The Constitution seems to be a major issue in politics these last few weeks.
It seeks that Conservatives all over the political spectrum want to have their cake and eat it too.
You have the 14th Amendment Issue where Conservatives want to strip your Constitutional Right to Birthright Citizenship.
You have Cordoba House AKA Ground Zero "Mosque." Despite this being nothing more than a local zoning issue, it's turning into a daily Republican talking point, but instead of citing your First Amendment Right to freedom of religion, GOP opposition to Cordoba House is becoming their platform to the November Midterm Elections.
Most recently we have Dr. Laura. You know, my disdain or Dr. Laura goes back more than a decade and I won't spend much time going over why she is Dr. Hate.
Her recent debacle surrounds her her use of the "N" word 11 times on a recent episode of her radio show.
Granted, Dr. Laura wasn't inciting hate for once, necessarily. Dr. Laura is simply guilty of insensitivity to the use of the "N" word and bad taste.
This is very shades of the Don Imus"nappy headed hoes" comment a few years ago.
The point of this post of mine isn't about what bad judgment Dr. Laura used on her show, otherwise I'd be typing all night long. The point is how Dr. Laura keeps insinuating that her First Amendment Rights have been obstructed. She's even ending her show so she can "get her First Amendment Rights back."
What's more is, she's got company, albeit - not the best kind. Half-term Governor Sarah Palin is coming to the rescue, tweeting similar gibberish around how the "lamestream media" has trampled Dr. Laura's First Amendment Rights.
I'd just like to ask these ladies, just how Dr. Laura's rights were somehow violated or obstructed? Dr. Laura said the "N" word 11 times on her show. The show aired. Million of people listened. No Government agency is going after Dr. Laura trying to haul her off to jail or slap her with a huge fine. Her show hasn't been sanctioned by any Government. She had the freedom to say it, and still has the freedom to say it again.
There is no protection in the First Amendment that somehow exempts you from the court of public opinion. Just as Dr. Laura is free to, and still is free to use the "N" word in public or in private, we the people are free to denounce such hate speech and expose it. We the people are free to pressure advertisers to stop bankrolling her show and encourage people to denounce her.
Surely someone like Sarah Palin should understand that, as she aspires to be President one day. Her first duty to the country as President is to defend the Constitution, not to defend disgraced public people from tanking popularity.
You know, Sarah wants President Obama to denounce the planning of the New York Mosque but yet she has yet to denounce Dr. Laura's use of such an offensive word, which just goes to show you the xenophobic attitude of Sarah and her Tea Party.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich thinks that as long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia then there shouldn't be a place for Muslims to worship in Manhattan. Hmmm......so is he saying that we should strive to be more like Saudi Arabia???
Bottom line.....you can't cry about the first amendment not protecting you from public opinion, and you can't deny Muslims their First Amendment Right to a place to worship.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Monday, August 16, 2010
New York "Mosque"
Much is being discussed around the "politics" of the New York Mosque. I find a lot of the rhetoric disgusting and totally UN-American.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
This is directly from the First Amendment of the United States. A quote I heard a few days ago that I found extremely appropriate was, "The entire point of the United States is so that a group of Progressive Muslim es can build a place of worship anywhere they feel like."
One of the most important things to remember is that the institution of Islam did not attack us on September 11. A group of radicals from Saudi Arabia did. Just like the institution of Christianity did not bomb abortion clinics or kill abortion doctors. Radical religious nut cases did. So under the right winger logic, should we also ban building churches next to abortion clinics? We can't be blaming entire groups of people for the actions of their fringe groups.
We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with al-Quaida. Of course, if al-Queida wanted to build a recruiting center next to Ground Zero, legally this could never happen and of course the New York Planning Community would never approve something so ridiculous.
When we stop being American, stop celebrating the very fabric of what makes America, America - then indeed the terrorists do win. Building this center at Ground Zero demonstrates to the world how great this country is, that we are better than hate. We live in a country where we celebrate diversity and religious tolerance. The Terrorists wanted this war between the religions. Continuing this xenophobic rhetoric and politics is exactly what they wanted.
Let's also put this into perspective. The New York "Mosque" isn't even a "Mosque." It is an Islamic Community Center, being planned by a group of Progressive Muslims who want to build a bridge and reject Extremism.
The Islamic Center, which is called Cordoba House, was unanimously approved by the New York Planning Committe and is supported by Mayor Bloomgerg.
The Right Wingers claim to be about small government and free market principles. If they truely believe in this, then they should simply but out of this altogether and let the "private sector" self-regulate. If people truely don't support Cordoba House, then it will eventually close down. This is not a national issue. This should not be used as a political spin for Midterm Elections.
Cordoba House isn't even at Ground Zero. It is several blocks away - and anyone that knows NYC knows that a NYC block is pretty big. So then this also brings up another question entirely. How close is too close? If Cordoba House is just "to close" then what exactly would be an appropriate distance for Muslims to worship at?
There is another actual Mosque four blocks away from Ground Zero that has existed peaceully for years - shall we close that one down too?
The Tea Party needs to figure out their message. They don't believe in the Civil Rights Act of '64. They believe that the "Free Market" should decide whether or not it's appropriate for a Restaurant owner to decide if they want to serve black people or not, but at the same time, they don't believe in the Free Market deciding whether or not Muslims should enjoy their First Amendment privelages of Freedom of Religion.
Lastly, and most importantly, this is an issue for New York City, so how bout we all shut up about this already and let the people of New York decide for themselves whether or not this land dispute should go through. Oh wait, they already did.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
This is directly from the First Amendment of the United States. A quote I heard a few days ago that I found extremely appropriate was, "The entire point of the United States is so that a group of Progressive Muslim es can build a place of worship anywhere they feel like."
One of the most important things to remember is that the institution of Islam did not attack us on September 11. A group of radicals from Saudi Arabia did. Just like the institution of Christianity did not bomb abortion clinics or kill abortion doctors. Radical religious nut cases did. So under the right winger logic, should we also ban building churches next to abortion clinics? We can't be blaming entire groups of people for the actions of their fringe groups.
We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with al-Quaida. Of course, if al-Queida wanted to build a recruiting center next to Ground Zero, legally this could never happen and of course the New York Planning Community would never approve something so ridiculous.
When we stop being American, stop celebrating the very fabric of what makes America, America - then indeed the terrorists do win. Building this center at Ground Zero demonstrates to the world how great this country is, that we are better than hate. We live in a country where we celebrate diversity and religious tolerance. The Terrorists wanted this war between the religions. Continuing this xenophobic rhetoric and politics is exactly what they wanted.
Let's also put this into perspective. The New York "Mosque" isn't even a "Mosque." It is an Islamic Community Center, being planned by a group of Progressive Muslims who want to build a bridge and reject Extremism.
The Islamic Center, which is called Cordoba House, was unanimously approved by the New York Planning Committe and is supported by Mayor Bloomgerg.
The Right Wingers claim to be about small government and free market principles. If they truely believe in this, then they should simply but out of this altogether and let the "private sector" self-regulate. If people truely don't support Cordoba House, then it will eventually close down. This is not a national issue. This should not be used as a political spin for Midterm Elections.
Cordoba House isn't even at Ground Zero. It is several blocks away - and anyone that knows NYC knows that a NYC block is pretty big. So then this also brings up another question entirely. How close is too close? If Cordoba House is just "to close" then what exactly would be an appropriate distance for Muslims to worship at?
There is another actual Mosque four blocks away from Ground Zero that has existed peaceully for years - shall we close that one down too?
The Tea Party needs to figure out their message. They don't believe in the Civil Rights Act of '64. They believe that the "Free Market" should decide whether or not it's appropriate for a Restaurant owner to decide if they want to serve black people or not, but at the same time, they don't believe in the Free Market deciding whether or not Muslims should enjoy their First Amendment privelages of Freedom of Religion.
Lastly, and most importantly, this is an issue for New York City, so how bout we all shut up about this already and let the people of New York decide for themselves whether or not this land dispute should go through. Oh wait, they already did.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Get your Government hands off of my Constitution!
