“Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem.

By Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein

Rep. Allen West, a Florida Republican, was recently captured on video asserting that there are “78 to 81” Democrats in Congress who are members of the Communist Party. Of course, it’s not unusual for some renegade lawmaker from either side of the aisle to say something outrageous. What made West’s comment — right out of the McCarthyite playbook of the 1950s — so striking was the almost complete lack of condemnation from Republican congressional leaders or other major party figures, including the remaining presidential candidates.

It’s not that the GOP leadership agrees with West; it is that such extreme remarks and views are now taken for granted.

We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.

The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.

“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.

It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right. Its once-legendary moderate and center-right legislators in the House and the Senate — think Bob Michel, Mickey Edwards, John Danforth, Chuck Hagel — are virtually extinct.

The post-McGovern Democratic Party, by contrast, while losing the bulk of its conservative Dixiecrat contingent in the decades after the civil rights revolution, has retained a more diverse base. Since the Clinton presidency, it has hewed to the center-left on issues from welfare reform to fiscal policy. While the Democrats may have moved from their 40-yard line to their 25, the Republicans have gone from their 40 to somewhere behind their goal post.

What happened? Of course, there were larger forces at work beyond the realignment of the South. They included the mobilization of social conservatives after the 1973Roe v. Wade decision, the anti-tax movement launched in 1978 by California’s Proposition 13, the rise of conservative talk radio after a congressional pay raise in 1989, and the emergence of Fox News and right-wing blogs. But the real move to the bedrock right starts with two names: Newt Gingrichand Grover Norquist.

From the day he entered Congress in 1979, Gingrich had a strategy to create a Republican majority in the House: convincing voters that the institution was so corrupt that anyone would be better than the incumbents, especially those in the Democratic majority. It took him 16 years, but by bringing ethics charges against Democratic leaders; provoking them into overreactions that enraged Republicans and united them to vote against Democratic initiatives; exploiting scandals to create even more public disgust with politicians; and then recruiting GOP candidates around the country to run against Washington, Democrats and Congress, Gingrich accomplished his goal.

Ironically, after becoming speaker, Gingrich wanted to enhance Congress’s reputation and was content to compromise with President Bill Clinton when it served his interests. But the forces Gingrich unleashed destroyed whatever comity existed across party lines, activated an extreme and virulently anti-Washington base — most recently represented by tea party activists — and helped drive moderate Republicans out of Congress. (Some of his progeny, elected in the early 1990s, moved to the Senate and polarized its culture in the same way.)

Norquist, meanwhile, founded Americans for Tax Reform in 1985 and rolled out his Taxpayer Protection Pledge the following year. The pledge, which binds its signers to never support a tax increase (that includes closing tax loopholes), had been signed as of last year by 238 of the 242 House Republicans and 41 of the 47 GOP senators, according to ATR. The Norquist tax pledge has led to other pledges, on issues such as climate change, that create additional litmus tests that box in moderates and make cross-party coalitions nearly impossible. For Republicans concerned about a primary challenge from the right, the failure to sign such pledges is simply too risky.

Today, thanks to the GOP, compromise has gone out the window in Washington. In the first two years of the Obama administration, nearly every presidential initiative met with vehement, rancorous and unanimous Republican opposition in the House and the Senate, followed by efforts to delegitimize the results and repeal the policies. The filibuster, once relegated to a handful of major national issues in a given Congress, became a routine weapon of obstruction, applied even to widely supported bills or presidential nominations. And Republicans in the Senate have abused the confirmation process to block any and every nominee to posts such as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, solely to keep laws that were legitimately enacted from being implemented.

In the third and now fourth years of the Obama presidency, divided government has produced something closer to complete gridlock than we have ever seen in our time in Washington, with partisan divides even leading last year to America’s first credit downgrade.

On financial stabilization and economic recovery, on deficits and debt, on climate change and health-care reform, Republicans have been the force behind the widening ideological gaps and the strategic use of partisanship. In the presidential campaign and in Congress, GOP leaders have embraced fanciful policies on taxes and spending, kowtowing to their party’s most strident voices.

Republicans often dismiss nonpartisan analyses of the nature of problems and the impact of policies when those assessments don’t fit their ideology. In the face of the deepest economic downturn since the Great Depression, the party’s leaders and their outside acolytes insisted on obeisance to a supply-side view of economic growth — thus fulfilling Norquist’s pledge — while ignoring contrary considerations.

The results can border on the absurd: In early 2009, several of the eight Republican co-sponsors of a bipartisan health-care reform plan dropped their support; by early 2010, the others had turned on their own proposal so that there would be zero GOP backing for any bill that came within a mile of Obama’s reform initiative. As one co-sponsor, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), told The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein: “I liked it because it was bipartisan. I wouldn’t have voted for it.”

And seven Republican co-sponsors of a Senate resolution to create a debt-reduction panel voted in January 2010 against their own resolution, solely to keep it from getting to the 60-vote threshold Republicans demanded and thus denying the president a seeming victory.

