Friday, July 22, 2011
Partisanship Infiltrates the Ethics Committee
I think it comes as no surprise that President Obama has emphasized the lack of public confidence in Congress as a way to bolster his budget proposal. He summed up the situation perfectly when he said that the American people elected a divided government in November, not a dysfunctional one.
Nothing characterizes the polarization in Congress better than the partisan infiltration into the Ethics Committee. The Ethics Committee is made up of 5 Republicans and 5 Democrats, and is supposed to be the only non-partisan committee. It's sole purpose is internal investigation into the actions of Congressman and Congresswomen.
Rep Maxine Waters of California is being investigated over her role in bailing out a small bank that her husband had a $350,000 financial stake in. She violated the ethics code of her office, and should be investigated.
Here's where it got partisan. Staffers Morgan Kim and Stacy Sovereign were accused of having "ex parte" communications with Republican Representatives, which breaks the supposed non-partisan nature of the committee during the Charlie Rangel case. If this were to be revealed, the proceedings against Rangel would have been dropped. Hundreds of pages of documents from the Committee, given to Politico, showed petty partisan bickering amongst staff and Representatives on the secret committee. This kind of bickering has put the Waters investigation in jeopardy, as she had moved to have the charges dropped. She had been accused of two ethics violations and asked for a trial. But, the trial was postponed multiple times. These postponements were revealed to be a product of partisan wrangling.
In this era of hyper-partisanship, the Ethics Committee structure is supposed to isolate itself from the fray. Staffers on the committee (usually ethics lawyers) investigate actions by Congressmen/woman and make recommendations based on congressional ethics guidelines, not partisan inclinations.
Now, the Committee has been chosen to hire a lawyer to investigate itself. I guess we must accept a Congress where even the supposedly unbiased Ethics Committee can fall victim to partisanship.
Nothing characterizes the polarization in Congress better than the partisan infiltration into the Ethics Committee. The Ethics Committee is made up of 5 Republicans and 5 Democrats, and is supposed to be the only non-partisan committee. It's sole purpose is internal investigation into the actions of Congressman and Congresswomen.
Rep Maxine Waters of California is being investigated over her role in bailing out a small bank that her husband had a $350,000 financial stake in. She violated the ethics code of her office, and should be investigated.
Here's where it got partisan. Staffers Morgan Kim and Stacy Sovereign were accused of having "ex parte" communications with Republican Representatives, which breaks the supposed non-partisan nature of the committee during the Charlie Rangel case. If this were to be revealed, the proceedings against Rangel would have been dropped. Hundreds of pages of documents from the Committee, given to Politico, showed petty partisan bickering amongst staff and Representatives on the secret committee. This kind of bickering has put the Waters investigation in jeopardy, as she had moved to have the charges dropped. She had been accused of two ethics violations and asked for a trial. But, the trial was postponed multiple times. These postponements were revealed to be a product of partisan wrangling.
In this era of hyper-partisanship, the Ethics Committee structure is supposed to isolate itself from the fray. Staffers on the committee (usually ethics lawyers) investigate actions by Congressmen/woman and make recommendations based on congressional ethics guidelines, not partisan inclinations.
Now, the Committee has been chosen to hire a lawyer to investigate itself. I guess we must accept a Congress where even the supposedly unbiased Ethics Committee can fall victim to partisanship.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Populism, 1896/2012: We have Seen This Before
The TEA party, a conservative and (supposedly) populist uprising, is putting pressure on the Republican party to make massive spending cuts and not agree to raise the debt ceiling. Their rhetoric is forcing many mainstream Republicans between the extreme wing of their party and the possibility of an international financial catastrophe.
And....
We are heading into an election season. The choice that the Republicans make on the debt and the debt ceiling will reverberate. The tea party has vowed to "make an example" of those Republicans who vote to raise the debt ceiling.
But...we've seen this before.
Populist uprisings and a divided party were highly contentious issues during the election of 1896. After the Civil War, small Southern and Western farmers faced a serious economic downturn as the southern economy transitioned away from its dependence on slave labor. While many southerners fought on the side of the Confederacy, most were not rich enough to own slaves. A group founded by agrarian interests called the Farmer's Alliance(AKA the Order of the Patrons of Husbandry/The Grange) combined with the Knights of Labor to form the Populist Party. They took control of the Kansas Legislature, elected the first Populist Senator and nominated James B Weaver for president in 1892 (won over 1 million votes).
