(Facebook will not let me cite this piece for reasons unknown)
Hillary Clinton recently said that half of Donald Trump's supporters are a basket of Deplorables. This is a Donald Trump kind of statement. It is of the sort that it is all right to think it and even talk about it in private, but not all right to say it out loud in public.*
Actually Hillary was wrong about half of Trump supporters being Deplorables, it is certainly closer to 100% of his base and even larger. In January of 2016, a poll quoted by the Huffington Post concluded 53% of Republicans still believe Obama is not a U.S. citizen and ineligible to become president, although he was born to an American mother and Kenyan father in Hawaii. At the same time, 70% of Republicans feel that Ted Cruz is eligible to become president although he was born in Calgary, Canada, to an American mother and a Cuban father.**
There is nothing that can be done about the Republicans ineligible belief. Even if you show them Obama's birth certificate, they shrug it off as a forgery.
And what about the constant efforts by Republicans to disenfranchise African Americans from voting?
I have known a number of these people where you can't say anything so bad about Obama that they won't believe it. At the same time, if you stay off of politics, they can be very nice and helpful people. I've played bridge with some and socialized with them. They are very nice as long as you stayed off of politics.
These people would try to convert me. There were a group of retired military officers whose e-mails were so bad that I actually prayed on 9/11 that it wasn't some retired military pilots that crashed into the Twin Towers. I always hoped these retired military officers were just letting off steam.
* I think it would be interesting to see a poll of Democrats on the issue of Deplorables. It could well come out with results similar to what Republicans believe about Obama.
** Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona Territory 3 yrs before it became a state. John McCain was born in Panama but on a U.S. military base to American parents. Mitt Romney was born in Chihuahua, Mexico, to American parents from Utah Territory. I don't recall any flap about these on where they were born, but I'm told that there was some discussion about eligibility for president. Note that all these are Republicans and none became president.
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Monday, September 12, 2016
Monday, May 30, 2016
WHO GETS THE LIBERTARIAN VOTE?
My take is that the Libertarian Party will mainly take votes from Hillary Clinton.
The reason is that Republicans are not social libertarians, far from it. They want to control what we can or can't do in our bedrooms and really want men to control women's lives. They also seem to want to return to the days of Jim Crow for African Americans. Furthermore, Republicans have become a religious party and want to use religion to be free to discriminate against various people. So I can't see them going libertarian.
Democrats, however, are close to being social libertarians, and I think the idea of fiscal responsibility is not offensive to them. So Democrats are closer to being libertarians though the Democrats value of regulations on industry is probably offensive to Libertarians. On the other hand, Democrats seem to be against free trade.
The above said, Libertarians have tended to side with the Republican Party (e.g. Ron and Rand Paul, etc.) perhaps because of the Republican ideal of small government in spite of being socially regressive. I am unsure just how many Libertarians are in the Republican Party, but certainly not a controlling number. Still they are the wild card in this current political mess because I can't see a Libertarian being at ease with the Republican social repressions.
Like Republicans, Libertarians are anti-labor in that they actually favor the wealthy by giving them free reign whereas Democrats are pro-labor and want some control over the influence of the wealthy. The reason, however, that so many white laborers are Republicans is that they think the Democrats over-favor women, minorities, and homosexuals. Their hope is that the Republicans will keep "them" in their place. Republicans have convinced labor to disarm and reject unions with the result that their incomes have declined for over several decades. The Golden Age of American labor is over, and I don't see either party having a solution to this decline.
The reason is that Republicans are not social libertarians, far from it. They want to control what we can or can't do in our bedrooms and really want men to control women's lives. They also seem to want to return to the days of Jim Crow for African Americans. Furthermore, Republicans have become a religious party and want to use religion to be free to discriminate against various people. So I can't see them going libertarian.
Democrats, however, are close to being social libertarians, and I think the idea of fiscal responsibility is not offensive to them. So Democrats are closer to being libertarians though the Democrats value of regulations on industry is probably offensive to Libertarians. On the other hand, Democrats seem to be against free trade.
The above said, Libertarians have tended to side with the Republican Party (e.g. Ron and Rand Paul, etc.) perhaps because of the Republican ideal of small government in spite of being socially regressive. I am unsure just how many Libertarians are in the Republican Party, but certainly not a controlling number. Still they are the wild card in this current political mess because I can't see a Libertarian being at ease with the Republican social repressions.
Like Republicans, Libertarians are anti-labor in that they actually favor the wealthy by giving them free reign whereas Democrats are pro-labor and want some control over the influence of the wealthy. The reason, however, that so many white laborers are Republicans is that they think the Democrats over-favor women, minorities, and homosexuals. Their hope is that the Republicans will keep "them" in their place. Republicans have convinced labor to disarm and reject unions with the result that their incomes have declined for over several decades. The Golden Age of American labor is over, and I don't see either party having a solution to this decline.
Friday, January 22, 2016
REVOLT OF THE REPUBLICAN GREAT "UNWASHED"
A large segment of the Republican "base" is the disaffected white wage earner (the so-called great unwashed in that they have only finished high school or maybe not even that) and another is the "Sit down and shut up!" crowd like Chris Christie that can be quite wealthy. Exactly why the white working class is Republican, I have no idea because the party, well, hates them and thinks they are overpaid. Even their hero, Donald Trump, has said at least a couple of times that the American worker's wages are too high compared to the rest of the world. For some reason they forgive him for this although their wages have been essentially stagnant for 25 yrs. But every two to four years they stroke the wage earner's ego by telling them they are the "Real Americans" and the "Backbone Of The Country."
My guess as to why the white wage earners are disaffected from their natural ally, the Democratic Party, is that they feel the Democrats pay too much attention to women, African Americans, Hispanics, and homo sexuals who have taken many jobs from them.
The rreal problem is, however, two fold. First there is the off-shoring of jobs and the second is automation. There is also sort of third problem where jobs have been turned over to the consumer to do. Some examples of this are "letting your fingers do the walking" on the telephone, pump your own gas, auto-checkout outs at grocery stores and typing your own stuff (disappearance of clerk typists) among others. To some extent these disappearing jobs are automated, but it is still the consumer that does any work required. Wages must be less then the costs of automation, and their wages will decrease until they approach some sort of equilibrium with low wage countries moderated by the costs of shipping, the price of natural gas, etc.* Neither party seems to have an answer to this.
So I think that the disaffected white wage earner doesn't have a party anymore, although I suspect they would do better with the Democratic Party than the Republican Party.
But an interesting thing has happened in that the disaffected white wage earner now has sort of a champion who talks like they talk and the "Sit down and shut up" crowd likes it also. These two groups are trying to take over the Republican Party. Time will tell if they succeed, but for now the Republican "establishment" doesn't know what to do and I'm not sure the Democratic establishment does either.
* http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2010/10/dumbing-down-of-america-if-you-listen.html
My guess as to why the white wage earners are disaffected from their natural ally, the Democratic Party, is that they feel the Democrats pay too much attention to women, African Americans, Hispanics, and homo sexuals who have taken many jobs from them.
The rreal problem is, however, two fold. First there is the off-shoring of jobs and the second is automation. There is also sort of third problem where jobs have been turned over to the consumer to do. Some examples of this are "letting your fingers do the walking" on the telephone, pump your own gas, auto-checkout outs at grocery stores and typing your own stuff (disappearance of clerk typists) among others. To some extent these disappearing jobs are automated, but it is still the consumer that does any work required. Wages must be less then the costs of automation, and their wages will decrease until they approach some sort of equilibrium with low wage countries moderated by the costs of shipping, the price of natural gas, etc.* Neither party seems to have an answer to this.
So I think that the disaffected white wage earner doesn't have a party anymore, although I suspect they would do better with the Democratic Party than the Republican Party.