This attitude filters down far deeper than the party leadership. Rank-and-file GOP voters endorse the strategy that the party’s elites have adopted, eschewing compromise to solve problems and insisting on principle, even if it leads to gridlock. Democratic voters, by contrast, along with self-identified independents, are more likely to favor deal-making over deadlock.

Democrats are hardly blameless, and they have their own extreme wing and their own predilection for hardball politics. But these tendencies do not routinely veer outside the normal bounds of robust politics. If anything, under the presidencies of Clinton and Obama, the Democrats have become more of a status-quo party. They are centrist protectors of government, reluctantly willing to revamp programs and trim retirement and health benefits to maintain its central commitments in the face of fiscal pressures.

No doubt, Democrats were not exactly warm and fuzzy toward George W. Bush during his presidency. But recall that they worked hand in glove with the Republican president on the No Child Left Behind Act, provided crucial votes in the Senate for his tax cuts, joined with Republicans for all the steps taken after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and supplied the key votes for the Bush administration’s financial bailout at the height of the economic crisis in 2008. The difference is striking.

The GOP’s evolution has become too much for some longtime Republicans. Former senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraskacalled his party “irresponsible” in an interview with the Financial Times in August, at the height of the debt-ceiling battle. “I think the Republican Party is captive to political movements that are very ideological, that are very narrow,” he said. “I’ve never seen so much intolerance as I see today in American politics.”

And Mike Lofgren, a veteran Republican congressional staffer, wrote an anguished diatribelast year about why he was ending his career on the Hill after nearly three decades. “The Republican Party is becoming less and less like a traditional political party in a representative democracy and becoming more like an apocalyptic cult, or one of the intensely ideological authoritarian parties of 20th century Europe,” he wrote on the Truthout Web site.

Shortly before Rep. West went off the rails with his accusations of communism in the Democratic Party, political scientists Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, who have long tracked historical trends in political polarization, said their studies of congressional votes found that Republicans are now more conservative than they have been in more than a century. Their data show a dramatic uptick in polarization, mostly caused by the sharp rightward move of the GOP.

If our democracy is to regain its health and vitality, the culture and ideological center of the Republican Party must change. In the short run, without a massive (and unlikely) across-the-board rejection of the GOP at the polls, that will not happen. If anything, Washington’s ideological divide will probably grow after the 2012 elections.

In the House, some of the remaining centrist and conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats have been targeted for extinctionby redistricting, while even ardent tea party Republicans, such as freshman Rep. Alan Nunnelee (Miss.), have faced primary challenges from the right for being too accommodationist. And Mitt Romney’s rhetoric and positions offer no indication that he would govern differently if his party captures the White House and both chambers of Congress.

We understand the values of mainstream journalists, including the effort to report both sides of a story. But a balanced treatment of an unbalanced phenomenon distorts reality. If the political dynamics of Washington are unlikely to change anytime soon, at least we should change the way that reality is portrayed to the public.

Our advice to the press: Don’t seek professional safety through the even-handed, unfiltered presentation of opposing views. Which politician is telling the truth? Who is taking hostages, at what risks and to what ends?

Also, stop lending legitimacy to Senate filibusters by treating a 60-vote hurdle as routine. The framers certainly didn’t intend it to be. Report individual senators’ abusive use of holds and identify every time the minority party uses a filibuster to kill a bill or nomination with majority support.

Look ahead to the likely consequences of voters’ choices in the November elections. How would the candidates govern? What could they accomplish? What differences can people expect from a unified Republican or Democratic government, or one divided between the parties?

In the end, while the press can make certain political choices understandable, it is up to voters to decide. If they can punish ideological extremism at the polls and look skeptically upon candidates who profess to reject all dialogue and bargaining with opponents, then an insurgent outlier party will have some impetus to return to the center. Otherwise, our politics will get worse before it gets better.”

To be clear, I had nothing to do with the information or opinions in this piece, it was written by the authors listed above.  I do agree with most of what is said here and recognize that most Republicans will dismiss it out of hand without acknowledging the facts detailed in the article.  I also recognize that Democrats will celebrate this as a honest and fair indictment of GOP politics and ignore any games played by the media, the left leaning pundits and of course the politicians in the Democratic party.

My point in copying this is simple, we are a single nation of people, most of whom are proud to call themselves Americans and though we may have differing opinions, the only way this country will get back on track is if we are talking to each other, not screaming at each other.  The GOP of the last 30 years has morphed from a political party to a movement that is even repelling it’s own members and functions solely to divide us further.

The basis for true Conservatism is founded in strong virtues still valued by many in this nation, but the GOP no longer represents those virtues.  It is shown in every little expression by those on the right challenging the patriotism of anyone that disagrees with them.  They have changed their platform language and litmus tests so that honorable moderate Republicans are attacked as RINO, Republican in Name Only.  Leaders like Sen. John McCain are torn apart in the political process (look back at the 2000 and 2008 Primaries) and long serving, solid Conservatives, like Sen. Tom Coburn, are slowly getting pushed out because they fail to sign these pledges or don’t measure up to the new standard of Conservatism by the Tea Party and people like Sen. Jim DeMint and Gov. Sarah Palin.