So it seems that this notion of repealing the 14th Amendment from the United States Constitution is simply not going away anytime soon. Just a few weeks ago, this whole idea was coming from the obcure fringe ultra right wingnuts. I thought that this idea was so ridiculous I discounted it at first. Now we are hearing from this almost daily on the news, in the blogosphere and at town halls across the country.
Even more troubling, is that according to a recent poll, 49% of Americans support repealing birthright citizenship which is the cornerstone of the 14th Amendment.
I don't think people realize the ramifications of what that could mean to the nation if such a plot were ever to come to fruition. I don't think people understand that when the Republican Party of the 19th century first enacted the 14th Amendment, it was considered vital for equality, and it is the mechanism that allows the Federal Government to enforce the Bill of Rights.
As I stated in my previous post, the framers of the 14th Amendment were wise to incorporate Birthright citizenship into the constitution. It was and still imperative that all people born in this country enjoy the life,liberty and pursuit of hapiness guarenteed under the constitution regardless of any type of discrimination of lack of political popularity. Sometimes things in our Constitution are not politically popular - like Miranda Rights, Freedom of Religion (in the New York mosque incident.) and now Birthright Citizenship. However, politically popular or not, they are still right and just and have navigated our country for decades. That is part of our "American Exceptionalism" that the right always accuses the left of not believing in. And it's even more interesting that it is the "right" that always claims to be strict constitutionalists, but in this political environment, they seem to be going after Amendment after Amendent they wish to repeal.
I know that the arguement right now isn't over black people with regards to the 14th Amendment discussion. But this was the Amendments main intent and it has implications that could affect all of us. It was important and still is important that politicts and popular opinion are kept out of citizenship issues. Just 10 years before the 14th Amendment was enacted, it was declared that black people could never be citizens. And that was socially and politically popular then and maybe one day for another group of minorities. Granting automatic citizenship at birth keeps the politics out of the equation. This is smart policy.
What would happen, if Birthright Citizenship was no longer your Birthright?
We don't know what the political landscape will look like in the future. And without Birthright Citizenship, who will decide who is a citizen and who is not?
What beaurocracy or litmus test might be required to become a citizen?
What happens if we stop granting citizenship to people simply because they are Muslim, or have Middle-Eastern heritage? What would happen if children of gay parents were no longer citizens? Don't think that's possible? Well who knows, like I said we don't know what popular opinion will look like in the future and this is why we have a Constitution, to ensure that America stays America.
And how retroactive would this new policy be? Eventually almost all of us have immigration in the family. What if your Grandmother was never naturalized? All of a sudden you citizenship is revoked. Can you imagine? Your family has been here for a century and you've lived your entire life as an American until boom - your 40 and livingg in the country ileagally.
How, "to the letter" would we follow this vague policy? What happens if the mother was legal and father was not legal? You really going to snatch a kid from a mother and ship it off to Mexico? This is madness!
Furthermore, children of "ilegals" can't even begin helping their parents become citizens until they're 21 and even at that point it would still take a few years.
How bout we leave the children out of this one? Why don't we go after the EMPLOYERS. That is why they're here after all. Why not come up with a National ID Card, mandate e-Verify or some other type of mechanism toward ilegal employment?
I think that the last thing that this country needs to do is just create more ilegals in this country, which is precisly what would happen if Birthright Citizenship were enacted. Consider this; a study just released is that 8% of all babies born in the US have undocumented parents. That's an added 300,000 ilegal citizens every year, including the 5 million childredn here already that were born by undocumented parents. We already have an ilegal immigration problem, adding millions more to our broken system isn't going to help anybody.
Leave the kids out of it.
The 14th Amendment has served this country well for over a century and stripping it down is simply not the answer to ilegal immigration in any sense of the word. This would do far much more harm than good.
Even more troubling, is that according to a recent poll, 49% of Americans support repealing birthright citizenship which is the cornerstone of the 14th Amendment.
I don't think people realize the ramifications of what that could mean to the nation if such a plot were ever to come to fruition. I don't think people understand that when the Republican Party of the 19th century first enacted the 14th Amendment, it was considered vital for equality, and it is the mechanism that allows the Federal Government to enforce the Bill of Rights.
As I stated in my previous post, the framers of the 14th Amendment were wise to incorporate Birthright citizenship into the constitution. It was and still imperative that all people born in this country enjoy the life,liberty and pursuit of hapiness guarenteed under the constitution regardless of any type of discrimination of lack of political popularity. Sometimes things in our Constitution are not politically popular - like Miranda Rights, Freedom of Religion (in the New York mosque incident.) and now Birthright Citizenship. However, politically popular or not, they are still right and just and have navigated our country for decades. That is part of our "American Exceptionalism" that the right always accuses the left of not believing in. And it's even more interesting that it is the "right" that always claims to be strict constitutionalists, but in this political environment, they seem to be going after Amendment after Amendent they wish to repeal.
I know that the arguement right now isn't over black people with regards to the 14th Amendment discussion. But this was the Amendments main intent and it has implications that could affect all of us. It was important and still is important that politicts and popular opinion are kept out of citizenship issues. Just 10 years before the 14th Amendment was enacted, it was declared that black people could never be citizens. And that was socially and politically popular then and maybe one day for another group of minorities. Granting automatic citizenship at birth keeps the politics out of the equation. This is smart policy.
What would happen, if Birthright Citizenship was no longer your Birthright?
We don't know what the political landscape will look like in the future. And without Birthright Citizenship, who will decide who is a citizen and who is not?
What beaurocracy or litmus test might be required to become a citizen?
What happens if we stop granting citizenship to people simply because they are Muslim, or have Middle-Eastern heritage? What would happen if children of gay parents were no longer citizens? Don't think that's possible? Well who knows, like I said we don't know what popular opinion will look like in the future and this is why we have a Constitution, to ensure that America stays America.
And how retroactive would this new policy be? Eventually almost all of us have immigration in the family. What if your Grandmother was never naturalized? All of a sudden you citizenship is revoked. Can you imagine? Your family has been here for a century and you've lived your entire life as an American until boom - your 40 and livingg in the country ileagally.
How, "to the letter" would we follow this vague policy? What happens if the mother was legal and father was not legal? You really going to snatch a kid from a mother and ship it off to Mexico? This is madness!
Furthermore, children of "ilegals" can't even begin helping their parents become citizens until they're 21 and even at that point it would still take a few years.
How bout we leave the children out of this one? Why don't we go after the EMPLOYERS. That is why they're here after all. Why not come up with a National ID Card, mandate e-Verify or some other type of mechanism toward ilegal employment?
I think that the last thing that this country needs to do is just create more ilegals in this country, which is precisly what would happen if Birthright Citizenship were enacted. Consider this; a study just released is that 8% of all babies born in the US have undocumented parents. That's an added 300,000 ilegal citizens every year, including the 5 million childredn here already that were born by undocumented parents. We already have an ilegal immigration problem, adding millions more to our broken system isn't going to help anybody.
Leave the kids out of it.
The 14th Amendment has served this country well for over a century and stripping it down is simply not the answer to ilegal immigration in any sense of the word. This would do far much more harm than good.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Majority Tyranny , Equal Protection & taking on the "Fanatic Fifth."
When the California Supreme Court originally decided that a ban on Same Sex Marriage was unconstitutional, I was of course overjoyed. But something about the ruling today in San Francisco is even sweeter. I guess it's true when they say you don't really appreciate something until it's taken away from you. Enjoying equality for those few months in '08 was great. But then feeling the sting of Prop 8 for the last two years, the setbacks, the rallies, the lobbying, and now once again feeling somewhat less of a second class citizen than I did yesterday.
What's even more incredible, this time around it wasn't a California Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, it was a Federal judge ruling on the Federal Constitution. The lawyers arguing against Prop 8 - two high profile attorneys who once argued in the Federal Supreme Court (Bush v. Gore) - one, a liberal democrat, and one a conservative republican, decided to take this case on together. Decided to take this case all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States because they knew that this was a matter of Civil Rights. In their own words today, "it's time to stop thinking about equality as a liberal or conservative matter." While the fight is far from over, today was a good day for gays and lesbians and a good day for the country.
