading up to the 9/11 attacks.

But that's nothing compared to the right's endless war on gun control. It's a scorched earth policy that leaves nothing behind. Want proof? When was the last time you heard from the pro-gun control movement? What pro-gun control movement? That's what I mean. There is none.

When was the last time a new gun control measure passed, anywhere? 'Nuff said.

And when a mass shooting occurs, the right and the NRA take the "best defense is a good offense" approach by attacking the backlash head-on. They have to, to 1) prevent guns and the lack of serious gun control from taking the blame for the incident, and 2) block all talk of any new gun control measures (as if that would happen anyway). Regardless, the incident will be forgotten and nothing will be done to prevent it from happening again (see not closing the gun show loophole after Columbine). If anything, despite all the (underreported) gun violence across the country every day, gun laws are ignored or repealed. (See the note below about this paragraph below.)

The rest of the world and the northeastern states have proven that strong gun control works* but the right can't allow that to get around either because it proves them wrong.

The point to this is that the NRA and the right have always dictated gun policy and our gun laws (and lack thereof). What they say goes. But it's not as if there's been a drastic reduction in gun violence over the last few decades. Quite the contrary, in fact. So even though the right's been consistently wrong on guns, dead wrong, they continue to call the shots (so to speak).

Then there's health care. With little government intrusion over the last 60 years, we've allowed the private sector, the insurance industry, to design, manage and administer our health care system. And they've given us the employer-based system (which is the root cause of what's wrong with it), "pre-existing conditions," "prior authorizations," HMO's and the most asinine and most expensive system in the world. By far. And we still have tens of thousands of Americans dying every year because of a lack of care. Heck of a job by the "free market," huh?

So as the rest of world has shown, government needs to be involved in health care, one way or another. "Socialize medicine," single payer or a heavily regulated private insurance system (or a combination) works a lot better, and costs a lot less, then our employer-based, for-profit, bureaucratic monstrosity. So what did Barack Obama and the Democrats do? What else? They caved to Republicans (the deep minority Republicans) at the very beginning of the process, and doubled-down on the same employer-based, for-profit, bureaucratic monstrosity that got us into this mess by passing "market-based" health care legislation that is very similar to what Republicans proposed in 1993, and what Republican Gov. Mitt Romney enacted in Massachusetts in 1996. It forces Americans without coverage to use ~~the marketplace~~ "health care exchanges" to buy insurance from the insurance companies. Not even a public option. But there are tax credits available for small business. So it's "tax cuts" and "free market competition" to the rescue! And yet, Republicans called it "Socialism," said it had "death panels" and tried their darnedest to block it and are trying to repeal it.

Huh? What? Health care exchanges? Competition. Tax credits? That's exactly what the right's always screaming for. Doesn't make sense to oppose it, block it and repeal it, does it? But who said this is supposed to make sense? Obama's for it, so Republicans had to oppose it and attack it; and they did by making stuff up and screaming "death panels" (but death panels are okay when Republicans institute them). That put Obama and the Democrats on the defensive and forced them to respond. And in all that noise, it prevented a mature, honest and intelligent debate on health care from taking place. Mission accomplished.

(March 17 insert: At the time, Sen. Jim DeMint not only praised Romney's plan, but endorsed him for President in 2007 because of it. But in 2009 - basically the same plan - he said it was going to be Obama's "Waterloo." So now, Romney's plan was a "colossal mistake.")

So to redirect blame for our bankrupting health care system - just like they did with the Wall Street collapse - the right makes stuff up, stands logic on its head and lies about all this "government intrusion" in health care (which the mindless and gullible conservative base naturally believes ). They have to, or else it would be an admission that their propaganda is wrong. And that's not happening.

And even though Obama and the Democrats passed a Republican health care plan, the GOP ~~wants~~ needs "Obamacare" to fail. Not only because it's "Obama's plan" and they can't allow him to get an ounce of credit, but because it's easier for them to prevent it from working - or just make up stuff if it does - so they can be "proven" right.

Hey, that's the sick state of GOP politics these days.

So with control of the House, Republicans will shut the government down, or at least ~~try and~~ withhold funding to ~~make it as difficult as possible for the government to begin setting up the health care exchanges~~ block its implementation. Or, if a Republican becomes president in 2013, he or she will simply ignore the new health care regulations and look the other way when insurance companies find the smallest of loopholes to wiggle thorough. This way, he or she can blame it's failure on "big government" and say, "I told you so."

Hell of a way to govern, huh? But this is what the GOP does, even when Democrats pass Republican legislation. They want government to fail; they want you to wait on line at the DMV; and they want you to be placed on hold when you call a government office (hopefully you'll be cut off). Because when that happens, it confirms the right-wing propaganda that "government doesn't work." And voilia a new cynical, anti-government conservative voter is born!

It's amazing. No one would hire a carpenter to build a house in which it's in his interests for it to collapse. But we keep electing anti-government conservatives to run government who have an interest in it failing. So it's true: Republicans have made a political living saying that "government is the problem," and get elected and prove it.

Since it's not in a Republican's interests to enforce government regulations, for a variety of reasons, the BP oil spill is another example of the right dictating policy (which is to do nothing, deregulate and/or ignore regulations altogether). The GOP was in full damage control mode on the spill, not only because Big Oil is a major contributor to the Republicans, but because they had to snuff out all talk of new regulations and liberals saying "we told you so."

So we won't be implementing new regulations on deep-water oil drilling (just like we failed to regulate derivatives after the 2008 Wall Street collapse). Republicans can't allow it because it would be admitting that "big government" regulation is needed. And that's not happening. Also, it's counter to their "drill, baby, drill" philosophy; a philosophy they came up with just to poke liberals in the eye.

So we're going to allow more deep water-drilling with the same weak and unenforced regulations that we've had, out of spite, just so the right can 1) tick off the left, and 2) prove a point in which they were already proven wrong...over and over again (this is how George Costanza would act).

This is also why the right has to deny global warming - because liberals believe it and conservatives can't agree with liberals because that would mean conservatives are wrong. And conservatives can't be wrong, even when they are, because that would mean liberals were right. And liberals are never right (that sounds like an Abbott and Costello routine!).

So when those European e-mails came out in 2009, conservatives made-up/found a "reason" to deny global warming that they knew their base would believe: "it's a liberal conspiracy!"

So while the right continues to waste everyone's time trying to win an unwinnable argument, the rest of the world, which doesn't bother with such self-defeating and self-destructive nonsense, is going green and boosting their economies with the research and productivity that comes with it.

But don't let anyone tell you that the GOP will just sit on their hands when it comes to the environment. With the Amazon possibly at a "tipping point" they are doing something. They've put an end to Rep. Markey's (D-MA) committee on global warming and are going after EPA "big government" regulations, which could result in an increase of greenhouse gas production. Of course they are, they have to, to back up their "less government is the best government" rhetoric. Hey, look at what it did for Wall Street and the Gulf of Mexico!

The GOP is also proposing cuts to EPA's budget that would "cut energy efficiency and renewable energy programs in half," while defending billions in oil subsidies.

So let me see if I have this straight: when it comes to conservation and alternative fuels we shouldn't be "subsidizing different forms of power" and should "let the market run on its own." But we can't take away billions of dollars in subsidies to Big Oil because "that would be a tax increase."

Yup, makes sense to me!

So with Republicans controlling much of our policies these days, we're addressing environmental and energy issues with an immature, feckless 19th century mindset. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is tackling them with a mature, sagacious 21st century mindset. U-S-A...U-S-A...U-S-A...!

