Tag Archives: house

Posted on by

Bullies, Bashing and the GOP

Let’s get this straight right up front: What someone does as a teen is not necessarily a reflection of how they are 50-60 years later. there may be clues, but to flat out extrapolate from one to the other is just plain silly. That’s what folks are trying to do with this latest Mitt Romney flap. As written in a Washington Post article, Romney was apparently part of a bullying incident during high school where he and others pinned down another student and cut his hair, ostensibly because they believed he was effeminate and didn’t fit in. They were going to teach him a lesson.

This behavior is, without a doubt, reprehensible. But making the case that since he did it then, he’d do the same now – or even have similar tendencies – is simply ridiculous. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a Romney fan. But fair is fair.

If you want to see how the man’s character has developed, you need to look at more than just his high school years. He protested in favor of the Vietnam War, then got himself moved to France to avoid the draft. His time at Bain Capital, where he made his money buying, then dismantling businesses, pocketing the profits while moving jobs offshore and putting Americans out of work. Or his battle with and elimination of a Massachusetts state-sponsored group that worked to educate against gay bullying. You can look at his current focus at cutting the taxes on the wealthy, while increasing them on the poor. There are plenty of things you can point to that show where his thinking has “evolved”. You don’t need to extrapolate it from his behavior as a teen.

But there is a pattern here. And in that sense, there is some value to knowing about this incident. Romney has always been couched in privilege. And from that privilege comes arrogance and a sense of entitlement. It comes with the perception that those who are different must be made to toe the line. And that getting ahead, getting your own way, takes precedence over the welfare of others. In other words, he acts like a bully.

Today, that bullying is in the form of money. He will spend as much as it takes to get himself the nomination, and if he can, the Presidency. It doesn’t matter how awful things in his past might be, nor what the consequence to the average person is. This isn’t about class warfare, because Romney doesn’t recognize a different class. You can tell by his speeches, his statements – he truly believes that he is average, that everyone has the same opportunities he did. So he believes he is doing the best. And anyone who doesn’t have what he has is just lazy, doesn’t need help. Remember his statement about not being worried about the very poor? He thinks they’re ok. He thinks the fact that they have fallen into a safety net shows that the system works. Never mind the fact that they need a safety net is a prime example that the system isn’t working, and that he is supportive of removing that safety net and letting them fall. Same attitude as “Let Detroit Fail”. If it doesn’t affect him or his cronies directly, he really doesn’t care. But take away a penny of their income in taxes, and they scream of lost freedoms and war on the rich.

It’s the entitlement of bullies. They’ll bash everything around them if they are allowed. It gives them a sense of power, a sense of control. It’s the GOP brand. Case in point – today’s vote in the House on a Republican measure to restore military funding that they gave up in the debt ceiling deal. You’ll remember that in the deal, Republicans agreed that if a debt reduction deal was not passed by November of last year, there would be automatic cuts to the military. They agreed to that because Democrats agreed to cuts on the programs they favor as well.

Now, however, Republicans want to renege. They want to turn back the clock and not cut a penny out of the military. Instead, they want to make further cuts to social programs, like school lunches, health care subsidies, child tax credits and food stamps, on top of the cuts already agreed to. Typical bully behavior. Make the deal, then try to bash your way out of it when it starts going south.

Of course, this deal has no chance in the Senate, and even if it did, it would not get past the President. They made a deal, and they’re going to have to stick to it. But the reality is, they don’t care. How could they? Politically, in an election year, do you really want to pit the poor, children and the elderly against military spending? Do you want to remind folks that you made a deal, in an effort to reduce spending, and that you don’t want to keep your word?

Bullies don’t care.

Again, this isn’t about class warfare. This is about entitlement. They have the money, they want to keep it, and they don’t intend to give any of it away. So they’ll beat up whoever they have to toward that end.

So, no, Romney’s high school activities aren’t indicative of what he would do today. But they are a piece of a puzzle that shows that his sense of entitlement, his willingness to bully those he doesn’t agree with, has a clear progression from then until now.