But an interesting thing has happened in that the disaffected white wage earner now has sort of a champion who talks like they talk and the "Sit down and shut up" crowd likes it also. These two groups are trying to take over the Republican Party. Time will tell if they succeed, but for now the Republican "establishment" doesn't know what to do and I'm not sure the Democratic establishment does either.
* http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2010/10/dumbing-down-of-america-if-you-listen.html
Thursday, October 15, 2015
DEBATE DIFFERENCES
There is a curious difference between the Republican and Democrat debates. Except for John Kasich who is clearly the best qualified person to be president (and look where he is in the polls), Republicans emphasize their lack of qualifications to be president whereas in the recent Democratic debate, every candidate emphasized their qualifications to be president. Frankly I found the latter to be a more satisfying debate.
There seems to be a dichotomy in the response to the Democratic debate whereas all the pundits feel that Hillary was the clear winner whereas focus groups right after the debate favored Bernie Sanders. I think the focus groups much appreciated Bernie Sanders comment that the American people are sick and tired of Hillary's e-mail, and that he wants to discuss the major issues.
Curiously, a number of pundits, including the liberal Mika Brzezinski (who I guess feels she must bend over backwards to be "fair."), said that Bernie flubbed his comment which, they say was actually to be an insult, that if it wasn't for Hillary's personal e-mail server we could be discussing the real issues. I've now listened to Bernie's comment three times, and I believe he said it as he meant to as there was no hesitation in his voice in saying it. And does anyone believe that the Republicans wouldn't find something to assassinate Hillary with if she hadn't done the e-mails on her own server, even if it wasn't true? I'm sure that Bernie's comment the way he said it led to the large influx of donations as I believe that the public is sick and tired of politicians continuously assassinating their competitors.
The media seems to like Marco Rubio among the Republican candidates for president in spite of his stand of no exception to no abortions and a tax plan that favors the rich the most.*
As the candidates plans on the issues come out, it seems that Donald Trump isthe best of a bad lot of Republican candidates (with the exception of John Kasich) in spite of his crazy immigration plan and a tax plan that favors the rich.
* Mr. Rubio, [who was brought up in a family living "paycheck to paycheck'] in New York for fund-raising at the time of the interview, offers an example. He proposes a significant new tax credit for households with children. But he would also cut the top federal income tax rate to 35 percent, from nearly 40 percent, and eliminate levies on capital gains, dividends and multimillion-dollar estates. (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/us/politics/tax-plans-of-gop-favor-the-rich-despite-populist-talk.html?_r=0)
There seems to be a dichotomy in the response to the Democratic debate whereas all the pundits feel that Hillary was the clear winner whereas focus groups right after the debate favored Bernie Sanders. I think the focus groups much appreciated Bernie Sanders comment that the American people are sick and tired of Hillary's e-mail, and that he wants to discuss the major issues.
Curiously, a number of pundits, including the liberal Mika Brzezinski (who I guess feels she must bend over backwards to be "fair."), said that Bernie flubbed his comment which, they say was actually to be an insult, that if it wasn't for Hillary's personal e-mail server we could be discussing the real issues. I've now listened to Bernie's comment three times, and I believe he said it as he meant to as there was no hesitation in his voice in saying it. And does anyone believe that the Republicans wouldn't find something to assassinate Hillary with if she hadn't done the e-mails on her own server, even if it wasn't true? I'm sure that Bernie's comment the way he said it led to the large influx of donations as I believe that the public is sick and tired of politicians continuously assassinating their competitors.
The media seems to like Marco Rubio among the Republican candidates for president in spite of his stand of no exception to no abortions and a tax plan that favors the rich the most.*
As the candidates plans on the issues come out, it seems that Donald Trump isthe best of a bad lot of Republican candidates (with the exception of John Kasich) in spite of his crazy immigration plan and a tax plan that favors the rich.
* Mr. Rubio, [who was brought up in a family living "paycheck to paycheck'] in New York for fund-raising at the time of the interview, offers an example. He proposes a significant new tax credit for households with children. But he would also cut the top federal income tax rate to 35 percent, from nearly 40 percent, and eliminate levies on capital gains, dividends and multimillion-dollar estates. (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/us/politics/tax-plans-of-gop-favor-the-rich-despite-populist-talk.html?_r=0)
Friday, July 17, 2015
MEDICARE/MEDICAID
Republicans don't like health care for the poor. Republicans, along with Democrats and Independents, like Medicare, however
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/16/medicare-medicaid-popularity-high-ahead-of-birthday.html
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/16/medicare-medicaid-popularity-high-ahead-of-birthday.html
Monday, February 2, 2015
UNEMPLOYED POOR AND WORKING POOR
Recent comments by various Republicans (e.g. Mitt Romney) expressing concern about the poor and some of the middle class would be heartening if true. But of course this is just talk with no intention of doing anything about it. What next? Perhaps they will suddenly discover the merits of raising taxes on the wealthy? But Republicans in general feel the poor are poor because they are lazy and that working Americans are overpaid. Their solution for the poor is to cut benefits (like food stamps) so that they will be induced to find work. And do you really think the Republicans will do something about off-shoring and automation of industry and other businesses that are holding back the wages of the American workers? And then there are jobs that cannot be automated or off-shored which are simply passed on to the consumer to do (e.g pumping gas and washing windshields, etc.).* If you think the Republicans really will do something to help the working Americans, I've got the "proverbial bridge" to sell you. It is also true that Democrats do not know how to overcome the loss of jobs from off-shoring and automation though some jobs are becoming re-shored, though at an average of 23% lower pay.
The construction industry was decimated in the Great Recession, and it would have been a good time to do infrastructure improvements at minimum cost, as Democrats wanted to do, that would have benefited the entire nation and also provide construction workers with income. Now the construction industry has recovered and infrastructure projects will be more expensive. Republicans even refused to vote on the Senate illegal immigrant bill which would not only have provided thousands of construction jobs during the recovery to finish the double fence but also would have added 19,000 new Civil Service positions as well to shore up security at the border. In contrast, Republicans countered with the Keystone XL pipeline as a jobs issue. I am for the Keystone XL pipeline, but for environmental reasons, and it would have provided only a few 10s of permanent jobs though it would have provided perhaps an equivalent number of construction jobs as the Senate border security bill.
The lack of interest in modern-day Republicans to raising the minimum wage (many want to do away with the minimum wage all together), is telling. If you can't do away with the minimum wage, at least let it be eroded through inflation, they feel. And of course, they are for doing away with unions, the only recourse American workers have to facing the monopolies. President Reagan's breaking of the air traffic controllers union was one of his main claims to fame. His major liberal act was to make hospitals with emergency rooms take all comers regardless of their ability to pay, but, of course, he left it up to hospitals to find a way to pay for this. The main attraction in Gov. Walker of Wisconsin, as a Republican presidential nominee, was his breaking of the state government workers unions, and he broke the unions to pay for the deficit he caused by lowering taxes on industry. (excerpt from a Wikipedia item follows):**
In January 2011, the state legislature passed a series of bills providing additional tax cuts and deductions for businesses at “a two-year cost of $67 million.”[30] In early February, the Walker administration projected a budget shortfall in 2013 (Wisconsin functions on two-year budgets) of $3.6 billion[31] and a $137 million shortfall for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011.[32][33] The Walker-backed bill proposed to alleviate the budget shortfall included taking away the ability of public sector unions to bargain collectively over pensions and health care and limiting pay raises of public employees to the rate of inflation, as well as ending automatic union dues collection by the state and requiring public unions to recertify annually.[34][35] The bargaining changes exempted the unions of public safety officers, including police, firefighters, and state troopers.[36] Walker stated that without the cuts thousands of state workers would have to be laid off.[37]
It would be nice to think that there are some Republicans concerned about the poor; however, when push comes to shove, they vote the party line, and, if it looks like they won't, then the bill is not brought up in the House (e.g., the Senate Immigration Bill). I really don't understand the position of the Evangelical Christians concerning the poor as Jesus spoke about helping the poor all the time according to the scriptures.