We know that "big government" regulation, oversight and enforcement works. But as I've shown here, we keep doing the exact opposite by following and implementing the anti-government, non-regulatory, "free market" conservative agenda even though it's led to disaster every time before. In fact, if anyone has been keeping score - on guns, 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan, global warming, health care, Medicare Advantage, Social Security privatization, foreign policy, the auto bailout, Wall Street deregulation and non-regulation, "less government," the "free market" and "allowing industries to police themselves" - they'd realize that conservatives/Republicans haven't just been wrong on everything, they couldn't have been more wrong on everything!

"Learn from history or you'll be doomed to repeated it"? You've got to be kidding. That would mean conservatives were wrong. Not gonna happen.

"Lock the barn door after the horse has been stolen"? We don't even to that! That also would mean conservatives were wrong. Not gonna happen either.

So after being thrown out of power in 2006 and 2008, and despite being the minority party in Washington, Republicans and the conservative movement - one massive cult, or worse - still dictates the agenda because the afraid-of-their-own-shadow "Democrats" let them.

And it's no different when it comes to terrorism. President Obama has received praise from the right for continuing Bush's policies; and at times, going further. Even Dick Cheney agrees with what he's doing.

And then, of course, there's "tax cuts," the right's favorite talking point of all-time. Goes hand in hand with their other favorite, "less government." You rarely hear one without the other. Cutting taxes, like "less government," is their "answer" to ~~just about~~ everything. That's all you hear. When have you not heard it?

But since tax cuts are paid for with increases in ~~state and~~ local taxes, higher mass transit fares, higher tolls, increases in college tuition, longer lines at the DMV, cuts in library hours, fewer police officers, firemen, teachers, snow plows and even asphalt roads, more debt, and more interest on the debt (that has to be paid back, eventually), there's no such thing as a tax cut (unless it was Bush's tax cuts and you're extremely wealthy).

And tax cuts don't "pay for themselves," and don't "bring in more revenue." That's just right-wing propaganda. But that's how conservatives defend and justify irresponsible tax cuts (so they can expand the deficit and force, you got it, spending cuts). They have to, because if they didn't, it would mean tax cuts do more harm then good (which they do, a lot more). And they can't admit that.

This is why we're cutting taxes $858 billion (without paying for them). Because (unfunded) tax cuts stimulate the economy, a lot. Republicans say so and they're always right, even though Bush and his tax cuts had a dismal economic record (June 11 insert: actually, it was worse then that). It's the liberals - who for the most part opposed Wall Street deregulation, opposed the Iraq war and want "big government" regulations on the banks, insurance industry, coal mines and oil companies - that are wrong on taxes, even though the economy went through the roof when Bill Clinton and the Democrats raised taxes in 1993...which Republicans said would cause the economic sky to fall in. So Republicans weren't just wrong back then, they couldn't have been more wrong. Go figure.

As far as tax increases are concerned, Republicans will never go for them. Ever. Hey, if they won't raise taxes when the economy's good and the government's running surpluses, won't raise them after the country was attacked, won't raise them after we go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, won't raise them after we lose a city to a hurricane, and won't raise them when we're in a recession, I'd hate to think of the circumstances in which they would. But...

Paul Krugman:

In a better world, politicians would talk to voters as if they were adults. They would explain that discretionary spending has little to do with the long-run imbalance between spending and revenues. They would then explain that solving that long-run problem requires two main things: reining in health-care costs and, realistically, increasing taxes to pay for the programs that Americans really want.

But Republican leaders can’t do that, of course: they refuse to admit that taxes ever need to rise, and they spent much of the last two years screaming “death panels!” in response to even the most modest, sensible efforts to ensure that Medicare dollars are well spent. (Bold mine.)

So in a time when allowing tax cuts to expire and rescinding subsides to Big Oil are considered "tax increases," Republicans would still play attack partisan politics and oppose any tax increase. Because if they didn't, it would mean their pandering talking point was wrong and those "tax and spend" liberals were right. Not gonna happen. (March 17 insert: I was wrong. Republicans want to tax abortions and health plans that cover abortions. You see? It's okay when Republicans raise taxes.) (March 20 insert: I was wrong again. Republicans are raising taxes in 12 states on the poor, middle class and elderly [and cutting education and health care] so they can cut corporate rates.) (April 19 insert: Including Wisconsin.)

Republican economic talking points and their sorry ass record can be summed up in Texas:

So why haven't we heard more about Texas (a $25 billion deficit on a two-year budget of around $95 billion), one of the most important economy's in America? Well, it's because it doesn't fit the script. It's a pro-business, lean-spending, no-union state...

But if you want to make comparisons between US states and ailing European countries, think of Texas as being like America's Ireland. Ireland was once praised as a model for economic growth: conservatives loved it for its pro-business, anti-tax, low-spending strategy, and hailed it as the way forward for all of Europe. Then it blew up. (Bold mine.)

Paul Krugman:

Texas is where the modern conservative theory of budgeting — the belief that you should never raise taxes under any circumstances, that you can always balance the budget by cutting wasteful spending — has been implemented most completely. If the theory can't make it there, it can't make it anywhere. (Bold mine.)

I wonder how conservatives will spin their way out of that one. My guess is that it'll be ACORN's fault. Or just deny the deficit exists and plug part of it with the stimulus money they not only attacked and opposed, but used to call for secession (I guess it's okay for Republicans to hate America).

(April 19 insert: After blasting the federal government, calling for secession and using stimulus money to plug a hole in his budget, Gov. Perry has some nerve asking Washington for money to put out wild fires in Texas. Of course he is, because even though the GOP's pushing drastic spending cuts, "Socialism" and "big government" bailouts are okay when Republicans need them.)

Joan Walsh sums up the Republican record on deficits:

Ronald Reagan, built up the largest peacetime budget deficit in history back in the day, and also signed the largest peacetime tax increase.

I guess it's okay when Republicans raise taxes.

Republican George W. Bush took over a $200 billion annual budget surplus left by Democrat Bill Clinton, and handed President Obama a $1.2 trillion annual deficit. Where was (the) Tea Party movement when Republicans were looting the Treasury?

Just three months after Obama took office, with the help of the Tea Party, the right was outraged - outraged! - about all this "out of control spending." So we have to cut spending, yesterday (as long as it doesn't affect them). Never mind that governments are supposed to run deficits - big deficits - in recessions. But since the GOP has such a wonderful economic record, Obama went along with them. He's cut taxes, twice, put tax credits into the health care legislation, called for a freeze on discretionary spending, was too frightened to even mention a second stimulus (Paul Krugman makes a case that there really wasn't a first one) and agreed to cut spending. (April 12 insert: And did on those who can least afford it, while nothing was cut on the Republican side.) How convenient, and fortunate for Republicans since the only way we're going to get out of this recession is with more government spending. Not less. (March 31 insert: here and here). But the GOP could not allow that to happen, and will not allow it to happen, or else the economy would have improved and made Obama a popular president.

(April 1 insert: Paul Krugman uses history, past and present, to show that cutting spending in a recession is counter productive, and points out that Obama and the Democrats are going along with it:

...across-the-board wage cuts would almost certainly reduce, not increase, employment. Why? Because while earnings would fall, debts would not, so a general fall in wages would worsen the debt problems that are, at this point, the principal obstacle to recovery.

In short, Mellonism is as wrong now as it was fourscore years ago...

But never mind the lessons of history, or events unfolding across the Atlantic: Republicans are now fully committed to the doctrine that we must destroy employment in order to save it.

