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/