The construction industry was decimated in the Great Recession, and it would have been a good time to do infrastructure improvements at minimum cost, as Democrats wanted to do, that would have benefited the entire nation and also provide construction workers with income. Now the construction industry has recovered and infrastructure projects will be more expensive. Republicans even refused to vote on the Senate illegal immigrant bill which would not only have provided thousands of construction jobs during the recovery to finish the double fence but also would have added 19,000 new Civil Service positions as well to shore up security at the border. In contrast, Republicans countered with the Keystone XL pipeline as a jobs issue. I am for the Keystone XL pipeline, but for environmental reasons, and it would have provided only a few 10s of permanent jobs though it would have provided perhaps an equivalent number of construction jobs as the Senate border security bill.
The lack of interest in modern-day Republicans to raising the minimum wage (many want to do away with the minimum wage all together), is telling. If you can't do away with the minimum wage, at least let it be eroded through inflation, they feel. And of course, they are for doing away with unions, the only recourse American workers have to facing the monopolies. President Reagan's breaking of the air traffic controllers union was one of his main claims to fame. His major liberal act was to make hospitals with emergency rooms take all comers regardless of their ability to pay, but, of course, he left it up to hospitals to find a way to pay for this. The main attraction in Gov. Walker of Wisconsin, as a Republican presidential nominee, was his breaking of the state government workers unions, and he broke the unions to pay for the deficit he caused by lowering taxes on industry. (excerpt from a Wikipedia item follows):**
In January 2011, the state legislature passed a series of bills providing additional tax cuts and deductions for businesses at “a two-year cost of $67 million.”[30] In early February, the Walker administration projected a budget shortfall in 2013 (Wisconsin functions on two-year budgets) of $3.6 billion[31] and a $137 million shortfall for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011.[32][33] The Walker-backed bill proposed to alleviate the budget shortfall included taking away the ability of public sector unions to bargain collectively over pensions and health care and limiting pay raises of public employees to the rate of inflation, as well as ending automatic union dues collection by the state and requiring public unions to recertify annually.[34][35] The bargaining changes exempted the unions of public safety officers, including police, firefighters, and state troopers.[36] Walker stated that without the cuts thousands of state workers would have to be laid off.[37]
The protests and demonstrations began following Walker's introduction of Assembly Bill 11[38][39] to the Wisconsin State Assembly on February 14, 2011.
It would be nice to think that there are some Republicans concerned about the poor; however, when push comes to shove, they vote the party line, and, if it looks like they won't, then the bill is not brought up in the House (e.g., the Senate Immigration Bill). I really don't understand the position of the Evangelical Christians concerning the poor as Jesus spoke about helping the poor all the time according to the scriptures.
* http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2015/01/more-on-plight-of-american-workers.html
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Wisconsin_protests
Monday, May 5, 2014
SUPPORTING FISCAL CONSERVATISM
In case there are those that read my previous post (http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2014/04/three-republicans-who-wont-get.html) that may have gotten the opinion that I hate conservatives, I do not hate conservatives and I do support a
policy, for example, of balancing the Federal budget over a business cycle (but not annually). I point out, however, that having a positive cash flow in our government is something
we rarely have done. No Republican has done even this loose balancing since Eisenhower (who had it twice), not Nixon, not Ford, not Reagan, not H.W. Bush, and not H.W. Bush.
In fact I was a Republican up until Barry Goldwater. After he got the nomination I said to my fellow Republicans at a meeting that now we should all pull together and not just beat up on Rockefeller. Someone replied that if I was such a Rocky lover, why didn't I become a Democrat? So I did and have to admit that Democrats have more fun. Later I was to break from the Democratic Party because I agreed with President Ford's pardoning of Nixon. The Democrats were setting up to worry the Nixon issue to death, just like Republicans are doing with Benghazi now, and not do any work.
In fact I was a Republican up until Barry Goldwater. After he got the nomination I said to my fellow Republicans at a meeting that now we should all pull together and not just beat up on Rockefeller. Someone replied that if I was such a Rocky lover, why didn't I become a Democrat? So I did and have to admit that Democrats have more fun. Later I was to break from the Democratic Party because I agreed with President Ford's pardoning of Nixon. The Democrats were setting up to worry the Nixon issue to death, just like Republicans are doing with Benghazi now, and not do any work.
I think that Republicans putting the 1964 Civil
Rights Act over the top was their finest hour. The Act was much broader
than just applying to Blacks but included sex, race, and religion as
well as color. Through the leadership of Republican Everett Dirkson, in the end 27
Republican Senators voted for the Senate version of the bill and only 6
against it. Also 138 Republican Representatives voted for the House
version and 34 against whereas 96 Democrats voted against it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
The same might be said for the Voting Rights Act of
1965 when 30 Republican Senators voted for it and only 2 against, 112
Republican Representatives voted for the bill and 24 against (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965).
Of course these bills were in the days when the Solid South was in
the Democratic Party and before the Southern Strategy when they switched
to the Republican Party. I consider Dirkson who shepherded both bills
through the Senate to be a hero, though he was a supporter of Joe McCarthy and the Vietnam War.. Dirkson is also famous for saying, "A billion dollars here, a billion dollars there and pretty soon you are talking about real money." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everett_Dirksen)
Monday, February 3, 2014
THEY JUST CAN'T LET WOMEN'S BODIES ALONE
I'm late to the party on this, but Mike Huckabee really said the following on January 23, 2013:
I think it’s time for Republicans to no longer accept listening to Democrats talk about a war on women. Because the fact is, the Republicans don’t have a war on women. They have a war for women. For them to be empowered; to be something other than victims of their gender. Women I know are outraged that Democrats think that women are nothing more than helpless and hopeless creatures whose only goal in life is to have a government provide for them birth control medication. Women I know are smart, educated, intelligent, capable of doing anything anyone else can do. Our party stands for the recognition of the equality of women and the capacity of women. That’s not a war onthem, it’s a war for them. And if the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it, let’s take that discussion all across America because women are far more than Democrats have made them to be. And women across America have to stand up and say, Enough of that nonsense.*
No one says that women HAVE to use contraceptives. Perhaps the Religious Right can generate a
sympathetic attitude on abortion, especially last trimester abortion, but contraceptives? But the goal actually is to get rid of contraceptives. This is why they have pushed for life to begin at conception when there are a few cells involved. One morning after pill (ella) is said to be a very effective contraceptive with Plan B being less so.** As for me, life begins when the baby is out of the womb and has taken a breath. This is the conventional definition of birth. When in doubt, I favor the born over the unborn.
* Quote taken from:
http://www.thenation.com/blog/178064/mike-huckabee-actually-said-about-women-today?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=email_nation&utm_campaign=Email%20Nation%20-%2020140123
But it will also lead you to a video clip with Huckabee saying it.
** http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/emergency-contraception-morning-after-pill-4363.asp
I think it’s time for Republicans to no longer accept listening to Democrats talk about a war on women. Because the fact is, the Republicans don’t have a war on women. They have a war for women. For them to be empowered; to be something other than victims of their gender. Women I know are outraged that Democrats think that women are nothing more than helpless and hopeless creatures whose only goal in life is to have a government provide for them birth control medication. Women I know are smart, educated, intelligent, capable of doing anything anyone else can do. Our party stands for the recognition of the equality of women and the capacity of women. That’s not a war onthem, it’s a war for them. And if the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it, let’s take that discussion all across America because women are far more than Democrats have made them to be. And women across America have to stand up and say, Enough of that nonsense.*
No one says that women HAVE to use contraceptives. Perhaps the Religious Right can generate a
sympathetic attitude on abortion, especially last trimester abortion, but contraceptives? But the goal actually is to get rid of contraceptives. This is why they have pushed for life to begin at conception when there are a few cells involved. One morning after pill (ella) is said to be a very effective contraceptive with Plan B being less so.** As for me, life begins when the baby is out of the womb and has taken a breath. This is the conventional definition of birth. When in doubt, I favor the born over the unborn.
