Tag Archives: midterm

Posted on by

The GOP’s Topsy Turvy World

It must be hard to be part of the Republican party, or to support the right. It requires mental gymnastics worthy of a gold medal. The more strident they become on an issue, the more convoluted their reasoning has to become to be able to support that reasoning. This weekend provided some glorious examples of that kind of exercise.

Tax Cuts Are Awesome. Except When They’re Not

Over the weekend, the AP ran a story about the upcoming expiration of payroll tax cuts. Payroll taxes are what everyone who receives an income must pay on payroll incomes up to $106,000 per year. Payroll income above that is not taxed. It translates to about $1,000 per year. Not huge, but significant.

Republicans are all about putting more money in the pockets of taxpayers, right? Not so fast. From the AP article:

Many of the same Republicans who fought hammer-and-tong to keep the George W. Bush-era income tax cuts from expiring on schedule are now saying a different “temporary” tax cut should end as planned. By their own definition, that amounts to a tax increase.

The tax break extension they oppose is sought by President Barack Obama. Unlike proposed changes in the income tax, this policy helps the 46 percent of all Americans who owe no federal income taxes but who pay a “payroll tax” on practically every dime they earn.

There are other differences as well, and Republicans say their stand is consistent with their goal of long-term tax policies that will spur employment and lend greater certainty to the economy.

“It’s always a net positive to let taxpayers keep more of what they earn,” says Rep. Jeb Hensarling, “but not all tax relief is created equal for the purposes of helping to get the economy moving again.” The Texas lawmaker is on the House GOP leadership team.

So, now it’s a difference between “temporary” and “permanent” tax cuts. As a side note, Hensarling is one of the people appointed to the “super-committee” on deficit reduction. Remember when we said that would turn into an impasse?

But surely, the expiration of the tax break is considered a tax increase by the Republicans, right? They all signed Grover Norquist’s pledge not to increase taxes – ever. Greg Sargent asked that very question:

So according to Hensarling, it would be a “net positive” to let taxpayers keep more of what they earn — which is what a temporary extension of the payroll tax cut would do. Yet Republicans seem to oppose the temporary extension anyway, on the grounds that permanent tax cuts are necessary and better policy.

Which prompted a question from Chuck Schumer spokesman Brian Fallon: “Surely @GroverNorquist wld say that letting President’s payroll tax cut lapse is a violation of ATR pledge, right?”

It’s a fair question. Virtually every Republican in Congress has signed Norquist’s and Americans for Tax Reform’s pledge not to raise taxes. What’s more, even Norquist himself has referred to the refusal to extend temporary tax cuts as a tax hike — and a violation of the pledge. Recall that back when there was some controversy over whether Norquist had let slip that not extending the Bush tax cuts would not violate his pledge, Norquist clarified that failure to extend them absolutely would violate it.:

Any failure to extend or make permanent the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, in whole or in part, would clearly increase taxes on the American people.

In other words, in the eyes of the fearsome Norquist and his Almighty Pledge, even a failure to extend tax cuts temporarily amounts to a tax increase.

As of this writing, Greg hadn’t received a response.

So, to recap, the expiration of tax extensions are bad, and an increase in taxes. Unless they were temporary extensions, like the payroll tax break extension, or the Bush-era tax cuts, which were temporary. Because those were bad right? In the topsy-turvy, black-is-white world of the current GOP, it’s hard to tell.

Of course, there is one definite difference between the two. The payroll tax extension doesn’t help the rich, because it’s only on payroll tax, and only affects the first $106,000 in income. Since the rich pay no payroll tax on income above $106,000 per year, and because the majority of their income is not in payroll anyway, they stand to gain very little from this extension. The rest of Americans get some help. The Bush-era tax cuts do the opposite – they only marginally help the average American, but deliver big to those on the hihh end of the scale. Money talks.

Republicans have couched this in “deficit reduction” rhetoric. The payroll tax break extension would cost about $120B per year. That’s bad for the deficit, say the Republicans. Meanwhile, the Bush-era tax cuts cost about $400B per year – but that doesn’t affect the deficit.

Where Are The Jobs?