Posted on by

The Wrong Day To Mess With Me

I’m not in a good mood. My congestive heart failure symptoms are giving me fits today. Weight is up, chest hurts, didn’t sleep. I thought I’d take it easy, not write any political posts, just kind of unplug.

I even, for the most part, just blew off the right-wing posts I was seeing, regardless of how near-sighted, self-centered or just plain stupid they were.

And it was working just fine, until someone decided to turn a post about how to fix Facebook settings into an attack on the left, and Christians on the left in particular.

Don’t ask me why, but it set me off. Maybe my filters are just off today. Maybe I’m just tired of the hypocrisy. Maybe my inner asshole decided it needed to come up for air. Whatever it was, I had a rage come up that made my blood boil. Not a great idea for a guy with a bad ticker.

I let loose on the individual in question, but the anger, the rage is still there. And since writing is my way of making sure I don’t go looking for a bar fight, I decided to get it out. So, if you’re still reading, be prepared – I’m about to vent. As in radioactive steam release vent.

I’m usually fairly mild mannered in my writing. I don’t usually drop the f-bomb. So if that word offends you, feel free to go look for cute kitten pictures now. Because I’m fucking pissed.

Why? Let’s start a little list, shall we?

For example, don’t rail against sharia law, and how Muslims are going to somehow circumvent the Constitution and how you have to pass laws to ensure it never happens, then turn around and tell us that the country should be ruled by your God’s law first, and the Constitution second.

Don’t tell me you defend the Constitution then work to dismantle every bit of it you don’t like.

Don’t find some reason to turn any discussion, no matter how mundane, into an attack on your religion, then turn around and try to tell me you know the difference between a “Christian” and a Christian, just because they don’t agree with everything you say. Or question the faith of the President of the United States.

Don’t tell me you’re all for the civil rights and equality for everyone and then argue against women’s reproductive rights, the rights of homosexuals to marry, or the right of a Muslim church to build a mosque in which to pray.

Don’t rail against Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck and the rest of the right-wing blowhards and then ignore it when Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson or Bill Maher say something equally as offensive.

And don’t dare bring me the fucking “They do it too” excuse. Don’t. It only shows how stupid you are and how stupid you think I am.

Don’t talk to me about how you represent “the 99%” and then break into buildings. Here’s a clue genius – 99% of people don’t think someone who is breaking the law represents them. Peaceful, persistent protest, yes. Doing shit that is intended to aggravate “the man”, like hurling things at the police or through windows? Not a chance.

Here’s another clue: There really is supposed to be a separation of church and state. You deciding there isn’t doesn’t change history or the Constitution. I’m an agnostic, have been for most of my life. Your ardor for your faith does not give you the right to force me to bend to your beliefs. See “sharia law”.

Oh, and by the way, the 1st Amendment protects you from the government stifling your free speech. It doesn’t protect you from the consequences of voicing your asinine beliefs.

For those who haven’t figured it out, things like Unemployment Insurance and Social Security aren’t “entitlements”. If I paid my money into the system, they were an investment. If your investments are so fucking precious, how about treating these investments with the same amount of care, rather than raid them to fatten your damned offshore Cayman Islands bank accounts.

Don’t tell me it’s too easy to get welfare or assistance, then tell me that I can’t get any medical insurance or food assistance because my disability insurance pays me too much. And my rent is more than half of what I get.

Don’t rail against the President about gas prices (regardless of political stripe) but tell me oil companies need continued subsidies. And don’t tell me gas prices are about supply and demand when we have a surplus and prices are still climbing. Meanwhile, speculators are laughing their asses off as we have to make decisions about whether we eat or put gas in the car. Think that’s an exaggeration? I made that exact decision yesterday.

Don’t tell me that climate change and evolution are “controversial theories”, but insist that “creationism” or “intelligent design” are sound scientific hypotheses.

Don’t tell me about defunding organizations like Planned Parenthood and remove access to birth control, then rail against abortion because of unwanted pregnancies. And when you talk about womens’ pregnancies in terms of barnyard animals I have two words for you: Fuck. Off.

