Kill the Bill – Unfortunate Hypocrisy

While the proponents of the labor unions in Wisconsin have the right to protest, and their effort to challenge the shady tactics of Governor Walker is highly warranted, they should have the collective sense not to be hypocritical. Being a hypocrite does not make you a liar, and your view still can carry water, but the decision of many of the protesters in Madison to chant “Kill the Bill” shows very bad form and displays a level of hypocrisy which unfortunately is all too common in US politics. What were they thinking??

Just slightly over one month ago, in the wake of the shootings in Tucson, Arizona, which altered the life of Representative Gabrielle Giffords forever, national Democrats generated many sound bites to criticize the Republicans for using the work “kill” in legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Granted, that was using the word “kill” in formal legislation, but the point was not lost – interjecting the word “kill” into political discourse was probably an unnecessary tactic. Granted, the Republicans never changed the name of the bill, although from a public relations standpoint they did seem to try to moderate their language. There is a difference between inserting the word “kill” into a bill, but using it on placards and chanting it in the halls of a state capitol is not all that different.

Shame on the protesters. But long live their right and reason to protest.

The Polished, Energetic and Seasoned Washington Insider

Remember Virginia Thomas’s early morning call to Anita Hill? She went out of her way to harass Ms. Hill, and now she is again taking an overly pro-active lead in consulting for ultra-conservative issues. While she has the right to do what she wants, and a woman should never have to subsume her career to that of her husband’s, Ms. Thomas’s activities ought to be tracked very closely. Her consulting firm is focused on her ability to be “an ‘ambassador’ between the new citizen activities (tea party movement), the established conservative movement the entrepreneurial class, the alternative media and principled statesmen and candidates.” Does Fox News count as the “alternative media?” The title of this post is taken from her bio found here.

I do not know “Ginny” Thomas, and can only read her husband’s opinions, but I get the sense that their behind-the-scenes activities are dove-tailed to make effective use of their positions and influence.  This is the definition of a judge who is compromised and ought to limit his opinions to those where there is not a conflict. You cannot stop the husband-wife interaction and their general impact on events, but we can make sure that Justice Thomas does limited harm to our country.

See more here.

Bachmann Overdrive

So, let’s ask Ms. Bachmann how much she is spending of the government’s money to deliver this speech. The fact that the Republican majority in the House is allowing this to happen speaks to their complete and utter subservience to this fringe movement. This is just pathetic, and a complete show of disrespect to our President and her own party. Maybe Sarah Palin can write a rebuttal to Ms. Bachmann’s rebuttal?

Bachmann’s Response Will Push Tea Party Goals – NYTimes.com.

Some next-day reflections on Ms. Bachmann’s speech:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/tv-watch-michele-bachmanns-rogue-rebuttal-defies-unity-theme/?hp

Despite searching for ten minutes I could not locate any commentary on Ms. Bachmann’s speech on Fox News website (www.foxnews.com), only the video of the speech itself. Hmmm.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41262130/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/24/michele-bachmann-state-of-the-union_n_813362.html

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2011/1/23/bachmann-state-of-the-union-response-shows-gop-message-problem.html?s_cid=rss:robert-schlesinger:bachmann-state-of-the-union-response-shows-gop-message-problem

Illinois Wakes Up?? – Part 2

Well, Illinois continues to be at the forefront of the news, albeit the part of the news that you want to avoid. Budget deficit. Crushing debt. Crumbling pension system. Bankruptcy?? The Land of Lincoln, home of the Daleys, the City of Big Shoulders and Caterpillar? Say it ain’t so!

Sadly, it is so.

Two recent articles highlight Illinois’s ongoing issues, as related to my original post:

The deficits will continue, despite the ongoing embarrassment. Granted, the current governor in Illinois is hobbled by years of mismanagement not of his making, but Mr. Quinn will need to continue to look for a long-term solution to our issues. Of course, making that “temporary” tax increase will be the first step. 🙂 It is somewhat relaxing to see that Illinois has had some of the lowest income taxes across the country (see graphic below), so it is about time we caught up?

With a more frightening prospect, we now hear about a movement by which states might be able to claim bankruptcy. Huh? Just so that a state can avoid pension obligations? This would be bringing the worst of corporate culture to an institution (state government) that has long prided itself on being different from a corporation. Any person in the state that is tied to a public pension should begin to worry. Those pensions, while maybe overly generous, have always been a source of stability for state workers. Keep in mind that state pensioners (like teachers) were never obligated to contribute to Social Security precisely because the pension was their retirement nest-egg. If the pension must be adjusted, it should be for state employees entering the system today, not 20 years ago.