During the 2010 midterms, Republicans railed against the President and Democrats because of the unemployment numbers. They ran on the promise that they would make job creation their prime focus. To date, they have not presented a single jobs bill in Congress, and continue to rail against the Democrats and the President, despite the Republicans control of the House.

Democrats have decided to make jobs a “super-priority” by proposing legislation to add job creation to the tasks of the “super-committee” (from Ezra Klein at WaPo):

Democratic Rep. John Larson of Connecticut plans to push the supercommittee that was appointed as part of the deficit-reduction deal to come up with a plan to create jobs. My colleague Greg Sargent hasthe scoop:

Larson and other senior Dems are also gravitating towards several new proposals to get the current super-committee to adopt job creation as a core mission, along with deficit reduction. This basic idea already has broad support among Congressional Dems.

Larson and Dems plan to introduce several proposals next week along these lines to amend the current law creating the super-committee — and they will ask Congress to pick from among them. One proposal would simply amend the super-committee’s current mission to include job creation. The second would ask each of the four Congressional leaders to appoint one more person to the committee, bringing its membership to 16 — and create a sub-committee on job creation that would produce a jobs proposal as part of the final deficit reduction package.

Here’s the interesting part: Both those proposals would require that the “trigger” also kick in if the committee fails to agree on a jobs proposal as part of the overall deficit deal. And both would set a clear goal: The proposal has to represent a credible effort to bring unemployment down to 5.5 percent by 2014. If the committee can’t pass such a proposal, the “trigger,” which contains defense and non-defense cuts to discourage the committee from failing, gets pulled.

Can a proposal like this gain steam on the Hill? Larson says the measure will “call [Republicans’] bluff” on job creation. If Republicans don’t endorse the plan, Sargent writes, they “will be saying No to the very idea that Congress should make active proposals to reduce unemployment to a targeted rate a core mission.”

That’s not exactly how Congressional Republicans will see it or spin it. I ran Larson’s proposal by House Speaker John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) office on Friday afternoon, and it was immediately shot down. The response: Deficit reduction will spur job creation and, therefore, the supercommittee does not need to take on an additional mission.

So, once again, we have Republicans using job creation as a wedge, complaining that nothing is being done. Right up until something is proposed, something with teeth. And the response from the right? Nope, not gonna do it. Their stated objection is that it might be “some sort of new window-dressing for the same tired old, discredited Washington stimulus spending proposals”, according to Boehner spokesperson Michael Steel. But the commission is there to reduce deficits – and must do so to avoid the triggers. So it’s a specious argument.

But in the upside-down, inside-out world of the GOP, assigning responsibility for the job creation legislation is bad, complaining about no job legislation is good.

Moammar Ghad…Qadaf…Gadaf…Oh, Bother.

Republicans have been all over the place when it comes to Libya. Some say we shouldn’t have been there without an end game. A great many said we the President was embarrassing the US by not taking the lead role in the UN efforts to protect the Libyan people. As with just about everything since President Obama took office, Republicans have been against him, no matter what.

This weekend, rebel forces took control of Tripoli, capturing the Libyan leader’s sons and putting him on the run. Libyan people are holding up signs thanking the UN and President Obama. Another dictator has been deposed. The Republican response? The President didn’t do enough.

Once again, this is an issue of the Republicans not being able to give credit where credit is due. The President presided over the killing of Osama Bin Laden, but Republicans refused to give him credit. Now, the President once again has maneuvered the tricky waters of international cooperation to a successful conclusion, and they refuse to give him the credit.

Why? Because in their world, it is weakness to actually understand how the world works. To them, strength comes from going it alone, from being the “Lone Ranger”, regardless of what it does to your standing in the world. Cooperating, actually working from within a coalition as opposed to strong-arming to get your way is seen as weak and ineffective.

How Do You Stand On Your Head That Long?

They can’t. Even as they dig in and try to reinforce their base, the conflicts in their arguments become more clear. The best way to handle them is not to handle them. Act as if their viewpoint doesn’t exist – because it doesn’t. They have one goal – to take control – and their viewpoints and talking points will change to accommodate that goal. They want their opposition to chase them, rather than simply stand their ground. The only real solution is to allow them to continue changing, then expose those changes every step of the way. Reasonable folks, with a sound and rational mind, will see the flip-flopping, the contradictions and the folly on their own. And that is the last thing the GOP wants.