And Democrats are offering little pushback. The White House, in particular, has effectively surrendered in the war of ideas; it no longer even tries to make the case against sharp spending cuts in the face of high unemployment. [Bold mine.])

The conservative dogma of "less government," "lower taxes," "cut spending," "deregulation," "let the industry police itself," and "let the free market decide" have proven to be colossal failures and the driving force behind the country's rapid decline. But with the left ceding so much ground, and the right usurping so much power, we foolishly, and insanely, keep implementing the disastrous right-wing agenda. Even when "big government," "tax and spend," "Socialist" Democrats hold the White House and held enormous Congressional majorities. Why? Because if we didn't follow the right's agenda, and implemented "big government" reforms and regulations instead - and implemented a much bigger stimulus in 2009, instead of one that was too small and loaded with boring tax cuts - they'd work and prove conservatives wrong.

So we keep listening to haughty Republicans and keep doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons because the right will never admit their propaganda, "arguments" and talking points are wrong.

So yes, we are very much like George Costanza and Abbott and Costello.

The right can get away with this and their disastrous record, and continue to move the country further, further, further, further, further, further, further and further ~~right~~ ~~crazy~~ neanderthal, because the scoreboard is constantly being wiped clean and the truth, the facts and logic are drowned out by a massive, powerful and intimidating right-wing propaganda machine whose mission is: 1) make stuff up, 2) pass talking points down to the base, 3) protect conservatism, conservative "arguments" and Republican talking points at all costs, 4) constantly attack Democrats, government, unions or whoever the enemy of the hour happens to be, 5) when something goes wrong, spin blame onto Democrats, government, unions or whoever the enemy of the hour happens to be because it's never a Republican's fault (or "less government," or "tax cuts" or the "free market"), and 6) attack the "lame stream" "liberal media" 24/7 so if/when it reports the right's factual errors, or goes after a Republican, the brainwashed conservative base, A) won't believe it (as its been trained), and B) attack that outlet so it thinks twice before it corrects the record or goes after a Republican again (the right has done a great job "working the refs" over the years).

This is what fills the void when there's a lack of leadership.

So we've cut government, cut regulations and cut taxes, all at the behest of the rich, the powerful and the Republican Party (because they "create jobs!"). And since they've made the deficit the issue (which they only do when a Democrat is President), and since they set the agenda, that's what we're going to concentrate on, not jobs or the economy.

But the deficit, made worse by irresponsible tax cuts, is just an excuse to mask the GOP's real objectives: appease corporate America and shrink the size of government.

Bob Herbert:

So what we get in this democracy of ours are astounding and increasingly obscene tax breaks and other windfall benefits for the wealthiest, while the bought-and-paid-for politicians hack away at essential public services and the social safety net, saying we can’t afford them.

And what do we have to show for all this anti-government, "less government," "free market," "trickle down" conservatism? A horribly broken country where the rich have gotten richer and middle class wages have remained flat. (March 23 insert: Warren Buffet admits it.) And if you think otherwise, just take a look around (the harder the right tries to spin that, the more broken the country is. Because if the country isn't horribly broken, then they wouldn't have to work so hard and spin so much to prove it. Oh wait, they'll just blame it all on liberals, unions and ACORN. Never mind.).

Goes to show that you can't build a strong, vibrant, prosperous country on self-righteous duplicity and moronic talking points. Go figure.

You'd think after eight years of conservatism destroying the country, we'd learn from it and turn to Theodore Roosevelt's, Franklin Roosevelt's and Harry Truman's liberalism which made this country what it is. But we didn't. Nothing can be done without Republican approval these days. The narrative, the agenda, the spin, the ~~debate~~ attacks, and policy all begin and end on the right. The far right. We're insane.

We're also very arrogant because we think we're better and smarter then any other country in the world. For instance, when other countries figure a few things out - such as guns, health care, education, transportation, gas taxes, high-speed rail, "big government" regulation, off-shore drilling regulation and investing in green technology - we continue to do it our way because we know better. U-S-A...U-S-A...U-S-A...U-S-A...!

To stop this insanity, we need bold, radical, fundamental change. All of Bush's tax cuts should have been allowed to expire; we needed a carbon tax and an increase in gas taxes, yesterday; we need to implement a national water and energy conservation program (which Republicans think is for sissies); we need to raise efficiency standards on a regular basis; and we need a "Manhattan Project" on green technology, infrastructure and mass transit. And in this corrupt, greedy and selfish country of ours - run by on-the-take politicians and the special interests who ~~contribute to~~ bribe them - we need smart, honest, responsible governance that will not only implement strong regulations, as needed, but enforces them, regardless of who's in power (that laughter you hear is coming from the rich and the powerful on Wall Street. Warning: reading that link could be hazardous to your computer screen.).

And most of all, we need leadership. Liberal leadership.

Don't hold your breath.

None of this will be possible as long as we keep electing immature, ignorant, irresponsible, unenlightened ~~conservatives~~ ~~neanderthals~~ fucks who 1) think every problem can be solved with "less government," "lower taxes," more God and more guns, 2) are just looking for confrontations with with Democrats, and 3) have a interest in government failing and being incompetent.

And electing Democrats isn't the answer either since we have a "Democratic" President who spent his first two years in office acting like a Ronald Reagan Republican (the myth, not reality) and began his next (last?) two like a Ronald Reagan Republican (the myth, not reality):

Obama wrote in an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal today that he is mandating “a government-wide review of the rules already on the books to remove outdated regulations that stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive.” The initiative is part of an executive order he signed today, which he said would codify a “balanced” approach to regulation. (Bold mine.)

So Obama validated and endorsed the right's conservative propaganda even though it was those "outdated" and "stifling regulations" that made the United State's economy the biggest and most powerful in the world.

The president has sought to counter perceptions that his administration is insensitive to business interests... (Bold mine.)

Yea, because even though the stock market is at a two-and-a-half year high, and 2010 was a record breaking year for corporate profits and Wall Street executive pay, we need to do even more for them.

This isn't anything new. Obama has gone along with Republicans on a number of issues, and even embraced the right's "argument" on the financial collapse by privatizing the mortgage industry (and ripping out part of FDR's legacy in the process).

And it's no different at the state level. Minutes after after being sworn in as New York's new governor, "Democrat" Andrew Cuomo acted like a Republican (and painted himself into a corner) by taking the (irresponsible) "no new taxes" pledge. Of course he did.

So in or out of power, nationally or at the state level, the right - the far right - is controlling the agenda, and in effect, the country. God ~~bless America~~ help us.

In a posting on Alternet that I strongly recommend reading, George Lakoff writes (consider it all in bold. Mine.):

Conservatives really want to change the basis of American life, to make America run according to the conservative moral worldview in all areas of life...

Above all, the authority of conservatism itself must be maintained. The country should be ruled by conservative values, and progressive values are seen as evil. Science should have authority over the market, and so the science of global warming and evolution must be denied. Facts that are inconsistent with the authority of conservatism must be ignored or denied or explained away...

This is the America that conservatives really want. Budget deficits are convenient ruses for destroying American democracy and replacing it with conservative rule in all areas of life.

What is saddest of all is to see Democrats helping them.

If we were a smart country that learned from its mistakes, we wouldn't be looking to conservatives to solve the country's problems. But we're not a smart country. Conservatives should be so discredited and embarrassed by their disastrous record, they wouldn't want to show their faces. And yet, it's the left, and Democrats who run away and hide.