[following was posted on Jan 18]

According to a recent editorial in the New York Times, the State of Illinois has “awoken” to its fiscal mess. How so? By raising state income taxes by 66%, and passing a significant increase in the corporate tax. According to the editorial,  Illinois has finally come up with a plan to help reduce its deficits and to close the budget gap. The deficit has been projected to be about $15 billion in the next fiscal year, but the “temporary” tax increase will reduce that deficit by only about $7 billion. Across the nation, Illinois is held up as a major financial basket-case, so something needed to be done. Yes, something needed to be done. Of course, how are we going to close the budget gap even further? More taxes?

Citizens – both private and corporate – are outraged for sure, but the  investors who track the fiscal stability of states see this move as very positive, and trumpet it as a signal of the creditworthiness of Illinois. Wow, how different can be the perspectives of those paying the taxes and those making money by lending even more money to the State?

Of course, nobody believes that this tax increase will be “temporary.” The last time Illinois raised income taxes, in 1989, the increase was supposedly temporary – until 1993 when all was made permanent. So, let’s call a spade a spade...it will be permanent. Granted, taxes had not been raised since the late 1980s, and our taxes remain below some of the states that have criticized our tax increase (New Jersey and Wisconsin). Nevertheless, such an abrupt and large tax raise gets one pretty excited. After all, the lack of tax increases has been easily rectified by the raising of every fee imaginable (multiple times) in Illinois. So, the State has received its fair share even without the income tax. But, what has the Land of Lincoln done with my taxes and fees?

Now, I am the first to support taxation and reasonable state and federal use of those taxes. In fact, I am likely a more strident proponent of taxation than your average American. Aside from all of the inevitable government waste that worries me about the destination of my taxes, I believe strongly that our governments in the United States need sufficient taxation to support the services that we all require. While some need unemployment support and welfare, I need roads, fire, police, schools and the military.

In an effort to make us feel better, the Democrats in the Illinois legislature passed a restriction that will potentially eliminate the tax increase if the state surpasses its self-imposed spending caps. If the budget rises more than 2% per year over the next few years, the State may rescind the tax increase. Sorry, but how come I do not believe this will happen?

But when are the true budget cuts going to happen, and from where are they coming?  The Democrats in the legislature claim that they will make the budget cuts necessary, but can we really expect Michael Madigan to faithfully make that happen? He has been there for too long, and he has overseen this mess as much as the two disgraced former Governors Ryan and Blagojevich.

This State needs leadership. Quinn is not it, and the Republicans have been unable to field a true leader. What will Illinois do?

Hey Boehner, Change and Evolution are Good

I have to hand it to the wonderful leaders of our newly elected House of Representatives, members of the 112th Congress. In an attempt to somehow remind people of the importance of the Constitution, and seemingly to suggest that earlier Congresses were ignoring it, John Boehner and the Tea Party cabal decided to spend more money and time to read the entire document aloud on the floor of the House. Did anyone listen?

There are many aspects of this charade that were amusing, but what was downright eye-opening was that some of the original Constitution had to be skipped because words had been literally changed due to amendments offered across the years. So, Boehner and his team had to spend the time (and, again, the money) determining specifically which parts of the original text would be ignored so as not to confuse anyone. Could you imagine Representative John Lewis (D-GA), an African-American, reading about “3/5 of a person?”

The irony of this whole mockery is that the very people who most wanted it read aloud – Republicans and Tea Party representatives – would generally be the same people who would argue that we need to stay close to the “original intent” of the Framers of the Constitution. In this way, by reading the Constitution more literally, we could determine the “right thing to do” because the meaning was supposedly fixed and unchanging. “Original intent?” What was the original intent of the 3/5 of a person? Why 3/5?

Note to John Boehner….such was the design of the Founders – amendments could be offered precisely because they could not get it all correct. Since the Framers knew they could not predict everything, and they realized that people change their views, the writers of the Constitution allowed for change and interpretation to occur. So do not make it seem as though reading the document on the floor will somehow inspire your team to do something “right.” You will do what you want…at least the Senate and the President are still awake.

By the way, Mr. Boehner, how much have you spent so far in the 112th Congress?