In this primary cycle we got to see candidates like Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum and Rick Perry each try to convince the American public that they were the most Conservative by denying science, challenging settled law, trashing those activist judges and beating on the GOP’s most likely candidate to be able to challenge the current President in the coming election by pointing out how non-conservative he was.  And we got Newt Gingrich to actually return to the race, after leaving Congress following ethics violations.  America has such a short memory and he had far more supporters than any individual drummed out for ethics violations should ever have.

We have a long way to go and promoting failed economic policies, ignoring the debt, and spending all of our time rehashing same sex marriage, abortion, and trying to delegitimize the new Consumer Financial Protection Board, women’s birth control, etc, etc, the list of all of the distractions goes way to long from a party that claims to be focused on jobs.  This party has Governors that have stripped public unions of bargaining rights and have replaced publicly elected officials with political appointees chosen by the new authoritarian regime, with no oversight or ability to challenge these decisions.  All the while they have convinced nearly 40% of the American population that the Democrats are the ones trying to take their freedom away through taxation, ignoring the fact that we are at a relative historical low for personal taxes.  They have inflamed their base pointing at the fact that approximately 50% of Americans do not pay Federal Income Tax while ignoring the fact that the primary tax break that makes this possible, the Earned Income Tax Credit, was a GOP created (signed into law by Ford) and GOP expanded program (under Reagan and George W. Bush).  It is just this kind of intentional ignorance of facts that has made independents like me increasingly distrustful and critical of the GOP.

I have voted Republican in the past and I hope to a return to true integrity and fair based Conservatism will provide me with candidates that I would be willing to vote for again.  But it becomes clearer with each passing election cycle that any candidate I might have considered viable before the primary season begins either will be doomed by their principles never to reach the general election, or sells out every principle that attracted me in the first place to get the nomination. 

Share on Facebook

The basis of the criticism was Mr. Huckabee’s recent statements that Barack Obama grew up in Kenya.  I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Wills assertion that a potential candidate such as Huckabee should get his facts straight.  In fact I usually find myself agreeing with Mr. Will on most topics.  Towards the end of the article though, George mentions five potential front runners for the Republican nomination in 2012.   That list of names is what prompted me to get back to this blog that I have neglected for so many months.  I am sure most of you know who the Republican front runners are by now but if not, here is the short list – Mitch Daniels, Haley Barbour, Jon Huntsman, Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty.  I am not including Mike Huckabee on this list as I think he is pretty much done for.

If this is the list, then the Republicans may as well save their money and just skip this next election.  Pass.  Take a break.  None of these guys will be able to beat Obama.  The main reason is what I call Old Rich White Guy Syndrome (ORWGS).  Like it or not, far too many people in this country are convinced that all of our problems are because the ORWGs have been running things too long.  Granted, Tim Pawlenty is not that old but he also is not that well known outside of his home state.  Each of the others either looks like a ORWG, acts like a ORWG or both.  On top of that, they each have various other strikes against them which the press will no doubt seize upon and run with.

Mitch Daniels was the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under George W. Bush.  Right or wrong, this can easily be spun in a negative light.  On top of that, he used to work for Eli Lilly.  You know, that big evil pharmaceutical company that charges outrageous prices for lifesaving drugs that should be free to everyone.  Right or wrong, thats how it will be portrayed.  Mitch Daniels does not look nearly as ORWG as some potentials (Newt Gingrich for example) but he does look and act like a Fortune 500 CEO.  We all know how popular those guys are right now.

The rest of the pack stacks up similarly.  Haley Barbour was Governor during Katrina and looks about as ORWG as it gets.  Jon Huntsman is wealthy and looks good for his age but is still very much an ORWG.  Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain and Company and founded Bain Capital.  If there are any skeletons to find in the closets of either of those companies; the press will find them and exploit them.  As I stated before, Tim Pawlenty does not come off nearly as ORWG as the rest but he just doesn’t have the name recognition needed to beat someone like Barrack Obama.

Simply put, these guys are just TOO Republican.  And that brings us to the potential candidate I did not mention – Newt Gingrich.  I did not mention Newt up front for two reasons.  1) I think he is the guy most likely to get the Republican Nomination and 2) I think he is the guy least likely to be able to beat our current president.  You really could not find a guy more Republican than Newt Gingrich; at least not one that wants to run fro President.  Don’t get me wrong, I like Newt, I just don’t think he can win.  He is very conservative, very outspoken and sadly very, very ORWG.  In 2008, Barack Obama won the election mostly because of the enormous margins in urban areas.  I just don’t see Newt getting ANY urban electoral votes.

The GOP may very well be thinking that the large gains they made in the 2010 mid terms are an indication that the American people are craving more conservative leadership.  They may be correct to some extent but if you look at WHO won those elections and WHERE they won I think you will find that it won’t do the GOP much good in a national election using the electoral college system.  As for the WHO, it wasn’t all ORWGs.  In fact, there were a significant number of women and minority groups in that sweep, especially in the states that the GOP would need to carry to win a Presidential election.   If you recall, the GOP had a fairly large sweep in the house in 1994 and Bill Clinton still won a second term.  Bill Clinton did not carry quite the urban margin that Obama carried but if you add in the suburban vote, it was almost as much.

