The Semantics Of Orrin Hatch

In yesterday’s Chicago Tribune there was an opinion piece written by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), with retired Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese, and Northwestern University Law Professor Steven Calabresi (read it here). It was the title “Forcing Americans To Buy What They Don’t Want” that caught my eye, and what followed was a stream of misleading boilerplate text that I’ve heard over and over from the GOP regarding the healthcare reform bill that is now law today.

I am just a regular guy, so far be it from me to take on such accomplished men as Senator Hatch, Mr. Meese, and Professor Calabresi, but I know BS when I smell it. So here goes.

First the title of the piece. Senator Hatch and his Hatchmen posit that Americans are being forced to buy health insurance, and this is something we supposedly do not want. Or perhaps they are trying to intimate that we are being forced to buy government health insurance? I can’t seem to figure out any other possible meaning of the title, and either explanation is a lie. Americans want health insurance, they want the security of knowing that if they pay for it they can’t be dropped when they get sick, and they want to be able to buy it if they were sick once before. The only thing Americans are being forced to do is insure that their bills will be paid so the rest of us don’t pick up the tab in increased premiums and higher taxes. Otherwise, it sounds like Hatch wants to return to being a welfare state where we pay for those who can’t or won’t pay for themselves.

The article opens up with some pithy statements about “playing fair”, and “ends not justifying means” in order to assert that the Democrats passed this law while ignoring the procedural rules of Congress. Really? If that were the case then the GOP’s lawyers would have already succeeded in overturning it. The fact is that Democrats used all the rules that were available to them, and Hatch doesn’t like it because he and his party couldn’t stop it. They got beat fair-and-square and now they are calling foul. That sounds like a case of being a sore loser over “how the legislative game is played”, as he puts it. Game over. You lost. Deal with it like a grownup.

But Hatch saves his best canned party lines for the end when he says “In 220 years, Congress has never required Americans to purchase a particular good or service”, and he specifically cites the “liberal” pivot of comparing this to being mandated to purchase auto insurance. Hatch has the nerve to say that purchasing auto insurance is okay because it is a state mandate, and not a federal mandate. C’mon Senator–you’re either for mandates or against mandates. A state mandate can’t be good when a federal mandate is bad; those are just semantics.

Just because the Fed has never mandated the purchase of health insurance before, that doesn’t make it a bad idea right now. Senator Hatch’s argument sounds like an argument against evolving, against learning, against growing up and facing our responsibilities together as a nation. Why, that sounds like an argument against patriotism, and e pluribus unum, and “one nation under God”! It’s an argument against the United States of America!!!

Sorry, I didn’t mean to get semantical on you.

Advertisement

April Fools On Parade

"Lesbian bondage strip club? Quick, fire a staffer and it'll all go away!"

"The Democrats have hopey, we've got dopey and nopey! You betcha!"

"Healthcare reform passed, so I am preparing for armageddon by stocking up on all the self-tanning cream I can buy!"

"Where the hell is my fucking cream of wheat?!"

"911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 911!!!!! Did I get elected yet?"

"If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him." (actual foolish quote)

Hey Rush, time to pack your bags!

A few weeks ago, Conservative blowhard extraordinaire Rush Limbaugh said that if the healthcare reform bill passed, he was going to leave the USA and probably move to Costa Rica (where, incidentally, they have “socialized” medicine).

Well Rush, your one-way flight is waiting to take you and your insanity away.

Last night, Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party courageously passed the sweeping healthcare reform bill that is heading to the White House to be signed into law. Say what you want about the process and the procedures because it no longer matters. The bill legally passed for the good of the American people, and no amount of posturing, lying, Sarah Palinizing, or whining will  change this. If they want to repeal this law, the GOP needs to get itself a majority in Congress and a Conservative in the White House. Then they will need to explain why they are taking away things like the ban on pre-existing conditions, the ban on lifetime insurance caps, and why they want to re-open the “donut hole” in the Medicare Prescription Drug plan. Good luck with that.

Today officially marks the opening of the 2010 mid-term election campaign season, and it started off last night with a bang. As Representative Bart Stupak was finishing his remarks on the House floor explaining why he, as the most ardent anti-abortion member of the Democratic Party, was agreeing to vote in favor of this bill, someone from the Republican side of the House chambers shouted out “baby killer!” Wow. Just when you thought Joe Wilson owned the title of “Most Obnoxious Politician” for his “you lie” outburst during President Obama’s address a few months ago, a new source of despicable brattiness has come out from under a rock. But none of his cronies will give him up, and as of this writing his identification is still unknown. How typical of this particular brand of Republicans. They don’t even have the nerve to take ownership of their own disgusting behavior.