With New Heart Pump, Cheney Slowly Resumes Old Life – NYTimes.com

So, this is just another great story. A thinner Dick Cheney out hunting and rousing up the Republican stalwarts to defeat all-things Obama. Although I do not wish any significant ill-will towards Mr. Cheney, maybe someone can regulate his blood flow with his heart pump so that he gets tired more easily and does not open his mouth as much. Just what we need – Dick Cheney – blathering about what is wrong with the current administration while trying to remind everyone what great things he (and Dubya) did all of those years. But of course, how easily we have forgotten those great things! Interestingly, he will soon visit Texas to enjoy a party hosted by the emir of Kuwait – a party that will celebrate the ousting of Saddam Hussein from the oil-rich emirate. That ousting was rather spectacular, but what did it gain the world?

Oh, and I would LOVE to hear about expansive insurance coverage that Mr. Cheney receives for all of this medical care – although I do realize that his great service to this nation affords him that more than others. Right?

With New Heart Pump, Cheney Slowly Resumes Old Life – NYTimes.com.

“Death Panels” Make a Comeback – We are Better Off with Them

So here we go again. The government, in trying to make some actual progress, is being hobbled by the potential negative influence of media outlets (namely, Fox News) and groups like the John Birch Society.

Appears as though the Obama Administration is trying to enact regulations in 2011 which will allow doctors and patients to engage in critical discussions regarding end-of-life decisions. The regulations will provide Medicare compensation to support these discussions, and the administration is taking the principled stand that these discussions are important.

However, according to one story, supporters of this move are trying to keep it somewhat quiet because they fear they will stoke the flames that raged when Mr. Obama tried to get this compensation into the health care legislation passed in 2009. What happened in 2009? Based on an initial statement by Sarah Palin and the immediate support she received, opponents of the health care law began to suggest that Mr. Obama and his “socialists” were trying to convene “death panels” which would decide who lives and who dies. Despite the fact that even Senator Grassley – no fan of Mr. Obama – admitted that such a concept was not part of the legislation (see video here), the rumors persisted. Mr. Obama had no choice but to remove this vital service from the legislation. Knowing what is right, however, has compelled the administration to execute a regulation that our legislators did not have the moxie to enact.

So why are supporters of the new regulations trying to fly under the radar on this?

Discussions like this or like this, on the so-called Fair-and-Balanced Fox News, will continue to distort the truth and confuse the people with the term “death panel.” Those same media outlets and related conservative organizations (and their puppet politicians) will continue to sow the insinuation that somehow the government will compel people to literally make choices between life and death. So much for reasoned and honorable debate.

My mom died on January 27, 2010. Her passing was certainly a very emotional event and a part of my life that I will never forget. Of course, you never forget the passing of your parent, and that is because it is traumatic, emotional and so final. All of the things she did for me come back in my memory and I realize (too late?) what a great influence she was on my development and progress in life. However, in this case, my mom’s passing was made more palatable by the fact that we (as a family) had discussed end-of-life options long before the final moment. In fact, between my parents, their doctors, and all of my siblings, we had a pretty good handle on my mom’s wishes, the medical options, and the alternative choices. Bottom line – we were well-informed.

That – in its essence – is what the Obama administration is trying to provide….a well-informed medical community and client population. We should all have the “luxury” of being able to walk through very gut-wrenching decisions and end-of-life discussions with this full knowledge and understanding. Such knowledge and understanding should be covered by medical insurance, whether Medicare, Medicaid or the best private insurance in the world. If we cannot have those discussions, or they can only be had by the ones who can afford them, we are doing a significant disservice to our human population and the values that hold this country together.

AMENDED Jan 5: unfortunately, politics, administrative process and an unwillingness of the Obama administration to stand up to the Republicans has pulled this regulation from the Medicare books. Too bad, really too bad. See here.

Senate Advances Arms Treaty, 67-28

 

 

Good news! The Senate shows us that reasonable heads can prevail and that not all Republicans are out to get Obama. Maybe we cannot trust the Russians, but this treaty should allow us to keep a closer eye on nuclear weapons. We are safer because of it and because of the Democrats.

Senate Advances Arms Treaty, 67-28 – NYTimes.com.

Possible New Path to Bipartisan Agreements??