And I think that is exactly what will happen this time around.  The economy is improving (maybe not much, but it isn’t getting worse) and unemployment numbers are starting to drop.  The war in Iraq is essentially over and we will likely be mostly out of Afghanistan by the time people start casting ballots in 2012.  For the GOP to win in 2012 (no matter who they run) there needs to be a compelling reason to kick out the incumbent President or an extremely charismatic GOP candidate with strong urban appeal to vote for.  Charismatic and urban appeal are not terms that Republicans are very familiar with lately.

So there is my prediciton; Newt Gingrich versus Barack Obama in 2012 with Mr. Obama winning by a large margin.  It doesn’t really have to be Newt though.  No matter who the GOP runs, it will be a loss.  Unless they run Chuck Norris, then all bets are off.

Share on Facebook

The promise of this country was that you could make it rich, regardless of where you came from, and this promise is still very much alive, but it is very rare.  The largest advantage to our society is that, with the exception of those at the very bottom, we are almost all richer than the average citizens in 75-85% of the rest of the world (dependent on whose numbers you look at).  And this is what most of us want, we want relative freedom to pursue our passions, less worry about finances and a comfortable living.  Most of us are not interested in being wealthy, per se, but pursuing a lifestyle of our choosing and earning enough to do that.

To achieve these desires, we have a relatively free economy (as compared to most, but clearly not all) that rewards great ideas and better products.  Now of course a great idea alone won’t make you rich, in most cases, you need to be able to create your product, test it and sell it, so you need capital and for that you need the top earners to invest or a bank to loan you the money.  No matter how good your idea or product is, if no one buys it you are screwed, your investors will lose their money and your little business venture will fail. If people buy, you earn, and therefore you can spend those earnings to expand, hire and pay off your debts.  If your idea/product is successful enough, you can improve your life and the lives of those around you, those that work for you and their families and hopefully be in a position to help the next guy that comes along to do the same.

Now here is where Trickle Down theory comes into play.  Back in the early 70s (and since income tax was first collected) our progressive tax structure was designed to tax disposable income only at progressively higher rates so that those at the top had a higher tax burden than those in the middle and those at the bottom would essentially have none.  The system was stacked to give the primary benefits and therefore the best incentives, tax breaks and credits to the middle income earners.  This allowed for continued growth in the private sector as the primary consumer base had more to spend, which gave bigger profits to those that produced regardless of level of income, and guaranteed a thriving economy.  Of course there were hiccups in the system, usually caused by outside influences or forced manipulation by our Government, but the central concept was fine.  And we flourished even though the top marginal tax bracket was over 70%, and not at the historical low of 35% where we currently are.  When ‘Trickle-Down’ theory was applied, we had been through one financial upheaval after another, the inflation crisis that brought us to a floating standard (or fiat money as Michael likes to say) oil price hikes and the embargo, as well as a few other hiccups.  The right pushed through a concept promising sweeping change that would benefit everyone.  By the end of the ’80s, Reagan had reduced the taxes on the top, created the largest tax increase in our history on the middle, simplified the tax code and raised taxes a total of 6 times while increasing deficit spending beyond levels anyone had dreamed of before, establishing a National Debt that will not be paid off for decades.  Instead of benefiting everyone, the top earners pocketed the differences and began accruing wealth at never before seen levels.  He also froze the Federal minimum wage for 9 years which, in effect gave the lowest earners a pay cut every year as inflation and the cost of living continued to increase.  Increasing wage/wealth disparity.

In 1953 the average percentage of corporate profits that went to executive compensation was 22%, in 1991 it was 61%.  As a multiple of the average factory workers salary, in 1980 a CEO made 30 times the factory worker, whereas in 1991 it was 130-140 times the average factory worker’s salary.  In 1980, before Reagan took office, there were less than 600,000 people in the U.S. that were listed as millionaires, none of which made over 10 million except for 1 Billionaire.  By the time Reagan left office there were nearly 3 times as many millionaires, with 100,000 making over $10 million, 1,200 making over $100 million, and 51 people listed as billionaires by the IRS.  In 8 years the total wealth shifted sharply up, but never trickled down to the rest of us.  The total wages of all people who earned less than $50k a year (about 85% of all Americans) increased an average of 2% a year from 1980 to 1989, which was below the rise of inflation.  By contrast, the total wages of all millionaires increased 243% a year for the same period.

The rich have been rewarded for the last three decades, and though those that behave unethically are the exception, rather than the rule, how much longer shall we continue this nonsense.  The income for all levels grew consistently from 1950 up until 1973 despite the fact that the top marginal tax bracket was 70% or better (88% during our greatest ‘boom’ years), but since the taxes on the top were reduced, the burden was shifted down as well and average income growth has remained relatively the same where the income at the bottom has gone down because the cost of living and inflation have increased at a faster rate.  The only tax bracket that has done well is the top 20% of earners.  The GOP has again convinced the population that any increase in taxes on this group will further stall the economy’s growth even though the evidence is to the contrary. The tax burden needs to be shifted back up, consumers need to have more discretionary income and that isn’t going to happen while we have the primary burden for the system resting solely on our shoulders.  Another way to look at it is the top 20% owned 80% of American Wealth, or the top 1% owned more than all of the bottom 90% combined.