We should be proud to live in a country that fights for the right of minorities. We should be proud to live in a country that fights against Majority Tyranny. 51% of the country shouldn't have the right to decide the equal or civil rights of 49% of the country. This is a philosophy that Republicans used to stand for. Well, in the case of the Filibuster, I guess that they still do.
All major pieces of legislation or court case rulings protecting minorities have been at the time, not favorable in the majority public opinion. Certainly freeing the slaves wasn't exactly popular at the time it was done, woman's rights, voter rights, housing rights, civil rights, Brown v. Board of Education, etc. These protected classes never would have won their liberties at the ballot box and gays and lesbians certainly shouldn't have to either.
It's very interesting that at the same time that this ruling happened, we are also starting to see major conversation within political parties about the 14th Amendment.
Why am i writing about this in a Gay Marriage post? I think that the judges ruling today once again solidifies the importance of a system that protects minority rights from public opinion and it is a good day for our country, not just gays and lesbians.
The Right Wing is talking seriously about taking down the 14th Amendment in an effort to combat illegal immigration. Of course they could just go after employers - after all, that's what is bringing them here - but no. They have something far more sinister planned.
You see, the 14th Amendment is among other things, the entire basis for a "birthright citizenship." Meaning, if you are born in the United States, you are an American Citizen, who enjoys all the rights and civil liberties that are part of that.
The framers of the 14th Amendment were wise in incorporating the Birthright Citizenship language in the Constitution. It was only 10 years earlier in the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision that stated blacks could not be American Citizens. This was a very popular, common held belief in the country during this time. Even though it was popular opinion, it was still wrong. Just like a ban on gay marriage is wrong.
They knew that public opinion and majority political parties change from time to time and no one should have to pander to a majority opinion as to whether or not they should be citizens in this country. It's Due Process clause was the mechanism that made the Bill of Rights applicable to the States and it's Equal Protection clause was the basis for most of Brown v. Board of Education.
The 14th Amendment is paramount to this country and our civil rights. The Right Wingers - seemingly always on the wrong side of social progress and equal rights want to take down the Amendment and it's madness.
Even Lou freaking Dobbs is way opposed to this nonsense. Lou Dobbs has basically been the leader of the Illegal Immigration Discussion in America for decades. And he has spoken out against this Tea Bag craziness. Right Wingers used to be Constitutionalists and now they are being held hostage by their fringe group.
We seem to be living in very exciting times in some regards; the election of the first African American President, the first Female Speaker of the House, a National Healthcare System and on the cusp of ending DODT. And then we have the "Fanatic Fifth." The some 20% of this country who would if they could - model the United States after the Republic of Iran, but instead of a State Religion of Islam, it'd be Christian Tyranny.
The point of this rather erratic post lacking much of a cohesive message is basically, Minority Rights must be protected and not put up for a vote against the current majority party or majority opinion. That is what is so great about this country. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," for ALL Americans.
What's even more incredible, this time around it wasn't a California Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, it was a Federal judge ruling on the Federal Constitution. The lawyers arguing against Prop 8 - two high profile attorneys who once argued in the Federal Supreme Court (Bush v. Gore) - one, a liberal democrat, and one a conservative republican, decided to take this case on together. Decided to take this case all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States because they knew that this was a matter of Civil Rights. In their own words today, "it's time to stop thinking about equality as a liberal or conservative matter." While the fight is far from over, today was a good day for gays and lesbians and a good day for the country.
We should be proud to live in a country that fights for the right of minorities. We should be proud to live in a country that fights against Majority Tyranny. 51% of the country shouldn't have the right to decide the equal or civil rights of 49% of the country. This is a philosophy that Republicans used to stand for. Well, in the case of the Filibuster, I guess that they still do.
All major pieces of legislation or court case rulings protecting minorities have been at the time, not favorable in the majority public opinion. Certainly freeing the slaves wasn't exactly popular at the time it was done, woman's rights, voter rights, housing rights, civil rights, Brown v. Board of Education, etc. These protected classes never would have won their liberties at the ballot box and gays and lesbians certainly shouldn't have to either.
It's very interesting that at the same time that this ruling happened, we are also starting to see major conversation within political parties about the 14th Amendment.
Why am i writing about this in a Gay Marriage post? I think that the judges ruling today once again solidifies the importance of a system that protects minority rights from public opinion and it is a good day for our country, not just gays and lesbians.
The Right Wing is talking seriously about taking down the 14th Amendment in an effort to combat illegal immigration. Of course they could just go after employers - after all, that's what is bringing them here - but no. They have something far more sinister planned.
You see, the 14th Amendment is among other things, the entire basis for a "birthright citizenship." Meaning, if you are born in the United States, you are an American Citizen, who enjoys all the rights and civil liberties that are part of that.
The framers of the 14th Amendment were wise in incorporating the Birthright Citizenship language in the Constitution. It was only 10 years earlier in the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision that stated blacks could not be American Citizens. This was a very popular, common held belief in the country during this time. Even though it was popular opinion, it was still wrong. Just like a ban on gay marriage is wrong.
They knew that public opinion and majority political parties change from time to time and no one should have to pander to a majority opinion as to whether or not they should be citizens in this country. It's Due Process clause was the mechanism that made the Bill of Rights applicable to the States and it's Equal Protection clause was the basis for most of Brown v. Board of Education.
The 14th Amendment is paramount to this country and our civil rights. The Right Wingers - seemingly always on the wrong side of social progress and equal rights want to take down the Amendment and it's madness.
Even Lou freaking Dobbs is way opposed to this nonsense. Lou Dobbs has basically been the leader of the Illegal Immigration Discussion in America for decades. And he has spoken out against this Tea Bag craziness. Right Wingers used to be Constitutionalists and now they are being held hostage by their fringe group.
We seem to be living in very exciting times in some regards; the election of the first African American President, the first Female Speaker of the House, a National Healthcare System and on the cusp of ending DODT. And then we have the "Fanatic Fifth." The some 20% of this country who would if they could - model the United States after the Republic of Iran, but instead of a State Religion of Islam, it'd be Christian Tyranny.
The point of this rather erratic post lacking much of a cohesive message is basically, Minority Rights must be protected and not put up for a vote against the current majority party or majority opinion. That is what is so great about this country. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," for ALL Americans.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Ending Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthiest 2% of Americans
Much is being said right now on both sides of the political spectrum with regards to the impending expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts, first enacted through Budget Reconciliation in 2001, and again in 2003.
Republicans, tride & true to their ideology of deficit financed tax cuts, are foaming at the mouth over the prospect of the wealthiest 2% of Americans having a tax increase. Many of the same talking points used in the 90's are being recycled in Cable News. It's the, "largest tax increase in history." It will "destroy the economic recovery" and "kill jobs."
From the sound of it, just listening the the right wing side of things, you'd think that Obama was hijaking the country and personally robbing the piggy banks of hard working Americans and leaving them bread crumbs to survive on. Maybe it's time to get real about tax policy. Unfortunately, by doing so - you'll discover that it's really just protecting the affluent.
Yes, if the Bush Tax Cuts are to expire - under the Obama plan, the marginal tax rate for people earning more than $250k will increase.
They will increase by a whopping.......drumbroll please........3.6%!
Wait, that's it? 3%? The wealthiest 2% of Americans are going to have to cough up an extra 3%. yes. That's correct. When I told a few of my "Conservative" friends that's all it was they thought I was making it up. Google it, it's after midnight and I don't feel like adding links.
Not to mention, this is the same marginal tax rate under the Clinton Administration, which led to a balanced budget and surplus going toward deficit reduction, and the creation of 23 million jobs. By comparison, the Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy created no job growth during the first two years and during the entire Bush Presidency only managed to squeak out 3 million jobs.
President Obama has already CUT taxes for 95% of Americans. Yes, he CUT taxes for the average joe. Even Joe the "Plumber." This "Tax & Spend Liberal cut taxes for 95% of Americans, re-enacted "Pay Go" and a Discretionary Budget freeze, formed a bi-partisan deficit reduction Congressional Pannel (opposed by Republicans), and has campagned on eliminating all taxes for seniors earning less than $50k / year.