But I have to give Minority Leader John Boehner credit; when he says something stupid, at least he takes credit for it. Last night in his remarks, he claimed that the House “failed” because there was no bi-partisan deal. A deal is defined as an “agreement, compromise, or settlement.” You cannot have a bi-partisan “deal” when one side refuses to agree, compromise, or settle, and that is exactly what the GOP did for the last 14 months as the healthcare reform debate raged on. There was not one single vote in favor of the bill’s passage last night coming from the right side of the room. Is that how you compromise? Even when there are several components of the bill that include Republican ideas? The Republicans actively took themselves out of the development of this bill by fighting it tooth-and-nail, and by creating lies such as “death panels”, “socialized medicine”, and “government takeover.” Those are the only significant contributions their entire party made to this process, and now they will pay the price  by cementing their reputation as the “party of NO.” As in “no ideas”, “no compromise”, “no civility”, “no compassion”, and “no progress.”

But back to the business at hand. Rush Limbaugh needs to pack his things and move to Costa Rica. Here’s a packing list for him just to be sure he doesn’t leave anything behind:

John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Mike Pence, Eric Cantor, Karl Rove, Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, The Tea Party, Glenn Beck, David Frumm, the guy who yelled “baby killer”, Roger Ailes, Michelle Bachman, John McCain, and Joe LIEberman.

Goodbye, and good riddance.

COUNTDOWN TO HEALTHCARE REFORM: Anyone want to make a prediction on the house for tomorrow/Sunday?

VOTING MAD>>COUNTDOWN TO HEALTHCARE REFORM:

Anyone want to make a prediction on the house for tomorrow/Sunday?

#hcr#p2 #votingmad #fb

Tell us what you think in the comments.

The US Political Spectrum: 2010

Do you get confused when people use terms like “Socialist“, “Moderate“, “Democrat“, and “Tea Party“? Does it seem oxymoronic (with emphasis on the moronic part) to accuse someone of being a “Communist“, while emulating a “Fascist”  dictator like Adolph Hitler at the same time? Is the media “Liberal” or “Independent“? How come conservationists are hardly ever “Conservative“, and why are “Republicans” typically in support of big corporations instead of the Republic? And do the “Progressives“ actually make any progress?

Here’s a handy guide to help you understand the state of politics–The US Political Spectrum: 2010. Now complete with a “Tea Party” addition and the actual definition of “Socialism”. Suitable for printing and saving, for those times when you are dragged into an impromptu civics debate, or start a drunken political argument at Thanksgiving dinner, or when you are simply taking in the latest punditry on either FOX News or MSNBC. It’s YOURS FREE–just for reading Voting Mad!

Going from LEFT to RIGHT, here’s what it all means, including some key players and controversies. Refer to the chart above, and see if you can figure out where you fit into politics as we know it in modern day America:

COMMUNISM: Putting the fear of Karl Marx into people from around 1917 until the day the Berlin Wall fell, Communists were the boogey-men of the infamous Red Scare in the 1950s. Derived from the word commune, Communists believe in advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. Unless you are a party boss, in which case you live like a king while destroying your political enemies. The USSR was the mother-of-all Communist regimes, until they decided to embrace mafioso-style corruption, wear western clothing, and experiment with Democracy. Now they are broke, less powerful, and more strung out on Vodka and prostitution than ever before. But hey–at least they have a whole new generation of rich oligarchs who are living proof that if you can make it in Russia, you can dominate anyone anywhere. About the only legitimate Communist countries left now are China and Cuba. China is now a global economic powerhouse and basically the lien holder of the entire US of A, while Cuba boasts some of the best public education and healthcare in the entire world. But just try to buy a home in either one of those countries and you risk your life, or become indebted to a black-market warlord. Famous Communists: Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, and anyone who marched against the Vietnam War in the 1960s.