* Quote taken from:
http://www.thenation.com/blog/178064/mike-huckabee-actually-said-about-women-today?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=email_nation&utm_campaign=Email%20Nation%20-%2020140123
But it will also lead you to a video clip with Huckabee saying it.
** http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/emergency-contraception-morning-after-pill-4363.asp
Friday, November 22, 2013
CHANGE IN SENATE FILIBUSTER RULES
Nearly half of all filibusters have come during President Obama's 4 years and 10 months of office. In the history of the U.S., 168 nominees have been filibustered - with 82 occurring during the Obama administration. In the history of the U.S., 23 district court nominees have been filibustered - with 20 being Obama nominees.* So yesterday, Democrats changed the rules on filibusters to allow a simple majority for executive and judicial appointments (except for Supreme Court appointments).* I'm surprised this was not done before now.
You may recall that Republicans threatened the nuclear option back in 2005 of the George W. Bush administration. Democrats finally caved, however, and agreed not to filibuster judicial candidates except in extreme cases.**
Mother Jones has published some interesting graphs on filibusters by president, one of which is presented here(each bar is two years). See the article for discussion and the other two figures.***
Though Republicans are objecting strongly to the action in public, I suspect they are cheering in private because now they can claim they didn't break the filibuster when they take over the Senate. Of course they think they will do this in 2014, but they have been wrong about this before. They expected to take over the Senate in 2012, but the Democrats actually gained two seats. I wouldn't be surprised if Republicans actually expand the list of items now subject to filibusters.
Note added November 24, 2013: You also might want to look at an article on achievements of the new rule: http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=112427639902898514#editor/target=post;postID=2881200110682681265;onPublishedMenu=allposts;onClosedMenu=allposts;postNum=1;src=link
*http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/11/21/rich-lowry-is-mad-that-democrats-took-his-filib/197010; http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senates-filibuster-rule-change-will-help-obama-achieve-key-second-term-priorities/2013/11/21/ccf43c4c-52dd-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html; http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/11/21/do-obama-nominees-face-stiffer-senate-opposition/
** http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/11/21/gop-gambles-big-on-harry-reids-nuclear-option-why-not-just-explode-the-filibuster-for-good/
*** http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/11/charts-explain-why-democrats-went-nuclear-filibuster
You may recall that Republicans threatened the nuclear option back in 2005 of the George W. Bush administration. Democrats finally caved, however, and agreed not to filibuster judicial candidates except in extreme cases.**
Mother Jones has published some interesting graphs on filibusters by president, one of which is presented here(each bar is two years). See the article for discussion and the other two figures.***
Note added November 24, 2013: You also might want to look at an article on achievements of the new rule: http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=112427639902898514#editor/target=post;postID=2881200110682681265;onPublishedMenu=allposts;onClosedMenu=allposts;postNum=1;src=link
*http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/11/21/rich-lowry-is-mad-that-democrats-took-his-filib/197010; http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senates-filibuster-rule-change-will-help-obama-achieve-key-second-term-priorities/2013/11/21/ccf43c4c-52dd-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html; http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/11/21/do-obama-nominees-face-stiffer-senate-opposition/
** http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/11/21/gop-gambles-big-on-harry-reids-nuclear-option-why-not-just-explode-the-filibuster-for-good/
*** http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/11/charts-explain-why-democrats-went-nuclear-filibuster
Saturday, November 16, 2013
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT IS THE CONSERVATIVE LAW!
In a vain attempt to get votes from conservative politicians, the Democrats adopted a conservative medical plan that was a private-public plan to be run by the states. For example:
The reliance on Republican policy proposals did nothing to generate Republican support. Instead of showing the falseness of partisan divisions, Obamacare has proven how deeply entrenched they truly are.
* http://webmailb.juno.com/webmail/new/5?userinfo=8b254f2f4f26b1dc56d8fe41da329a7b&count=1384580506&randid=1536139483
** http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/democrats-obamacare-vote-99915_Page2.html
*** http://www.forhealthfreedom.org/Publications/MedicareMedicaid/MandatoryEnrollment.html
The reliance on Republican policy proposals did nothing to generate Republican support. Instead of showing the falseness of partisan divisions, Obamacare has proven how deeply entrenched they truly are.
Far from introducing innovation and efficiency into the system, the decision to build a complex, 50-state public-private hybrid has introduced towering complexity into the project, and seems, potentially, to be beyond the government's capacity to do well.*
Since the Republicans refuse to support what is, in effect, their health care bill, their fall back plan is the status quo. After all isn't that what conservative means - to preserve the status quo or even regress to what they view was a better time? Isn't this exactly what the recent bill passed by the House of Representatives does - allows anyone to subscribe to any health plan that may have existed?
The chief difference between the plans is that Upton’s would allow insurers to sell the [discontinued] plans to anyone, even new customers.**
Surely a progressive plan would have been single payer. Though conservative politicians hate single payer with a passion hard for me to fathom, there are many single-payer health systems around of considerable size such as Medicare and Federal Employees Health Plan, to name just two. Both allow you to go to any physician that will accept patients on these plans. Medicare B, C and D and the FEHP are all voluntary, i.e. you do not have to subscribe to the plans (though Medicare A is mandatory). You will read things like if you accept Medicare A, you cannot have a private plan*** which is rubbish. I've had Medicare A, B and a private backup plan for 18 years and counting. I have also gone to any physician I wished and hospital I chosen for me.
Before I was medicare eligible, my private plan was my primary plan which I had for decades. Since the private plan has become my secondary plan, there are some differences in that as a secondary plan they will only cover things that Medicare does. The secondary plan just pays the difference between what Medicare covers and the accepted cost by Medicare. They also cover the Medicare deductible and any co-pay.
Medicare is a great convenience in that I don't have to write checks to providers all over the place. I am surprised at some things not covered, however, like shots for shingles. And there are limits on how often you can have certain tests or the number of days/year for which you can have treatment (i.e speech therapy). But overall, I am very satisfied. SINGLE PAYER WORKS! And even conservative columnists like Michael Gerson says the Single Payer is the best way to control medical prices, though he still doesn't like them.
** http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/democrats-obamacare-vote-99915_Page2.html
*** http://www.forhealthfreedom.org/Publications/MedicareMedicaid/MandatoryEnrollment.html
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
CHRISTIE VS CUCCINELLI: COMPARISON
The news media seems to have a hard time understanding why pro-life Chris Christie will win big in today's governors race in New Jersey whereas pro-life Ken Cuccinelli is expected to lose in Virginia. Disclaimer, I do not live in New Jersey and have not lived in Virginia for more than 8 yrs.
It seems pretty clear to me that many Democrats will forgive Christie for being pro-life because they know he is harmless on this issue as the strong Democratic state congress would never pass a pro-life bill. So far as I know, Christie has not pushed for any pro-life legislation. And then there is the BIG issue in the state over Hurricane Sandy that did so much damage. Christie's aggressive pursual of Federal aid was appreciated by both Democrats and Republicans who forgave him for personally dealing with the hated President Obama. This outreach to the president may be part of the reason that Democrats are not trying to unseat Christie. Then there is sort of an attractiveness for Christie's "in-your-face" speaking style, though in many cases it is quite rude.
On the other hand Cuccinelli is dangerous in Virginia with his stance on pro-life because strong legislation has been passed in Virginia to control women's bodies. Cuccinelli has pushed pro-life issues, such as the trans-vaginal probe* that has angered so many women, even before he was Attorney General of Virginia and in the legislature. He has rendered a legal opinion that supports any abortion clinic* that does more then 5 abortions a month should be classified as a hospital rather than outpatient clinics. He has been deep in the war on women. Besides he has had no opportunity to do something big for Virginia such as recovery after a natural disaster.