So, in order to give the appearance that the Republicans aren't just doing the bidding of the wealthy, they've come up with this strategy claiming that, Obama's tax increase on the top 2% will hit small business and therefore put millions more people out of work and standing in line at a soup kitchen.
Of course - this couldn't be further from the truth.
First off, less than 1/2 of 1% of all small business actually make $250k. So the arguement the Right is making claiming that this new tax rate will hit "50% of small business" is BS. For a really good breakdown on this issue, read this article by Scholars & Rogues. The average taxable income from small business is around $45,000. So, in effect, under the Obama plan, the average small business would receive a tax REDUCTION. This could potentially lower the failure rate of small business and accordin to this study, actually CREATE 300,000 jobs a year. Not put millions in the street. For more about the fake arguement from the right, read the non-partisan Politifact Artical on the subject. From what I can tell, maybe 2% of small business will see a 3.6% increase in their marginal tax rate. That's also of course if the proprietor of the business is drawing a salary more than $250k. There's a huge difference between personal income tax and corporate tax rates which is another arguement entirely. And with corporate tax rates, there are a billion ways small business can make their taxable bottom line less than $250k while at the same time increasing their businesses book value.
We have to get real about tax rates and fairness in the system. The wealthiest 2% got a massive tax break for the last 10 years and the middle class got the shaft.....again. We simply cannot afford these tax breaks that add trillions to the deficit.
There are two things that Republicans always will deficit finance. Tax breaks for the wealthy, and unecessary wars.
What we need in order to manage through this recovery is increased demand. Middle Class Tax Breaks are much more effective at stimulating the economy than tax breaks for the wealthy. Why? Because the middle class will SPEND that extra money. We are a consumer driven economy that requires DEMAND. The more people spend on cars, clothes, Starbucks, vacations, etc, the more the economy grows and jobs follow.
The wealthiest Americans just stuff that extra money away. Once you start to earn more than a few hundred grand, you simply stop spending your disposable income at the same % of total income the middle class will. And particularly in this economic climate, you certainly don't see corporations using lower tax rates to create jobs. Companies are HOARDING CASH like no one's business.
Let's learn from the Clinton Administration, an administration that had a budget surplus and created the most jobs ever in a single administration. The more jobs we create, the more our treasury benefits. We don't have a spending problem (with the exception of the behemouth Pentagon Budget) we have a revenue problem. We need thos jobs, jobs, jobs!!
Of the 23 million jobs that were created during the Clinton years - 92% came from the private sector. Subtract public sector jobs created under the Bush years and you have zero private sector job creation and massive tax breaks to the wealthiest 2% with nothing to show for it.
We have real, current evidence about what the two opposing tax policies effect on the economy is. And under the Obama plan, the middle class will have an even lower tax base the the Clinton years, which is well overdue. In the last decade, even as the economy grew - the middle class saw their "real" incomes drop by $2,000 / year, while the rich got richer.
Where is the fairness in the system when billionaire Warren Buffet pays an effective tax rate of 15%, and his secretary has to fork out 33% of her paycheck? It's not fair, it doesn't create jobs and it doesn't help the overall economy or balance the budget. It just let's some other rich asshole by another island filled with coke & hookers.
Republicans, tride & true to their ideology of deficit financed tax cuts, are foaming at the mouth over the prospect of the wealthiest 2% of Americans having a tax increase. Many of the same talking points used in the 90's are being recycled in Cable News. It's the, "largest tax increase in history." It will "destroy the economic recovery" and "kill jobs."
From the sound of it, just listening the the right wing side of things, you'd think that Obama was hijaking the country and personally robbing the piggy banks of hard working Americans and leaving them bread crumbs to survive on. Maybe it's time to get real about tax policy. Unfortunately, by doing so - you'll discover that it's really just protecting the affluent.
Yes, if the Bush Tax Cuts are to expire - under the Obama plan, the marginal tax rate for people earning more than $250k will increase.
They will increase by a whopping.......drumbroll please........3.6%!
Wait, that's it? 3%? The wealthiest 2% of Americans are going to have to cough up an extra 3%. yes. That's correct. When I told a few of my "Conservative" friends that's all it was they thought I was making it up. Google it, it's after midnight and I don't feel like adding links.
Not to mention, this is the same marginal tax rate under the Clinton Administration, which led to a balanced budget and surplus going toward deficit reduction, and the creation of 23 million jobs. By comparison, the Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy created no job growth during the first two years and during the entire Bush Presidency only managed to squeak out 3 million jobs.
President Obama has already CUT taxes for 95% of Americans. Yes, he CUT taxes for the average joe. Even Joe the "Plumber." This "Tax & Spend Liberal cut taxes for 95% of Americans, re-enacted "Pay Go" and a Discretionary Budget freeze, formed a bi-partisan deficit reduction Congressional Pannel (opposed by Republicans), and has campagned on eliminating all taxes for seniors earning less than $50k / year.
So, in order to give the appearance that the Republicans aren't just doing the bidding of the wealthy, they've come up with this strategy claiming that, Obama's tax increase on the top 2% will hit small business and therefore put millions more people out of work and standing in line at a soup kitchen.
Of course - this couldn't be further from the truth.
First off, less than 1/2 of 1% of all small business actually make $250k. So the arguement the Right is making claiming that this new tax rate will hit "50% of small business" is BS. For a really good breakdown on this issue, read this article by Scholars & Rogues. The average taxable income from small business is around $45,000. So, in effect, under the Obama plan, the average small business would receive a tax REDUCTION. This could potentially lower the failure rate of small business and accordin to this study, actually CREATE 300,000 jobs a year. Not put millions in the street. For more about the fake arguement from the right, read the non-partisan Politifact Artical on the subject. From what I can tell, maybe 2% of small business will see a 3.6% increase in their marginal tax rate. That's also of course if the proprietor of the business is drawing a salary more than $250k. There's a huge difference between personal income tax and corporate tax rates which is another arguement entirely. And with corporate tax rates, there are a billion ways small business can make their taxable bottom line less than $250k while at the same time increasing their businesses book value.
We have to get real about tax rates and fairness in the system. The wealthiest 2% got a massive tax break for the last 10 years and the middle class got the shaft.....again. We simply cannot afford these tax breaks that add trillions to the deficit.
There are two things that Republicans always will deficit finance. Tax breaks for the wealthy, and unecessary wars.
What we need in order to manage through this recovery is increased demand. Middle Class Tax Breaks are much more effective at stimulating the economy than tax breaks for the wealthy. Why? Because the middle class will SPEND that extra money. We are a consumer driven economy that requires DEMAND. The more people spend on cars, clothes, Starbucks, vacations, etc, the more the economy grows and jobs follow.
The wealthiest Americans just stuff that extra money away. Once you start to earn more than a few hundred grand, you simply stop spending your disposable income at the same % of total income the middle class will. And particularly in this economic climate, you certainly don't see corporations using lower tax rates to create jobs. Companies are HOARDING CASH like no one's business.
Let's learn from the Clinton Administration, an administration that had a budget surplus and created the most jobs ever in a single administration. The more jobs we create, the more our treasury benefits. We don't have a spending problem (with the exception of the behemouth Pentagon Budget) we have a revenue problem. We need thos jobs, jobs, jobs!!
Of the 23 million jobs that were created during the Clinton years - 92% came from the private sector. Subtract public sector jobs created under the Bush years and you have zero private sector job creation and massive tax breaks to the wealthiest 2% with nothing to show for it.
We have real, current evidence about what the two opposing tax policies effect on the economy is. And under the Obama plan, the middle class will have an even lower tax base the the Clinton years, which is well overdue. In the last decade, even as the economy grew - the middle class saw their "real" incomes drop by $2,000 / year, while the rich got richer.
Where is the fairness in the system when billionaire Warren Buffet pays an effective tax rate of 15%, and his secretary has to fork out 33% of her paycheck? It's not fair, it doesn't create jobs and it doesn't help the overall economy or balance the budget. It just let's some other rich asshole by another island filled with coke & hookers.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Rebuilding the Deck of Cards ~ Croney Capitalism at it's finest
Well, if you think that the GOP has been belligerent, foaming at the mouth, over the top bat shit crazy in the last year, just wait until we get to Financial Reform.