Lower taxes on the middle class, the consumer class is the only right answer.  Continuing to keep the progressive tax system as a marginally progressive system has proved to be far more regressive than Reagan or any other proponents of the system expected, but it continues because everyone has accepted it as common sense, even though it has been proven to be anything but.

Share on Facebook

I have considered every aspect of this bill and although I think that right now it will not pay for itself, in the very near future it has a strong chance of paying for itself and even resulting in a surplus to go towards the national debt.  The vast majority of provisions in the bill will no doubt be costly, after all the intention is to ensure that everyone has adequate health care.  It isn’t cheap to insure 300 million people.  In reality, a large chunk of those 300 million will be paying for their own health care plus a little more to help cover the less fortunate, so I think that part will be a wash.  The part that really worried me was the administrative costs.  Yes, the bill proposes all kinds of things to ensure this program is administered as efficiently as possible.  Those of us who actually work in the government sector know better.  Few, if any government run programs are run efficiently.  I guess much of that is subjective, efficiency can be a fairly elusive concept to nail down. The bill we have made into law recently creates dozens of new federal agencies and will require hiring over 15,000 new IRS employees to manage certain monitoring and collection functions. I have not been able to find an estimate of just how many new federal employees will be hired so I am just going to guess and say its about one cubic butt load. For those readers unfamiliar with that term, I assure it is very large.

Those pesky admin costs really had me not liking this bill until I was reminded today of the Tanning Tax. Wow, this is what really put me over for this bill. I hadn’t thought much of the Tanning Tax recently since I had completely written it off as stupid and inconsequential when it was first proposed. I personally thought that the “Botox” Tax was a much better idea as a revenue generator since it would levy a tax on all elective plastic surgery. Living in Southern California, I can tell that this would result in a ton of annual money. No matter what the rate, these people will not give up their plastic surgery! Unfortunately, the “Botox” Tax was not included in the final bill. Apparently the plastic surgeons have a better lobbying group than the tanning salon owners. No big surprise there really. We still have the Tanning Tax though, and its inclusion is really the key to making this whole thing work. Will a ten percent tax on each and every tanning session pay for all the admin costs in this bill? Oh, hell no! But it doesn’t have to. And that is the real beauty of it all.

The justification for the Tanning Tax is fairly simple. People who use tanning booths are more likely to get skin cancer and thus should have to pay some extra fee in order to help defray the costs of treating those cancers later in life. To be honest, I have no idea how much a typical tanning session costs. I live in Southern California and drive a convertible, so I pretty much get my daily Vitamin D for free. Lets assume for this scenario though that the tax will amount to $2.00 per visit. If a person were to tan once a week for 30 years, that would generate $3,120 (not adjusted for inflation) in taxes. Now I am also not familiar with how much it costs to treat skin cancer after 30 years of UV exposure, but I think its likely more than the tax will generate. However, since these people will now be taking advantage of their brand new super whamodyne health care packages and seeing the doctor much more often, most of these cancers will be detected early enough that they can be excised right there in the doctor’s office for a mere pittance! That leaves the rest of that tax money to go towards paying the admin costs! A recent study shows that as many as 30 million people a year use tanning salons. Even cutting the total in half to account for people who only use them seasonally, this tax provides over $700 million a year! That will pay for a veritable army of admin types.

And it doesn’t end there. Once people realize what great revenue generator the Tanning Tax is, it will be easy to add in new taxes to pay for all those other risky behaviors. Tired of paying for other peoples weight related health problems? There’s a tax for that! Want to make sure Uncle Fred pays his fair share for laying around on the couch eating chips all day and then needing a coronary bypass? There’s a tax for that! How about stupid drivers that cut you off on the freeway? They are most likely going to use up more emergency medical care than you. There’s a tax for that! Studies show that unhappy people get sick more often than happy people. So you better turn that frown upside down buddy because there’s a tax for that to! The amount of money that we can generate using this amazing process is virtually limitless. How about skydivers? They like to claim that compared to the number of jumps per year, their accident rate is actually very low. That may be true, but if that chute doesn’t open and Mr. Jumpoutofaperfectlygoodplane happens to survive, he is going to be in the hospital for a long time. And besides, it just looks dangerous. YOU ARE JUMPING OUT OF A FREAKING PLANE FOR GOD’S SAKE!

Of course we have to work out all the details of exactly how to assess and collect these taxes, how much the rate will be, and a few other minor details but in the end it should be obvious that it is all paid for and we will still have funds left over. By my calculations (which I am performed in my bathroom with the lights off so nobody could see, and no I am not going to share the numbers with you) we will completely erase the national debt within 3 years. Yes, that’s right three short years. Damn I am excited. Being a liberal is so much more rewarding than hanging out with those stupid redneck tea-partiers.