Also the news media dearly seems to want these gubernatorial elections to have national significance. Perhaps, they should, but I doubt it. Only New York had similar damage to New Jersey from Hurricane Sandy, but the governor there is not running for reelection this year and many out of state Republicans will not forgive Christie for sucking up to President Obama. There are a few other states that have been aggressive in the war on women. Perhaps Oklahoma might be in play in view of a law ruled unconstitutional outlawing three drugs used to induce abortion, but memories will have to be long for anger to last until election time.
* "Abortion is one of the safest surgical procedures for women in the United States. Fewer than 0.5% of women obtaining abortions experience a complication, and the risk of death associated with abortion is about one-tenth that associated with childbirth. (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/virginia.html) AND
..........................................
A woman must undergo an ultrasound before obtaining an abortion; the provider must offer her the option to view the image. If the woman lives within 100 miles of the abortion provider she must obtain the ultrasound at least 24 hours before the abortion." (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/virginia.html)
It seems pretty clear to me that many Democrats will forgive Christie for being pro-life because they know he is harmless on this issue as the strong Democratic state congress would never pass a pro-life bill. So far as I know, Christie has not pushed for any pro-life legislation. And then there is the BIG issue in the state over Hurricane Sandy that did so much damage. Christie's aggressive pursual of Federal aid was appreciated by both Democrats and Republicans who forgave him for personally dealing with the hated President Obama. This outreach to the president may be part of the reason that Democrats are not trying to unseat Christie. Then there is sort of an attractiveness for Christie's "in-your-face" speaking style, though in many cases it is quite rude.
On the other hand Cuccinelli is dangerous in Virginia with his stance on pro-life because strong legislation has been passed in Virginia to control women's bodies. Cuccinelli has pushed pro-life issues, such as the trans-vaginal probe* that has angered so many women, even before he was Attorney General of Virginia and in the legislature. He has rendered a legal opinion that supports any abortion clinic* that does more then 5 abortions a month should be classified as a hospital rather than outpatient clinics. He has been deep in the war on women. Besides he has had no opportunity to do something big for Virginia such as recovery after a natural disaster.
Also the news media dearly seems to want these gubernatorial elections to have national significance. Perhaps, they should, but I doubt it. Only New York had similar damage to New Jersey from Hurricane Sandy, but the governor there is not running for reelection this year and many out of state Republicans will not forgive Christie for sucking up to President Obama. There are a few other states that have been aggressive in the war on women. Perhaps Oklahoma might be in play in view of a law ruled unconstitutional outlawing three drugs used to induce abortion, but memories will have to be long for anger to last until election time.
* "Abortion is one of the safest surgical procedures for women in the United States. Fewer than 0.5% of women obtaining abortions experience a complication, and the risk of death associated with abortion is about one-tenth that associated with childbirth. (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/virginia.html) AND
..........................................
A woman must undergo an ultrasound before obtaining an abortion; the provider must offer her the option to view the image. If the woman lives within 100 miles of the abortion provider she must obtain the ultrasound at least 24 hours before the abortion." (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/virginia.html)
Monday, October 21, 2013
PRESIDENTIAL MANAGERIAL STYLES
It is pretty clear that politicians don't like Obama's managerial style. I'm amazed they don't seem to know what it is. His management style is what I imagine that of Warren Buffet's is. Buffet buys good companies and keeps the management in place and let's them continue to run their companies. So if Obama is the CEO of a conglomerate (sounds reasonable), he lets his CEOs run the ball. In this case it is Senator Harry Reid, leader of the Senate, and Representative Nancy Pelosi, now minority leader of the House. He let them run the ball on what is called Obamacare (actually the PPACA), it was the same with Dodd-Frank, and also with the recent government shutdown and near disaster of the debt limit. I haven't followed other victories as closely so I don't know how much they were involved in getting of other successes such as of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
Though the PPACA is much more conservative than I like, it is a beginning
The problem with this managerial style with politicians is that they all have egos that won't quit. They all think they are God's gift to humanity. They all want to talk to the Big Boss and are frustrated when they have to settle for talking to their CEOs. This is true of Democrats of the President's party as well as the opposition Republicans. And it is also true of the media. Somehow the media can't get enough access though it seems to me they have a lot. At least after the fact, they like the former President Bill Clinton style better (My memory is that when he was president, the Republicans did everything in their power to screw him.). The glad handing, good ol' boy, type of politician. The thoughtful, introspective type of politician is not as much fun.
The Republicans rolled him so often because he is by nature a compromiser, but finally he caught on and said, "No more!" He didn't realize for a long time that the current crew that controls the House, in particular, views compromise as a sign of weakness.
Though the PPACA is much more conservative than I like, it is a beginning
The problem with this managerial style with politicians is that they all have egos that won't quit. They all think they are God's gift to humanity. They all want to talk to the Big Boss and are frustrated when they have to settle for talking to their CEOs. This is true of Democrats of the President's party as well as the opposition Republicans. And it is also true of the media. Somehow the media can't get enough access though it seems to me they have a lot. At least after the fact, they like the former President Bill Clinton style better (My memory is that when he was president, the Republicans did everything in their power to screw him.). The glad handing, good ol' boy, type of politician. The thoughtful, introspective type of politician is not as much fun.
The Republicans rolled him so often because he is by nature a compromiser, but finally he caught on and said, "No more!" He didn't realize for a long time that the current crew that controls the House, in particular, views compromise as a sign of weakness.
Friday, October 4, 2013
WHY ARE DEMOCRATS SO KIND TO JOHN BOEHNER?
I don't understand why Democrats are so kind to John Boehner. I haven't heard any Democratic Senator or Representative bad mouth him; yet every time I hear him speak he lets out one or more whoppers. The Continuing Resolution supposedly being considered is the number wanted by Republicans. The Republicans not only won that battle but the number is lower than the Sequester value.
Boehner says "This is not some damn game." But I'm sorry Mr Boehner, it is some damn game you are playing. (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101065750) and a dangerous one at that. All that posturing by Republican Representatives in front of the WW-II Memorial when they voted to lower funding for the VA. If it isn't a political game, what is it? You and some other Republicans may feel this was the place to get rid of the Afforadable Care Act, but many other Republicans and conservatives warned against it. A threat is no good if the other side isn't worried.
But I understand that some strategy is needed and to wait for the Debt limit and then allow an up or down vote will be the time to fall on your sword. You don't want to do it too early. Maybe in the end you will actually have missed the sword and survive. I also have heard some Democrats trying to think of ways to bail you out. What weird politics we are in when it is the opposing party trying to find a way to bail you out.
Boehner says "This is not some damn game." But I'm sorry Mr Boehner, it is some damn game you are playing. (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101065750) and a dangerous one at that. All that posturing by Republican Representatives in front of the WW-II Memorial when they voted to lower funding for the VA. If it isn't a political game, what is it? You and some other Republicans may feel this was the place to get rid of the Afforadable Care Act, but many other Republicans and conservatives warned against it. A threat is no good if the other side isn't worried.
But I understand that some strategy is needed and to wait for the Debt limit and then allow an up or down vote will be the time to fall on your sword. You don't want to do it too early. Maybe in the end you will actually have missed the sword and survive. I also have heard some Democrats trying to think of ways to bail you out. What weird politics we are in when it is the opposing party trying to find a way to bail you out.