Like you had to guess for one second who's side the GOP is on. Certainly not yours.
Not that the Obama administration has done a damn thing to regulate this sector, nor does the current Dodd bill go nearly far enough. It absolutely baffles me that it's been a year and a half since the Economic Collapse and nothing has been done.
All we have done is rebuild the deck of cards. The banks are back to their shady, risky derrivites games - betting the house with tax payer money - but who cares the Fed can always just print them more money if they blow it up again.
Republicans (and a few Democrats) have spent year after year tearing down Financial Regulation - decades of consumer protection largely enacted after the first Financial Disaster. Roosevelt's Reform's enacted after the Great Depression protected this country from major disaster for generations - and never failed until they were stripped down. Most importantly being the Glass-Steagall Act which prevents banks from making billions from the dealing desk with 300/1 leverage.
We know what happened when we stripped these protections, and we know that the banks are up to the same behavior, and doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. The fact that nothing is being done, and that ANYBODY would stand in the way of reform is delusional, and I certainly don't understand how this could possibly be a partisan issue.
Crony Capitalism = Privatized profits & socialized losses.
The banks are still too big to fail. They still are not freeing up credit to small business. They may be making money now, but again this is largely due to risky bets that will ultimately cause another calamity, and this time way may not have the resources to get us out of this.
Even scarier now, due to the Supreme Court ruling - the Financial Lobby can spend untold billions lobbying congress to essentially write their own legislation, or to elect candidates of their chosing. Republians were quick to capitalize on this as Eric Cantor & John Boehmer met with the banking heads devising a strategy to kill Financial Regulation. What's next - getting rid of the USDA? Since when is regulation a four letter word? Since when does regulation = socialism?
Did Madoff destroy 65 billion dollars worth of wealth because there was too much regulation? Or simply not enough. Not enough regulation, and not enough staff that actually understands financials.
Somebody explain to me that in 2009 - the year of the Great Recession, when trillions of dollars of wealth was eliminated, millions lost their jobs and their homes, we ADDED more millionaires in the US. The rich got richer and the poor got a lot poorer. Was that because of too much regulation?
The Right-Wingers in Europe (Merkel, Sarkozy) are fuming mad at us for allowing this to happen in the first place, and cannot fathom the inaction that is taking place right now. This shouldn't be a partisan issue. This is a no-brainer. The longer we pander to the wealthy, and the powerful corporations, the more and more we become Mexico - a wealthy powerful elite and a poverty-stricken super-majority.
I cannot wait to hear this debate get started. I have no idea how the GOP can look at Americans straight in the face and tell us why we don't need Financial Reform. But, the Republicans do a great job getting poor people to vote against their interests, just look at Health Care.
More to come soon!
Like you had to guess for one second who's side the GOP is on. Certainly not yours.
Not that the Obama administration has done a damn thing to regulate this sector, nor does the current Dodd bill go nearly far enough. It absolutely baffles me that it's been a year and a half since the Economic Collapse and nothing has been done.
All we have done is rebuild the deck of cards. The banks are back to their shady, risky derrivites games - betting the house with tax payer money - but who cares the Fed can always just print them more money if they blow it up again.
Republicans (and a few Democrats) have spent year after year tearing down Financial Regulation - decades of consumer protection largely enacted after the first Financial Disaster. Roosevelt's Reform's enacted after the Great Depression protected this country from major disaster for generations - and never failed until they were stripped down. Most importantly being the Glass-Steagall Act which prevents banks from making billions from the dealing desk with 300/1 leverage.
We know what happened when we stripped these protections, and we know that the banks are up to the same behavior, and doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. The fact that nothing is being done, and that ANYBODY would stand in the way of reform is delusional, and I certainly don't understand how this could possibly be a partisan issue.
Crony Capitalism = Privatized profits & socialized losses.
The banks are still too big to fail. They still are not freeing up credit to small business. They may be making money now, but again this is largely due to risky bets that will ultimately cause another calamity, and this time way may not have the resources to get us out of this.
Even scarier now, due to the Supreme Court ruling - the Financial Lobby can spend untold billions lobbying congress to essentially write their own legislation, or to elect candidates of their chosing. Republians were quick to capitalize on this as Eric Cantor & John Boehmer met with the banking heads devising a strategy to kill Financial Regulation. What's next - getting rid of the USDA? Since when is regulation a four letter word? Since when does regulation = socialism?
Did Madoff destroy 65 billion dollars worth of wealth because there was too much regulation? Or simply not enough. Not enough regulation, and not enough staff that actually understands financials.
Somebody explain to me that in 2009 - the year of the Great Recession, when trillions of dollars of wealth was eliminated, millions lost their jobs and their homes, we ADDED more millionaires in the US. The rich got richer and the poor got a lot poorer. Was that because of too much regulation?
The Right-Wingers in Europe (Merkel, Sarkozy) are fuming mad at us for allowing this to happen in the first place, and cannot fathom the inaction that is taking place right now. This shouldn't be a partisan issue. This is a no-brainer. The longer we pander to the wealthy, and the powerful corporations, the more and more we become Mexico - a wealthy powerful elite and a poverty-stricken super-majority.
I cannot wait to hear this debate get started. I have no idea how the GOP can look at Americans straight in the face and tell us why we don't need Financial Reform. But, the Republicans do a great job getting poor people to vote against their interests, just look at Health Care.
More to come soon!
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Why We Should Pay f or Illegal Immigrant Health Care
Much has been said about the Health Care Legislation on insuring "Illegals" including Joe "You Lie" Wilson. The Tea Baggers would have you believe that this bill is making you pay for Illegals. The Republicans would distort this so much you'd think that we're handing out "Cadillac" style health insurance to undocumented workers in order to scare you away from voting for health care.
This bill goes so far to do quite the opposite, not only does it not cover illegals, it bars illegals from buying insurance on the open market. It even bars legal residents that aren't yet citizens from buying insurance on the exchange for the first five years. But I'm not here to convince you how far right this bill is on the issue of illegals. I;m here to tell you why you should pay for illegal health care.
First off, I'd just like to ask you what are you going to say when the Migrant Worker's kid with drug resistant TB kills your kid on the school bus because they didn't have access to health care? This is a national security issue. We are so vulnerable to outbreaks such as smallpox, swine flu, avian flu, TB and a plethora of other possibilities because we don't have national health care service.
Now, I know that you're just going to say, "well they shouldn't be here in the first place." We can discuss that issue on another blog. The reality of the situation is that they are here, and if they do kill your kid on the school bus - simply saying they shouldn't be here in the first place isn't going to bring your kid back now is it? Until we have INS trucks going door to door and rounding up the illegals - they're here, taxing our health care system.
You pay for them already. The 15 million illegals that live here that don't have access to health care will use the emergency room as primary care. Hospitals only receive 4% of all the services that they bill. This is largely due to care for those that are not insured. Hospitals then inflate the price of care and pass that on to your insurance company. Your insurance company passes those costs on to you and so on. You are already paying for illegal alien health care at a premium. Getting them insured saves us money, eases the deficit, brings health care costs down, and keeps your kids safe.
The whole point on Universal Health Care was to provide access to the 50 million people in this country without health care. This bill at best covers half of that and leaves out 15 million people that will continue to show up at emergency rooms across America and make you pay for them. And not even allowing them to buy insurance on their own is simply madness. They already have IRS deductions out of their paycheck in most cases, they pay Sales Taxes on purchases and we won't even let them BUY health care. What is this? Are we paving the way for an eventuality that will prevent all undocumented people from buying or selling anything in America?
Every other developed country understands these principles. If I were in France and I broke my leg or contracted Swine Flu, I would be cared for, treated and not even issued a bill. Even if I had been living there for five years under the radar. And France is much tougher on immigration than we are. But France understands that some things are just more important than treating illegals like a socially undesired lower caste group of people.
We are the wealthiest country in the world and we don't provide health care access to all people. Instead, we'd rather pay skyrocketing prices for our health care and pretend that we don't actually pay for everyone else at a premium in the most innefficient way possible.