SOCIALISM: One might be brainwashed by now to first think of Barack Obama as a Socialist–after all, such geniuses as Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity all said he is because he wants to make healthcare affordable and lower taxes for the middle class. But read the definition of socialism and you’ll see this can’t be so: a political and economic theory of social organization advocating the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. “Regulation” seems like a pretty smart word. So does “community”, and “organization”. But not if you are rich. Then those words start to mean “rules for other people to live by”, “those people outside my fence”, and “unions=death to the individual”. Socialism’s core aims to protect and serve everyone equally. If “Protect and Serve” sounds familiar, it’s because that phrase just happens to adorn many publicly-funded police cars in many towns, cities, and rural counties across America. Having publicly-funded (ie: funded by taxes) municipal services are a foundation of American life. Famous Socialist programs: the United States Federal Government, police, fire and rescue services, the military, education, bridges, roads and tunnels, sewers, Federal Parks, Social Security and Medicare, the Post Office, scientific research funding grants, and coming soon to a President’s desk near you…healthcare industry reform!

LIBERALS: Archie Bunker hated Liberals. Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh hate Liberals. Liberals even hate Liberals. A Liberal is someone who has made too good of a living to be a Socialist. Not necessarily rich, but not angry enough to protest either. A Liberal is the conscience of the Democratic Party. Liberty, or liberte as in “Liberté, égalité, fraternité”, French for “Liberty, equality, fraternity (brotherhood)” is the whole reason America has for being in existence. It’s so bizarre that some Americans hate the French (see Conservatives and Tea Party), when you consider that they helped save our butts in the Revolutionary War and influenced the essence of our culture. A Liberal hates killing people so much that they want to outlaw guns completely, they want to end the death penalty, and they are anti-political assassinations–even for people like Saddam Hussein. But don’t mess with abortion rights! Liberals are everybody from the welfare queens to gay couples to Greenpeace donors to San Francisco Mayors to blue collar workers to Riesling-sipping adjunct professors at New England Universities. Famous Liberals: Al Gore, George Soros, Hendrik Hertzberg, Howard Dean, Kweisi Mfume, Arianna Huffington, Noam Chomsky, Paul Krugman, Tavis Smiley, Teresa Heinz-Kerry, Tom Daschle, Tom Hanks, and every single goddamned page ever published by the New York  f***ing Times!

DEMOCRATS: This is the “left wing” of politics. The Democratic Party is one of the world’s oldest political parties and is the party with the lengthiest record of continuous operation in the United States. Thomas Jefferson helped create the Democrats in opposition to the Federalist government and Alexander Hamilton’s fiscal policies. Democrats opposed a national bank and wealthy interests. Most people think of liberals when they think of Democrats, however most of the history of the racist south is told by Southern Democrats, or “Dixie-Crats”. Lincoln was a Republican after all. LBJ was the guy who really changed the identity of the Democrats by getting so much accomplished in his one lone term. And he did it with Socialist entitlement programs like Social Security, and by signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which he predicted would “…sign away the South for 50 years.” But LBJ also oversaw some of the worst moments and bloodiest mistakes of the Vietnam War. Democrats today are an odd bunch because they don’t know if they need to be Liberal, Progressive, Independent, or what they call “Blue Dog”. For example, President Obama is a Progressive Democrat. Joe LIEberman was almost the Democratic Vice President of the USA, but then he became an Independent who votes “NO” with the GOP on healthcare, and votes “YES” to war. Vermont’s Bernie Sanders is an Independent, but sounds like a Liberal and caucuses with the Democrats, and Evan Bayh is a Blue Dog Democrat, otherwise known as a Conservative. Bill Clinton was a Democrat’s Democrat-smart, tough, and real like FDR. But he was also like JFK in that he couldn’t keep his pants on. Speaking of not wearing pants, John Edwards could have redefined what it meant to be a Democrat–self made, defender of the poor, smart, southern, and rich enough to empathize with a Republican base below the Mason-Dixie Line. But John Edwards would have destroyed the party if he and John Kerry would have been elected in 2004, just like how he destroyed not just one but both of his families, and earning himself a lifetime spot in the  “WTF Were You Thinking” hall of fame, right next to disgraced ex-Governor of New York Elliott Spitzer. The Democrats are always the smartest people in the room, but too stupid to pay their whores to stay quiet.