Posted on by

What Americans Need To Know – Updated 8/22/11

There is a whole lot of political hand-wringing when it comes to folks on the left. Those on the far left – amazingly – don’t get that the President has been hamstrung in no small part because the right took control of the House in 2010. However, if you ask them, they’ll tell you it’s because the President’s weak/capitulated/caved/fill in your own complaint here.

It’s not true, of course, but just as the right doesn’t concern itself with facts, the far left doesn’t either. They didn’t get their pet cause handed to them with a nice pretty bow, so the President has failed them. So instead, they’d rather give the right exactly what they’re looking for – more control.

But there’s a far bigger problem. The average American isn’t far left. They’re not far right either. They’re somewhere in the middle, which means they are amenable to listening. But they’re turned off by the vitriol from both sides. They’ll listen to reason. The only problem is, they’ve learned to tune things out until they’ve heard it over and over and over.

The right has been absolutely incredible about this. They take their message, and they repeat it and repeat it and repeat it. The left has been awful. Instead of repeating their message and letting the average American make a decision, they try to debate and debunk the right, coming across as know-it-alls and elite snobs that have nothing in common with average folks.

So here’s my proposal:

On this site, on a daily basis, we will tweet/post one at least solid fact about the left and it’s strengths and/or one solid fact about the right and their weaknesses. That’s it. Won’t debate it. Won’t show both sides. Just one simple, easy to digest fact. We’ll use the hashtag #EFCpolfacts.

Here’s what you can do:

  • If you see us put out an #EFCpolfacts tweet, retweet it.
  • If you know a fact that we should feature, leave a comment here.
  • If you see the EFC post that introduces the #EFCpolfacts, spread the word.

But here’s the real tough part: Don’t debate it. Don’t discuss it. Just repeat it. If you think it’s bogus, let us know. But we’ll be posting facts that are verifiable. No emo opinions about how we didn’t get our pony. Just simple facts. Supported by data. Let people decide without shoving it down their throats. Just present it, over and over again.

The list of #EFCpolfacts will be here, and we’ll update it with each new one.

Sure, there will be those who say it won’t work. My answer – Clam it. Unless something you’re doing is actually working, get out of the way. Show me a better, more effective way to get the message out, and I’ll be behind it pushing hard. Until then, join the effort, or stay the hell out of the way.

Be sure to post your suggestions in the comments.

EFCpolfacts (updated 8/22/11):

  1. The last President to preside over a budget surplus was Bill Clinton, Democrat. There has not been a Republican President that has presided over a surplus since Eisenhower in 1957.
  2. S&P Specifically Names Republicans Unwillingness To Raise Revenues In Downgrade
  3. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) has asked for – and received – billions in federal stimulus money, even after saying how bad they are for the country
  4. Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) used billions of dollars in federal stimulus money to balance the Texas budget, as he claimed it was bad for the country.
  5. Rick Perry Said He Would NOT Run For President
  6. TX Under Rick Perry Has The Fourth Highest Poverty Rate Among States
  7. Under Rick Perry, TX Has The Highest Percentage Of Minimum Wage Jobs
  8. Under Rick Perry, TX Has The Highest Rate Of Adults Without High School Diplomas
  9. Under Rick Perry, TX is 48th of 50 States In Employer-Based Health Insurance
  10. Texas Under Rick Perry is #2 In Food Insecurity
  11. Under Perry, Non-Elderly Women Have The Lowest Coverage By Health Insurance
  12. Under Rick Perry, TX Ranks Last In Women Receiving Pre-Natal Care In 1st Trimester
  13. Rick Perry’s TX Is Worst In Environmental Hazards In 5 Key Categories
  14. Under Rick Perry, Workers Compensation Ranks Dead Last
Posted on by

The Far Left Vs. The Far Right – Why The Tea Party Is Getting Its Way

To hear the folks on the right tell it, the President is running the country to hell in a handbasket and they are simply pushing back to make sure they save the country from his “socialist” schemes. To hear the far right tell it, even moderate Republicans are intent on destroying the country.