In 1896, the Democrats, whose policies were most aligned with Populists, nominated William Jennings Bryan on a free-silver platform (amongst other things). The Populists split off into those who wanted to be integrated into the Democratic Party and the "middle-road" people who wanted to continue with their third party status. They had a separate convention and also nominated William Jennings Bryan, but with a different Vice President. Bryan and the Democrats absorbed some of the Populist ideas into their party platform and rejected others, alienating the "middle-road" segment. The remaining Populists split the vote leading to a clear victory for Republican William McKinley.
So, why the history lesson?
While the TEA party does not represent the type of populist ideals that the Populist party ran on, they do act as a force of disunity within a major party heading into an election. Like the TEA Party, the Populists represented a plethora of interests. Some supported going back to the gold standard (Gold Bugs), some wanted money to be backed by Silver (Silverites), many were anti-corporate (heavier regulation of the rail industry over predatory pricing on grain elevators) and some wanted more government intervention to help farmers. All of these forces were difficult to reconcile into a coherent party platform. This was exacerbated by the split between Gold Bugs and Silverites and integrationists and middle-roaders.
The TEA party is made up of many elements of political conservatism. Some are for the legalization of drugs and the termination of wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya (Libertarians, or Ron Paulites). Then, there are the religious conservatives who are fervently anti-choice and anti-gay marriage. The Moral conservatives (religious) tend to clash with Libertarians on the wars, legalization of drugs, abortion, religion and the role of the government. Libertarians would rather see cuts across the board (See the Paul family) and religious conservatives would like to see the government be a moral crusader. All of these forces will act upon the mind-set of many mainstream Republicans and push them farther right. This might be safe during the debt ceiling debate, but the platform will be difficult to articulate once 2012 rolls around.
If Barack Obama wants to win in 2012, he must exploit this division. McKinley injected humor into Bryan's dramatic "cross of gold" speech, which acted to further divide the Democratic party. He exploited their divisions and stood on a very simple, digestible platform of American exceptionalism, expanding overseas markets and conservative monetary policies. Obama must inject some levity into the TEA party platform (as he did with the Birther issue) and have a consistent and simple theme for his Campaign - American ingenuity. This will contrast with the Republican party, which will have to harmonize conflicting perspectives while trying to cow-tow to an extreme minority whose shelf life is coming to an end.
And....
We are heading into an election season. The choice that the Republicans make on the debt and the debt ceiling will reverberate. The tea party has vowed to "make an example" of those Republicans who vote to raise the debt ceiling.
But...we've seen this before.
Populist uprisings and a divided party were highly contentious issues during the election of 1896. After the Civil War, small Southern and Western farmers faced a serious economic downturn as the southern economy transitioned away from its dependence on slave labor. While many southerners fought on the side of the Confederacy, most were not rich enough to own slaves. A group founded by agrarian interests called the Farmer's Alliance(AKA the Order of the Patrons of Husbandry/The Grange) combined with the Knights of Labor to form the Populist Party. They took control of the Kansas Legislature, elected the first Populist Senator and nominated James B Weaver for president in 1892 (won over 1 million votes).
In 1896, the Democrats, whose policies were most aligned with Populists, nominated William Jennings Bryan on a free-silver platform (amongst other things). The Populists split off into those who wanted to be integrated into the Democratic Party and the "middle-road" people who wanted to continue with their third party status. They had a separate convention and also nominated William Jennings Bryan, but with a different Vice President. Bryan and the Democrats absorbed some of the Populist ideas into their party platform and rejected others, alienating the "middle-road" segment. The remaining Populists split the vote leading to a clear victory for Republican William McKinley.
So, why the history lesson?
While the TEA party does not represent the type of populist ideals that the Populist party ran on, they do act as a force of disunity within a major party heading into an election. Like the TEA Party, the Populists represented a plethora of interests. Some supported going back to the gold standard (Gold Bugs), some wanted money to be backed by Silver (Silverites), many were anti-corporate (heavier regulation of the rail industry over predatory pricing on grain elevators) and some wanted more government intervention to help farmers. All of these forces were difficult to reconcile into a coherent party platform. This was exacerbated by the split between Gold Bugs and Silverites and integrationists and middle-roaders.