We tell them to play by the rules, and legal permanent residents have to wait five years to buy health insurance on the exchange. So in essence, even the ones that play by the rules, we're telling them that they don't actually qualify to play by the rules. We make it sound as if obtaining citizenship is something so easy to do, that anyone here illegally is obviously doing it by choice and should be sent to prison (which you'll pay for to the tune of about $30,000/year) As someone that has lived in a border city (San Diego, 8 years) I can tell you nothing could be further from the truth. Our immigration policy is inherently racist and we just don't have the balls to say it. You can't take our job if it's a job that none of us are actually willing to do or pay a premium for (remember Mitt Romney being busted TWICE for hiring illegals to do his landscaping) but it's totally ok to take our GOOD jobs if your from India - hell we'll even give your company tax breaks to do so.
This Health Care bill is so Right Wing I can't stand it. But it's better than no bill at all and the CBO just scored it today at $850 billion and will reduce our deficit by $120 billion. And no, you won't pay for illegal health insurance.
This bill goes so far to do quite the opposite, not only does it not cover illegals, it bars illegals from buying insurance on the open market. It even bars legal residents that aren't yet citizens from buying insurance on the exchange for the first five years. But I'm not here to convince you how far right this bill is on the issue of illegals. I;m here to tell you why you should pay for illegal health care.
First off, I'd just like to ask you what are you going to say when the Migrant Worker's kid with drug resistant TB kills your kid on the school bus because they didn't have access to health care? This is a national security issue. We are so vulnerable to outbreaks such as smallpox, swine flu, avian flu, TB and a plethora of other possibilities because we don't have national health care service.
Now, I know that you're just going to say, "well they shouldn't be here in the first place." We can discuss that issue on another blog. The reality of the situation is that they are here, and if they do kill your kid on the school bus - simply saying they shouldn't be here in the first place isn't going to bring your kid back now is it? Until we have INS trucks going door to door and rounding up the illegals - they're here, taxing our health care system.
You pay for them already. The 15 million illegals that live here that don't have access to health care will use the emergency room as primary care. Hospitals only receive 4% of all the services that they bill. This is largely due to care for those that are not insured. Hospitals then inflate the price of care and pass that on to your insurance company. Your insurance company passes those costs on to you and so on. You are already paying for illegal alien health care at a premium. Getting them insured saves us money, eases the deficit, brings health care costs down, and keeps your kids safe.
The whole point on Universal Health Care was to provide access to the 50 million people in this country without health care. This bill at best covers half of that and leaves out 15 million people that will continue to show up at emergency rooms across America and make you pay for them. And not even allowing them to buy insurance on their own is simply madness. They already have IRS deductions out of their paycheck in most cases, they pay Sales Taxes on purchases and we won't even let them BUY health care. What is this? Are we paving the way for an eventuality that will prevent all undocumented people from buying or selling anything in America?
Every other developed country understands these principles. If I were in France and I broke my leg or contracted Swine Flu, I would be cared for, treated and not even issued a bill. Even if I had been living there for five years under the radar. And France is much tougher on immigration than we are. But France understands that some things are just more important than treating illegals like a socially undesired lower caste group of people.
We are the wealthiest country in the world and we don't provide health care access to all people. Instead, we'd rather pay skyrocketing prices for our health care and pretend that we don't actually pay for everyone else at a premium in the most innefficient way possible.
We tell them to play by the rules, and legal permanent residents have to wait five years to buy health insurance on the exchange. So in essence, even the ones that play by the rules, we're telling them that they don't actually qualify to play by the rules. We make it sound as if obtaining citizenship is something so easy to do, that anyone here illegally is obviously doing it by choice and should be sent to prison (which you'll pay for to the tune of about $30,000/year) As someone that has lived in a border city (San Diego, 8 years) I can tell you nothing could be further from the truth. Our immigration policy is inherently racist and we just don't have the balls to say it. You can't take our job if it's a job that none of us are actually willing to do or pay a premium for (remember Mitt Romney being busted TWICE for hiring illegals to do his landscaping) but it's totally ok to take our GOOD jobs if your from India - hell we'll even give your company tax breaks to do so.
This Health Care bill is so Right Wing I can't stand it. But it's better than no bill at all and the CBO just scored it today at $850 billion and will reduce our deficit by $120 billion. And no, you won't pay for illegal health insurance.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Reconciling Reconciliation
The Republican fear mongering machine has had a busy week. The GOP has been no stranger to re-inventing history as of late (e.g. Cheney's alternative history of the Bush policy on prosecuting terrorists) but as the President clearly favors using Budget Reconciliation to finish the Health Care Reform Act - we are seeing the Republican hypocrisy in full force.
If you have been watching Cable News, CSPAN or reading anything in the newspaper, based on what Republicans are saying, you would think that the use of Budget Reconciliation was some shady, sketchy socialist scheme that would undermine the fabric of our Democracy and it's "hardly ever been done."
In fact, Fox News has completely stopped referring to it as Reconciliation, but as something completely different; Nuclear Option. Again, I repeat - something COMPLETELY different. The only similarity between the two is that both methods would require a very democratic simple majority to pass legislation. However, Budget Reconciliation is actually quite common. It has been used 22 different times for major legislation since 1981, and a stunning 15 times by REPUBLICANS.
Oh Fox News; "Fair & Balanced."
And just a brief recap on Republican use of Reconciliation; The two tax cuts by Bush that mostly benefited the wealthy and increased the deficit by two trillion dollars - yeah that was done by Reconcilation. And Mitch McConnell; no I'm sorry that was not a largely bi-partisan plan, they were both done on party lines and the Vice President had to act as the tie breaker. Not to mention COBRA, Welfare Reform, SCHIP, Medicare Reform and Student Loan Reform. This is nothing new. And for Republicans to be lining up in front of cameras claiming that its something horrible for the country that threatens democracy.....it's just beyond hypocritical.
In 2003, Republican Eric Cantor (currently the House Minority Whip) said, "Reconciliation is a process that I hope we can engage in every year."
Republican Senator Judd Gregg claims that it's bad policy and somehow "railroads Congress." Except in 2005 he was defending the use of Reconciliation to Democrat Opposition claiming "it's a Senate Rule" and all that we would be doing is "passing legislation via a Majority Rule." He continues, "Anything wrong with majority rule? I don't think so."
John McCain, apparently trying to reconcile Republican past uses of Reconciliation went on to say that yes it has been used in the past, but it should never be used for Entitlements as it is just "too important." Except he voted yes on Reconciliation Legislation on Entitlements in 1989 and in 2005. So where does the hypocrisy end with these guys and how is it that they get away with this?
And I agree with Judd Gregg circa 2003- nothing is wrong with majority rule. That what a democracy is! That's why we have elections. This climate in Washington IS something new. The necessity to have a supermaority to pass ANY legislation in the Senate as the Republicans have tripled the record for the use of filibuster in a single year. They have blocked even low level appointees just for the sake of stalling Senate business, and then eventually confirming these people.
When either side is elected as a majority party, it is their turn to GOVERN. That's what they were elected to do. And preventing the Senate from doing any business at all based on lack of a super majority is something that will prevent this country from greatness.
Now that hopefully we've dispelled some of the lies and revisionist history on Reconciliation (and not the "Nuclear Option")let's clear something else up.
CONGRESS IS NOT GOING TO PASS HEALTH CARE WITH RECONCILIATION!! You can't even do that. You see, Budget Reconciliation is indeed that. Reconciling budget issues. You can't do Insurance Reform, Torte Reform etc via Reconciliation.
Both houses of Congress have already passed Health Care Reform. The House passed it with a simple majority and the Senate passed it on Christmas Eve with a super majority. What will happen now is the House will vote on the Senate version of the bill and if passed, they will use Reconciliation to amend some of the differences between the bills.
So, now let's hope that this gets passed, and we can have Universal Health Care that Massachusetts already has - which the people love and Scott Brown voted for and Mitt Romney signed into law.
If you have been watching Cable News, CSPAN or reading anything in the newspaper, based on what Republicans are saying, you would think that the use of Budget Reconciliation was some shady, sketchy socialist scheme that would undermine the fabric of our Democracy and it's "hardly ever been done."