So, do we call it a compromise? Smart politics? Waffle? Sell-out? Cave-in? Breaking a campaign promise? Either way, it is a tough set of decisions for President Obama. Granted, he secured lower taxes for all of the people he wanted, he secured continued assistance to the unfortunate folks without jobs, and he made a deal on payroll taxes that will benefit many (including this writer). But was this the right deal for the country, for the people and for the Democrats? Not sure. In this age of deficit reduction and economic uncertainty, keeping the taxes the same for everyone and cutting payroll taxes was probably a bridge too far – the deal will mean another $900 B added to the debt just like that. The compromise to get this bill crafted feels too much like a thumping. As I stated earlier in a comment, President Obama should have threatened a veto and let the government ground to a halt in the name of standing up to key values, such as equity. How much have the truly wealthy compromised in the last two years?

As the article suggests, will this be a pattern? Let’s hope not.

Possible New Path to Bipartisan Agreements – NYTimes.com.

Amended 12/13 – In retrospect, this was a pretty good step by Mr. Obama. The tax bill is a major compromise for the president, but he really needed to go this route in the face of Republican opposition. Besides, Republicans wanted permanent extensions of the wealthy, and they did not get it. Of course, we will see in 2012. The key for Mr. Obama is to make sure he stays in the driver’s seat rather than continually reacting to what the Republicans want. With ownership of the WH and the Senate, he should be able to do this.

The Obama Inheritance – The Bush Years Just Keep on Giving

Would you accept an inheritance today that would cripple you with taxes and debt next year? Or an inheritance that would constantly remind you about how bad things can get? Depends, I suppose, on your view of the ultimate value of that inheritance, but you would certainly not relish the idea. Any hesitation in accepting the inheritance would be understandable especially if those around you sought your failure to successfully re-invest the inheritance.

Such is Obama’s dilemma. This is not new news….it was clear in January 2009 (and before) that Mr. Obama was taking on a significant challenge. Any number of news articles articulated this challenge, and books were hot off the presses which enumerated the effort that would be required to turn things around. George W. Bush left President Obama a mess – the economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, the budget, foreign policy…the list goes on.

But what is different in late 2010, now that Mr. Obama has had almost two years to fix things? If you focused your attention on the newsstands only, you would think that nothing has improved. The debt and deficits are out of control. Unemployment is still too high. We are struggling in terms of a respected foreign policy. We cannot even win the Olympics or the World Cup. Certainly there are positive highlights out there; the economy appears to be – ever so slowly – turning around, GM has re-issued its stock, Iraq is moving in the right direction, Afghanistan is still a possible success, health care is improving, etc.

However, what is really most notable is that – despite the challenges confronted, and Mr. Obama’s vigorous response to them – he really has very little chance to succeed. The very politicians who bequeathed him the American inheritance in the first place are the same people who are making it difficult for him to make the necessary improvements. Imagine that? The Republicans gave Mr. Obama a declining inheritance, but they actively are preventing Mr. Obama from taking the necessary steps to make the inheritance worthwhile. So, the giver continues to give!

The Bush inheritance has given Mr. Obama a United States of lower stature around the world, and yet the Republicans claim that the President is wrong to qualify “American exceptionalism.” Why must we say we are better than everyone else? It is time to realize that we are part of a broader and inter-connected world. Listen to the Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao.

The Bush inheritance has given Mr. Obama the worst deficits and debt in American history, and yet the Republicans are whining that the President is trying to “cut” the taxes of the upper-middle class in this country, the people who supposedly drive American growth. If taxes were the substantial engine that drove growth, then how is it that we lost so many jobs in the last five years with those taxes so low?? Give me and the rest of America a break. Make some economically conservative choices. Otherwise get the hell out of the way so that we can start to make tough choices.

The Bush inheritance gave Mr. Obama Iraq and Afghanistan, and yet the Republicans use Mr. Obama’s tough decisions in these arenas as a platform from which to question his moxie and commitment to US armed forces. Let the guy lead. Let him listen to the military. He is C-in-C. Deal with it.

Mr. Boehner, McConnell and the rest of you…..the country is a mess. Mr. Obama inherited the mess. He did not create it. Work with him to fix it or get out of the way. But, then again, that’s your plan, isn’t it? Use the very inheritance to bring him down – and let the Bush gift just keep on giving.