This proves six things: 1) how much ground Democrats have ceded, 2) how much power Republicans have usurped, 3) how much Democrats have been intimidated and bullied into ~~shifting~~ sprinting right (see ~~guns~~ ~~health care~~ ~~tax cuts~~ ~~financial regulation~~ ~~any regulation~~ everything), 4) how massive, powerful and intimidating the right-wing propaganda machine is, 5) how mindless and gullible the conservative base is, and 6) how stupid the rest of the country is.

So this isn't just about the right protecting their propaganda, "arguments," talking points and Republicans. For some crazy reason we're actually implementing their agenda. And when things go wrong - and they will - it'll be the Democrat's fault, the liberal's fault (all three of them) and "big government's" fault because conservatives, conservatism and Republicans are never, ever, wrong.

And to clean up those messes, we'll foolishly listen to the right, again, cut taxes again, cut government again, cut spending again, and cut regulations again, while introducing legislation, if at all, that 1) doesn't come close to addressing the problem, 2) Republicans disrupt the process and divert attention (and blame Democrats), 3) cons, rallies and mobilizes their base against it, 4) the bill is watered down even more, and 5) the rich and powerful game the system.

Bob Herbert:

When the game is rigged in your favor, you win. So despite the worst economic downturn since the Depression, the big corporations are sitting on mountains of cash, the stock markets are up and all is well among the plutocrats.

Yep, "lower taxes," "less government," serving the corporate interests and handing out more and more government largess to the rich and powerful - and sticking it to those who can least afford it - will always be the answer to the country's problems, even though that's what's causing them. And that won't be changing any time soon.

Bob Herbert:

If you're still having trouble deciding whose side the Republicans are on, just keep in mind that the House G.O.P. bigwig Darrell Issa sent a letter to 150 businesses, trade groups and think tanks asking them to spell out which federal regulations they dislike the most...

Scared to death of being outdone, President Obama and his sidekicks climbed into their spiffy new G.O.P. costumes and promised in humiliatingly abject tones to shower the business world with whatever government largess they could lay their hands on. The first order of business (pun intended) was the announcement that William Daley, the Chicago wheeler-dealer and former Clinton administration official who landed a fat gig at JPMorgan Chase, would become the president’s chief of staff. Mr. Daley was a loud critic of recent financial regulatory reforms and has been obsessed with getting Democrats to be more subservient to business.

The poor, who have been hurt more than anyone else in this recession, don’t stand a heartbeat's chance in this political environment. The movers and shakers in government don’t even give a thought to being on the side of the angels anymore — they're on the side of the millionaires and billionaires. (Bold mine.)

"When you're in a hole, the first thing you have to do is stop digging."

No, the first thing you have to do is admit that is was the digging that put you in the hole!

"The definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over again and expecting different results."

Exactly. If only we had a left, a real left that understood that.

As for the right, you'd think that they couldn't afford to have different results. But...

"If conservatism fails, but no one's there to prevent it from being implemented again, did it really happen?"

No. These are exactly the results the right's looking for.

Note: I began writing this post on December 30 (they take weeks) and added the part about about gun control during the first week in January. However, I wanted to note that most of this paragraph was written on January 8, within an hour of my hearing of the shooting in Tucson. The "1) and 2)" sentence was added the day after.

As expected, to make sure they could spin as much blame as possible off themselves for the shooting, the right took "the best defense is a good offense approach." And as usual, it was quick, loud and angry.

Since the right and the GOP are in a constant state of spin, they immediately and desperately tried to turn Jared Loughner into a liberal (gee, I wonder why). And then it was, "We're not responsible!" And "we never used threatening language!" Yes, you did (also here, here, here, here, here, here and here).

Hell, it almost happened last last year:

So yes, (Glenn) Beck has done all he can to scare the hell out of people about the Tides Foundation and "turn the light of day" onto an organization that actually facilitates non-profit giving.

And guess what? Everybody in America would have found out about the Tides Foundation last week if Byron Williams had had his way. He's the right-wing, government-hating, gun-toting nut who strapped on his body armor, stocked a pickup truck with guns and ammo, and set off up the California coast to San Francisco in order to start killing employees at the previously obscure Tides Foundation in hopes of sparking a political revolution.

Here's another:

Frances Fox Piven, a City University of New York professor, has been a primary character in Mr. Beck’s warnings about a progressive take-down of America. Ms. Piven, Mr. Beck says, is responsible for a plan to “intentionally collapse our economic system.”

Her name has become a kind of shorthand for “enemy” on Mr. Beck’s Fox News Channel program...This week, Mr. Beck suggested on television that she was an enemy of the Constitution.

Never mind that Ms. Piven’s radical plan to help poor people was published 45 years ago, when Mr. Beck was a toddler. Anonymous visitors to his Web site have called for her death, and some, she said, have contacted her directly via e-mail.

Anyone see a pattern here?

Of course the right, and Beck in these cases, have to deny any and all responsibility for these incidents. And they do by fiercely attacking anyone who so much as ~~points a finger~~ looks in their direction. But it goes to show how responsible they are. Because if they weren't at least indirectly responsible, they wouldn't have to attack so hard and spin so much to prove it. Then again, the right always attacks hard and is always in a constant state of spin. Hey, since they're always wrong, they have to be. But in a crazy way, it actually helps "the cause" because the more they attack and the harder they attack, the more support they get from the base. And that's what they're counting on.

And then there's the spin that "both parties are equally to blame for the hostile partisan atmosphere in Washington." As I pointed out at the bottom of this post, that's not true. Both parties are not to blame. ~~Most, if not~~ All the hate, the anger, the attacks, the bullying and intimation comes from the right. In fact, it's part of their strategy because they know when "both parties are to blame," they win. Sort of like a bully that gets into a tussle with a wimp for taking his lunch money and they both get sent to the principal's office. The bully wins because 1) he wasn't the one who got beat up, and 2) he came away with the wimp's lunch money. And Democrats haven't eaten lunch in years.

The right also said they didn't want the left to exploit the shooting. Of course not, because they were afraid the left might score a few political points for an hour. And they can't allow that. If anyone's going to exploit this tragedy it's them.

It's incredible, though. If a passenger jet crashed as often as we have these mass shootings, that particular model would have been grounded well before it became common. But since these deaths are caused by guns, and since the NRA and their cult-like members completely control and dominate ~~the debate~~ ~~discussion~~ ~~shouting match~~ everything gun, it's gotten to the point where the country forces itself into denial and makes excuses for these shootings because we can't admit that it's the guns that are the problem. No. Not. Never.

So if it was a plane crash, we'd figure out what went wrong and fix it. If it was a bacteria that sickened and/or killed these people, we'd fight like hell to find the cause and cure it. And if we couldn't cure it, there would be a telethon. But Tucson wasn't a plane crash and it wasn't an illness. It's guns. It's always guns. And guns get a free pass. Always. They have to, or else everything the right, the NRA and the gun nuts say about guns would be wrong. And they'll never admit that. So their answer to this shooting is - gee, what a surprise? - more and more and more guns.

This is the level of ~~"intellect"~~ madness we're dealing with here. Oh wait, no, this is (the hell with health care. Republicans will fight tooth and nail to make sure you're not forced to have health insurance because, you know, what good could it possible do? But you better buy yourself a gun. If that doesn't show how fucked up Republicans, their priorities and this country is, then ~~nothing~~ maybe this ~~will~~ won't either.). (March 20 insert: Nor this.)