Seems like the position for the left to take would be to oppose all that. Seems like it, but you won’t convince those on the far left of that strategy. No, as hard as the right pushes against the President, the far left is pushing against him just as hard. The folks who should be fighting against the Tea Party’s penchant for handing over control of the country to the rich are instead helping them with non-stop complaints about the President.

There have been a number of posts, including this one, and this one, about how the far left folks are ignoring realities and effectively trying to kill their best hope for continued progress. But what if the reason these folks are doing this is because they see the Tea Party movement’s success and are simply trying to emulate Tea Party tactics to motivate the President to do what they want. If so, they have obviously misunderstood why the Tea Party has been successful: A willing subversion of both the Tea Party movement and Republican values for a greater gain – control Congress and the White House.

Let’s remember that the original Tea Party folks – before millions of dollars were dumped into the game – were about one thing: lowering taxes. Misguided though they were about the reality of taxes, they genuinely believed in that simple message, “lower our taxes”. But that all ended when the Republican Party and the Koch brothers realized there was an undercurrent of anger that could be exploited. That’s when truckloads of money began to be spent on creating a “Tea Party” movement. It didn’t matter how “wacky”, how crazy they appeared – they were carefully molded into groups that supposedly represented the “everyman”.

Republicans candidates realized quickly that they could capitalize on the fervor in the 2010 midterm elections, moving themselves a little farther to the right to be “Tea Party friendly”. In fact, a common tactic was to allow Tea Party rhetoric to dominate the discussion, but when that rhetoric went over the line, it would be off-handedly dismissed as “not representative” or taken out of context, with no demand for retraction or apology. Why? Because it attracted votes that a politician wouldn’t dare to court outright.

So, in the 2010 midterms, a wave of Tea Party-favored candidates came into office, and almost immediately, veteran legislators on the right saw problems popping up. These candidates were sticking with their pledges, regardless of what that might actually do to the country. And regardless of who was in control. These candidates, now elected, had no problem fighting against the established Republicans.

And a funny thing happened. The Tea Party started getting its way, even against the wishes of many Republicans. Which brings up the question – Why?

The answer is as simple as it is disturbing. The Republicans let the Tea Party have its way because their goal has not been to govern. It never has been. Their goal has been to take over the Senate and White House in addition the already controlled House. Once they have taken it over, they call the shots, completely. And to do that, they’re perfectly willing to let the Tea Party have their way. Think of it as the villains in an action movie. There’s the bad guy who says “I don’t believe in hitting women. But my friend here? He has no such compunctions”. And he points to the ugly guy standing next to him, cracking his knuckles. The Republicans don’t have to threaten anything. They just need to let the Tea Party folks have their way. That’s not an idle threat.

Now, the real problem for the Republicans will come if they actually succeed in gaining control of the Senate. Once they’ve let that djinni out of the bottle, it may be impossible to put it back in. The Tea Party will be further emboldened by their success, and will become even more intransigent.

But the Republicans don’t care. They are single minded about their goal, and they can use the Tea Party’s energy to achieve it. They don’t attack the Tea Party, and the Tea Party doesn’t attack them. Instead, they unite against a common “enemy”, and drive the vote to achieve it. They’ll deal with their internal problems once they have that control. Until then, it’s all for one and one for all.

Now, let’s go back to those same 2010 midterms. In contrast to the Republicans and the Tea Party, the far left had been hammering the President virtually since he took office. The President passed a healthcare law that no one else has come close to passing – it wasn’t good enough. He passed consumer credit legislation – he wasn’t tough enough on the banks. Nothing he accomplished – despite the Congress being the “most productive in recent history” – was enough. They didn’t get ALL of what they wanted, so the President was a failure. They urged left-leaning voters to stay home, to send a message. So, while the Republicans and the Tea Party were driving voters to the polls, the far left was trying to punish the administration.

The result, of course, was the Tea Party folks gaining a foothold.

