VOTING WITH THEIR POCKET BOOKS

Why was there a Republican wave this last Tuesday (November 4, 2014) when ALL the economic news is good.  Why didn't the Republicans face a penalty for doing nothing, for shutting down the government, for not enacting background checks for guns when more than 80% of those polled wanted it, for not raising the minimum wage when more than 50% of those polled were for it, for the House's failure to vote on the Senate immigration reform bill that passed the Senate with 68 votes, eight more than needed.  In view of slow employment increase, why was there no infrastructure bill?  Why was there no penalty for the Republicans doing nothing?

The problem is that the employment numbers , in spite of the large increases, are only back to where they were when President Obama took office, and the steep decline in the numbers of jobs started before he took office but continued for some months after he took office.  And wage increases are not only not keeping up with inflation, but household income has actually dropped.  In states with better economies, like North Carolina, the Democratic Senators only lost narrowly, but in states where the economic recovery was poor, like Arkansas, Democrats did poorly.

And then, white male Democrats do not seem to turn out for mid-term elections for reasons not known by me.  Blacks and Hispanics did come out and Democratic women did come out for Democratic politicians if not in the percentages as they do in presidential elections.  Would Democratic candidates have done even more poorly if they had come out for the advances in medical care and lowering of medical inflation?  Would they have done more poorly if they had strongly noted the increase in the economy and job recovery even if there is a long way to go yet?

Well, there seems to be some optimism that now that Republicans control both houses of congress, we will see more bills passed, something on immigration, for example.  But the Senate bipartisan immigration bill was never voted on in the House and thoughts are that it would have passed with sufficient Republican votes if a vote was allowed.  It is expected that the Keystone XL pipeline will now pass (as I believe it should), and I would expect our Center Right President to sign it.  Not mentioned is drilling in ANWR (Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge) as I think should occur under some stringent conditions.  We don't really know if there is even any economic amounts of oil there.  How much of the religious agenda of the religious Republican Party will be pursued?  The Republican party has become such a religious party that I even wonder if it is even a legal party.  And will Republicans get rid of cloture in the Senate to get their bill through?

Well, let's be optimistic and think that now that the Republican are in control of congress, they will agree to some things they formerly opposed.  I tell myself that they will, but I can't help but wonder if they even know how to.  I'm a little more optimistic about the Senate than the House  Time will tell.

IS THE MODERN REPUBLICAN PARTY LEGAL?

The Republican Party has long been the party of the wealthy people to protect and preferably enrich their fortunes. They full well realize that there are not enough of them to win elections so that they have opened their "tent" to some others. Strangely they have attracted a lot of wage workers, even though it is the Democratic Party that has their best interests at heart and the Republican party only pays them attention at election time.* It seems to me that this started when the Democratic Party opened its "tent" to the disenfranchised, namely Blacks, Hispanics and women, but more recently homosexuals. Republicans have also opened the "tent" to a coalition of religious extremists, notably those that describe themselves as "Evangelicals" who are social conservatives and conservative Roman Catholics .

The inclusion of religious extremists had the advantage of taking advantage of a group of very energetic people with religious fervor, to help protect the wealthy (of course some wealthy could be both), but it was also dangerous as we have seen. In the 2012 election cycle, the growth of the religious conservatives within the Republican Party has been phenomenal to the point where the Republican Party now seems to be a party of conservative Roman Catholics and Protestant Evangelicals. It might more properly be called the Christian Right Party, i.e. a religious party. The question is, is a religious party legal in the United States that prides itself on secular political parties and the separation of church and state?

The answer may not be all that clear. Separation of church and state is not specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, although Founding Fathers assume it to be in the First Amendment, most notably Thomas Jefferson. And it has been used in Supreme Court decisions: "Justice Hugo Black wrote: 'In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state.'"**

If these interpretations are correct the modern Republican Party may be illegal because, as a religious party, it does not separate church and state. If it is claimed they are a religious party, it undoubtedly would go eventually to the Supreme Court that incidentally, is comprised by six Roman Catholics, two Jews, and one Protestant. Not all the Roman Catholics are conservative Roman Catholics, however.

Nonetheless, we have had the politicians in Mississippi propose an initiative that life begins at fertilization of a women's egg, fortunately turned down in the referendum.*** The purpose of the initiative was to attack all abortions. The Mississippi initiative was followed by a bill in Virginia where women having an abortion would be required to have an "ultrasound" transvaginal probe of the fetus which after much outrage, especially by women, the governor threatened a veto.**** Texas, however, does have a law that a sonogram (exterior) must be taken, and the woman must listen to the doctor's description of it and. She must then wait 24 hrs before undergoing the abortion procedure.*****

*The Republican Party to appease wage workers has come out against higher education, especially higher education in Ivy League Universities using terms like "elites" and "not real Americans." See The Dumbing Down Of America:

http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2010/10/dumbing-down-of-america-if-you-listen.html.

** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

***http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/08/mississippi-personhood-amendment_n_1082546.html

****http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/22/10479427-virginia-lawmakers-back-off-requiring-invasive-ultrasound-before-abortion

*****http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57382162/is-a-required-ultrasound-a-barrier-to-abortion/