Don’t talk to me about how a racist can’t be a racist because he’s not actually a caucasian while a family buries their young son because he had the temerity to walk back from 7-Eleven with Skittles and iced tea. And don’t even defend the very same racist  who is heard saying “fucking coons” on a 911 tape when the kid he followed, who he vastly outweighed ended up with a hole in his chest from the gun that was fired in “self-defense”.

And you better not try to tell me that “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. No, stupid fucking people with access to guns kill people. And no, genius, that doesn’t mean I want to take away your guns. It means there are responsible ways to control who has a gun and when they can have it on them, and if your excuse for carrying it is the Second Amendment, your reading comprehension in terms of the Constitution is embarrassingly low. Look up the definition of “well-regulated militia”, and I’m pretty sure you ain’t it. And it doesn’t give you the right to carry a bazooka like an extension of your johnson. You don’t need a fucking AK-47 to hunt rabbits, moron.

The next person who uses the term “race card” in my presence may get a well-placed fist in the puss. Racism is racism, and I don’t care who is guilty of it. And guess what? It’s out there, uglier than ever. And if you’re black, and you see something that was racist against a black, it’s ok to call it out. And I expect you’ll call out racism against whites, hispanics and Asians. Just like I expect all of them to do the same. Same with anti-Semitism. I don’t care the race, creed or religion of the person being racist. If it’s wrong it’s wrong.

And don’t – don’t - defend a racist remark by trying to redefine it. The word “nigger” is not defined as someone who is lazy or slothful. It’s a derogatory term derived from the mispronunciation of “negro”. So using your definition of it to excuse a bumper sticker that says “Don’t Re-Nig in 2012″ isn’t fooling anyone. If you’re going to be racist, at least have the decency of wearing your fucking hood so we can see you more easily.

Speaking of hoods, wearing a hoodie and jeans isn’t supposed to be a death sentence. And then turning around and saying that the reason a kid got killed was his choice in clothing is the epitome of stupidity and blatant idiocy. Maybe the problem is the perception that someone wearing a hoodie is automatically a thug, you fucking gasbag.

And no, there isn’t a “liberal media bias”. There is a bias to what makes money. Fox is focused on the right because Murdoch realized he could make a buck there. Liberals don’t watch as much TV. If they did, he’d try to suck that market dry too. CNN, MSNBC, and all the rest – they aren’t journalism anymore. They are reporters. They repeat what they’re told and fuck the truth. It’s waht they can get you to watch that’s importannt. How the hell else do you justify nearly 30 Republican debates with the same questions asked over and over and over again, like there was any real chance of the answer changing.

Another clue for some of you – just because Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich or Ron Paul call it “gotcha journalism”, it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t answer the damned question. If you are asked a question about something you said, it’s your own damn fault for saying it. Blaming the person asking the question and calling it a gotcha question means you realize you opened your fucking mouth when you shouldn’t have, and now you don’t want to have to answer for it. Shut up, and either back your statement or recant it. But asking you about something you said isn’t “gotcha journalism”. It’s follow-up.

Oh, and you rocket scientists on the “professional left”… Just because you had some unrealistic fantasy that the President would fix eight years of backward, destructive policies within 90 seconds of taking office doesn’t mean the rest of us had the same stupid expectation. And the most ridiculous thing you do is then decide you’re going to punish the one guy who actually has gotten things moving in the right direction by not voting for him, or trying to weaken him. Result? You allowed the guys who fucked things up for eight years to gain back the House so they could proceed to spend two years doing nothing but get in the way. Awesome plan. What’s next? Tell folks on the left they should vote for Romney ’cause he’s no different? Oh, right, some of you have already done that. Idiots.

Here’s another thing – shut the fuck up about family values while you’re on your third wife, screwing hookers while you’re in diapers, having sex with Congressional pages or trying to have an illicit homosexual hookup in an airport bathroom while claiming you’re straight. You’re all bunch of hypocrites. And don’t give me the bullshit that the media only covers the screwups on the right because of the bias. They cover the screwups on the right because the right claims to be the arbiters of what are “true family values”. The left doesn’t make that claim, so when they screw up, it’s less of a deal. If the right didn’t spend so much time acting like they were the pristine vestal virgins they want everybody to believe they are, it wouldn’t be as big a deal when they screw up. Bill Clinton got blowjobs in the Oval Office, and they moved to impeachment. Vitter does hookers while wearing a diaper, and he’s still getting voted in. Gingrich is on his third wife – having cheated on the first two – and he’s still running for office. So tell me again, where’s the bias?