In fact, Fox News has completely stopped referring to it as Reconciliation, but as something completely different; Nuclear Option. Again, I repeat - something COMPLETELY different. The only similarity between the two is that both methods would require a very democratic simple majority to pass legislation. However, Budget Reconciliation is actually quite common. It has been used 22 different times for major legislation since 1981, and a stunning 15 times by REPUBLICANS.
Oh Fox News; "Fair & Balanced."
And just a brief recap on Republican use of Reconciliation; The two tax cuts by Bush that mostly benefited the wealthy and increased the deficit by two trillion dollars - yeah that was done by Reconcilation. And Mitch McConnell; no I'm sorry that was not a largely bi-partisan plan, they were both done on party lines and the Vice President had to act as the tie breaker. Not to mention COBRA, Welfare Reform, SCHIP, Medicare Reform and Student Loan Reform. This is nothing new. And for Republicans to be lining up in front of cameras claiming that its something horrible for the country that threatens democracy.....it's just beyond hypocritical.
In 2003, Republican Eric Cantor (currently the House Minority Whip) said, "Reconciliation is a process that I hope we can engage in every year."
Republican Senator Judd Gregg claims that it's bad policy and somehow "railroads Congress." Except in 2005 he was defending the use of Reconciliation to Democrat Opposition claiming "it's a Senate Rule" and all that we would be doing is "passing legislation via a Majority Rule." He continues, "Anything wrong with majority rule? I don't think so."
John McCain, apparently trying to reconcile Republican past uses of Reconciliation went on to say that yes it has been used in the past, but it should never be used for Entitlements as it is just "too important." Except he voted yes on Reconciliation Legislation on Entitlements in 1989 and in 2005. So where does the hypocrisy end with these guys and how is it that they get away with this?
And I agree with Judd Gregg circa 2003- nothing is wrong with majority rule. That what a democracy is! That's why we have elections. This climate in Washington IS something new. The necessity to have a supermaority to pass ANY legislation in the Senate as the Republicans have tripled the record for the use of filibuster in a single year. They have blocked even low level appointees just for the sake of stalling Senate business, and then eventually confirming these people.
When either side is elected as a majority party, it is their turn to GOVERN. That's what they were elected to do. And preventing the Senate from doing any business at all based on lack of a super majority is something that will prevent this country from greatness.
Now that hopefully we've dispelled some of the lies and revisionist history on Reconciliation (and not the "Nuclear Option")let's clear something else up.
CONGRESS IS NOT GOING TO PASS HEALTH CARE WITH RECONCILIATION!! You can't even do that. You see, Budget Reconciliation is indeed that. Reconciling budget issues. You can't do Insurance Reform, Torte Reform etc via Reconciliation.
Both houses of Congress have already passed Health Care Reform. The House passed it with a simple majority and the Senate passed it on Christmas Eve with a super majority. What will happen now is the House will vote on the Senate version of the bill and if passed, they will use Reconciliation to amend some of the differences between the bills.
So, now let's hope that this gets passed, and we can have Universal Health Care that Massachusetts already has - which the people love and Scott Brown voted for and Mitt Romney signed into law.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Politicizing Terror
I am so sick to death of the GOP politicizing terrorism. And I'm even more sick of their lies actually working on the American people. Have you watched cable news at all in the last week? Or even the Sunday talk shows on the networks? You would think that something drastic has changed on the War on Terror in the Obama administration.
Republicans are basically foaming at the mouth over "Mirandizing" the Christmas Day bomber. They claim that reading Miranda rights to terror suspects is "dangerous" and "weak" on terror. Like this is something new. Some of them even going so far as to say that the Obama administration is, "Inviting terrorism."
The fact of the matter is, nothing at all has changed, with the exception of no longer water boarding suspected terrorists. Under the Bush administration, after 9/11, we arrested and convicted over 200 terrorists. Every single solitary one of them were arrested and read Miranda Rights. Every single one. Without exception.
Wait, what is this you say? Indeed. Nothing has changed. We were wildly successful arresting suspected terrorists, reading them Miranda Rights, and prosecuting them in criminal court. All done during the Bush Years. Now that Obama is President, suddenly this wildly successful policy of prosecuting terrorists is suddenly, "risky" "weak on terror" and "inviting terrorism."
Can somebody please explain this to me? What the fuck has changed? This is a complete politicization of terrorism used to win over political capital in the worst most un-American way. Are you fucking kidding me?
The FBI knows how to interrogate suspected terrorists. This is what they do. Why can't we leave this up to the professionals and stop trying to use this as a piece of defeating your political enemy?
Not to mention that the Christmas Day bomber is now singing like a bird, and providing valuable, actionable intelligence. Obviously the attempted act of terrorism is frightening and a lapse of security that we need to learn from. But how the Administration is handling this case, and the results they are getting should be commended. Not completing distorting the truth to freak the American people out.
Republicans are basically foaming at the mouth over "Mirandizing" the Christmas Day bomber. They claim that reading Miranda rights to terror suspects is "dangerous" and "weak" on terror. Like this is something new. Some of them even going so far as to say that the Obama administration is, "Inviting terrorism."
The fact of the matter is, nothing at all has changed, with the exception of no longer water boarding suspected terrorists. Under the Bush administration, after 9/11, we arrested and convicted over 200 terrorists. Every single solitary one of them were arrested and read Miranda Rights. Every single one. Without exception.
Wait, what is this you say? Indeed. Nothing has changed. We were wildly successful arresting suspected terrorists, reading them Miranda Rights, and prosecuting them in criminal court. All done during the Bush Years. Now that Obama is President, suddenly this wildly successful policy of prosecuting terrorists is suddenly, "risky" "weak on terror" and "inviting terrorism."
Can somebody please explain this to me? What the fuck has changed? This is a complete politicization of terrorism used to win over political capital in the worst most un-American way. Are you fucking kidding me?
The FBI knows how to interrogate suspected terrorists. This is what they do. Why can't we leave this up to the professionals and stop trying to use this as a piece of defeating your political enemy?
Not to mention that the Christmas Day bomber is now singing like a bird, and providing valuable, actionable intelligence. Obviously the attempted act of terrorism is frightening and a lapse of security that we need to learn from. But how the Administration is handling this case, and the results they are getting should be commended. Not completing distorting the truth to freak the American people out.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Just get Health Care done.
Well, we all know that Government-Run Health Care leads to Rationing of Care, like the GOP would have us believe right? But the for-profit Health Insurance Companies are the good guys with our best interests in mind of course. Then why is it just yesterday, we hear about a five year old suing it's health insurance company for not paying for his cancer? This sort of thing,"rationing of care" only happens in 3rd world Socialist countries like Britain & Canada, right?
Stories like these are too numerous and too common to even get into. The bottom line is, to buzz words that the GOP likes to use, "rationing of care," & "death panels" already exist. They exist in our current, for profit health insurance companies. This isn't even about the 45 million people that don't have insurance. That's another issue. It's about the rest of us, WITH health insurance.
The fact that we in America are so brainwashed to think that our health care system is so advanced and the rest of the civilized world has it right, is another example of our political ignorance. Americans get exactly what they deserve sometimes.
Why can't we get it right? We spend the most money on Health Care with results similar to Zimbabwe. By 2020, we'll be spending 20% of our GDP on Health Care. Singapore spends 3% and is ranked fifth in the world for health care. And they cover every body.
We do we need to give a company 30% of our Health Care dollars just to deny us when we need them? 30% of this country is already on Government Health Care, it's called MediCare, and it works very well and people that have Medicare are very happy with it.
We need a Single-Payer system that covers every body. Free up the system. Stop people from using the Emergency Room as a their Primary Health Care Doctor. It just makes sense, costs less, has better results and covers everybody.
Offering a Mandate, requiring people to buy insurance is the wrong way to go. Offering more money to the Health Insurance companies with no reform to the system. Republicans have been fighting this bill tooth and nail, and doing a very good job scaring the American People with their lies & bullshit. The people of Massachusetts did not elect Scott Brown to ruin a Health Care bill. Let's talk about Scott Brown & Massachusetts. Mass. already has Universal Health Care. Interestingly enough, Republican Mitt Romney as Governor signed it into law, and Scott Brown, then a State Senator voted for it. 68% of people in Mass. are happy with their Health Care system. The Health Care bill in Congress is essentially that plan. But we have unanimous opposition from the GOP.