So I am on your side now guys! Just as long as you are going to let me wear my gun to the next coffee party. What’s that? Oh, you’re uncomfortable around armed people… Well never mind then, it was a nice thought though.

Share on Facebook

In the 70′s the SO2 concentrations in coal burning plant exhaust was sufficient to produce detrimental effects on both the populace and the environment in the form of Acid Rain.  There were several attempts to find ways to solve this but no legislation could move forward because the cost to industry was considered far to high.  Several economists, using different economic models went through many variations on methods and means to achieve the noble goal of the end of acid rain.  All of these models included some form of restriction on emissions, enforceable by the EPA, but it wasn’t until one of these economists considered a secondary economy of transportable credits that could be traded between emitters that they came upon a model that was economically feasible.  Thus Cap & Trade was born.  This economic model was put into fashion by a bipartisan group that agreed on the problem, and decided to find a feasible solution.  And in 1990 G.H.W. Bush signed the amendments to the Clean Air Act of 1970 into law, capping SO2 emissions and creating a barter system that rewarded efficient companies and innovators that could find ways to reduce their emissions, and leaving the majority of the burden of the price tag on those companies that could not change.  Of course some portion of this increase in the cost of doing business would be passed on to the consumer but since the goal was noble and everyone essentially agreed that the problem needed to be fixed everyone was willing to accept the additional costs and move forward.  And it was very successful (when the EPA effectively enforced it) and acid rain has been drastically reduced.  NOx emissions were next, and also very effective.

Now we get to the current debate.  The GOP has been fighting hard against these controls being applied to CO2 emissions, and that is the real issue.  They are actually arguing that controls on CO2 are too costly, why you ask, because they don’t believe that man made CO2 has the harmful effects that the IPCC or most of the rest of the world has agreed upon by consensus.   That’s right, they do not believe in Climate Change, and this is why they oppose Cap & Trade.  It is not that the Cap & Trade policy is bad, it has been proven as an effective tool in reducing emissions, providing incentives to innovate and change, and at the least effective cost to the consumers/tax payers and industry as a whole.  Some members of the GOP will still say that they don’t believe but since the media mocks them and tries to show them as radical conservatives or loons, most no longer are willing to step out from the herd like that.  So they argue against bills or measures that would actually make strides towards reducing carbon in the atmosphere, and avoid the subject as to what their real motivation is.  If they bought into climate change, they would be applauding the application of Cap & Trade as the most effective means that can be provided at the least cost.

Whether you believe in climate change or not is not the issue.  It is the manner in which these people that represent us that matters.  The GOP has effectively blocked this legislation, and though, not officially, this bill is dead.  CO2 will continue to be unregulated which is the GOPs real intent.  The threat to put it under EPA jurisdiction is just that, a threat.  The EPA cannot act unilaterally and declare something controllable without an expected back lash, and subsequent lawsuits.  It is just a matter of time until this happens.

Chris

Share on Facebook

The arguments against gay marriage usually fall along one of three points:

The basis of marriage is about procreation:  This is false, many people get married and not only don’t have children, but they have no intention in having children.  Should these marriages be negated?  Should any woman be allowed to marry after menopause?  If a guy has a vasectomoy while married should he be automatically divorced because of this?  These are the absurd questions that can crop up when we use this as the primary basis for marriage, which, incidentally, is currently the only argument being used to defend Proposition 8 out there on the left coast.

The basis of morality:  This puts the institution of marriage more soundly in the realm of a religious institution and not a legal one.  Religion and philosophy are the foundation of moral teachings and the State has no place in the defining of morals.  If a gay person wants to get married they should petition their church, not the State.  This is where civil unions come in as a tool of the State, but I will get to this piece of legal documentation later.

The basis of harming the existing institution of marriage:  This is my favorite argument used and the worst of the bunch.  There is nothing that cheapens or weakens my marriage other than the decisions my wife and I make, any argument otherwise is absurd.  And there is very little anyone can do to convince me that anything harms the institution of marriage like divorce does.  This single act of breaking your vows and throwing out the promises that make up the union of marriage is what harms it, not two other people getting married, regardless of sexual orientation.  Until the religious right can make it so hard to get divorced that people stop and think before getting married I won’t be convinced that they are interested in protecting the institution of marriage.

The arguments for gay marriage are simple, but they are as fruitless as the opposition to them.  Gay people want to be accepted for who they are.  This is a desire that almost all people want and it is both understandable and a fair request.  The problem that they run into is that too many people believe that the acts that they commit as a part of their lifestyle are grievous or mortal sins and therefore they believe that they cannot accept the person as they are or they will be seen as condoning the behavior.  Of course people of the G.L.B.T. community do not like the fact that a portion of the population, regardless of how big this portion is, thinks they are evil, corrupt, lost, or just plain wrong for being who they are.  The compromise has been to offer Civil Unions in place of marriage certificates or licenses.  The G.L.B.T. community disagrees with this on the principle that it reduces them to a second class citizen and they are “equal but separate” adding to the concept that this is a civil rights issue.   Every one of the legal protections afforded by this piece of paper are already accessible in the current system but it requires a few extra hoops and comes at a slightly higher price, which is a penalty for a lifestyle, again pushing this in the direction of the argument that this is a civil rights issue.