I also can’t fathom how the guys who are so concerned about voter fraud can’t even count votes properly in their own caucuses.  They can’t complete a simple primary without accusations of voter fraud within their own people. Maybe that’s why they’re so afraid someone else will do it, even though there is no credible evidence that it happens.

But probably the one thing that really, really pisses me off is the willful, even spiteful ignorance of facts. As the saying goes, you are entitled to your own opinion, even your own conclusion. But you are not entitled to your own facts. Rather than pursue fact and deal with issues based on those facts, there is a culture of simply throwing out conjecture and outright falsehoods and treating them as fact. That’s the willful ignorance. But the spiteful ignorance is when you present the facts, and instead of addressing the facts, the subject gets changed. Can’t win with your argument? Change the argument!

Along a similar line is the incessant use of a straw man argument, based on nothing but hot air. Sure, we all occasionally make an argument based on a misunderstanding of information. But in those cases, most of us, when presented with contradictory facts, will at least concede that we need to do more investigation. That’s perfectly ok – we all have the right to change our minds or be more educated. No, what I get really torqued about are the people who make stuff up out of thin air, and when you call them on it – ask for proof – they move on to the next lie, the next fabrication. They never retract a thing, they never acknowledge the facts in front of them. They just move on to the next piece of bullshit. So why does this piss me off the most? Because these people are the same ones that will demand an unending chain of proof for anything you say, and when you provide it, they’ll still call you the liar, and complain the truth is “manufactured”.

Just stop. Please. It’s bad for my heart to get this pissed off. And you guys are working too hard at it.

There. I got it off my chest. Do I feel better? No. But I’ll have to deal with the fact that sometimes, you can’t fix stupid.

Posted on by

Boehner And The XL Pipeline – And The SEC Investigation

Republicans are up in arms about President Obama killing – for now – the XL Pipeline project that would bring tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. Decrying lost jobs and lost revenue, they have even threatened to stop the extension of payroll tax cuts unless the President changes his mind.

Of course, the Republicans created this situation in the first place. After some concerns about how the pipeline might affect sensitive aquifers along its path, a new study was order to find a different, less impactful path. The Republicans, wanting to shove the program through, enacted legislation within 60 days, thinking the President would cave and just approve the deal. Instead, citing that 60 days was insufficient to do a proper study (average is about a year), the President cancelled the program, leaving open the option that TransCanada, the company that wants to build the pipeline can reapply after a proper study is done.

Now, it’s no secret that Republicans love big oil. It’s more money for their benefactors. And have no illusions, this would have been big money for oil companies that are already being subsidized and playing a fraction of the taxes they should. As for the claim of more jobs, they have been claiming 25,000 jobs will be thrown away. But analysis of the numbers in a complaint sent to the SEC reports that the jobs number is exaggerated by 67x – and that the actual number is less than 400 actual jobs created. It also points out that while TransCanada estimates that the pipeline would only have the danger of spilling of about once in seven years, they have had 12 spills in the last year.

Wait – SEC investigation? Securities and Exchange Commission?

Yup. It seems that House Speaker John Boehner is looking out for more than just jobs by pushing this pipeline. It turns out Boehner holds stock in seven different tar sands companies. It is unethical for him to use political pressure that would benefit his private interests. You know, the kind of ethical problems that guys like Gingrich ran into.

The complaint filed with the SEC alleges “false or misleading statements about the proposed Keystone XL pipeline” and that they “consistently used public statements and information it knows are false in a concerted effort to secure permitting approval of Keystone XL from the U.S. government.”

And the prime individual pushing for XL to be carried through? John Boehner. Who receives campaign donations from the oil companies that would benefit? John Boehner. And who owns stock in seven tar sands companies that would benefit from the pipeline? John Boehner.