The TEA party is made up of many elements of political conservatism. Some are for the legalization of drugs and the termination of wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya (Libertarians, or Ron Paulites). Then, there are the religious conservatives who are fervently anti-choice and anti-gay marriage. The Moral conservatives (religious) tend to clash with Libertarians on the wars, legalization of drugs, abortion, religion and the role of the government. Libertarians would rather see cuts across the board (See the Paul family) and religious conservatives would like to see the government be a moral crusader. All of these forces will act upon the mind-set of many mainstream Republicans and push them farther right. This might be safe during the debt ceiling debate, but the platform will be difficult to articulate once 2012 rolls around.
If Barack Obama wants to win in 2012, he must exploit this division. McKinley injected humor into Bryan's dramatic "cross of gold" speech, which acted to further divide the Democratic party. He exploited their divisions and stood on a very simple, digestible platform of American exceptionalism, expanding overseas markets and conservative monetary policies. Obama must inject some levity into the TEA party platform (as he did with the Birther issue) and have a consistent and simple theme for his Campaign - American ingenuity. This will contrast with the Republican party, which will have to harmonize conflicting perspectives while trying to cow-tow to an extreme minority whose shelf life is coming to an end.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Debt Ceiling: I Agree with Mitch McConnell
Take note the time (9:06am) and the date (July 14th, 2011)
You read that right: I Agree with Mitch McConnell (R-KY).
McConnell suggested a strategy to allow the president to raise the debt ceiling. A Bill to increase the debt ceiling would go through Congress, get a disapproving vote, the president would veto it and the debt ceiling would be raised. Politically, this is a great move for the Republican Party, as they could hammer the president about spending cuts after the debt ceiling is raised. His plan was immediately dismissed by the ultra-conservative wing of his party, led by Michelle Bachmann, Jim DeMint and Jason Chaffetz. Chaffetz went as far as to call the plan a "stupid idea."
This was always about politics for McConnell. McConnell was the first to say that the Republican strategy was to make Obama a "one-term president" as far back as November. He is a shrewd politician, and has the experience to back up his strategies. He knows that if the government were to default on its obligations, the party would suffer. This kind of foresight can only come from experience. Chaffetz, Bachmann and DeMint are too extreme and inexperienced.
While I vehemently disagree with McConnell's politics, and his intentions, the idea of raising the debt ceiling and divorcing it from debt reduction debates is something I can agree with. In my last two blogs, I ranted about the importance of separating deficit reduction from raising the debt ceiling because of its affects on the market.
The effects of a possible default have already proven to be somewhat foreboding. This week, Moody's released a statement saying that they are considering a downgrade to the US's AAA Bond Rating. This statement caused international stock markets to fluctuate, as Asian and European investors became nervous. If the US was to default, interest rates on everything from home mortgages to credit cards would go up, hurting consumers trying to dig themselves out of a recessed economy. But,
Bachmann, Chaffetz and (recently) Palin are willing to put the international market on unstable footing and put a heavy burden on consumers in order to reduce the deficit. In other words, they are being whiny children who will hurt anyone to get their way.
McConnell has proven, directly or indirectly, that this kind of political stance is not pertinent and will only hurt his party in the long run. Politics aside, this is a common sense approach to raising the debt ceiling in the most expedient fashion.
You read that right: I Agree with Mitch McConnell (R-KY).
McConnell suggested a strategy to allow the president to raise the debt ceiling. A Bill to increase the debt ceiling would go through Congress, get a disapproving vote, the president would veto it and the debt ceiling would be raised. Politically, this is a great move for the Republican Party, as they could hammer the president about spending cuts after the debt ceiling is raised. His plan was immediately dismissed by the ultra-conservative wing of his party, led by Michelle Bachmann, Jim DeMint and Jason Chaffetz. Chaffetz went as far as to call the plan a "stupid idea."
This was always about politics for McConnell. McConnell was the first to say that the Republican strategy was to make Obama a "one-term president" as far back as November. He is a shrewd politician, and has the experience to back up his strategies. He knows that if the government were to default on its obligations, the party would suffer. This kind of foresight can only come from experience. Chaffetz, Bachmann and DeMint are too extreme and inexperienced.
While I vehemently disagree with McConnell's politics, and his intentions, the idea of raising the debt ceiling and divorcing it from debt reduction debates is something I can agree with. In my last two blogs, I ranted about the importance of separating deficit reduction from raising the debt ceiling because of its affects on the market.
