Answers not at Corner Cafe

These tea party representatives in Congress think the federal budget solutions they dreamed up back home while sitting in the corner cafe, waiting for their farm subsidy check, will work because they are simple and everyone can understand them. They are finding out their solutions do not work, but they refuse to acknowledge they are wrong.

If I hear a tea party member say one more time, "I have to balance my checkbook every month, why shouldn't we expect the same from our federal government," I'm going to throw up. They are mixing two entirely different responsibilities. The last time I checked, that person doesn't have the responsibility to defend the shores, provide economic aid to tsunami victims in SE Asia, rebuild dykes in New Orleans, underwrite low interest loans to drought stricken farmers -- to name just a very few. No, your responsibility, faithful tea party whiner, is to balance your checkbook, send your tax dollars to Washington, and finally, the one thing you have not done lately, send to Washington someone -- anyone -- who has a basic understanding of how the economy works and -- bonus points here -- and has a basic understanding of the interdependency of a thousand economic elements that make it work. Please do that next time. Please.

Don't send us people who want to arrest "activist" judges. That's a violation of the Separation of Powers doctrine in our Constitution.

Don't send us people who think it took no guts to order the surgical strike on Osama bin Laden.

Don't send us people who want to shrink the size of government but refuse to tell us what current list of services THEY RECEIVE that they would be willing to do without.

Don't send us people who do not understand that government is here to serve all citizens, not just their little clique of close minded individuals -- although government serves them, too -- and well.

I'm sick of these people. Just sick of them.

Newt? I told you so.

Since the day Newt let it be known that he was going to run for President, I have been warning my liberal friends not to turn their backs on him. He is the original snake of American politics. I have known him since 1972 when he was a college professor at West Georgia College in Carrollton, GA. That was a time when he favored legalization of marijuana. He has been for and against virtually everything you can think of, except Newt. He has consistently been in favor of Newt.

My liberal friends now understand...but a lot of my conservative friends do not. So, as a public service, let me tell them what he is in terms that will mean something to them: Newt is a socialist conservative. Got it? Good.
That's enough for today. Class dismissed.

Three Truths You Can Believe

Truths you can take to the bank anytime you are ready.

1. There is no one who knows anything at all about the history of Iraq and Afghanistan who does not believe the two countries will be run by tribal leaders and/or Islamic fundamentalists half an hour after America removes the last troops. Thank you Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush.

2. It is going to take a full generation to completely recover from the faux prosperity of the period 2000-2008 when Bush/Cheney continued to borrow and spend like drunken sailors and refused to raise taxes to pay for their two wars. Indeed, they wouldn't even let the cost be considered as part of the annual budget expense.

We are going to grow our way out of the hole by innovating, inventing and educating the next generation. Many unemployed of the present generation will never be fully employed again because they are expert only at video games and text messaging. LOL

3. Obama will be re-elected in 2012. How can I be so certain? You can't beat something with nothing. But if it turns out that you can, it won't matter anyway because America will be finished. Doesn't it scare you to realize that the 15-20 percent of the voters who will decide the next election are not even paying attention right now and couldn't tell you the name of even one of the 13 Republican dwarfs competing for the nomination. This is the state of politics in the America of 2011. It's a complex world that demands our best. And what are we doing? We're giving air time to a woman who doesn't know the significance of Paul Revere's ride, a governor who denies global warming, would secede from the union if he could, thinks Social Security is a ponzi scheme, and a former governor who doesn't believe anything with conviction -- it depends on which day you ask him.

People often walk up and say, "I don't know what to believe these days." You should feel free to offer the above three truths as something certain they can believe in. Because they can.

The year was 1972

A campaign was being waged for the US Senate. Candidates in both parties made the claim that "Washington is out of touch with the people, government is too big, spending is out of control and we need a balance the budget amendment to the Constitution to restore sanity." All candidates ran hard against Washington. That was my first up close look at an election for the US Senate.

Since then I have watched every Senate race and hundreds of races for the US House. In nearly every campaign over these past 39 years, candidates run against Washington. “Send me there and I’ll straighten things out. I’ll make sure Washington listens to you.” Although nobody – until now – claimed they could reduce the price of gasoline by 50%; nobody claimed his opponent didn’t “love” America; nobody questioned the eligibility or the legitimacy of their opponent’s candidacy. It's a sign of how far the process has been allowed to deteriorate.

So, how did we get here – wallowing in this sorry state for public affairs?