The proper compromise is simple, the State should only issue Civil Union licenses or certificates, period.   No more Marriage Licenses!   A wedding is a religious ceremony and a marriage is a partnership, two separate things.  But because the average American does not separate these two things they can no longer accept the idea that the legal protections provided by this certification of their partnership has nothing to do with the arguments listed above regarding morality or anything else.  If any two people want to form a personal, legal bond then this should be allowed, it says nothing in regards to the actual nature of the relationship nor the acts that they perform in the privacy of their homes.   Of course once you enter into any partnership, if you choose to leave it you have to go through other legal hoops to disolve the legal partnership you have created, but that is a different discussion.  This solution is fair and will provide equal treatment for all, and it will still provide the State with a small revenue stream.  For the time being, members of the G.L.B.T. community will still be treated as second class citizens in one way shape or form, as do almost any minority populations, that is human nature and is not likely to change just because you cram it down your oppositions throat.

Share on Facebook

Since Veteran’s Day also leads us into the Holiday season, I thought it might be appropriate to re-post a poem I first read many years ago.  I have always loved this poem since it not only expresses the sentiments of most civilians but also explains how we verterans really feel about serving.  After nearly 20 years of service, I am eternally greatful to thos who have allowed me to serve this country and have made it all worthwhile.  And now for the poem. If you haven’t seen this before, you may want to have a tissue handy.  To the best of my knowledge, the original author is unknown but is reportedly a marine who was stationed in Okinawa at the time and only requests that the poem be sent to as many people as possible.

Happy Veteran’s Day!

TWAS THE NIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS,
HE LIVED ALL ALONE,
IN A ONE BEDROOM HOUSE MADE OF
PLASTER AND STONE.

I HAD COME DOWN THE CHIMNEY
WITH PRESENTS TO GIVE,
AND TO SEE JUST WHO
IN THIS HOME DID LIVE.

I LOOKED ALL ABOUT,
A STRANGE SIGHT I DID SEE,
NO TINSEL, NO PRESENTS,
NOT EVEN A TREE.

NO STOCKING BY MANTLE,
JUST BOOTS FILLED WITH SAND,
ON THE WALL HUNG PICTURES
OF FAR DISTANT LANDS.

WITH MEDALS AND BADGES,
AWARDS OF ALL KINDS,
A SOBER THOUGHT
CAME THROUGH MY MIND.

FOR THIS HOUSE WAS DIFFERENT,
IT WAS DARK AND DREARY,
I FOUND THE HOME OF A SOLDIER,
ONCE I COULD SEE CLEARLY.

THE SOLDIER LAY SLEEPING,
SILENT, ALONE,
CURLED UP ON THE FLOOR
IN THIS ONE BEDROOM HOME.

THE FACE WAS SO GENTLE,
THE ROOM IN SUCH DISORDER,
NOT HOW I PICTURED
A UNITED STATES SOLDIER.

WAS THIS THE HERO
OF WHOM I’D JUST READ?
CURLED UP ON A PONCHO,
THE FLOOR FOR A BED?

I REALIZED THE FAMILIES
THAT I SAW THIS NIGHT,
OWED THEIR LIVES TO THESE SOLDIERS
WHO WERE WILLING TO FIGHT.

SOON ROUND THE WORLD,
THE CHILDREN WOULD PLAY,
AND GROWNUPS WOULD CELEBRATE
A BRIGHT CHRISTMAS DAY.

THEY ALL ENJOYED FREEDOM
EACH MONTH OF THE YEAR,
BECAUSE OF THE SOLDIERS,
LIKE THE ONE LYING HERE.

I COULDN’T HELP WONDER
HOW MANY LAY ALONE,
ON A COLD CHRISTMAS EVE
IN A LAND FAR FROM HOME.

THE VERY THOUGHT
BROUGHT A TEAR TO MY EYE,
I DROPPED TO MY KNEES
AND STARTED TO CRY.

THE SOLDIER AWAKENED
AND I HEARD A ROUGH VOICE,
“SANTA DON’T CRY,
THIS LIFE IS MY CHOICE;

I FIGHT FOR FREEDOM,
I DON’T ASK FOR MORE,
MY LIFE IS MY GOD,
MY COUNTRY, MY CORPS.”

THE SOLDIER ROLLED OVER
AND DRIFTED TO SLEEP,
I COULDN’T CONTROL IT,
I CONTINUED TO WEEP.

I KEPT WATCH FOR HOURS,
SO SILENT AND STILL
AND WE BOTH SHIVERED
FROM THE COLD NIGHT’S CHILL.

I DIDN’T WANT TO LEAVE
ON THAT COLD, DARK, NIGHT,
THIS GUARDIAN OF HONOR
SO WILLING TO FIGHT.