The effects of a possible default have already proven to be somewhat foreboding. This week, Moody's released a statement saying that they are considering a downgrade to the US's AAA Bond Rating. This statement caused international stock markets to fluctuate, as Asian and European investors became nervous. If the US was to default, interest rates on everything from home mortgages to credit cards would go up, hurting consumers trying to dig themselves out of a recessed economy. But,
Bachmann, Chaffetz and (recently) Palin are willing to put the international market on unstable footing and put a heavy burden on consumers in order to reduce the deficit. In other words, they are being whiny children who will hurt anyone to get their way.
McConnell has proven, directly or indirectly, that this kind of political stance is not pertinent and will only hurt his party in the long run. Politics aside, this is a common sense approach to raising the debt ceiling in the most expedient fashion.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Fear and Paranoia Cut Both Ways
I had a civilized discussion recently with someone who is nearly my political opposite when it comes to energy policy. She make the assertion that radical environmentalists on the left had been using fear in order to pass policies that are destructive to business and slow the economic recovery. To me, it sounded like boilerplate language from an American Enterprise Institute or Heritage Foundation press release.
Here is the problem with that assertion (beyond the fact that it is completely wrong): It cuts both ways.
The major argument that has been used for many-a-years as a response to regulations or safeguards put through by the administration has been that it is a "job killer" and that it will stymie our recovery or even put us into a double dip. The same people who make that argument say that environmentalists and bureaucrats are using fear (climate change mostly) as a way to push through these regulations. I hope you see the obvious imbalance in their arguments. While they criticize the use of fear, they liberally use the same tactic in a more hyperbolic and fallacious way to defeat such regulation. Every regulation, whether it is used to prevent another bank bailout, create safety standards for coal miners, oversee offshore drilling rigs or safeguard the health of communities near coal ash sites, has been met with the same old adage: it will kill jobs.
When there is a blanket and generalized negative response to any regulation, it acts to destroy a lot of the common-sense policies that safeguard our environment and health from the mistakes of the most immediate past. For Example:
In 2010, 29 miners died in the Upper Big Branch (UBB) mining disaster in WV and 11 drill workers died in the BP Offshore Drilling spill, which also leaked 200 million gallons of crude into the Gulf of Mexico. Democrats in Congress tried to pass legislation that would reign in on unsafe mining conditions (like the ones at UBB) and the administration put a hold on offshore drilling until an investigation found out the source of the explosion on the BP platform. Mine safety legislation stalled and the administration is still taking political heat for putting a moratorium on offshore drilling. This result occurred after each policy was politically tainted by the paranoid thought that minimal safeguards for mine and drilling workers would lead to massive layoffs, a slowed economy and a further dependence on foreign oil. These ramblings turned public health, common sense regulations into a political poison pill.
Recently, Oklahoma Senator (flat-earther/knuckle-dragger) James Inhofe blocked the nomination of John Bryson for Secretary of Commerce. Bryson, a highly qualified businessman and former head of Edison International, is a perfect nomination for Obama. He plans to double the administrations target on exports by 2015, which is a lofty, admirable and right-minded task for a recovering economy. But, Inhofe blocked his nomination, saying that his policies will hurt the economy of Oklahoma and the country, at large. His justification? Bryson was the founder of the Natural Resources Defense Council in the 1970s, so he must be a radical environmentalists who is hell-bent on destroying the economy. But, by holding up his nomination, he stands in the way of the ratification of treaties with Brazil and South Korea, which is another sticking point that is causing some of his colleagues to hold up other Administration nominations.
This vicious cycle, fueled by paranoia and fear over a flagging economy might become self-fulfilling. And if the holding up of nominations and the lack of oversight into fossil fuel extraction causes economic and human tragedies, you can bet the only target of rhetorical attack will be the administration.
Here is the problem with that assertion (beyond the fact that it is completely wrong): It cuts both ways.
The major argument that has been used for many-a-years as a response to regulations or safeguards put through by the administration has been that it is a "job killer" and that it will stymie our recovery or even put us into a double dip. The same people who make that argument say that environmentalists and bureaucrats are using fear (climate change mostly) as a way to push through these regulations. I hope you see the obvious imbalance in their arguments. While they criticize the use of fear, they liberally use the same tactic in a more hyperbolic and fallacious way to defeat such regulation. Every regulation, whether it is used to prevent another bank bailout, create safety standards for coal miners, oversee offshore drilling rigs or safeguard the health of communities near coal ash sites, has been met with the same old adage: it will kill jobs.