It started with candidates preaching their anti-Washington venom relentlessly every two years. Contributing to the problem was – and is – a lazy electorate that doesn’t take the time to understand what is going on around them. But for the electorate to gain that ability to discern truth from fiction, political right from wrong, best interest of the nation versus best for special interests will require them to ask better questions when they go through the education system at all levels. They will no doubt encounter teachers and professors with their own biased leanings who will teach things like, “Richard Nixon was a crook, and they all become crooks if they stay too long.” Or they may teach, “Jack Kennedy stole the election in 1960 in Illinois,” or “George Bush stole the 2000 election in Florida with the help of the Supreme Court.” And both will add something like, “But of course, that is the nature of politics today. Dirty business. Don’t get too close. Expect the worse.” No wonder even intelligent persons begin as avowed cynics at the start of their understanding.

But if you don’t make an attempt to understand the process that makes a democratic republic work, and be willing to participate in it, we will not be able to keep it.

Jon Huntsman was on ABC’s This Week program and he spoke the truth to Republican leaders and Republican rank and file voters. Because he spoke the truth forcefully to his party, right wing extremists who seem to be in control of the Republican nomination will soon dismiss him from the stage.

Of all the candidates on the Red side of the aisle right now, John Huntsman gets it. He understands the urgency of the issues our nation faces. (I say “right now,” because there is still a chance George Pataki and Rudy Giuliani will get in, not to mention Sarah Palin.) Huntsman understands what this country needs and he can articulate an intelligent argument for his positions. Debates between Huntsman and Obama would be helpful to the nation and would guarantee that whoever wins in November 2012 would have a good chance of beginning his term with the political atmosphere in Washington more in tune with progress rather than stalemate or worse, marching backward to, say, 1930.

Huntsman, unfortunately for the country, will not be on the Republican ticket. Fortunately for the country, Obama will win re-election to another term.

What about the future? How can we change the process by which we select our leaders?

Start by telling candidates to stop bashing Washington or you won’t give them your support. Washington is not the enemy; Washington is us in the form of representatives we send there. So, tell candidates that line only works with stupid people and you’re not stupid. Start asking your teachers and professors to explain how America has existed this long if all politicians are crooked like Richard Nixon or amoral like Bill Clinton. Start by seeking out good people to run for office and get behind them with your time and energy AND your money so that large donors do not have as much influence as they once did. And slowly you will begin to strengthen our electoral process. You can do it – and you must.

39 years is long enough to listen to candidates use the same old canards to manipulate us, isn't it?

Fab on Bachmann

I head this morning from my good friend Joe Fab and he has this to say about Michele Bachmann's appearance on Meet the Press today:

Watching Ms. Bachmann on Meet the Press today and paying attention to the direction of the government overall with respect to the economy, I can't believe how few people are screaming from the rooftops that we are totally off course. This piece in today's Post draws the contrast clearly between where we're going and what our direction ought to be:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-is-the-stock-market-telling-us/2011/08/10/gIQACdVoBJ_story.html

The fact that the proper action may seem counter-intuitive to many of us shouldn't prevent thinking people from making healthy choices. But that's exactly what's happening. Our national economy does NOT work like our family budgets, in spite of how widely that mistaken logic is being trumpeted. It's a critical piece of a global system -- a system whose moving parts are much more complex and require more expertise to manage than paying the mortgage and the Visa bill.

The sad truth is that a great number of Americans are ignorant -- worse, they even embrace and defiantly take pride in ignorance. People like Ms Bachmann are building their identities on that ignorance. Can they themselves actually be that ignorant themselves, or is this the most extreme example of opportunism and manipulation of the public to occur in my lifetime?

This morning, in response to some deft questioning by David Gregory, Michele Bachmann held as an absolute that the insight and experience of elected officials, economic experts, and others with established credentials on fiscal matters have NO STANDING in the face of what the average person may believe about how the economy works. Then she proceeded to reinforce dangerously-stupid but now widely-accepted statements about what's happening with the economy and what should be done to fix it.

Although I expect that Aqua Velva Man -- sorry, Mitt Romney -- or (even more likely) Rick Perry will still get the Republican nomination, the reality is that Ms Bachmann and a number of others to whom many voters listen are validating ignorance and a tragic direction for our country. Although Ms Bachmann is the one who's scaring the apple juice out of me this morning, Mr Romney and Mr Perry play the stupidity card as well. Indeed, the Palinization of the United States has taught ALL the Republican candidates that riding the ignorance wave is key to their planning.

All this makes the challenges for President Obama, the Democrats in Congress, and every American with a functioning brain greater with every passing moment. Ben Franklin said "The doorstep to the temple of wisdom is a knowledge of our own ignorance.” Yup.


Well said, Joe, well said.
Ben

A New Modus Operandi

Make no mistake, the Repubs have tasted blood...and they like it.