I know I'm a crazy liberal, but I think government should fix problems and prevent problems. If ~~mass~~ shootings are ~~too~~ common, then just like anything else, determine what caused it and make sure it doesn't happen again (imagine if hand guns were strictly restricted and controlled, if not banned outright 40 years ago. Wait, I can't imagine that. It would have made too much sense and the NRA and the gun nuts angry. Can't do that!).

Take the 1998 collapse and ensuing bailout (sound familiar) of Long Term Capital for example. It would have been great if someone inside one of the government regulatory bodies saw what happened and alerted Congress so the proper measures could have been taken to prevent something like that, or worse, from happening again. That's what financial regulators are for (as well as preventing Bernie Madoff from running a Ponzi scheme, but that's another story).

Instead, we went the other way and removed the firewall (that worked so well for decades) between the banks, investment banks and insurance companies, and kept the risky, secretive and extremely complicated derivative casino unregulated. And the rest is history.

But even if someone did take LTC's collapse as the wake up call it was and sounded the alarm, he or she would have been shouted down as a "big government liberal" who's "anti-business." Just like gun control advocates are shouted down as "Nazis."

(May 31 insert: Paul Krugman:

I was by no means among the early bubble-warners, although I think I was saying stuff about it as early as 2004. In 2005 I wrote what I still think was a pretty good piece of straight economics about how we knew that there was a bubble. And the response of the right was a furious attack; basically, it was politically incorrect to raise any question about the glorious Bush boom.)

This is why problems are never addressed and dealt with maturely and responsibly. The right makes sure of it because they have to protect their propaganda and ensure that conservatism and Republicans (and guns) never get blamed when things go wrong; whether it's 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan, the "response" to Katrina, the Wall St. collapse, the BP oil spill, health care, or the shootings in Tucson, at Va. Tech, Columbine and everywhere else. And for the most part, they don't get blamed. And as I've been pointing out, incredibly, and illogically, we keep following their orders (and we wonder why the country's in the shape it's in. Oh I forgot, it's all the crazy liberal's fault. Never mind.).

It's because the country's been bullied and intimidated by the radical conservative movement, which as I've proven in this blog, is not a political movement at all. It's a cult (or worse ) made up of tens of millions of extremely ignorant thugs, bullies, demagogues, anarchists, Christian fundamentalists and political terrorists (literally, at times) that have been bombarded and brainwashed with so much anti-liberal propaganda and hatred in their lives, that they've become contemptuous and paranoid of anyone that doesn't prescribe to the radical conservative orthodoxy. And the more hate and propaganda they get, the more they want (want proof? Check the ratings for Fox "News" and talk radio.). This way, they're kept perpetually foaming at the mouth, waiting for the next opportunity to scream at a liberal.

A good example would be a 2009 Department of Homeland Security report warning of rising right-wing extremism. Conservatives, naturally, went ballistic, took "the best defense is a good offense" approach and demanded an apology - and got it. And that was enough for DHS; they swept the report under the rug (imagine if it wasn't. Wait, I can't imagine that. It was true...and did make the gun nuts angry. Can't do that!).

If DHS can't stand up to the NRA and the gun nuts, why should we expect them to stand up to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda? It's just more proof that the inmates are running the ~~asylum~~ country. And they not only got the keys to the gun lockers, but are making threatening comments, condoned by a congressional Republican, about assassinating the President.

Again, this is what we're dealing with here. But they get away with it because everyone's frightened of them and too scared to take them on. Remember all that anger and outrage at the recent Supreme Court's (wrongly decided) rulings on the Second Amendment? Of course not because there wasn't any. Not a peep, not even from the pro-control politicians (all three of them). No one would dare disagree with the rulings because 1) the NRA has drummed it into everyone's head that gun ownership is a right, 2) you're a Nazi if you think otherwise, and 3) what the NRA says goes.

We're so frightened of the NRA, that we even allowed them to squash the government from researching - just researching for Christ's sake! - the impact guns and our gun laws have, one way or another (gee, I wonder why). So forget locking the barn door after the horse has been stolen, we don't even consider if keeping the barn door down the street open will allow the horse to be stolen!

Goes to show who's running the country, doesn't it?

None of this is new. It's been going on for decades. And it's also happening with the radical (cough, cough) "pro-life" movement. They continue to use threats, intimidation and assassination to prevent doctors from performing abortion services. Where's the ~~apology from the right~~ demand for an apology from the left for that?

But we don't need DHS alerting us to "right-wing ~~extremism"~~ homicidal psychotics because they can be found in state legislatures. Had nine Republicans on a South Dakota legislative committee had their way, it would have been legal - yes, legal - to murder an abortion doctor. It was such a wonderful idea that Iowa and Nebraska are considering it. Georgia would rather make murderers out of the woman, punishable by death. (March 23 insert: Dozens of anti-abortion bills are making their way through state legislatures.)

I present your Republican "Party."

You know, maybe if Republicans were half as obsessed with jobs, energy, mass transit, education, health care and the environment as they are with guns, banning abortion and breaking unions, the country would be a hell of a lot better off (then again, maybe not). But jobs, energy, mass transit, education, health care and the environment aren't ~~among~~ the GOP's priorities. Their priorities are ignorance, confrontation, protecting their propaganda and keeping their base fearful and enraged at the "gun-grabbing," "baby-killing" "pro-union" liberals. (March 14 insert: And to make it easier for gun owners to vote. Of course, because despite all the mayhem they cause, guns are glorified as if they're the cure to cancer.)

So no, we will not exploit the Tucson shooting; just like we didn't exploit the millions of gun crimes that preceded it, 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Wall Street collapse, climate change, the BP oil spill and our asinine health care system because Republicans and their propaganda machine spring into action and prevent it from happening (gee, I wonder why). Also remember the right's damage control strategy regarding George Bush's "response" to Katrina: "don't play the blame game" (gee, I wonder why).

Anyone see a pattern here?

Perhaps we should exploit tragedies and disasters after the fact so we can hold those directly or indirectly responsible accountable. But as long as there's this massive, powerful and intimidating right-wing propaganda machine, and a massive conservative ~~movement~~ cult that's 1) filled with predisposed anger and rage against "liberals" and their (manufactured) enemies, 2) believes everything they're told by their leaders (via Fox "News" and talk radio), no questions asked, 3) is extremely ignorant, immature, vindictive and intimidating, and 4) rallies behind "the cause" when "one of their own is under attack from the left" - the same way Tony Soprano's mob rallies around him - that will never happen.

Take George Bush and the Iraq war for example. How did he get away with that? It was all spin and talking points handed down to the brainwashed base. Can you imagine if it was Bill Clinton that lied us into a disastrous war and was wiretapping Americans without a warrant (oh wait, I already did). Clarence Thomas is another example. He's taking heat (at least he was) for not reporting his wife's income (and then a possible conflict of interest emerged on the Citizens United case). Had he been a liberal judge we'd be talking about hearings and possible impeachment, the GOP, the right-wing propaganda machine and the conservative base would have made sure of it. But since Thomas is a conservative judge, an extremely conservative judge, it ~~won't~~ didn't get that far. And if it did, the barrage of attacks against "the left" who's "out to get Thomas" would have been quick, loud and angry, the GOP, the right-wing propaganda machine and the conservative base would make sure of it. (March 17 insert: John Aravosis at Americablog has more examples of these double standards.)

Once again it shows who's running the country.

Don't underestimate the right's tactics. As Paul Krugman astutely points out, a GOP investigation into the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission has absolutely nothing to do with corruption and everything to do with protecting the right's propaganda:

What the GOP wants is to make people afraid even to do research that produces conclusions they don’t like. And they don’t stop at trying to undermine the research — they go after the researchers personally. The goal is to create an environment in which analysts and academics are afraid to look into things like financial-industry malfeasance or climate change...(Bold mine.)