When there is a blanket and generalized negative response to any regulation, it acts to destroy a lot of the common-sense policies that safeguard our environment and health from the mistakes of the most immediate past. For Example:
In 2010, 29 miners died in the Upper Big Branch (UBB) mining disaster in WV and 11 drill workers died in the BP Offshore Drilling spill, which also leaked 200 million gallons of crude into the Gulf of Mexico. Democrats in Congress tried to pass legislation that would reign in on unsafe mining conditions (like the ones at UBB) and the administration put a hold on offshore drilling until an investigation found out the source of the explosion on the BP platform. Mine safety legislation stalled and the administration is still taking political heat for putting a moratorium on offshore drilling. This result occurred after each policy was politically tainted by the paranoid thought that minimal safeguards for mine and drilling workers would lead to massive layoffs, a slowed economy and a further dependence on foreign oil. These ramblings turned public health, common sense regulations into a political poison pill.
Recently, Oklahoma Senator (flat-earther/knuckle-dragger) James Inhofe blocked the nomination of John Bryson for Secretary of Commerce. Bryson, a highly qualified businessman and former head of Edison International, is a perfect nomination for Obama. He plans to double the administrations target on exports by 2015, which is a lofty, admirable and right-minded task for a recovering economy. But, Inhofe blocked his nomination, saying that his policies will hurt the economy of Oklahoma and the country, at large. His justification? Bryson was the founder of the Natural Resources Defense Council in the 1970s, so he must be a radical environmentalists who is hell-bent on destroying the economy. But, by holding up his nomination, he stands in the way of the ratification of treaties with Brazil and South Korea, which is another sticking point that is causing some of his colleagues to hold up other Administration nominations.
This vicious cycle, fueled by paranoia and fear over a flagging economy might become self-fulfilling. And if the holding up of nominations and the lack of oversight into fossil fuel extraction causes economic and human tragedies, you can bet the only target of rhetorical attack will be the administration.
Monday, July 11, 2011
John Boehner: Speaker of the House of Stubborn Hypocrisy
Not raising the debt ceiling will have catastrophic effects on the market.
Let me reiterate.
NOT RAISING THE DEBT CEILING WILL HAVE CATASTROPHIC EFFECTS ON THE MARKET.
Good.
Before we stave off the worst effects of having the most powerful nation in the world default on its financial obligations, a vote must pass the conservative-led House of Representatives, led by the affable John Boehner. The House has become so ideologically-driven that it now has the honor of being the "stubborn ass" of Congress. This title was formerly given to the Senate. The title changed hands after deficit hawks (Coburn, et al) showed that they are willing to consider "revenues" as a way to reduce the deficit over time.
Extreme conservatives, taking the House hostage, completely fail to see the forest for the trees. Political wrangling and negotiation over how to reduce the deficit should not play a role in raising the debt ceiling. Unfortunately, Speaker of the House Boehner (Chief Stubborn Ass) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (Co-Lead Stubborn Ass) have connected deficit reduction with increasing the debt ceiling. Because I assume Cantor and Boehner are not completely ignorant (I have my doubts), I can only conclude that they have learned from their ultra-conservative colleagues about the value of brinksmanship.
Not only have Boehner and Cantor proved that the conservative perspective is completely myopic, but they have also vastly skewed the political playing field to the right, making any compromise inherently partisan. In other words, they have gotten used to Obama's compromises so much that the ideological center is on the political right. This was emphasized by Boehner's recent remarks going into deficit discussions. He said that a "balanced approach" that "most Americans want" is where the President and the left get a debt ceiling vote and the right gets massive program cuts without tax reform or raising "revenues."
They will not consider raising revenues because it is a job-killing move and will slow our recovery. The problem with that language is that it is a boilerplate excuse used by the Republican party to kill anything they don't like. I distinctly remember hearing "job-killing" about the healthcare bill, the financial reform bill, regulation of independent contractors in Iraq/Afghanistan, the energy bill, the transportation bill and a plethora of others.