Even more interesting, Republicans in the 90's offered a very similar bill as a compromise to the Single Payer proposition that was floating around Congress.
Bob Dole even offered a similar plan. The bill in congress, is essentially a compromised bill. There isn't even a Public Option anymore. But because of Republican Strategy to oppose absolutely any legislation possible, we have unanimous opposition to the bill. Democrats have added and added Republican demands to the bill and still they will not support it. They have watered down the bill to a fraction of what it could've been and they still won't support it. Even though the majority of the bill is things they can support. What is going on in Washington right now, with these bi-partisan talks are just another distraction that the GOP hopes will stall any furthering of Health Care until after the Mid-term elections and by then we may never pass Health Care Reform.
I don't like the bill, but doing nothing would be far worse. We need our Democrats to do the job that they were elected to do, and a big part of that is passing Health Care Reform. Tell your Senator to grow some balls and get it done before it's too late.
Stories like these are too numerous and too common to even get into. The bottom line is, to buzz words that the GOP likes to use, "rationing of care," & "death panels" already exist. They exist in our current, for profit health insurance companies. This isn't even about the 45 million people that don't have insurance. That's another issue. It's about the rest of us, WITH health insurance.
The fact that we in America are so brainwashed to think that our health care system is so advanced and the rest of the civilized world has it right, is another example of our political ignorance. Americans get exactly what they deserve sometimes.
Why can't we get it right? We spend the most money on Health Care with results similar to Zimbabwe. By 2020, we'll be spending 20% of our GDP on Health Care. Singapore spends 3% and is ranked fifth in the world for health care. And they cover every body.
We do we need to give a company 30% of our Health Care dollars just to deny us when we need them? 30% of this country is already on Government Health Care, it's called MediCare, and it works very well and people that have Medicare are very happy with it.
We need a Single-Payer system that covers every body. Free up the system. Stop people from using the Emergency Room as a their Primary Health Care Doctor. It just makes sense, costs less, has better results and covers everybody.
Offering a Mandate, requiring people to buy insurance is the wrong way to go. Offering more money to the Health Insurance companies with no reform to the system. Republicans have been fighting this bill tooth and nail, and doing a very good job scaring the American People with their lies & bullshit. The people of Massachusetts did not elect Scott Brown to ruin a Health Care bill. Let's talk about Scott Brown & Massachusetts. Mass. already has Universal Health Care. Interestingly enough, Republican Mitt Romney as Governor signed it into law, and Scott Brown, then a State Senator voted for it. 68% of people in Mass. are happy with their Health Care system. The Health Care bill in Congress is essentially that plan. But we have unanimous opposition from the GOP.
Even more interesting, Republicans in the 90's offered a very similar bill as a compromise to the Single Payer proposition that was floating around Congress.
Bob Dole even offered a similar plan. The bill in congress, is essentially a compromised bill. There isn't even a Public Option anymore. But because of Republican Strategy to oppose absolutely any legislation possible, we have unanimous opposition to the bill. Democrats have added and added Republican demands to the bill and still they will not support it. They have watered down the bill to a fraction of what it could've been and they still won't support it. Even though the majority of the bill is things they can support. What is going on in Washington right now, with these bi-partisan talks are just another distraction that the GOP hopes will stall any furthering of Health Care until after the Mid-term elections and by then we may never pass Health Care Reform.
I don't like the bill, but doing nothing would be far worse. We need our Democrats to do the job that they were elected to do, and a big part of that is passing Health Care Reform. Tell your Senator to grow some balls and get it done before it's too late.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Democrats - SHAPE UP
Democrats need to get their shit together. This happens every time they get in power. They fuck up!! You know, when Democrats increased their majority in the House & Senate, and we elected Barak Obama, the Republican Party I really thought was about to go the way of the Whig Party
They were sounding more and more ridiculous everyday. The American People had completely lost faith in them as a party. They had just come off of 8 years of the most disastrous Republican Presidency in recent history. We don't really need to rehash just how bad things were. I never thought that the country would in just a year, start looking to Republican rule again. How can the American People be that stupid, and have such a short term memory for just how badly their policies cost us.
Well, for starers; one thing the Republicans have always done very well is fall in line behind Party Leaders. Democrats never do. They're always fighting each other and are too chicken shit to look "socialist." We couldn't get shit done when we had a super majority in the Senate, and because we spent all year fighting each other over health care, we didn't get shit done. And now we no longer have a super majority. This has never been so important as it is today as Republicans insist on abusing the Filibuster to the point of absurdity and block any Senate business from happening. Majority rule is so last decade.
Over 100 filibusters last year. 200 bills put on hold, and 63 positions that need to be filled put on hold over senseless filibuster. The Republicans have one strategy. Block everything they possibly can so that Democrats have nothing to show for and the American People get sick of it and ignorantly blame Democrats on their inability to Govern. Well, at least they're half right. Democrats can't get their shit together, but at least they did finish legislation on a big agenda - and the Republicans won't even allow a bill to go to a vote. That's right, you have to a super majority vote to actually vote on a bill, and you'll need a super majority to pass a bill.
Republicans are so treacherous, they vote against bills that they actually support. Just to backlog any legislation from actually passing and helping the American People. They block bills that they eventually voted for. They negotiate with Democrats to get what they want incorporated into bills, and then vote against it. This is what the American People are not seeing, because we live in a horrifically politically ignorant society. We just know that shit isn't getting done. Olympia Snowe even admitted that she was negotiating in bad faith with Democrats, just to stall legislation. You're not going to get any help from the other side.
Democrats - get your shit together, fall in line and GOVERN. END THE FILIBUSTER. You will not get ANY support from Republicans on ANYTHING you were ELECTED to do. Otherwise, we're going to go back to more tax cuts for the wealthy, more deficits, more wars, more de-regulation and more dismantling of the middle class. And we can say good bye to having control of Congress for decades.
They were sounding more and more ridiculous everyday. The American People had completely lost faith in them as a party. They had just come off of 8 years of the most disastrous Republican Presidency in recent history. We don't really need to rehash just how bad things were. I never thought that the country would in just a year, start looking to Republican rule again. How can the American People be that stupid, and have such a short term memory for just how badly their policies cost us.
Well, for starers; one thing the Republicans have always done very well is fall in line behind Party Leaders. Democrats never do. They're always fighting each other and are too chicken shit to look "socialist." We couldn't get shit done when we had a super majority in the Senate, and because we spent all year fighting each other over health care, we didn't get shit done. And now we no longer have a super majority. This has never been so important as it is today as Republicans insist on abusing the Filibuster to the point of absurdity and block any Senate business from happening. Majority rule is so last decade.
Over 100 filibusters last year. 200 bills put on hold, and 63 positions that need to be filled put on hold over senseless filibuster. The Republicans have one strategy. Block everything they possibly can so that Democrats have nothing to show for and the American People get sick of it and ignorantly blame Democrats on their inability to Govern. Well, at least they're half right. Democrats can't get their shit together, but at least they did finish legislation on a big agenda - and the Republicans won't even allow a bill to go to a vote. That's right, you have to a super majority vote to actually vote on a bill, and you'll need a super majority to pass a bill.
Republicans are so treacherous, they vote against bills that they actually support. Just to backlog any legislation from actually passing and helping the American People. They block bills that they eventually voted for. They negotiate with Democrats to get what they want incorporated into bills, and then vote against it. This is what the American People are not seeing, because we live in a horrifically politically ignorant society. We just know that shit isn't getting done. Olympia Snowe even admitted that she was negotiating in bad faith with Democrats, just to stall legislation. You're not going to get any help from the other side.
Democrats - get your shit together, fall in line and GOVERN. END THE FILIBUSTER. You will not get ANY support from Republicans on ANYTHING you were ELECTED to do. Otherwise, we're going to go back to more tax cuts for the wealthy, more deficits, more wars, more de-regulation and more dismantling of the middle class. And we can say good bye to having control of Congress for decades.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)