PROGRESSIVES: Most people don’t know that there already was an established Progressive Party, which was founded in 1912 by none other than President Theodore Roosevelt. The Progressives trace their political roots back to workers’ rights and the emergence of Union protections and safety regulations. They are more conservative than Liberals, despite their name. When one thinks Progressively, one usually thinks of innovation and invention, and you know, progress. You would not expect Progressives to be the most centrist democrats, but they are. What makes them this way are their unquenchable thirst for making bi-partisan deals and working with their political enemies. Is that progressive? Is that their radical idea–make friends first, then ask for votes on legislation later? I don’t know why these folks are called Progressive. They’re no more Liberal than a Liberal, and they believe in a women’s right to choose, laws against concealed handguns, healthcare reform legislation, gay marriage, and financial regulations. Sounds almost like a real Liberal. But Progressives are different from Liberals. Liberals get things done, progressives make talk shows about getting things done. For example, the most famous Progressives are all on TV: John Stewart, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow,  and David Gergen are some of the best-known and most Progressive thinkers out there. By contrast, there is not one single politician who would call themselves a Progressive right now without running the risk of ending up like Ralph Nader-he speaks the truth, but you don’t want to be caught hanging out with him.

INDEPENDENTS: Independents are the middle finger of the political spectrum. An Independent effectively says “I have no party loyalty”, and in a close vote I can put you over the top or ruin your dream. Independents tend to caucus with Democrats, but as referenced above this is not always so. JoeLIEberman is an Independent ex-Democrat who caucuses with the GOP. Vermont’s Bernie Sanders is an Independent and is more Liberal than most politicians anywhere. And New York City’s lovable Mayor Michael Bloomberg, self-made billionaire and media mogul, got elected as a Republican because there were no openings to challenge the party structure for him to run naturally as a Democrat. Now he is an Independent and the city has never been in better shape. And to think that this party was started by a spandex-wearing ex-pro wrestler in Minnesota named Jessie?

MODERATE: Moderates are often referred to as RINOs (Republican In Name Only), and are viewed as equals to the Liberal by traditional Republican standards. Moderates are not typically extreme, partisan, or radical. They do not always vote with mainstream Republicans, and are always thought of as the only ones capable of preventing legislative gridlock. Moderates are really the best examples of open-mindedness, fairness, and bi-partisanship that we have  in this country. Moderates are the voices of reason, the champions of compromise, and the defenders of rational discussion. Examples of Political Moderates: …

REPUBLICANS: The Grand Old Party. The Party of Lincoln, and Reagan…and Nixon too! And Gingrich and Karl Rove. George H.W. Bush and his boy W. Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt, and Herbert Hoover. And Ford. John McCain was the darling of the political Right in 2008 until he picked a more conservative running mate named Sarah Palin. Then he was exposed as a nitwit with shoddy judgement. A Republican believes in “America..love it or leave it.” Republicans believe they are the true patriots of this country. Republicans think that smaller government is the way to go, and free markets need to be free. Because freedom is everything. That’s right, Republicans believe no government should ever be able to take away your freedom and they are against government intervention of any kind. To a Republican government is the enemy of freedom, and that government should stay out of the lives of ordinary people. Unless those ordinary people want an abortion, or are gay and want to get married. And Republicans believe that government has no right to regulate guns, healthcare, or even the banking sector. But they go full-contact government to make sure the pledge of alligience always includes the line “under God” or that coins minted by the US Treasury always include the phrase “In God We Trust”. So it’s tricky with the Republican party. They are against government intrusion in our lives, but are actually for government intrusion when it comes to sex and religion. So if you run a huge bank or a corporation that ruins the lives of thousands and millions of people because you were allowed to run wild and unregulated, then that’s just free market capitalism. But if you are a homosexual that wants to get married to your partner of 30 years because you love each other, that is a threat to the very fabric of American life and the Government needs to step in protect the people of this great land. Republicans: God, Guns, and Good-Ol’ Hypocracy.

CONSERVATIVES: A Conservative is a Republican on religious steroids. Conservatives can quote the bible better than they can quote the Constitution. And Conservatives love to rationalize their decision making process by tracing everything back to God. Conservatives don’t want things to change, and would prefer it if this country stayed exactly the way it was–the way it was in 1850. Gays can’t get married in the US because the bible says so. Conservatives believe in the institution of marriage for heterosexuals only. They believe that homosexuality is a sin, but infidelity is just an indescretion. After all, men have been cheating on their wives since before time. It even says so in the bible. Score one for the conservatives. Mark Sanford, John Ensign, John McCain, Newt Gingrich, Larry Craig (who cheated with men, and therefore may not be eligible for the Conservative Unfaithfulness Exemption), David Vitter, Dan Burton, Dan Crane, Henry Hyde, and Mark Foley have all claimed to be “Family Values Conservatives” and then they cheated on their wives. Gays can’t get married, but these guys can all go out and cheat on their wives. The only thing Conservatives don’t conserve is semen.