Even worse is the hypocrisy inherent in their ideological-rigidity. They will not consider any form of revenues or tax reform because it might translate to some sort of higher cost to businesses over time (emphasis is on "maybe" as the tax code hasn't really been reformed). This will lead to higher unemployment because businesses will not be willing to hire more workers. But, they are more than willing to cut the budgets of many government agencies who employ people and offer guidance and financial support for the same businesses. This means less taxes to the government coffers, higher deficits, higher unemployment (which is not offset by the private sector) and less support for businesses. They fail to see how cutting indiscriminately has the potential to increase the deficit and unemployment. Unfortunately, when this does occur, their response to is blame the president and/or the stimulus.
This is not a compromise. This is political brinksmanship. While the president should be used to this kind of horse trading, he should not tolerate it when the health of the market is at stake.
Let me reiterate.
NOT RAISING THE DEBT CEILING WILL HAVE CATASTROPHIC EFFECTS ON THE MARKET.
Good.
Before we stave off the worst effects of having the most powerful nation in the world default on its financial obligations, a vote must pass the conservative-led House of Representatives, led by the affable John Boehner. The House has become so ideologically-driven that it now has the honor of being the "stubborn ass" of Congress. This title was formerly given to the Senate. The title changed hands after deficit hawks (Coburn, et al) showed that they are willing to consider "revenues" as a way to reduce the deficit over time.
Extreme conservatives, taking the House hostage, completely fail to see the forest for the trees. Political wrangling and negotiation over how to reduce the deficit should not play a role in raising the debt ceiling. Unfortunately, Speaker of the House Boehner (Chief Stubborn Ass) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (Co-Lead Stubborn Ass) have connected deficit reduction with increasing the debt ceiling. Because I assume Cantor and Boehner are not completely ignorant (I have my doubts), I can only conclude that they have learned from their ultra-conservative colleagues about the value of brinksmanship.
Not only have Boehner and Cantor proved that the conservative perspective is completely myopic, but they have also vastly skewed the political playing field to the right, making any compromise inherently partisan. In other words, they have gotten used to Obama's compromises so much that the ideological center is on the political right. This was emphasized by Boehner's recent remarks going into deficit discussions. He said that a "balanced approach" that "most Americans want" is where the President and the left get a debt ceiling vote and the right gets massive program cuts without tax reform or raising "revenues."
They will not consider raising revenues because it is a job-killing move and will slow our recovery. The problem with that language is that it is a boilerplate excuse used by the Republican party to kill anything they don't like. I distinctly remember hearing "job-killing" about the healthcare bill, the financial reform bill, regulation of independent contractors in Iraq/Afghanistan, the energy bill, the transportation bill and a plethora of others.
Even worse is the hypocrisy inherent in their ideological-rigidity. They will not consider any form of revenues or tax reform because it might translate to some sort of higher cost to businesses over time (emphasis is on "maybe" as the tax code hasn't really been reformed). This will lead to higher unemployment because businesses will not be willing to hire more workers. But, they are more than willing to cut the budgets of many government agencies who employ people and offer guidance and financial support for the same businesses. This means less taxes to the government coffers, higher deficits, higher unemployment (which is not offset by the private sector) and less support for businesses. They fail to see how cutting indiscriminately has the potential to increase the deficit and unemployment. Unfortunately, when this does occur, their response to is blame the president and/or the stimulus.
This is not a compromise. This is political brinksmanship. While the president should be used to this kind of horse trading, he should not tolerate it when the health of the market is at stake.
Friday, July 8, 2011
Republicans Don't Care About the Unemployed
It seems as if Republicans have found their political niche. Even with a majority in the House, they have continued to be on offense when it comes to the economy and the debt. If the President or the Democratic caucus puts a proposal on the table, Republicans reject it, amend it out of existence or balk until they like what they see.
Case and Point: The Debt Ceiling - The only news about the debt ceiling is when some Republican hints at agreeing to some sort of veiled language about "revenues" or "tax code reform" as a part of a compromise.
Compromise?!?!
Really?!?!
Your idea of compromise is $2 trillion in gut wrenching cuts with a little talk of "tax code reform?" I guess a bipartisan group of former lawmakers who recommended a balance between cuts and taxes really doesn't know what they're talking about. Of course, they have been through this before. But, what do they know.
The unemployment numbers released for June were pretty depressing. In June, unemployment rose to 9.2%, and the economy added a dismal 18,000 jobs. For comparison, to keep unemployment steady, we needed to add 125,000-150,000 jobs. This is of course not the real unemployment number, as it does not take into account those who have stopped looking for jobs and those who have fallen out of the job market because of the length of their unemployment.