Their new MO will be to take each of the 13 appropriations bills as they come up for debate, disassemble them, and uncover the most onerous provision(s) from their point of view and hold the entire bill hostage until the Dems agree to their position. The most recent example is the FAA appropriations bill. The R's want federal subsidies to mostly rural airports (mostly in Democratic districts, by the way) eliminated. The Dems are not going along. Thousands of ordinary Americans are being hurt, blue collar types who work paycheck to paycheck, are being hurt. The R's don't care. They desire is only to make a point: "We want to be viewed as the party of fiscal discipline and we will eliminate spending wherever we find it, whenever we find it especially in Democratic held districts." As Dana Carvey said, "Isn't that special." As for the impact on the federal budget, such cuts hardly make a ripple. But they don't care. Their goal is to hurt Obama's chances of getting re-elected and if the economy is hurt in the process, well, that only increases their chances for electing a new actor. It is despicable behavior and another example of why Ben Franklin told the lady, "You have a republic IF YOU CAN KEEP IT."

If Republicans could be more like our Founders...

The Republicans are fond of quoting the nation's founders and pining to be more like them. Well, I have news for Eric Cantor and the rest: Our founders understood that compromise is essential to democracy. And they knew it was impossible for government to function successfully without compromise.

If compromise becomes defined as something evil, our democratic society will be endangered and the ground laid for an autocratic regime.

You and I have come to understand the tea party folks know nothing of the US Constitution or indeed, how our government functions, with three equal branches of government serving as a "check and balance" on each other. It's not perfect but it has served us well for quite a long time. So has the ability to practice the art of compromise advanced the common good.

If you want to be more like our Founders, my dear Republicans, consider being more like Ben Franklin. Dr. Franklin did not approve of some provisions in the US Constitution as it was drafted, but when it came time to vote, he voted for it without hesitation. Franklin explained his vote to his colleagues: "...there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall ever approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise."

Mr. Cantor, are you listening??????

Newt is neutered by his staff. Darn it!

I'm just sick --- sick, I tell you, that Newt's staff has dealt his presidential campaign such a fatal blow. And it is. It's over. Everyone knows it right now but Newt. I was so hoping Newt would stay in the race to the end. Beaten around in Iowa, stomped in New Hampshire and slaughtered in SC, and finally, ignored at the convention. I really wanted to hear more about this right wing social engineering concern of his. I wanted to see if his wife would show up anywhere in expensive jewelry. But most of all I was looking forward to those pompous pronouncements he likes to make about nearly everything as if he is delivering some sort of divine revelation from Olympus. Few are the people who have chosen to enter politics in the last century with an arrogance to match his.

I remember well when he was first elected to Congress in 1978. Rep Jack Flynt had successfully deflected Newt's ambitions twice,but when age forced Jack finally to give up the seat, Newt was waiting. He was just a little fig Newt(on) in those days, a professor of history at West Georgia College at Carrollton. He had come to Georgia from his native Pennsylvania in search of a district filled with country rubes who would be easy to manipulate. He found them and waited.

Oh, well, I was hoping for a long, long public flogging of his ego in this race so we could escort him off the political stage permanently. Nevertheless, if the recent resignations of his staff succeed in pulling the plug on his campaign, the nation, indeed, the world will be better served -- and we will all be able to sleep easier at night.

Follow Up to a comment

This posting is a follow up comment for Buttonhall and others who read with interest a previous post: Carping from the Edge:

This may come as a huge surprise to you: it’s not the size of our government that is the problem or the taxes raised or the programs we support or even the waste that amounts to pennies falling off a table.

Our government is large because it serves 309 million people, not the 4 million people we had when the government was formed in 1776. It is large because it is the leader of the free world. We provide the aid others need, in all the forms in which it is needed, including defense. We provide all the services our people demand – all of them, including those demanded by you and me, not just the “welfare cheats that drive Cadillacs to the grocery store or just won’t help themselves when it is too easy to ask for a handout.”

For the current fiscal year, the US government is spending $113 billion for the two Bush wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The government is asking for $107 billion more for the next year even though bin Laden has been killed. We have been in those two countries for almost 10 years. It is that spending (several trillion dollars altogether) and the tax cuts Bush imposed on us together with the lack of oversight by financial regulatory agencies that caused most of the turmoil in our economy Obama is now dealing with. We will not recover overnight, not by cutting out all waste, not by cutting somebody's favorite program, not by cutting the federal budget “across the board by 10%” or some such magical formula. It’s going to be a long hard slug…through increases in taxes, scaling back our ambitious global defense posture, and restructuring the entitlement programs that benefit us all. Make no mistake about it: it will take a full generation to recover from the Bush misdeeds. We will recover sooner if innovations in energy production and alternative energy sources come to market on an economically feasible scale.