Tea Party Conservatives: These are Conservatives on LSD. They have delusions of the US government taking over. They believe in death panels, and they believe Sarah Palin would make a great President. Tea Partiers are scarier than a Hells Angels biker rally because they are just as psychotic and they believe they have God on their side. They talk about starting a revolution again, and they hate Obama with a passion. They are anti-immigration, anti-taxes, anti-globalization, and anti-intelligence. The Tea Party worships Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, FOX News, and believe they aren’t just entitled to their own opinions, but their own facts as well. The Tea-Party calls Obama’s healthcare reform both “socialized medicine” and “Nazi healthcare”, which if you look up at the spectrum chart I have provided you will see that is impossible. So it appears the Tea Partiers are also apparently anti-education as well.

FASCISM: Far out on the fringes of the political Right are the Fascists. Fascists believe in purity of the nation and strive for one-party rule over a homogenized population. That’s where Hitler and Mussolini came in. Hitler believed that one party could rule a nation of Aryans, and ultimately take over the world to create one human race. Sounds a little like Reagan’s casting call for the “Morning In America” commercial he put out in 1984. But Ronald Reagan was no Fascist. At least Fascists care about their own people. Reagan didn’t seem to give a damn about anyone.

So that’s our blog post on The US Political Spectrum: 2010. Check back in 10 years and we’ll see what the political landscape looks like. Unless we’ve all killed each other by then.

Healthcare summit, or healthcare nadir?

There was a big meeting at the Blair House in Washington DC yesterday. They called it a “summit”. It was a healthcare summit. A summit is one of those fancy words that sounds important, and it has two meanings: it means a “high point”, or a “meeting of the heads of government”. In this case, the “Healthcare Summit 2010” was supposed to be both: a meeting of government bigwigs that was of the highest importance to get things done.

As usual, all these big shot governmental leaders got together over the promise that they would make progress on healthcare reform. They were going to all come together to voice their ideas on how to reform the embarrassment we call the “American Healthcare System”. And predictably, they all got together and bickered, and whined, and postured, and pouted, and accused, and misstated the facts. And they brought their props, and their canned party lines, and their baggage.

And nothing got done.

Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) brought the 2,000 page House bill and plopped it on the desk in front of him. He’s never read the damn thing, but he had it sitting there as if to make the silent point that the bill is too big, and therefore it costs too much.

John Boehner (R-Ohio) kept saying that we needed to start over “with a clean sheet of paper”. Sorry, the only thing the Republicans have contributed to the process is exactly that–a clean sheet of paper. Like the kind of paper that average American citizens could wipe their butts with. Republicans didn’t bring any new ideas, but they brought the clean sheet of paper.

And then there was Johnny-on-the-spot McCain (R-Arizona) whining about the fact that it took the President a year to get this process on TV. McCain is so full of sour grapes about losing the 2008 election that he can’t do anything but moan and groan about process and procedure. He doesn’t care about actually getting things done, he only cares about nitpicking the politics–just like when he was running for President. To paraphrase President Obama: “Sorry John, the campaign is over, and you lost. Now please go away unless you are willing to help.”

And the Democrats were full of their own stupidity. Their party line is to keep on saying “we are closer than people realize” to getting things done. If the Democrats were only “closer” amongst themselves, this reform would have passed in the fall.

So please don’t call it a summit. There was no high point. Nothing got done. And to this voter it was the opposite of a summit. It was a deep, deep nadir. Defined as “the lowest point in the fortunes of a person or organization”.

The Big Government Myth

Ronald Reagan: “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”

Bill Clinton: “The era of big government is over.”

Hypocrisy is the name of the game when politicians deride so-called “Big Government”. Republicans are often characterized as anti-big government, free-market capitalists who believe that if you put the power in the hands of the people the people will govern themselves. Democrats are thought of as reluctant big government advocates, who are forced to over-regulate everything because the people need government to keep the playing field level; they don’t want to grow the size of the government, but circumstances dictate the need to do so.

Fact: Democrats and Republicans both LOVE big government, each in their own way. Democrats love big-government for social programs, and Republicans love big government for military spending.