...or the effect gun control, or lack thereof, has on crime.

(March 25 insert: Since the right can never let a charge from the left go without a attack, the Wisconsin State Republican Party is going after a college professor's emails. Of course they are. They ~~want~~ need to take something out of context, or make something up - just like the right did with the European global warming emails - so they can discredit him.)

(April 1 insert: Eric Alterman on the professor's emails:

Context, history, and open and free conversation about intellectual matters are themselves enemies of contemporary conservatism. And making these issues explicit in his blog post, politically intended or not, is a kind of mortal blow to the fiction these conservatives are so insistent upon presenting as exclusively driven by current events.

Mark Jefferson, executive director of the Republican Party of Wisconsin, refused to elucidate his motivation for requesting Cronon’s emails, but obviously, with nothing of a political nature likely to turn up in Cronon’s conversations, the request for these records is meant to intimidate. [Bold mine.])

Eric Alterman saw a similar version of this play out at the local level after a New York City "Tea Party" Republican councilman made up a story (gee, what a surprise) about sanitation workers organizing a slow-down during blizzard:

Depending on the audience, this discussion serves multiple purposes. Most obviously it is intended to blame the unions for local fiscal woes and garner support from the public for the coming assault on their pensions. Second, it serves to intimidate the unions and encourage givebacks lest these same officials be forced to go before taxpayers with a plan to cut services, raise taxes or both—making public unions the culprit in any of those options. (Bold mine.)

So whether it's a disastrous war waged under false pretenses, a mass shooting ~~in Tucson~~ anywhere, an economic collapse or just because there's a Democrat in the White House (even a very conservative "Democrat"), or not, Republicans, with the help of the massive right-wing propaganda machine attacks, lies, spins, lies again (March 12 insert: and again), and uses petty, immature ridicule every minute of every day. They have to, to 1) create enemies and raise fears (of liberals, Democrats, the media, unions, deficits [except when a Republican is President], Muslims, terrorists, government, of government taking your guns away, etc.), 2) divert attention and spin blame, 3) keep their massive following in a perpetual state of hateful, cynical rage, and 4) prevent the rest of the country from ever realizing that they're the problem; or at least get the country to throw their hands up in disgust and "blame both parties". Because if the country ever realized that the right is a deranged cult intent on taking the country back to the 19th century (May 16 insert: You think I'm kidding?), we wouldn't implement their disastrous and insane agenda anymore (fat chance as that is).

* If gun control doesn't work then why do a vast majority of guns used in crimes in the northeast come from the south where gun laws are extremely weak? In other words, if gun control "didn't work," then there wouldn't be a need to ship illegal guns up north where there are strong gun laws.

Also, if three, four, maybe five secret service agents - armed to the teeth, experts in the use of firearms, trained to expect an assassination attempt, and hired because of their cat-like reflexes - couldn't prevent Ronald Reagan from getting shot, then how the hell is the typical gun owner supposed to shoot the bad guy while 1) preventing himself from being shot, and 2) not shooting an innocent bystander...assuming he 1) drew his gun clean, while 2) his heart's pounding through his chest, 3) his life's flashing before his eyes, and 4) most likely had an accident?

Also keep in mind, that tens of millions of soldiers in history, on all sides, have been shot holding their rifle, even when they know they're in danger. The same goes for police officers.

The bad guys shoot first, without warning, out of nowhere. And by then it's too late. You might as well be carrying a pencil. So I think we're better off trying to prevent the shooting in the first place. Then again, I'm a crazy liberal, what do I know?

Most of this asterisk part was written prior to the shooting in Tucson.

March 5 insert: To show just how petty, immature, spiteful and neanderthal the GOP is, and how far they'd go to repeal anything that had Nancy Pelosi's name on it, John Boehner put an end to the House cafeteria's biodegradable food and beverage packaging and brought back styrofoam.

March 13 insert: In a post I recommend reading, Kaili Joy Gray of Daily Kos details the right's lies, hypocrisy, racism and perpetual war on the "liberal media," and how Democrats and the "liberal media" play along with it:

...we are living in an era that demands strict adherence to the Republican principle that water is not wet, and anyone who says otherwise is guilty of liberal bias. "Fair and balanced" is the new prescription for the media. Any fact must be countered by a critic. Any report must include the "some say" counter-argument. And likewise, any Republican claim, no matter how unfounded, must be given its due coverage. We must engage in debates about whether the government wants to kill grandmothers or the existence of global warming because to say that these points are not debatable is to commit the worst of all crimes: liberal bias. And no one, from our vice president to National Public Radio, wants to be found guilty.

March 16 insert: Rush Limbaugh mocked the disasters in Japan by inferring that they happened because of their strong environmental policies. Of course he did, because having strong environmental policies are for liberals.

March 16 insert: On not one, not two, but three separate committee votes, 31 Republicans stated - on the record - that climate change isn't real. Of course it isn't, it can't be, because liberals believe it. Goes to show, 1) Republicans are ignorant 19th century neanderthals, and 2) not a single Republican has a mind of his or her own. Hmm...that's exactly what a cult is.

That chill that just went down your spine did so for good reason.

March 25 insert: When Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (the "underwear bomber") was arrested, he was informed of his Miranda rights after 50 minutes of interrogation. Republicans were outraged and blasted Obama and his Justice Department for having the nerve to read a terrorist his rights.

That frightened Obama so much - the Republicans, not Abdulmutallab - that he's now allowing the Justice Department to, as the Wall St. Journal put it: "...hold domestic-terror suspects longer than others without giving them a Miranda warning, significantly expanding exceptions to the instructions that have governed the handling of criminal suspects for more than four decades."

Salon's Glenn Greenwald goes into more detail. But this is yet another case of "Democrats" appeasing Republicans, out of fear, of them, regardless of how wrong it is.

April 1 insert: I must apologize for all the inserts. But I can't help it if Republicans, and Democrats, keep giving me more and more material that proves me right.

April 16 insert: Robert Scheer on the budget deal that averted a government shutdown:

The result of this purchased public myopia is that we are left with an absurd debate over how deeply to cut teachers’ pensions and seniors’ medical benefits while preserving tax breaks for the super rich and their large corporations. At a time when 10 million American families will have lost their homes by year’s end, when $5.6 trillion in home equity has been wiped out, when most Americans face steep unemployment rates and stagnant wages, a Democratic president is likely to compromise with Republican ideologues who insist that further cuts in taxes for the rich is the way to bring back jobs.

April 19 insert:

Laurence Lewis of Daily Kos:

There was much in (Obama's deficit) speech that should encourage Democrats, but as always with this president, it will be the details that matter...But...there was no reason for such a speech in the first place. Apparently, there is no end to how many times it needs be reiterated, but with the economy barely recovering from a devastating recession Democrats should not be talking about deficits. Democrats should not be initiating conversations about deficits, but that was exactly what President Obama did when he established the Catfood Commission. Democrats should instead be talking about a further stimulus package to establish and accelerate real job growth. That would be responsible economics...