--

It has been a large government for oh, about 100 years, by any definition you care to use. It will be larger in the future. And the Rs will still say, “What we need is a smaller government.” No, we need a government that makes wise decisions, exercises good judgment, and helps citizens understand its complexity. But that doesn’t sell newspapers or cause people to tune in. So, it doesn’t get much air time or ink. But in order to survive, we need elected officials who will make hard decisions in our best interest even if we tell them we might not vote for them again. Sometimes, the people do NOT know what is good for them. Sometimes, even when they do know what is good for them, they don’t want elected officials to take the action that will be in their long term best interest, preferring instead for the short term fix, the politically expedient view. We are a sad lot, we voters.

It is also a government that relies on taxes paid in, yours and mine. There’s nothing wrong with taxes. Taxes work for the common good. Thank God most of us are willing to pay our share. We need to be sure ALL pay their fair share and not let those who can afford to influence the tax code “play it” for all they are worth -- because they will.

Depending on how you count it, between 66% and 85% of taxes go for Defense, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and interest on the national debt. About 15% is left for discretionary spending. You could cut out all discretionary spending and make only a small dent in the debt. I’m talking about cutting out the entire Executive Department and the entire Legislative Branch of government. That’s what’s in that remaining annual 15%. In other words, you can’t get there from here.

You have to start by cutting defense spending, slowing the rate of growth of all entitlement programs, raising the age of eligibility for Social Security and Medicare, raising taxes on the wealthy a lot, and raising taxes on everybody else a proportionate amount. It is not easy; it is not simple. AND if anyone in this Congress votes for any of the above items I have listed, we voters will make sure they are on the street looking for a job after the 2012 elections. And that's a fact.

See what I mean. We won’t let our elected officials do – actually DO – what is in our best long term interest.

Carping from the Edge

I ran into an influential Republican the other day and asked him why so many presidential wannabees are testing the waters. He responded without hesitation: "They saw what Obama did, an obscure politician from Chicago who came from nowhere to become President of the United States. Most think they could do the same thing."

I admit to being taken aback for a moment. Are the R's so unaware of Obama's extraordinary intellect, political judgment, analytical ability and natural diplomatic skills that they think they could easily duplicate his success?
I held my tongue but I wanted to say, "Are you kidding me? None of them is worthy to tie Obama's shoe laces.

All of them remind me of the drugstore cowboys I knew in my youth who would sit around the drugstore or local cafe solving all the world's problems and concluding with, "They ought to send me up there; I'd fix a few things."

The answer is: No you wouldn't. You have no idea what you are talking about. You have no idea how complex the issues are. You have no idea what the government does every day. You think it should be smaller and taxes should be lower. It is a big government because you and I have demanded a lot of services, from Medicare to defending the shores, from emergency response to natural disasters to keeping the food safe, from research the private sector won't do because it doesn't have a profit line to delivering the mail. Altogether now, repeat after me: "We have a big government and we like it that way." Say it again, especially those who say they don't like big government.

And we pay taxes in order to pay for the services provided by the big government we have and we like. Lowering taxes every time the R's assume power is not the answer to every problem. It is NOT. Neither is a blanket raising of taxes. It's complicated.

As with most problems we face as a nation, the answers are not simple tag lines for an election. The answers are as complex as the questions. We need to find gifted people with the skills necessary to address the complexity of the issues we face and put them in office and commit to honoring, not denigrating their service.

Wouldn't it be great if the R's decided to give it a try.

Don't hold your breath. They enjoy, no, prefer, to just carp around the edges of debate. It's where they're most comfortable.

"The American people spoke in November...

My good friend, Joe Fab, makes a good point, and as always, with a good sense of humor. I'm pleased to share his thoughts with you:

How many times have you heard: "The American people spoke in November and we heard them loud and clear..." followed by whatever large or small agenda item the speaker wishes to take the liberty of throwing the weight of "the American people" behind.

Fact is, the American people voted for as many different reasons as there are voters. They didn't get together and say with a single voice: "Hi, it's us -- the 32,000 voters of Pokey Precinct here in Nebraska! Just want you to know that we've talked about it and the reason we're voting for Cooper for Congress is because we all want him to defund EPA regulations. Yep, all 32,000 of us!"

This kind of claim might have been acceptable now and then for making a general point when politicians were reasonable and embraced compromise (you remember those days). But now it's crazy talk -- one more example of hyperbolic righteousness. I've had it with this particular ploy!