Thursday, October 3, 2013
JOHN BOEHNER - THE FATE OF THE COUNTRY IN HIS HANDS
The issue supposedly is the Continuing Resolution. There is no argument over the Continuing Resolution (CR). The Democrats have agreed with the Republican figure. So there is no argument. The Republicans won that battle, and the agreed upon figure is actually below the Sequester level. The argument has nothing to do with the CR and is actually over a law that survived a test in the Supreme Court, if narrowly, the so called Obamacare or Affordable Care Act law (ACA). So the Speaker of The House, has refused to let the CR be voted upon unless the ACA is destroyed. Oh yes, they have proposed delaying ithe ACA for a year, but then will demand another year, etc. In the meantime, the ACA is open for business and early returns seems very encouraging.
Most if not all Republicans would like to see this ACA law repealed; however, the president is not likely to let this law be destroyed, especially since everyone seems to agree that the House would approve the CR if allowed to vote on it. So to prevent the CR from being passed and allow the Federal government to remain open, the Speaker Of The House, John Boehner, has refused to let the CR be voted upon. Thus now, 40% of the government is shut down, except for essential positions. I fully expect the government to remain closed for the next two weeks until we face the debt limit. We are undergoing other cute maneuvers like trying to open the government piecemeal but, in the end, never funding the ACA. Paying our soldiers on time has been the one exception that has been passed on a bipartisan basis, an exception with which I agree.
So will the Speaker refuse to let the Debt Limit be raised and destroy the Full Faith And Credit Of The U.S. Government because we will not pay bills that are already incurred? Oh, perhaps if we let this go for a few days, it will not matter, but we don't know what our creditors will do. And if you do this the first time, doing it a second time is easier, etc. So Mr. Boehner holds the fate of America in his hands. Will he keep the government closed and, in addition, destroy the full faith and credit of America? It seems to be his choice. Will he be the man who destroyed America or the hero that saved it? Right now we do not know. Is holding the Speakership worth destroying a great country?
[Warren] Buffett did provide a glimmer of hope if the Oct. 17 debt limit deadline is breached. "If it goes one second beyond the debt limit, that will not do us in. If it goes a year beyond that would be unbelievable." http://www.cnbc.com/id/101083360
[Hank Paulsen] said he hates the whole concept of the debit limit—calling it a "flaw" in the system. "Congress has already approved the spending. And then say 'you have to then come back and agree to allow us to meet our obligations,' that's ridiculous." http://www.cnbc.com/id/101083367
Most if not all Republicans would like to see this ACA law repealed; however, the president is not likely to let this law be destroyed, especially since everyone seems to agree that the House would approve the CR if allowed to vote on it. So to prevent the CR from being passed and allow the Federal government to remain open, the Speaker Of The House, John Boehner, has refused to let the CR be voted upon. Thus now, 40% of the government is shut down, except for essential positions. I fully expect the government to remain closed for the next two weeks until we face the debt limit. We are undergoing other cute maneuvers like trying to open the government piecemeal but, in the end, never funding the ACA. Paying our soldiers on time has been the one exception that has been passed on a bipartisan basis, an exception with which I agree.
So will the Speaker refuse to let the Debt Limit be raised and destroy the Full Faith And Credit Of The U.S. Government because we will not pay bills that are already incurred? Oh, perhaps if we let this go for a few days, it will not matter, but we don't know what our creditors will do. And if you do this the first time, doing it a second time is easier, etc. So Mr. Boehner holds the fate of America in his hands. Will he keep the government closed and, in addition, destroy the full faith and credit of America? It seems to be his choice. Will he be the man who destroyed America or the hero that saved it? Right now we do not know. Is holding the Speakership worth destroying a great country?
[Warren] Buffett did provide a glimmer of hope if the Oct. 17 debt limit deadline is breached. "If it goes one second beyond the debt limit, that will not do us in. If it goes a year beyond that would be unbelievable." http://www.cnbc.com/id/101083360
[Hank Paulsen] said he hates the whole concept of the debit limit—calling it a "flaw" in the system. "Congress has already approved the spending. And then say 'you have to then come back and agree to allow us to meet our obligations,' that's ridiculous." http://www.cnbc.com/id/101083367
Thursday, August 22, 2013
MAY THE SAINT'S PRESERVE US!
I suppose you have all heard the results of a poll of Republicans in Louisiana about who caused the Katrina blunders, but in case you didn't:
The latest survey from Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling, provided exclusively to TPM, showed an eye-popping divide among Republicans in the Bayou State when it comes to accountability for the government's post-Katrina blunders.
The latest survey from Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling, provided exclusively to TPM, showed an eye-popping divide among Republicans in the Bayou State when it comes to accountability for the government's post-Katrina blunders.
Twenty-eight percent said they think former President George W. Bush, who was in office at the time, was more responsible for the poor federal response while 29 percent said Obama, who was still a freshman U.S. Senator when the storm battered the Gulf Coast in 2005, was more responsible. Nearly half of Louisiana Republicans — 44 percent — said they aren't sure who to blame. (http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/poll-louisiana-gopers-unsure-if-katrina-response-was)
It is hard to believe this poll is legit, but no one is contesting it so far as I know. There is an old saying attributed to an Australian Mr. Gregory Wildie (date unknown) that "No one ever lost an election by underestimating the intelligence of the electorate." (http://www.ronowengympie.com/time-wasters/the-first-defence-of-katters-cowboys/) It is hard to believe that we have pretty much flourished for so long. Consider:
Georgians believe in creationism over evolution, too, with 70 percent of Republicans for creationism, 17 percent for evolution and 13 percent unsure. For Democrats, it was 43 percent for creationism, 33 percent for evolution and 24 percent undecided.
http://sandysprings.patch.com/groups/newscruncher/p/survey-70-percent-of-ga-republicans-believe-in-creationism
Monday, August 5, 2013
THE GOVERNMENT YOU VOTED FOR
On rare occasions, someone writes a piece in which almost every word carries weight. Paul Krugman did just that on Sunday, August 4 (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/05/opinion/krugman-republicans-against-reality.html?nl=opinion&emc=edit_ty_20130805) I wish everyone would read it. Prof. Krugman writes:
Think of it this way: For a long time the Republican establishment got its way by playing a con game with the party’s base. Voters would be mobilized as soldiers in an ideological crusade, fired up by warnings that liberals were going to turn the country over to gay married terrorists, not to mention taking your hard-earned dollars and giving them to Those People. Then, once the election was over, the establishment would get on with its real priorities — deregulation and lower taxes on the wealthy. (emphasis added)
Then they held the pointless vote on Obamacare, apparently just to make themselves feel better. (It’s curious how comforting they [Republicans] find the idea of denying health care to millions of Americans.) (emphasis added)
An article quoted by Prof. Krugman says, The June bill included $20.5 billion in proposed cuts to the food stamp program, plus amendments calling for mandatory drugs tests for recipients and employment requirements. Democrats protested the food stamp cuts, while many Republicans said the cuts did not go deep enough.* (emphasis added) But now it appears the Republicans are proposing a cut twice as large though there is to be an automatic cut in food stamps amounting to $29/mo. for a family of three to $319/mo. in any event as a result of the Stimulus bill that carried a temporary increase in food stamps. (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/us/politics/gop-push-to-slash-food-stamps-puts-farm-bill-in-jeopardy.html)
The House already had passed a meaningless farm bill stripped of food stamps and proposed a series of benefits to wealthy farmers. Some of the members or their spouses of the Senate and House Agricultural Committees benefit from the farm subsidies the committees oversee. 9http://www.taxpayer.net/library/article/political-contributions-conflicts-of-interest-taint-u.s.-ag-policies)
Cuts are being made to the Federal budget anyway because of across the board cuts in the Sequester (But congress made an exception for air controllers so they wouldn't be inconvenienced in flying.). Though no one says they like the Sequester, Republicans let it happen because it did make cuts in programs for the poor. Democrats aren't too upset because at least there are some cuts to the defense budget and the Sequester seems the only way to get these. Congressmen are not to be inconvenienced. A part of Obamacare was that congressmen were to get their health insurance from the Exchanges like everyone else, but it looks as if they will also accept a subsidy from the government as well.