This really shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. It’s part of a larger pattern of inventing statistics and making up data wholesale to get things to go their way. This isn’t about American jobs, or revenue. The majority of the oil from the pipeline wasn’t going to go to the US – it was headed for Europe. And you can bet, because of tax laws, that since the sale was going to be in Europe, those sales would be exempt from US taxes, meaning the companies would extract value from Canada, expose a swath of the country from north to south to the potential of spills and increased cancer risk, without bringing those profits back into the US.

The SEC has only said they are actively considering an investigation. If they do go forward, things will getting a bit stick for Boehner and his bad of cronies.

Posted on by

Murdoch Wants To Control Your Internet

No real surprise here – Rupert Murdoch is doing his level best to ensure that the Internet is controlled the way he wants it controlled. Via HuffPo:

WASHINGTON — News Corp. honcho Rupert Murdoch threw his weight behind Congress’ attempt to restrict the Internet, personally lobbying leaders on Capitol Hill Wednesday for two measures that purport to combat piracy.

Murdoch’s media empire is among some 350 large corporations that have come out in favor of the Stop Online Piracy Act in the House, as well as theProtect IP Act in the Senate.

Both measures would require Internet operators to police activity online, and would mandate Internet giants like Google and AOL (the parent company of The Huffington Post and an opponent of the bills) and credit card companies to take down sites that have content deemed to be in violation of copyright rules.

In both of these pieces of legislation, the sites would receive no warning. They would just be shut down. Period. You might be able to get back online after a “review”, but if the site is your business, you’re out of business for the duration.

When you hear Congresscritters talking about “evil regulation”, these two pieces of legislation fit the title accurately. So if the fat cats are so against regulation, why would they consider this? Because it would be another tool to consolidate the control of information into an ever-shrinking number of sources.  When you control the media, you control the masses. By controlling the media, Rupert and his cohorts can get the legislation they want, the tax breaks they want, the control they want – and never have to worry about what it does to the rest of the country.

If you haven’t already called/emailed/faxed/written your legislators about these invasions into our online freedoms – get to it.

Posted on by

The Super-Dooper-Uber Committee Is Looking For Ways Out

Remember a few months ago when we described that the debt ceiling deal wasn’t as bad as it looked? And how the “super-committee” was headed toward an impasse? We are now one week away from their deadline, and they’re looking for ways out of the deal.

To give you an idea why they’re looking for a way out, just  look at the recent proposals from Republicans. They actually offer revenue increases. Of course, they want these backed by tax cuts that essentially offset the majority of those revenue increases, nullifying the effect on the deficit. And since they have all been adamant about not increasing taxes, they’ve run into a a sticky problem. The deficit reduction required cannot be achieved without some increase in revenues, i.e., taxes. Which, as we had previously predicted, means they’re at an impasse.

The folks over at the Atlantic Wire have summarized what is now going on, an attempt to change the rules of the game so they don’t have to do the work they were assigned:

They can’t strike a deal so they want to pull a fast one. With only one week left, members of the bipartisan Super Committee are resorting to accounting gimmicks and legislative sleights of hand to magically produce $1.2 trillion in deficit savings without significant tax increases or spending cuts. The book-cooking has even awoken infrequent tweeter Donald Rumsfeld, imploring the committee this morning to “End the budget gimmicks. Congress and candidates should tell us what they will cut now, not in a decade.”

Some of these tricks include:

  • Counting Iraq war savings – You may remember that when the President’s budget used the expected savings from the Iraq war, Republicans railed against it saying it was not real savings, as those dollars were already being pulled. Now, those same Republicans want to use that savings in the count of Supercommittee debt reduction.
  • Change the baseline – The Congressional Budget Office creates a “baseline”, by which future budget proposals are scored. Currently, that means that savings must come after the Bush-era tax cuts expire. Now, the Supercommittee wants to work as if the tax cuts will not expire, then using the expiration of those cuts as savings. In other words, no real changes, just an accounting trick to make it look good. This is akin to a retailer telling you you’re saving 30% on that coat – after they jacked the price up 40%.
  • Passing the buck – Another proposal has them handing the task of changing the tax revenues to another set of Congressional committees, essentially passing the buck. They wouldn’t make any cuts now, just say that those future committees will do so. Sure they will.
  • Banking on the future – Another interesting accounting trick is that they want to count projected growth in the economy as make an assumption about how much more revenue that will generate. You know, kind of how you like to pretend what you’ll do if you win the lottery. “We think the economy will grow X%, so if we make no cuts, the added revenue will make up the difference!”
  • Just pretend it never happened – The last trick is to simply repeal the Supercommittee entirely. That’s right, pretend it never happened – the JR Ewing tactic. Of course, this would be almost as disastrous for the Republicans. They cut the debt ceiling deal with the promise they would reduce the deficit. By disbanding the Supercommittee, they give up the ability to claim they are truly deficit hawks, and the debt ceiling cannot be reversed. So the debt ceiling would stand, and Republicans would not have made a single motion toward reducing the deficit.
But anyone watching this whole kabuki play for the last few months could easily have seen this was coming. Republicans don’t want to increase revenues, but they can’t deny the simple fact that revenues must increase to bring the deficit in line. So, they can either choose to increase revenues – and incur the wrath of the Tea Party, they can hold the line on revenues and watch as defense spending is cut wholesale – and lose the defense hawks. Or, they can try to change the rules and wriggle out of their duty, and hope no one notices.
Posted on by

Congressional Approval Rating In the Single Digits

A new New York Times/CBS Poll reveals that Americans have the lowest opinion of Congress than any time since they have issued the poll, with only 9% approving of the job Congress is doing.

Of course, the first question that comes to mind is – What is wrong with those 9%?

But there are a whole bunch of numbers in this poll that reflect how much mistrust Americans have for their elected representatives. Seven in ten think Republicans favor the wealthy and two-thirds object to tax breaks for corporations. A similar number favors increasing taxes on millionaires.

In the poll, 89% distrust that government will do the right thing. And then there’s this nugget…

With the nation’s unemployment rate at 9.1 percent, income inequality remains a palpable issue for Americans. Nearly 9 in 10 Democrats, two-thirds of independents and just over one-third of all Republicans say that the distribution of wealth in the country should be more equitable, even as a majority of Republicans said they think it is fair.

Much as the Republicans want to rail against it, these numbers mean that the majority of Americans believe that wealth distribution in this country is out of whack.

Look for these numbers to be used by both sides to bolster their cases, but Republicans will be reaching for straws. Theres not much here for them to be positive about.

There is one analysis I haven’t seen yet, and perhaps might be an interesting thing to look at. That is the relationship of presidential approval rating to Congress’. While the POTUS is hovering in mid 40′s, Congress is below 10%. How often has there been that large a delta between the two? And what have been the outcomes? The gut feeling I have is that when that delta has been bigger, the POTUS is much more likely to be re-elected, but Congress may be in deep trouble – on both sides of the aisle.

Posted on by

There’s Lots Of Money To Fix Schools – As Long As It’s Not Here

Eric Cantor (R-VA) is big on holding up funds, especially when it comes to disaster relief. And he has said he will not support the President’s job bill, which include $30B to improve public schools – even though the package already describes how it will be paid for. Nosirree… Mr. Cantor has no desire to spend money and increase the deficit. At least, not in this country.

Apparently, however, Mr. Cantor is all for deficit spending to rebuild schools and infrastructure elsewhere. His voting record clearly shows it. He has voted for over $120B to rebuild schools and infrastructure in Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s four times the amount proposed for schools here in the US.

Currently, there is an estimated $270B to $500B in backlogged maintenance and repair outstanding for schools in the US. So the $30B in the jobs bill isn’t even a dent. But it would get things started. And it is estimated that for every $1B spent to do the work, 10,000 jobs would be created. That means 300,000 new jobs from just the school improvement portion of the bill.

Keep in mind, that work wouldn’t come close to achieving all the repairs necessary. Also, you need to remember that the whole package is paid for through spending reduction and tax reform.

But Cantor won’t vote for it. He voted to rebuild schools and infrastructure in Iraq and Afghanistan, but won’t vote to do it here at home.