As made clear last week, when Republicans talk about the deficit, they are lying. It's a time-honored tradition for Republicans to hide their agenda of class warfare behind the red herring of deficits. When Republicans talk deficits, you know that their real intent is to transfer even more money from the poor and the middle class to the wealthy, as if the widest income gap ever recorded in this country isn't enough. The history speaks for itself, and it cannot be repeated enough: Ronald Reagan ran against President Carter's deficits, and proceeded to explode them to unprecedented levels; the first Bush added to his predecessor's grand achievement; President Clinton erased the Reagan/Bush record deficits and produced a record surplus, and the Lesser Bush then destroyed that and broke even his father's record deficits. And as President Obama so succinctly explained at the end of the week, even the ostensible chief House Republican fiscal hawk is a blatant hypocrite, having voted for two unfunded Bush wars, the surplus-destroying Bush tax cuts, and the enormously expensive and unfunded Bush pharmaceutical drug plan. Never pretend and never let anyone get away with claiming that Republicans care about deficits.

Ever.

April 23 insert:

Rachel Maddow had a very good segment showing how the "liberal" media 1) made a big deal about the ranting and raving coming out of the 2009 town hall meetings about health care reform, but ignored similar town hall anger when it was directed at Republicans for their 2011 budget, and 2) treats the Paul Ryan/Republican budget as "serious" and "courageous" but totally ignored the more practical and responsible progressive budget plan (I didn't know they had one either. So much for the "liberal" media!).

This should also show that the conservative movement has done a wonderful job of turning liberals and liberalism into an eye-rolling, mock-it-when-you-can way of thinking that shouldn't be taken seriously (and it never is), when it's them who should be mocked, ridiculed and not taken seriously. But the left deserves much of the blame for that because they just stood there for the last two decades and allowed it to happen, and continue to allow it to happen.

April 26 insert: Rachel Maddow corrects the record. The media - at least print and internet - has reported on the anger directed at Republicans at their town hall meetings.

April 26 insert: Ian Welsh:

...what happened is that Obama bailed out the rich and the financial industry, who were bankrupt, then refused to prosecute them for systemic fraud. He did so in a way which left, by and large, the exact same class of people in charge of the financial industry, made the remaining banks bigger and more powerful, restored the wealth of the rich to pre-crisis levels and restored their profits. Meanwhile employment has still not recovered (ignore the unemployment rate, it is a lie), wages are flat or declining, real inflation is through the roof, the price of oil is skyrocketing and the current discussion in DC is how much the poor and middle class should get screwed out of their Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, in order to keep the rich filthy rich. Oh, and how much tax cuts the rich should get...

Obama is not turning things around, what he is doing is negotiating with Republicans how fast the decline will be, and how much and how fast it is necessary to fuck ordinary Americans in order to keep the rich rich. If Obama wins another term, he will continue to negotiate the decline, then, odds are very high, a Republican will get in, and slam his foot on the accelerator of collapse.

This is why Obama must lose in 2012.

I agree.

June 11 insert: Since firearms, including assault rifles, can be purchased at gun shows without a background check, or even a check of terrorist watch lists, an al Qaeda leader is instructing terrorists to purchase guns at these shows and kill Americans. Gee, who could have predicted that?

Hunter at Daily Kos:

It's important to note that this isn't a "loophole". It was explicitly asked of Congress whether or not names should have to be checked against the terrorist watch list before purchasing weapons at gun shows: the Republicans in Congress explicitly blocked it. It's an intentional rule. Because the ability to get access to weaponry, anywhere, anytime, without background checks or even a cursory check to see if you're an already-known terrorist -- now that's the bridge too far. We'll put anything and everything in the Patriot Act, we have no problem justifying any number of crazy restrictions against our own citizens going about their lives, but this is America, buddy, and you'll take an Al Qaeda terrorist's guns when you pry them from the gun lobby's cold, dead hands.

Don't worry, though. I'm sure the moment one of those terrorists uses one of those guns on an American bus, or in an American mall...we'll all get lectured profusely on how we shouldn't use a tragedy to push a radical, America-hating agenda of not selling guns to the very terrorists trying to kill us.

This insanity should have been dealt with years ago. It's a no brainer. But since the NRA controls everything gun, the Republicans didn't allow it. Nope, we can't deny guns to terrorists. Talk about not closing the barn door when you know more "horses" will be "stolen".

Even if the laws are changed tomorrow, it'll be too little too late.

Why does the NRA hate America?

June 14 insert:

I like Dante Atkin's logic at Daily Kos:

...if higher marginal tax rates were always as strong an impediment to growth as conservatives claim, and if spending cuts were always as much an enticement to growth as they claim, the economy should be going gangbusters...Much to the chagrin and total embarrassment of Reps. Darrell Issa and Lee Terry, Americans are on average paying the lowest tax rates in 60 years–lower, even, than those under the practically beatified conservative icon Ronald Reagan. Yet the economy is limping along and job growth is weak.

American corporations are also netting record profits. If conservatives were right, these American job creators would be using their already enormous cash reserves to grow their businesses and create jobs for the rest of us. But they're not, choosing instead to plow their cash into mergers, acquisitions and divided distributions rather than hiring back laid-off workers. Similarly: if conservatives were right and drastic cuts to public spending were the solution to financial trouble, then Great Britain would be on its way to recovery after the austerity measures put in place by the Tory government. But the situation across the Atlantic is arguably worse than before .

Low tax rates. Profits for so-called "job creators." Spending cuts. The three things that conservatives say are most necessary for achieving a healthy economy are all occurring at historic levels. If conservatives were right, there could be no way that the economic situation could be this bad on either side of the pond. But it is, and that leads to one inescapable logical conclusion: conservative economic policies are not good for job creation or the overall economy.

Now if only we can get Obama and the Democrats to realize that.

Health Insurance for Conservatives

2011-02-10T14:04:00.002-05:00

Over the last couple of years, I've had much to say about health care (here, here and here). I had another idea.

Even though the new health care legislation is built around conservative Republican principles - tax credits for small business and "exchanges" where Americans who don't have insurance can "pool their buying power" in the "marketplace" and get better deals - Republicans attacked it, did everything they could to block it and are trying to repeal it.

As I've shown, they had to do that to protect their propaganda, "arguments" and talking points. But let's leave that craziness aside and take them for their word: "government is always bad, evil and incompetent" and "'Obamacare' is Socialism" (I wish) and "has death panels."

Fine. Here's my idea. Congress should pass a law that allows insurance companies to sell policies to anyone in the country, even across state lines, that would not be subject to any state or federal health insurance laws, regulations, requirements or mandates. Whether it's an individual policy, a Medicare Advantage policy, COBRA, the policy you have through an employer or through one of the "exchanges," all Americans would have the opportunity to purchase the same policy as if the government didn't exist.

Of course policy holders would be subject to whatever insurance companies want to do. With these types of policies, they can cover, or not cover, whoever they want; they can cover, or not cover, whatever treatments and procedures they want; they can cover, or not cover, whatever pre-existing conditions they want; they can approve or deny coverage whenever they want; they can certainly charge whatever they want, with any co-pays and deductibles they want, and can lower them, or raise them, whenever they want.

It's all up to the "free market" because no state or federal laws, regulations, requirements and mandates would apply to the policies or to the insurance company that sells them.

Of course the insurance companies would have to compete with each other to provide the the best coverage at the best price. But that's the (conservative) idea.

But this also means that if a policy holder has a problem with their coverage at some point, it's between them and the insurance company. They can't ask their Senator, Congressperson or any bureaucrat to intervene. How can they? Since the cumbersome, anti-business, "big government" laws, regulations, requirements and mandates behind these policies "don't exist," the government can't get involved, at any level, because there's nothing to enforce (since insurance companies are bound by the "free market" where "the industry polices itself," and not by law, policy holders shouldn't be allowed to sue them [hey, there's your "tort reform"]. It should also mean that hospitals shouldn't have to adhere to government requirements when they care for patients who have these policies. But I'll let that slide.).