Then there is the canceled vote in the House on a transportation bill because not enough Republicans showed up. Prof. Krugman writes: But it turned out that a significant number of representatives, while willing to vote for huge spending cuts as long as there weren’t any specifics, balked at the details. Don’t cut you, don’t cut me, cut that fellow behind the tree. (emphasis added)
* This seems to be the new way to get a bipartisan agreement. Democrats vote against it because the cuts for the poor go too far and Republicans vote against it because cuts for the poor doe not go far enough.
Think of it this way: For a long time the Republican establishment got its way by playing a con game with the party’s base. Voters would be mobilized as soldiers in an ideological crusade, fired up by warnings that liberals were going to turn the country over to gay married terrorists, not to mention taking your hard-earned dollars and giving them to Those People. Then, once the election was over, the establishment would get on with its real priorities — deregulation and lower taxes on the wealthy. (emphasis added)
Then they held the pointless vote on Obamacare, apparently just to make themselves feel better. (It’s curious how comforting they [Republicans] find the idea of denying health care to millions of Americans.) (emphasis added)
An article quoted by Prof. Krugman says, The June bill included $20.5 billion in proposed cuts to the food stamp program, plus amendments calling for mandatory drugs tests for recipients and employment requirements. Democrats protested the food stamp cuts, while many Republicans said the cuts did not go deep enough.* (emphasis added) But now it appears the Republicans are proposing a cut twice as large though there is to be an automatic cut in food stamps amounting to $29/mo. for a family of three to $319/mo. in any event as a result of the Stimulus bill that carried a temporary increase in food stamps. (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/us/politics/gop-push-to-slash-food-stamps-puts-farm-bill-in-jeopardy.html)
The House already had passed a meaningless farm bill stripped of food stamps and proposed a series of benefits to wealthy farmers. Some of the members or their spouses of the Senate and House Agricultural Committees benefit from the farm subsidies the committees oversee. 9http://www.taxpayer.net/library/article/political-contributions-conflicts-of-interest-taint-u.s.-ag-policies)
Cuts are being made to the Federal budget anyway because of across the board cuts in the Sequester (But congress made an exception for air controllers so they wouldn't be inconvenienced in flying.). Though no one says they like the Sequester, Republicans let it happen because it did make cuts in programs for the poor. Democrats aren't too upset because at least there are some cuts to the defense budget and the Sequester seems the only way to get these. Congressmen are not to be inconvenienced. A part of Obamacare was that congressmen were to get their health insurance from the Exchanges like everyone else, but it looks as if they will also accept a subsidy from the government as well.
Then there is the canceled vote in the House on a transportation bill because not enough Republicans showed up. Prof. Krugman writes: But it turned out that a significant number of representatives, while willing to vote for huge spending cuts as long as there weren’t any specifics, balked at the details. Don’t cut you, don’t cut me, cut that fellow behind the tree. (emphasis added)
* This seems to be the new way to get a bipartisan agreement. Democrats vote against it because the cuts for the poor go too far and Republicans vote against it because cuts for the poor doe not go far enough.
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
REPUBLICANS RAISING TAXES
Lawrence O'Donnell has pointed out the following. Though there may be another state more Republican than Wyoming, it is hard to imagine. For example, there are only four (4) Democrats in the state Senate. The State Senate and state house are 85% Republican. The governor is Republican as are the two Federal Senators and the Representative. Yet, the state Senate and state House recently enacted a 10 cent/gal increase in the state gasoline tax and the Governor signed it into law.* Of course this increased gasoline tax falls most heavily on the working poor and is a regressive tax.
It is O'Donnell's thought that if there aren't Democrats around to do the responsible thing, the Republicans will act responsibly.
The reference* also discusses Virginia where the state Senate has passed a 5 cent/gal increase in the gasoline tax indexed to inflation. The Virginia governor has proposed a wild change of eliminating the state gasoline tax and increasing the state sales and use tax by 0.8% plus increasing the state vehicle tax by $15 and instituting a $100 fee on alternative fuel vehicles. I'm not sure whether this change would fall more heavily on the working poor as it just changes the tax method, though this change in the sales tax would broaden the tax collections to those who do not own vehicles. The state House approved of the Governor's plan.
I don't know why the Governor of Virginia is imposing the $100 fee on alternative fueled vehicles. I would think he would give such vehicles a $100 credit, if anything. It appears that he is opposed to such vehicles. I presume this is because of the possibility of off-shore drilling for oil.
* http://news.agc.org/2013/02/15/wyoming-approves-gas-tax-increase-virginia-still-debating-funding-increase/
It is O'Donnell's thought that if there aren't Democrats around to do the responsible thing, the Republicans will act responsibly.
The reference* also discusses Virginia where the state Senate has passed a 5 cent/gal increase in the gasoline tax indexed to inflation. The Virginia governor has proposed a wild change of eliminating the state gasoline tax and increasing the state sales and use tax by 0.8% plus increasing the state vehicle tax by $15 and instituting a $100 fee on alternative fuel vehicles. I'm not sure whether this change would fall more heavily on the working poor as it just changes the tax method, though this change in the sales tax would broaden the tax collections to those who do not own vehicles. The state House approved of the Governor's plan.
I don't know why the Governor of Virginia is imposing the $100 fee on alternative fueled vehicles. I would think he would give such vehicles a $100 credit, if anything. It appears that he is opposed to such vehicles. I presume this is because of the possibility of off-shore drilling for oil.
* http://news.agc.org/2013/02/15/wyoming-approves-gas-tax-increase-virginia-still-debating-funding-increase/
Monday, November 12, 2012
SOME THOUGHTS ON THE RECENT ELECTIONS
First of all, I am thankful that we had two such fine families running for president.
Then I regret that the American electorate demands such negative campaigning. Unfortunately if one side does it, the other must also. The electorate says they don't like it, but they do pay attention to it. In this regard, the Democrats seemed to be more effective in their negative campaigning than the Republicans.
After all the money spent by outside groups such as Super PACS in the campaign, we ended up having the same Democratic president, an increase in Democratic Senators by two (but not enough to break filibusters) and an increase of Democratic Representatives by seven (but not enough to take over the House). The electorate seems to say to our politicians "Make it work!"
Mitch McConnell's first priority of defeating the President didn't work. Will we face another four years of total obstruction?
Somehow Republicans are going to have to learn how to love Hispanics and quit kicking them in the teeth. It is going to be very hard for them, but Hispanics tend to be conservative and can be a natural component of a conservative movement.
There are no precedents in our politics anymore. It used to be that politics was said to stop at the borders, but no longer. The immediate politicalization of the Benghazi attack on September 11 shows that. I really thought that Benghazi couldn't be made to last until the election proved to be unfounded as the media was more than willing to keep this issue going. Ronald Reagan suffered both the Lebanese Embassy bombing* in 1983 in which 63 people died was never politicized by the Democrats nor was the Beirut (Lebanon) base bombing in which 299 American and French forces were killed.* These two disasters have not stopped Ronald Reagan from becoming deified by many Republicans, no doubt by some of those who want to keep the Benghazi issue alive even after the election.
Romney's demonizaton of the 47% who pay no Federal income tax as being lazy dependents may be unfortunate but is a widely held view of many Republicans. I know this both from Republicans I know and from boards on Motley Fool. But it also does insult many of the white working class people who vote Republican. Please remember that 47% of the Households earn less than $47,000/yr which undoubtedly includes many of white workers. One cause of this lack of Federal income tax payments is the child tax credit where there is a $1000 per child deduction from their taxes, and this deduction was raised under the Bush-43 administration from $500/child to $1,000/child.**
The Romney claim that he knows how to generate jobs is both right and wrong. Private equity, at least in the short term, eliminates jobs and does not create them. That is the first thing they do, fire people. Labor is the elastic component of our system. However in the beginning of Bain Capital, they emphasized Start Ups which do create new jobs. Romney switched to private equity because it was a quicker way to make money and that is what Bain Capital is all about. There is nothing wrong with that. Whether in the long term private equity creates jobs, I don't know , but suspect that it doesn't.