I hope Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert or Bill Maher will join me in ridiculing this rhetorical ruse as follows:

"The American people spoke in November and I heard them loud and clear... everyone must pick up after their dog!" or "TAPSINAIHTLAC... so I WILL lose 5 pounds by Memorial Day!" or better yet "TAPSINAIHTLAC... so I won't believe anything a politician says if it begins with TAPSINAIHTLAC!"

A Republican who speaks the truth

Finally, a Republican who speaks the truth about Republican spending.
Former Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY) was interviewed on MSNBC the other day and revealed what no Republican office holder in Washington today dares to say:

"The biggest spending president in the history of the U.S.? The answer is George W. Bush not President Obama. Never vetoed a single bill, spending bill for six and a half years. And then the Republicans sit there and say, yeah, but this guy is worse than he is three to one."

Thank you, Senator Simpson, for speaking the truth.

I thought of Sen. Simpson when I listened to Republicans criticize President Obama the other day for spending $600 million so far in support of the Libyan rebels. This from a party that never said a word, sat on their tails, while Bush 43 was spending $10 billion A MONTH on his and Dick Cheney's Great Persian Adventure!

Karab Amabo

Too good not to see again. Bill Maher has nailed it. The perfect Republican nominee for 2012 is the opposite of Barak Obama right down to his name which is Karab Amabo...which is, of course, Barak Obama spelled backward. Check out the video and have a good laugh. Very funny but hard to laugh because it reflects too accurately the current Republican point of view.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-maher-karab-amabo-gop-presidential-candidate/attachment/maherkarab/

More commentary on GOP potentials in 2012

To continue...

Mike Huckabee: He believes in absolute literal interpretation of the Bible, including the creation story. He would not consider the probability that it was meant to be allegorical. He and Pat Robertson and Glenn Beck will get along just fine.

Mitt Romney: He will always be the godfather of Obamacare in the minds of most baseline Republicans and as such, will not get their vote. And in the South, which is now the corporate headquarters for the GOP, a Mormon is not likely to scratch. Still, the Southern wing of the GOP has never been known to stick to principle, so if he starts to gain momentum, they may throw out their convictions to be with the only guy they believe can win. Why? He is the best looking candidate they have -- and he says so. He's the guy "whose picture is in the frame you buy at the drug store." That's what he says. [The other Mormon, Jon Huntsman, is not going to run, so I'll make no comment on him.]

Haley Barbour: Oh, boy. Well I should say, "Oh, what a good ole boy!" He reminds me of Senator Phogbound (from the Li'l Abner comic strip). And his positions are much the same. Very dismissive of racial segregation. Of course, he will have to live in Mississippi after he fails in the pursuit of the nomination so he has to be careful or he will end up with a cross burning on his lawn.

Tim Pawlenty: He knows the truth and if he dares say it, the GOP faithful will show him the door quickly. For instance, he knows global warming is a fact and that man is the major contributor to it. But he can't say it. He's going nowhere.

Bottom line: this is a wide open race. All contenders are from the GOP "redshirts," that is, they couldn't make the varsity so they are being held out to mature and hone their skills. But first, you have to have skills.

Too Early for 2012? I hope not because...

I guess it's time to start commenting on the 2012 Presidential race. I apologize if it seems too early but these things are too important to leave to chance. As the Republican field becomes clearer, I'll comment here on the aspirations of the various aspirants. And they are various, aren't they? It'll be general at first, but when the field is winnowed to a precious few, the comments will become more analytical, I promised you. But let's begin by easily separating the "doesn't have a chance" chaff from the remaining classical chaff. (I don't think there is any "wheat" to consider, but I'll try.)


Newt Gingrich: Not a snow ball's chance. His staff used to say "Newt has enough ideas to fill a file cabinet; his good ideas would sit in a desktop pencil box with room to spare." If that's not enough to know, consider that this man is the human who started the modern bitter partisan bickering when he came to Congress and has continued to feed it every day that he draws a breath. One more thing: Has it ever occurred to you that when he walks into a room, his girth combined with his sly grin make him look like Captain Kangeroo?

Sarah Palin: If she lead the "Know Nothing Party," she might have a chance at the nomination, but she doesn't.


Michele Bachmann: Best example of reductive evolution walking around upright today. So very sad. Where was the shot heard round the world fired, Michele?


Donald Trump: He is undoubtedly an extremely smart businessman, but he is a political idiot. Regrettable that he is the only person in America who doesn't know it.


I'll let you know when I get through with the "doesn't have a chance" chaff. It may be a while.

Next time:
Mike Huckabee
Haley Barbour
Mitt Romney
Tim Pawlenty