When I heard the report on NPR, I had a sinking suspicion that Republicans would pounce on it. Michelle Bachmann, TEA-party ignoramus extraordinaire, said it was a sad day for American and that it proved that the Obama Stimulus did not work. Boehner, Canter and Romney all followed her by lambasting the stimulus bill.
The Stimulus Bill passed, the Healthcare Bill passed, the Financial Overhaul bill passed...over a year ago. Get over it! I bet its great to whine about losing when you can watch the economy shed jobs instead of doing anything about it. Isn't it fun to live in a glass house?
This comes from the same party that voted against infrastructure projects for laid off construction workers and extensions for the unemployed. You must have had on some blinders when economists pointed to 1 job for every 6 qualified applicants. No. The unemployed are just lazy. That must be it.
But, if we cut spending, then the private sector will have a great environment for hiring and unemployment will go down, right? Not so much. The private sector has added jobs. But, for the last 24 months straight, the shedding of jobs from the public sector have been the main source of unemployment. When you criticize the president for doing exactly what you wanted him to do (cut government spending, which lead to laying off government workers), then it means you really have done nothing.
When it comes to current economic policy regarding the unemployed, Republicans are yelling in an echo chamber. They have isolated themselves. Anti-tax ideology doesn't mean diddly to those who are struggling to feed their family. If we are to tackle the unemployment issue, there must be a separation of the debt debate from the jobs issue. House Republicans are holding the economic recovery hostage by not allowing the debt ceiling to be raised. Has it become so toxic in Washington that a party has to blackmail, hold up and impede progress in order to get what it wants?
It seems as if the jobs issue, while popping up once per month when new numbers come in, has become secondary to the isolated ideological rants of children.
Case and Point: The Debt Ceiling - The only news about the debt ceiling is when some Republican hints at agreeing to some sort of veiled language about "revenues" or "tax code reform" as a part of a compromise.
Compromise?!?!
Really?!?!
Your idea of compromise is $2 trillion in gut wrenching cuts with a little talk of "tax code reform?" I guess a bipartisan group of former lawmakers who recommended a balance between cuts and taxes really doesn't know what they're talking about. Of course, they have been through this before. But, what do they know.
The unemployment numbers released for June were pretty depressing. In June, unemployment rose to 9.2%, and the economy added a dismal 18,000 jobs. For comparison, to keep unemployment steady, we needed to add 125,000-150,000 jobs. This is of course not the real unemployment number, as it does not take into account those who have stopped looking for jobs and those who have fallen out of the job market because of the length of their unemployment.
When I heard the report on NPR, I had a sinking suspicion that Republicans would pounce on it. Michelle Bachmann, TEA-party ignoramus extraordinaire, said it was a sad day for American and that it proved that the Obama Stimulus did not work. Boehner, Canter and Romney all followed her by lambasting the stimulus bill.
The Stimulus Bill passed, the Healthcare Bill passed, the Financial Overhaul bill passed...over a year ago. Get over it! I bet its great to whine about losing when you can watch the economy shed jobs instead of doing anything about it. Isn't it fun to live in a glass house?
This comes from the same party that voted against infrastructure projects for laid off construction workers and extensions for the unemployed. You must have had on some blinders when economists pointed to 1 job for every 6 qualified applicants. No. The unemployed are just lazy. That must be it.
But, if we cut spending, then the private sector will have a great environment for hiring and unemployment will go down, right? Not so much. The private sector has added jobs. But, for the last 24 months straight, the shedding of jobs from the public sector have been the main source of unemployment. When you criticize the president for doing exactly what you wanted him to do (cut government spending, which lead to laying off government workers), then it means you really have done nothing.
When it comes to current economic policy regarding the unemployed, Republicans are yelling in an echo chamber. They have isolated themselves. Anti-tax ideology doesn't mean diddly to those who are struggling to feed their family. If we are to tackle the unemployment issue, there must be a separation of the debt debate from the jobs issue. House Republicans are holding the economic recovery hostage by not allowing the debt ceiling to be raised. Has it become so toxic in Washington that a party has to blackmail, hold up and impede progress in order to get what it wants?
It seems as if the jobs issue, while popping up once per month when new numbers come in, has become secondary to the isolated ideological rants of children.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)