Every day, it becomes clearer: The Republicans don’t care about the country. They care about themselves and their benefactors far more. So much so that they’re willing to fatten up the deficit to rebuild overseas, but won’t touch it at home even if it’s paid for.

Posted on by

Let’s Drag *All* Their Dirty Laundry In Front Of Congress

After reports surfaced recently that the President’s uncle was in the country illegally and was arrested for driving under the influence, it was only a matter of time before a right winger – this time Steve King (R-IA) tried to use it against the President. From TPM:

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) wants to bring President Obama’s uncle, Onyango Obama, before Congress to testify on whether he received preferential treatment after he was arrested for allegedly driving under the influence of alcohol.

“We have to bring drunken ‘Uncle Omar’ in front of the House Judiciary Committee, drill down into this, and tell America what’s going on,” King told Fox News, referring to Obama’s uncle, who is in the country illegally.

He also took a shot at Obama’s aunt, who was granted asylum in the country by a Republican-appointed immigration judge because her immigration status was leaked just ahead of the 2008 presidential election.

“I watched as President Obama’s aunt, Zeituni Onyango, also evaded [Immigration and Customs Enforcement],” King said. “The sympathy, the bleeding heart, of [Department of Homeland Security Director] Janet Napolitano decided to use an administrative authority to grant President Obama’s aunt asylum.”

King’s comments follow remarks by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), who said last week that “Obama’s backdoor amnesty allows drunk-driving illegal immigrants like his uncle to remain in the U.S.”

In other words, let’s use the actions of one irresponsible adult in someone’s family to attack another. And let’s toss in that whole immigration thing as well, just for grins.

I don’t know if the President’s uncle received preferential treatment – but I’m fairly certain he didn’t. It would be a supremely stupid move with no real point. But there is one thing I’m certain of: It doesn’t warrant dragging people out in front of a House Judiciary Committee. A total waste of time and taxpayers’ money to try to embarrass the President because someone in his family drinks and drives. Like there isn’t one of those in just about every family.

I’ve got a better idea – how about we bring in front of the House Judiciary Committee every family member that has been arrested for a DUI, domestic violence, soliciting a prostitute, possessing an illegal substance – and see if they have received any preferential treatment. Oh, wait, we don’t need their families. There are plenty in Congress who have been arrested for those same reasons. Did they receive preferential treatment? Let’s pull them in front of the HJC and see what they have to say.

Yeah, right. That’ll happen.

The “immigration” issue here is also a red herring. If there is an immigration problem, INS/ICE should handle it. You don’t need to start hearings.

Maybe if they focused on jobs just half as much as they focused on trying to find things to attack the President on, a whole lot more of us would be gainfully employed.

Posted on by

Addressing Congress: Scheduling, Games And No Plans

Last week, the faux outrage reached a fever pitch. Were pols and the media upset about responses to natural disasters? Soaring deficits? No, apparently it was something much more compelling, something much weightier.

Press conference scheduling.

Yup, that was the big brouhaha last week as the President announced he would be scheduling what is essentially a grand press conference including both houses of Congress on the first day back from summer break for Congresscritters. The President plans to present a job creation plan, something he has been talking about for months, but has taken  criticism for not presenting. Sounds reasonable right? First day back, let’s get right to work. How could this be bad?

Except that the Republicans had already scheduled a debate for the same day, same time.

And there, my friends, was the earth shattering, angst producing issue. Scheduling.

Keep in mind that these debates barely move the ratings charts. That should embarrass us, as we see people vote for candidates they know nothing about, or refuse to vote because they feel they can’t effect change. But that’s a whole other post.

Now, before we get too harsh on the Republicans about this, let’s keep in mind that this debate has been planned for months, and the White House undoubtedly knew that. Speaker of the House John Boehner told the President he would not convene Congress for that date, and that the President was more than welcome to move it to the next day, Sept. 8. This, coincidentally, is the same day as the first nationally televised football game of the season. The President acquiesced, and the session will take place tonight, although a number of Republicans have stated they will not attend.

Now initially, I was critical of the White House’s planning on this. There was no way they “forgot” about the Republican debate. None. Zero chance. So the scheduling was a direct swipe. But was it also a good plan? That is the real question.