Since then, the bashing has continued virtually non-stop and louder than ever, ignoring the fact that the President now has less power to move things forward and a House that is determined to do just one thing – get him out of office. They talk of “primarying” the President because “maybe the competition will show him where he needs to focus”, as if he didn’t know.

And this is why the Tea Party folks get their way. They and the Republicans understand that you have to have control before you can effect change. Instead, the far left does exactly the opposite – tear down their one hope for continuing the path of change.

Do they have a right, and in fact, a responsibility to push for the change they want? Absolutely. But they’ll never do it with a Republican in office. Never. The strategy of constant complaining is a guaranteed loser. But they can learn something from the Tea Party. And that is to get behind their candidate, their President, and give him back the control he needs to do the work they want. And to celebrate the wins they get, because eventually, the pendulum swings, and the other guys will try to take advantage of it.

The left’s ideas aren’t wrong. But the way they’re trying to achieve them isn’t just wrong, it’s self-defeating. And dangerous.

Posted on by

Republicans vs. The Constitution – New Update 8/12/11

We originally posted this in March 2011, but we will update this periodically to showcase the latest in their confusion with the Constitution. If you see items that we should add, feel free to let us know in the comments.

The GOP has made it a priority to mention how much they want judges to follow the Constitution, how much they believe in upholding the Constitution, how they want to make sure lawmakers respect the intent of the founding fathers.

Then they try to destroy it.

That’s no hyperbole, no intentional misrepresentation of their intent. No, the folks on the right say plenty about the Constitution, but in reality, they just think it’s a quaint little piece of paper that’s convenient to refer to occasionally so they can look patriotic.

Think I’m making it up? Below are some of the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. Along with them are what the right has done to try to disembowel each Amendment.

UPDATE 8/12/11: Rick Perry goes 2 for 2, with a weak on the Constitution in general. Before getting into the Amendments, Rick Perry showed his “grasp” of the Constitution in an interview for in Newsweek. When asked what the phrase “general welfare” in the Constitution means, Perry said the following :

I don’t think our founding fathers when they were putting the term “general welfare” in there were thinking about a federally operated program of pensions nor a federally operated program of health care. What they clearly said was that those were issues that the states need to address. Not the federal government. I stand very clear on that. From my perspective, the states could substantially better operate those programs if that’s what those states decided to do.

So in your view those things fall outside of general welfare. But what falls inside of it? What did the Founders mean by “general welfare”? 

I don’t know if I’m going to sit here and parse down to what the Founding Fathers thought general welfare meant.

But you just said what you thought they didn’t mean by general welfare. So isn’t it fair to ask what they did mean? It’s in the Constitution. 

[silence]

He knows what they didn’t mean, but can’t say what the did mean.

UPDATE 8/3/11: Added Rick Perry’s flip-flop on the 10th Amendment.

Amendment 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This has been a favorite for the right to trample underfoot, or twist in every way possible. This one requires addressing each section, as they have all been targets of attack from the right.

First:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

The first line of attack for the right is to claim that “freedom of religion is not freedom from religion” or that the United States is a “Christian” country. Neither is true. In the first case, freedom of religion means you don’t have to have any religion, and none shall be thrust upon you by the state. That’s where “establishment of religion” comes into play.

The founding fathers were pretty strong on this point, Jefferson in particular. At the time of the writing of the Constitution, there were many religions represented, and many of the original settlers came to the US to escape religious persecution. In fact, Jefferson was strong enough on this (and the right is aware of it) that folks like the Texas Board of Education have been working to re-write textbooks to minimize Jefferson’s importance, so that his views on a secular system of government are not exposed as strongly.

This sentiment was solidified in the Treaty of Tripoli, where it specifically states that the government of the United States is not rooted in the Christian faith. Since this is a treaty between the US and another country, it is a binding law, per another Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution. This was no mistake. There was discussion as to the inclusion of this piece, and the working of the Treaty was voted on by all members at the time, and voted through unanimously. It was published in the papers of the day. The intent was clear – to declare that the US is not a “Christian” country.