If this is what the right wants, we should let them have it. It would allow hypocritical Congressional Republicans and anti-government/"free market" conservatives who put them into office, to be able to have exactly the type of health insurance they've been screaming for.

Keep in mind, the policies aren't necessarily changing. They shouldn't. It's the same policy, but free of all "big government" health care laws, regulations, requirements and mandates. If they do change, that's up to the insurance companies and the "free market."

So how about it, conservatives?

I don't want to hear that these policies would cost more. How can they? Without being "forced" into "wasteful" and "unnecessary" treatments, procedures and paperwork, the insurance companies will be saving a lot of money.

If they do charge more, well, that's the "free market!"

I also don't want to hear that conservatives have "always been for some government regulation on health care and insurance." Baloney! Based on the health care attacks that have come from the right on the new health care legislation - legislation that was based on Republican principles - that's a colossal lie. If it was true, how come they never, ever, said something like that before? How come they didn't mention it when they came out with their health care plan? Oh wait, they never had a plan, never mind. Oh wait, they did, my mistake. It's "get the government out of health care and let market forces work."

Fine. Here it is.

If the right ~~opposes~~ tries to spin their way out of this, it would prove what a bunch of hypocrites they are. Wouldn't be the ~~first~~ ~~second~~ ~~third~~ ~~fourth~~ ~~fifth~~ ~~sixth~~ ~~seventh~~ ~~eight~~ ~~ninth~~ ~~tenth~~ eleventh time.

October 2 insert: In a post well worth reading, Hunter at Daily Kos takes this even further.

Charlie Chaplin

2011-02-07T11:00:00.005-05:00

In the 1940 movie The Great Dictator, Charlie Chaplin plays a duel role: a WWI veteran/Jewish barber, and "Adenoid Hynke" the dictator of "Tomainia". It's a spoof of Adolph Hitler and Nazi Germany.

At the end of the movie, the barber is mistaken for the dictator, and Chaplin, as the barber, gives a speech, not as "Hynke", but the barber:

I’m sorry but I don’t want to be an Emperor, that’s not my business. I don’t want to rule or conquer anyone. I should like to help everyone if possible, Jew, gentile, black man, white. We all want to help one another, human beings are like that. We all want to live by each others happiness, not by each others misery. We don’t want to hate and despise one another. In this world there is room for everyone and the earth is rich and can provide for everyone.

The way of life can be free and beautiful. But we have lost the way. Greed has poisoned men's souls, has barricaded the world with hate; has goose-stepped us into misery and bloodshed.

We have developed speed but we have shut ourselves in: machinery that gives abundance has left us in want. Our knowledge has made us cynical, our cleverness hard and unkind. We think too much and feel too little: More than machinery we need humanity; More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness.

Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost.

The aeroplane and the radio have brought us closer together. The very nature of these inventions cries out for the goodness in men, cries out for universal brotherhood for the unity of us all. Even now my voice is reaching millions throughout the world, millions of despairing men, women and little children, victims of a system that makes men torture and imprison innocent people.

I'm not posting this because that could have been said today in terms of what terrorists and terrorism have done to us and the world. I'm posting it because of what our megalomania, our greed, our arrogance, our hate, our "torturing and imprisonment" (without charges) of "innocent people" (also here), including an American teenager - in many cases knowing they're innocent - and killing them, or letting them die while their cases (conveniently) languish in court, that has done to the world.

Once you're through chanting U-S-A...U-S-A...U-S-A...U-S-A... watch the clip with some self-reflection to what Chaplin is talking about. Because he could very well be talking about the United States.

Chaplin sees what lies ahead and wants to live in a world that's not built around greed, selfishness, hate, ignorance, intolerance, division and intimidation. But as this blog has proven, that's exactly what the Republican "Party" is built on.

Then Chaplin gives a shout-out, presumably to German soldiers:

...don’t give yourselves to brutes, men who despise you and enslave you, who regiment your lives, tell you what to do, what to think and what to feel, who drill you, diet you, treat you as cattle, use you as cannon fodder.

Don’t give yourselves to these unnatural men, machine men, with machine minds and machine hearts. You are not machines. You are not cattle. You are men. You have the love of humanity in your hearts. You don’t hate, only the unloved hate. Only the unloved and the unnatural. Soldiers: don’t fight for slavery, fight for liberty...

Chaplin saw that German soldiers believed everything their leaders told them, as if they were part of a cult. (Hmm...) He's telling them that they have hearts and minds of their own and is begging them to use them to make the world a better place.

Instead of German soldiers, Chaplin could very well be addressing conservatives. Its leaders have "enslaved" a conservative "regiment" that "tells them what to do," "what to think" and "what to feel;" that gets them to care more about winning a political argument (by making stuff up) then dealing with the country's problems maturely and responsibly, and in fact, would rather see them worsen just so they can attack and blame Democrats, liberals, taxes and "big government".

If I can extrapolate, Chaplin would be asking conservatives to open their minds, use their intellect, and participate in a war of ideas, not a sanctimonious and self-righteous war against, well, everyone not conservative (especially liberals, all three of 'em). "Don't fight for partisanship, division and broken government," Chaplin would say, "fight for intelligence and good, honest government!"

Good luck with that, though.

"Let us fight for a world of reason," Chaplin concluded "a world where science and progress will lead to all mens happiness."

The next time you can reason with a Republican, and the next time they're interested in or at least believe in science, it'll be the first time.

While Chaplin is referring to the horrible possibility of a world ruled by Nazis, in 1940, you can see that he could very well be referring to today's Republican "Party." I illustrate their scary similarities here and here.

Watch the clip (or read the text). Listen to what Chaplin is saying. Not as an arrogant American who justifies our illegal, immoral and deadly actions; our secret wars and torturing; and calls for military action against other countries, without a thought to its consequences, flippantly, as if you were singing a song. But as a fair and open-minded American who knows hypocrisy when he sees it.

Chaplin was smart enough to use this movie as a warning to the world. Perhaps his words should give America a similar warning to what's ~~coming~~ already come to our political world (also here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here).

Letter to the Editor

2011-01-08T14:05:00.002-05:00

I wrote this Letter to the Editor and it was published in the newspaper, mostly intact. Here it is as I originally wrote it.

Regarding "Tax cuts don't cause deficits" (Your Views, Dec. 22) the writer said: "Each time tax rates were reduced…tax revenue collected by the government increased." Great, then let's cut income taxes 99% across the board and bring in more money. And why stop there? Let’s also cut state income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, corporate taxes, payroll taxes, capital gain taxes and estate taxes, as well as bus and train fares, bridge and highway tolls, and tuition to state colleges by 99% as well and bring in even more money.

That’s called illustrating the absurd by being absurd.

Besides the bailouts, the stock market dive and the recession, we’re also in this mess because the Bush tax cuts (all of which should have been allowed to expire) weren't paid for, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan weren't paid for, and neither was the senior prescription drug plan. That’s what drove the deficits during the Bush years and added trillions to the national debt.

I'd also like to point out that when President Clinton raised taxes in 1993, Republicans said the economic sky was going to fall in. Turned out they couldn't have been more wrong because the 1990s were one of the best economic times in the country's history and the government was running surpluses, which Mr. Clinton used to pay off some of our debt.

The Republican record on taxes, spending and deficits couldn't be more clear, wrong and disastrous. So why does anybody listen to them?