Exhibit A: In his eight years in office, Ronald Reagan increased government spending by 69 percent. He increased defense spending by 92% to force a stalemate with the USSR. By 1989 the US economy was growing, and so yes the size of government spending as a percentage of the economy had indeed shrunk under Reagan–an anemic decrease from 22.2% to 21.2%. Bottom line–US government spending was over 20% of the economy when he took office and it was over 20% the day he left. Conclusion: Reagan supported “Big Government” and failed to live up to his “government is the problem” mantra.

Exhibit B: From 1993 to 2001 Bill Clinton increased government spending by 32%, including only a 4% increase in defense spending–the cold war was over and 9/11 was unimaginable at the time. But Clinton’s numbers benefit from a booming economy that equated to a government spending decrease from 21.4% to 18.5%. In my book a 2.9% decrease is a wash when you factor in the technology boom of the internet and the lack of any serious military threat. Bottom line: Clinton’s government spent more than his predecessors, just like Reagan.

W increased government spending by 68% including a 126% increase in defense spending, and Obama’s spending is scraping almost 22% of the economy–so they are both infected by Big Government-itis.

Here’s the point: with over 300,000,000 people under its responsibility, the US Federal Government needs to spend money so that we have a well-protected, well-served, functioning American way of life. Democrats and Republicans pointing fingers at each other does no good because both sides are guilty. Got an enemy? Spend money on the military. Got a bad economy? Spend money so the whole ship doesn’t sink. Big government is only bad when it wastes money, but that is why we have elections–if you don’t like the stewardship of your tax dollars then elect someone else with better fiscal principals. The size of government is not the issue, it’s the management of the government we should be concerned with. When you put it in that context, as long as it takes care of the problem there is nothing terribly wrong with big-government spending.

But there is something terribly wrong with big-government bullshit.

Somebody Is Lying To Us

What I love the most about the internet is how much information is available out there. No politician can make a public comment that just disappears into the ether by escaping a reporter’s ear anymore. Someone is always there to capture it, and put it on permanent digital record that can be discovered by anyone at any time. And now that the economic stimulus is one-year old, we get all these contradictory and politically-charged statements about it that make a reasonably intelligent person wonder who is lying, and who is telling the truth?

The White House says the stimulus was $787 Billion.

The GOP says the stimulus was $862 Billion.

How can this be debatable? Didn’t anyone write the actual number down? $75 Billion is a lot of money. Even fast-food restaurants give you a receipt for a $3 meal. There must be a record of this somewhere.

Outgoing Democratic Senator Evan Bayh: “If I could create just one job in the private sector, that would be more than Congress has done in the last six months.”

Republican Congressman Eric Cantor on the stimulus money that was awarded to his district in Virginia to build a high-speed rail system: “…with this money we can create a lot of jobs.”

Now that’s a switch! A Democrat criticizing the stimulus and a Republican praising it. Well, not really. This next gem from Cantor restores normalcy in the universe.

Eric Cantor: “After all the rhetoric and an $800 billion economic stimulus plan, here are the results…4,022,000 total jobs lost with unemployment reaching its highest point in 25 years.”

And then there’s always the hocus-pocus of tax cuts…

House Republican Leader John Boehner: “Unfortunately, the trillion-dollar spending plan authored by congressional Democrats is chock full of government programs and projects, most of which won’t provide immediate relief.”

Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: “Hundreds of thousands of middle-class families are benefiting from the largest and fastest middle-class tax cut in history.”

And GDP voodoo…

House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence: “I think the Obama Administration to date has failed to address our economic crisis by applying the principles and ideals that have characterized our free market economy for generations.”

Democratic Congressman Joe Sestak: “In the last 6 months of the Bush administration we had a -6% growth in GDP. Last quarter it was positive 5.7%.”

But the heart of the economy will always be jobs. You’d think it would be simple enough to figure out how the US is doing on the jobs front. GOP Congressman Boehner even spent tax-payer money on a 35-page report called “Where Are The Jobs? A look Back At One Year Of So-Called Stimulus.” It’s a scathing critique of the economic stimulus plan. Just click the link and read it for yourself.

To which The US Department Of Labor’s Bureau Of Labor Statistics answered with this beautiful little chart that shows job loss and creation from the last year of W’s administration through the first year of the Obama administration:

So there it is–the great economic “debate”. You’d think that analyzing the economy would be pretty black-and-white because taxes, and jobs, and the GDP–they’re all just numbers right? Can’t we find the truth in the numbers?

Numbers don’t lie. But people do.