The White House can easily claim that they don’t need to schedule around debates because doing what’s good for the country should come before the politics of nomination. And the original schedule was for the first day back to work for Congress after they took a month off. Plenty of justifications, but the average American looks at it and says “Good grief! More schoolyard games”.

But the responses from both sides made me take another look at it. At first blush, it looks like the President got pushed around. Kind of ridiculous that the President can’t get the time he requested, but he didn’t. And the Republican debates went on as scheduled. But almost as soon as the new date was announced, Republicans started announcing that they wouldn’t be attending.

So – after complaining that the President hadn’t done enough for job creation (even as Congress – where laws actually originate) – they decide they won’t show up for the joint session of Congress where the President announces his jobs plan. In fact, as if to say they really don’t care what he has to say, Boehner has announced that there will be no Republican response to the President’s session.

No response. Hmm.

So, the White House has been positioning themselves as the “adult in the room” for most of the Obama presidency, and seemed to have really blown it with this scheduling flap. But then, as if on cue, the Republicans give him the perfect opportunity for showing that he is indeed serious about job creation and they are not.

Let’s look at how the White House (and anyone who wants to defeat Republicans) is likely to frame this:

  • President is serious about jobs, and wants to address Congress with a plan on the first day they are back from a month-long recess. Republicans won’t because it interferes with their debate.
  • President reschedules for next day, because jobs are important. Republicans start declaring they will not attend. President will express disappointment that not all of Congress thinks jobs are important enough to attend a  joint session of Congress called by the President to address the issue.
  • Republicans state they will not respond to the President’s announcement. Case can be made that they will not respond because they have no plan of their own for jobs and are simply planning on getting in the way of any progress the President will make.
  • Meanwhile, Republican candidates hold their debate and show that the front-runners aren’t ready for the highest office in the land.

I frankly find it hard to believe that the White House is playing this level of multi-dimensional chess. But if they’re not, the Republicans keep showing how easy it will be to bring out their true colors: no progress for the country unless it benefits them first. The Republicans haven’t presented a jobs plan, despite holding control of the House, simply because they do not have a plan. They have one goal, clearly stated: take control of all three branches of the legislative and executive branches. And if they have to take the country to the brink of failure or beyond, so be it.

Posted on by

Cantor Rails Against Federal Disaster Aid – Unless He REALLY Needs It

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) likes to rail against federal funding for just about anything. This includes funding disaster aid. He pushed the envelope earlier in 2011 when he insisted that federal disaster assistance for the citizens of Joplin, MO should be paid for with spending cuts elsewhere. Joplin is the town that was virtually leveled by a F5 hurricane in May.

Most recently, he said the same concept should apply to relief for last week’s Hurricane Irene, and that any funds spent on disaster relief  need to be offset by spending cuts. But that wasn’t his stance in 2004 when Richmond, VA was hit by Hurricane Gaston. From The Hill:

In the summer of 2004, after Tropical Storm Gaston slammed into Richmond, Cantor was on the front lines of efforts to secure millions of dollars in federal assistance to clean the wreckage and repair damaged infrastructure. Although the funding was not offset, Cantor cheered its arrival.

“The magnitude of the damage suffered by the Richmond area is beyond what the Commonwealth can handle,” Cantor said in a news release at the time, “and that is why I asked the president to make federal funds available for the citizens affected by Gaston.”

Back then, Cantor didn’t ask for offsetting cuts. In fact, at the time, Republicans weren’t particularly concerned about the deficit, funding two wars, a prescription drug benefit and tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans without any offsetting cuts. And disaster relief. Cantor also did not protest funding relief efforts for Hurricane Katrina.

Suddenly, however, deficits have become a hot button topic, and Cantor wants to appear to be the cheerleader for spending cuts. He’s in safe territory and he knows it. He can make these statements all day, long knowing he will never have to vote on it as no one else is going to say that the federal government shouldn’t provide disaster relief. And when they do provide it, he gets to rail some more about “out-of-control government spending”.

The hypocrisy is about par for the course. When his district needs it, he wants it there ASAP. When it’s someone else’s problem – not so much.