THEN THE SOLDIER ROLLED OVER,
WITH A VOICE SOFT AND PURE,
WHISPERED, “CARRY ON SANTA,
IT’S CHRISTMAS DAY, ALL IS SECURE.

ONE LOOK AT MY WATCH,
AND I KNEW HE WAS RIGHT.
“MERRY CHRISTMAS MY FRIEND,
AND TO ALL A GOOD NIGHT.

Share on Facebook

While I do not feel that the enemy is “infiltrating” our military, the possibility is there.  The fact that this man was able to rise to the rank of Major shows that we are perhaps not doing as much screening as we should and in the right places.  Those of us who have held a security clearance know that the screening process for thes clearances is fairly thorough, but not until you get up to the higher clearance levels.  There is no indication that Nidal Hassan ever had any type of clearance and as a psychiatrist I would not necessarily expect him to.  So what processes are in place to ensure that a muslim-american with these types of religous beliefs does not slip through the cracks again?  And should our men and women in uniform trust those muslim-americans they currently serve with?

This could have been much worse.  Had Nidal Hassan been something other than a psyciatrist, he could have caused far more damage than he did.  Of course, he would have gone through more screening to get access to that kind of firepower so maybe the system would have prevented him.  We will never know.  But can we even screem out people based on religous beliefs?  I believe under current law, we cannot.  I think we need to take a harder look at just how much “political correctness” is going to end up costing us in the future.

Rich

Share on Facebook

Isn’t “assault” already illegal?

Yes, yes it is.

If you want to increase the punishment then increase the maximum assault/murder/whatever penalty under the law.  Any Judge or jury in the united states has the right to determine the punishment of the crime as defined in the law.  The whole, “not punishable by more than… etc” part.  If the Judge or jury feels the crime was more abhorrent for whatever reason, than he/she/they have the right to sentence the maximum jail time.  This new law serves absolutely no purpose.  This is just one in a series of “feel good” legislative bills passed for no other reason than, well, to make people “feel good.”  There is no easier way to feel good than to identify a group of people (must be a small, rather sadly looked-upon group) draft up some legislation, which is identical to laws that already exist, pass it, pat each other on the back, and congratulate each other on making people “feel good.”

Politicians could be accomplishing something practical, helpful, or at the very least not spending so much money, but no, next year’s election is rapidly approaching and the realization that nothing has been accomplished is right behind.  So here is the legislation which they can point to when asked what they did the advance the rights of minority groups, “Well, we made it MORE illegal to assault people based on gender.”

More illegal.

I’ll say it again (even though its my quote).  More illegal.

All crimes are illegal.  But some crimes are more illegal than others…

I know I’ve heard that somewhere.  But never mind.  This is the kind of utter nonsense and waste that comes out of Washington D.C. that quasi-democrats like myself really hate.  HAT-I guess I better not use that word, speech hasn’t been free for quite some time and I don’t want to find myself in jail.  There are many things in the world that bother me: religious intolerance, famine, disease, poverty, marginalization of human life, but the three things that REALLY bother me, and I hope bother most Americans, are Redundancy, Rhetoric, and Waste.

We see right through you, Washington, don’t think for one second that you’re off the hook.  You want my vote?  Earn it.  And dangling a piece of “feel good” nonsense in front of my face isn’t going to do it.

-Matthew

Share on Facebook

According to the AFL-CIO, in 2008 the average compensation package for a S&P 500 CEO was $10.9 million.  A short look at each company shows a wide range around this average from only a few million upwards of more than 20 million.  I will be the first to admit that $20 million is a huge sum no matter what job you are doing.  Before we go crying off to big brother though, maybe we should take a look at just how much that really is and where all that money comes from.

In 2007, the CEO of Boeing Aircraft made about $14 million.  That same year, Boeing made about $4 billion in total profits.  I’ll let you do the math, but as a percentage of company profits, $14 million is not very much.  This is only one example, but I am sure the same holds true for most other Fortune 500 companies.  A company that makes a lot of money can afford to pay the big bucks to the guy with all the responsibility.  Now, setting aside the whole total CEO pay issue, lets look at what those CEO’s make compared to their employees.  After all, if a company is making enough to pay the CEO the big bucks, then the average employee pay should go up as well right?  Well, not necessarily true as it turns out and this is where the real injustice is in my opinion.

In 1965, the average CEO of a large company made about 24 times what the average worker earned.  By 2007, CEO pay had risen to 275 times that of an average worker.  Over the last 40 years, we have seen the emergence of a class of top level managers who demand, and get far more in compensation than they rightfully deserve.  Right or wrong, this is where we have found ourselves and I believe we can emerge from the other end looking much better without government intervention.  More and more shareholder groups are starting to hold CEO’s accountable and reducing benefits packages.  Keep in mind that the largest increases in CEO pay have taken place over the last ten years as this class of managers matured and took root.  Most of these high paid execs are in their 60′s and likely will not be working much longer.  Maybe if we cut their pay a little we can entice them to go ahead and retire and get out of the way.

Rich

Share on Facebook