Bye-Bayh Supermajority (and good riddance)!

Indiana Senator Evan Bayh (D) dropped the “bomb” yesterday, and declared that he will not seek reelection this fall. And he made this announcement 24 hours before the filing deadline for candidates who want to represent the Democratic party. I guess that’s Bayh’s way of sticking it to Harry Reid for bobbling the supermajority that was handed to him in 2008.

Many Democrats will lose sleep over this, but not me. In some ways this is a blessing in disguise. There’s a lot of pressure involved with having a supermajority in the US Senate, and Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did not handle it well at all. Reid was too concerned with playing nice with the GOP, and being bi-partisan, that he forgot to do what the people elected him to do–deliver on the Progressive agenda the Democrats promised in the 2008 campaign. When you have a supermajority of 60 votes, you are shielded from the filibuster and essentially given the right to push through any legislation you want. It sounds easy, but in this day and age of career politicians Harry Reid was too concerned with getting reelected this fall, and wanted to appeal to the broadest swath of Nevada voters as possible. This meant crossing the aisle and extending a hand to the GOP. And when he did, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell slapped him.

And then started “The Great Democratic Dropout of 2010”: Christopher Dodd (Connecticut), Ted Kaufman (Delaware), Roland Burris (Illinois), Byron Dorgan (N. Dakota), and now Evan Bayh all decided not to run for reelection. At a time when the Democratic party should be celebrating victories in healthcare reform, financial reform, and a jobs bill, they have nothing to show for the full year in which they had an opportunity to get things done. So who can blame these Senators for quitting? They are probably just as frustrated as the rest of the country by how broken the Federal Legislature is.

So why is this a good thing? For starters, Evan Bayh was a very conservative Democrat and didn’t necessarily agree with the Democratic agenda. And I think that because of people like him the party has lost its identity, which contributed to their lack of cohesion and progress. If the Democratic party can retain 52-55 seats held by true Progressive Democrats in the election this fall, then there will be a will to fight the GOP fanatics instead of fighting internally within the party. Sure this will leave them open to the filibuster, but then the GOP will ultimately need to come up with some actual solutions and ideas of their own instead of playing Nancy Reagan Politics (“Just Say No”).

The Democrats have been in the driver’s seat and they went nowhere. Now they will have a chance to turn left at the next GOP stop light and drive a true Progressive agenda. If they don’t, then we may be seeing the end of the Democrats as we knew them.

But perhaps that will (finally) open up a lane for the Progressive Party Express.

Miranda Rights and Wrongs

It seems like every week there’s a new episode of political “gotcha”. This week features the Democrats and Republicans arguing over reading suspected terrorists their Miranda Rights, specifically regarding the dust-up over the “Christmas Bomber” Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (remember: even if a whole plane of people watched you try to ignite a bomb in your underwear, you are still considered a suspect until you’ve been convicted).

When he was pulled off of the flight to Detroit and handed over to the FBI, Abdulmutallab was Mirandized. In other words, he was advised of his right to remain silent, and how his words could be used against him, and that he had the right to speak with an attorney before answering any questions for his own protection (you can read the actual Miranda warnings guidelines here). This sent all the politicians into major spin mode:

GOP: We can’t give terrorists the same rights as regular criminals!

DEMS: But Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist and he was Mirandized!

GOP: Yeah but he was an AMERICAN terrorist!

DEMS: But W’s FBI read Shoe Bomber Richard Reid his Miranda rights!

GOP: Reid was an American! (Newt Gingrich actually said this)

DEMS: No he wasn’t–he was British!

GOP: Was not!

DEMS: Was so!

GOP: Nya-nya-nya!

DEMS: Up yours!

(Okay, so that ending is not an actual transcript of an actual dialogue, but to most Americans that’s what the constant partisan bickering sounds like.)

Bottom line: your Miranda Rights are guaranteed when you are taken into custody for interrogation by the cops or the FBI, whether you are a US citizen or a foreigner. Don’t believe me? Well here’s a link to the US Constitution and the Bill Of Rights where you can see for yourself (trust me, I read it).

And here’s the punchline: after being Mirandized, Abdulmutallab sang like a bird and gave the FBI all sorts of juicy information such as the names and locations of key players in Al Qaeda. The FBI did the right thing and got the kind of information that we actually need to fight the war on terror.

If you don’t like the rules, then amend the Constitution. Otherwise shut the hell up. After all, you have the right to do so.