Pentagon Finds Little Risk in ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Repeal

I am not the most qualified person to comment on this, but the survey numbers do not lie. The closest I ever got to serving in the military was sitting in a Marine recruiting office in Philadelphia in 1986 just about to sign a commitment. The commitment would have put me in boot camp in the summer of 1986 and made me a Marine for some years after college, but I guess I was simply not ready to give up my summers. I had a great summer job and I enjoyed the weather. Selfish for sure. It is one of the decisions I regret in life. The Marines wanted me in their group and I rejected them. My loss.

That said, as the news reports articulate, internal military surveys suggest that the issue about gays serving in the military has no negative impact on morale and operations. I would not demand that this means the military should change their policies, but the military should think about it.

But what is most interesting about this debate is that we hear so many Republicans arguing against the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” They use the same arguments against the repeal as they used against the creation of the policy in the first place….a policy put in place by President Clinton in the 1990s. They argue that any policy like this would crush military discipline and compromise the trenches. Same thing they said when Truman wanted to integrate the Armed Forces in the late 1940s even after African-Americans served valiantly in World War II.

There may be legitimate reasons for setting certain military policies, but – oh Republicans – please do not continue to show a lack of creativity in your arguments! Let those who want to serve put their best foot forward for this country. I did not do it, but we should allow others to do it.

The Cold War at Home Again?

I do not have much time to lay into the Republicans on this one, but it seems like their recent attempts to scuttle the “New Start” treaty smack of the 1970s and 1980s. Remember then? The Republicans seemed to think that only they could properly defend the country, whereas (according to them) the Democrats were always ready to somehow degrade the military and imperil the security of the country. Democrats were weak, Republicans strong. They won elections sowing fear that a Democrat would make us all Communists.

Today, the world is vastly different, so it is time to think differently about the world. Having the US and Russia make a deal on nuclear arms would send a clear message that we are serious about controlling arms. This needs to be done in order to start to put some fences around the nuclear ambitions of Pakistan, India, China and Iran. How can we try to control those countries when we cannot even control ourselves? Republicans need to get out of the way. Despite their attempts to question the foreign policy credentials of the Obama administration, and to suggest that he is weak on defense, it is the Republicans who  imperil our security. They even threaten to rebuke their own master.

McConnell, Stewart and the Line Between Policy and Insanity

Mitch McConnell had to say it – after all he is the leader of the Republicans in the Senate, and they are positioned to win some electoral advances in the Senate and take over the House tomorrow. We will see how it goes on November 2nd,  but as the Republican leader he needs to set the mood. Cannot blame him for that. So, what does he say?

“…the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president…”

Now, to be fair, McConnell is in election mode and he tempered his remarks by suggesting that if Obama were to do a “Clintonian backflip” he could meet the Republican senators “halfway.” The message to Obama – move towards us, and we will work with you; don’t, and we will not. Electoral politics? Bravado in the face of a certain victory?

On the contrary, what we see from McConnell, Kasich in Ohio, Barbour in Mississippi and other standard-bearing Republicans is a relentless push to not just defeat the president’s agenda, but scuttle any reasonable opportunity to achieve anything worthwhile. And to what purpose? Because the Republicans have the magic bullet to solve all of our problems? Clearly, no. No, simply put, they are bent on taking back the power and will do so by any means necessary…even courting and encouraging the growth of the frantic Tea Party legions. There are endless calls about budget measures, spending cuts, etc, etc. Just be sure, gentlemen, that when the budget cutting begins you start with a realistic approach to the so-called “Bush tax cuts”  – in other words, rescind the tax cuts for those making more than $250K. While you are at it, be sure to carefully look at the budgets of your own pet projects before attacking noteworthy programs that actually help this country.

McConnell’s statement was what Jon Stewart was really talking about during his closing remarks at the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear held this past weekend in Washington DC:

http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:363864

While analysts can criticize the rally as political in nature, the same criticism can be used against Glenn Beck’s rally earlier in the year. By their very nature the rallies were political since they involved people and the discussion of ideas and policy. So, let it be. While many criticisms have been directed towards the Rally, Stewart’s closing remarks exposed the “insanity” of McConnell’s comments. As Stewart suggested, certainly we ought to be able to debate, and debate we should. We all have our differences, and those differences are not small. But use the debates and the differences to build something better – do not just resist because the “other side” is different. That only brings out the worst in our society, and leaves the terrain for debate open to the most radical and destructive voices. That’s the message. Debate, don’t resist. Every day we see how this works outside of the Beltway. People do it every day. It’s the difference between developing policy and making progress, and driving us all insane with the bickering.