But weren't start ups what Obama was doing in promoting alternative energy? In spite of the Solyndra failure, the amount of losses in the Federal government Start Ups program is small. Even Solyndra, however, served a good purpose because the Solyndra system didn't use the special glass used to solar energy. Their approach caused the price of the special glass to plummet to make Solyndra uneconomic. I have not seen any article examining whether the price of glass plummeting has saved more money in solar energy panels than the losses on Solyndra, but over time it might. Personally I wish the government would have taken Solyndra to production before closing it down. If you are going to be involved in start ups, there are going to be failures and the emphasis needs to be on the net.
There is a point in saying that the Federal government shouldn't be choosing winners and losers of course; however, the government does this sort of thing all the time. Think how important the government emphasis by NASA and the DoD on miniaturization of electronics has been not only to producing inexpensive desk top computers but now the tablets and smart phones. Consider the World Wide Web (WWW) and Geographic Positions Systems (GPS) for just two. These were developed for military purposes. The important thing was really permitting these two innovations to be released into the public sector where private industry could promote them for Civilian uses.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_United_States_embassy_bombing; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing
** http://www.irs.gov/uac/Ten-Facts-about-the-Child-Tax-Credit
Then I regret that the American electorate demands such negative campaigning. Unfortunately if one side does it, the other must also. The electorate says they don't like it, but they do pay attention to it. In this regard, the Democrats seemed to be more effective in their negative campaigning than the Republicans.
After all the money spent by outside groups such as Super PACS in the campaign, we ended up having the same Democratic president, an increase in Democratic Senators by two (but not enough to break filibusters) and an increase of Democratic Representatives by seven (but not enough to take over the House). The electorate seems to say to our politicians "Make it work!"
Mitch McConnell's first priority of defeating the President didn't work. Will we face another four years of total obstruction?
Somehow Republicans are going to have to learn how to love Hispanics and quit kicking them in the teeth. It is going to be very hard for them, but Hispanics tend to be conservative and can be a natural component of a conservative movement.
There are no precedents in our politics anymore. It used to be that politics was said to stop at the borders, but no longer. The immediate politicalization of the Benghazi attack on September 11 shows that. I really thought that Benghazi couldn't be made to last until the election proved to be unfounded as the media was more than willing to keep this issue going. Ronald Reagan suffered both the Lebanese Embassy bombing* in 1983 in which 63 people died was never politicized by the Democrats nor was the Beirut (Lebanon) base bombing in which 299 American and French forces were killed.* These two disasters have not stopped Ronald Reagan from becoming deified by many Republicans, no doubt by some of those who want to keep the Benghazi issue alive even after the election.
Romney's demonizaton of the 47% who pay no Federal income tax as being lazy dependents may be unfortunate but is a widely held view of many Republicans. I know this both from Republicans I know and from boards on Motley Fool. But it also does insult many of the white working class people who vote Republican. Please remember that 47% of the Households earn less than $47,000/yr which undoubtedly includes many of white workers. One cause of this lack of Federal income tax payments is the child tax credit where there is a $1000 per child deduction from their taxes, and this deduction was raised under the Bush-43 administration from $500/child to $1,000/child.**
The Romney claim that he knows how to generate jobs is both right and wrong. Private equity, at least in the short term, eliminates jobs and does not create them. That is the first thing they do, fire people. Labor is the elastic component of our system. However in the beginning of Bain Capital, they emphasized Start Ups which do create new jobs. Romney switched to private equity because it was a quicker way to make money and that is what Bain Capital is all about. There is nothing wrong with that. Whether in the long term private equity creates jobs, I don't know , but suspect that it doesn't.
But weren't start ups what Obama was doing in promoting alternative energy? In spite of the Solyndra failure, the amount of losses in the Federal government Start Ups program is small. Even Solyndra, however, served a good purpose because the Solyndra system didn't use the special glass used to solar energy. Their approach caused the price of the special glass to plummet to make Solyndra uneconomic. I have not seen any article examining whether the price of glass plummeting has saved more money in solar energy panels than the losses on Solyndra, but over time it might. Personally I wish the government would have taken Solyndra to production before closing it down. If you are going to be involved in start ups, there are going to be failures and the emphasis needs to be on the net.
There is a point in saying that the Federal government shouldn't be choosing winners and losers of course; however, the government does this sort of thing all the time. Think how important the government emphasis by NASA and the DoD on miniaturization of electronics has been not only to producing inexpensive desk top computers but now the tablets and smart phones. Consider the World Wide Web (WWW) and Geographic Positions Systems (GPS) for just two. These were developed for military purposes. The important thing was really permitting these two innovations to be released into the public sector where private industry could promote them for Civilian uses.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_United_States_embassy_bombing; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing
** http://www.irs.gov/uac/Ten-Facts-about-the-Child-Tax-Credit
Friday, April 20, 2012
DOUBLE CROSS
Over the last couple of decades Democrats have adopted former Republican stands and have found them to subsequently be opposed by Republicans. A couple of examples are the Individual Mandate and the Line Item Veto.
Individual Mandate
Most recently it is the "individual mandate" in the Affordable Care Act of March 23, 2010 that Republicans first proposed and now oppose. "In fact, says Len Nichols of the New America Foundation, the individual mandate was originally a Republican idea. 'It was invented by Mark Pauly to give to George Bush Sr. back in the day, as a competition to the employer mandate focus of the Democrats at the time.' But Hatch's opposition is ironic, or some would say, politically motivated. The last time Congress debated a health overhaul, when Bill Clinton was president, Hatch and several other senators who now oppose the so-called individual mandate actually supported a bill that would have required it."*
.........................................................
"One reason the individual mandate appealed to conservatives is because it called for individual responsibility to address what economists call the "free-rider effect." That's the fact that if a person is in an accident or comes down with a dread disease, that person is going to get medical care, and someone is going to pay for it."*
..........................................................
"Nichols, of the New America Foundation, says he's depressed that so many issues that used to be part of the Republican health agenda are now being rejected by Republican leaders and most of the rank and file. "I think it's a sad testament to the state of relations among the parties that they've gotten to this point," he said."*
"The individual mandate was an outgrowth of a law signed by President Reagan: The 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. It requires nearly all hospitals to treat and stabilize anyone needing emergency care, regardless of ability to pay or legal U.S. residency. Critics call it an unfunded mandate. It was part of a budget law signed by President Ronald Reagan." ** "We called this (individual mandate) responsible national health insurance," says Pauly. 'There was a kind of an ethical and moral support for the notion that people shouldn't be allowed to free-ride on the charity of fellow citizens.'"*
Line Item Veto
Another item is the presidential Line Item Veto that was passed by congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on April 9, 1986. Republicans apparently thought they were sure to win the 1996 election and, with a line item veto, be able to eliminate Democratic provisions from bills. The bill was proposed by Senator Robert Dole and cosponsored by Senator John McCain and 29 others (***) including many Republicans such as Senator Mitch McConnell and candidate for Republican presidential for president Rick Santorum (candidacy now suspended). A year later the bill was challenged by a group of Senators including Democratic Senator Robert Byrd, but the case (Raines vs. Byrd) was dismissed. President Clinton (reelected after all) then used the line item veto on the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. The Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision that the Line Item Veto was unconstitutional by a 6-3 vote on June 25, 1998.****
* http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123670612
** http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/01/obama-individual-mandate_n_1394705.html
*** http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d104:SN00004:@@@P
**** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_Item_Veto_Act_of_1996
Sunday, February 26, 2012
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/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