But that’s just half of the first sentence. The “free exercise thereof” has been under attack for the last few weeks because of an Islamic cultural center planned a few blocks from the site of the World Trade Center attacks. In this case, folks on the right call it an outrage that a Muslim “mosque” will be built “in the shadow of the World Trade Center”. It has even been called a “monument” and a
“training center” for future attackers and extremists.

“Building this structure on the edge of the battlefield created by radical Islamists is not a celebration of religious pluralism and mutual tolerance; it is a political statement of shocking arrogance and hypocrisy.

We need to have the moral courage to denounce it. It is simply grotesque to erect a mosque at the site of the most visible and powerful symbol of the horrible consequences of radical Islamist ideology. Well-meaning Muslims, with common human sensitivity to the victims’ families, realize they have plenty of other places to gather and worship. But for radical Islamists, the mosque would become an icon of triumph, encouraging them in their challenge to our civilization.”

- Newt Gingrich, July 28, 2010

Note the imagery: “Battlefield”, “radical Islamists”. Here’s some facts about the planned center:

  • It can’t be seen from the WTC site. Perhaps, when the Freedom Tower is built, you might see the top of the building from higher floors. But there will be no minarets, no extravagant architecture. It will look like an office building.
  • It is planned to be a 13-story building. Next to it, closer to the WTC site, is a 14-story building. This additionally hides the new building from sight.
  • It is not on a common path to the site. Tourists are unlikely to pass the building on the way to the site. They will likely be unaware of its existence.
  • Already closer? Two cathedrals, and Orthodox Greek church and Trinity Church and cemetery. Also, a mosque. The argument that “they don’t need another mosque this close” is ridiculous on its face. Does there need to be two cathedrals? Or two other, non-Muslim places of worship?

And yet, despite all of this, the folks on the right are falling over each other to decry the building of the community center. They have even suggested a zone, a perimeter around the WTC site within which a mosque cannot be built. Of course, they can’t really tell you whether 4 blocks, 4 miles, or 4 counties is far enough. Because no number will be good enough, no distance far enough.

But no matter the number they come up with, it violates the 1st Amendment. And we’re only on the first sentence.

“or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;”

With the significant exception of Fox News, the right has a more than healthy disdain for the press. Unless it serves their purpose, it is all part of “the liberal media” – a myth of epic proportions. Sharron Angle, running for Senate in Nevada, perhaps spoke what most Republicans think:

“We needed to have the press be our friend… We wanted them to ask the questions we want to answer so that they report the news the way we want it to be reported…”

Sharron Angle, Fox News interview 8/2/10

And she might be forgiven for thinking that. It’s what her party has worked at to achieve. Control the media, and you control the message. So much for freedom of the press.

Amendment 2

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Well, this one is abused quite frequently, and most recently, by the Tea Party folks. As a rule, they ignore the first four words.

“A well regulated Militia,”

These folks want to be able to own just about any kind of firepower without telling anyone. They want it a secret that they own a weapon, and you can “pry it from their cold, dead fingers”.

Of course, that’s not what the Second Amendment says. It says that a well regulated militia is essential to the security of a free state. And to that end, the right to bear arms shall not be abridged. What folks on the right want it to mean is that first comes the right to bear arms. Anything else is either a burden or unnecessary, such as the militia part.

Keep in mind, this was created at such a time as there was no conscription, no national force, no Department of Defense. Just citizens. They were a militia, with regular musters.

Some of the more extreme folks want to get around this part by declaring themselves militias. Of course, the “well-regulated” portion then becomes open to interpretation. Are 10 guys running around the woods in Michigan a “well-regulated militia”?

Remember Sharron Angle?  She’s even further to the right on this:

“”What is a little bit disconcerting and concerning is the inability for sporting goods stores to keep ammunition in stock… That tells me the nation is arming. What are they arming for if it isn’t that they are so distrustful of their government? They’re afraid they’ll have to fight for their liberty in more Second Amendment kinds of ways?”

- Sharron Angle, to the Reno Gazette Journal, June 2010

“I feel that the Second Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms for our citizenry. This not for someone who’s in the military. This not for law enforcement. This is for us. And in fact when you read that Constitution and the founding fathers, they intended this to stop tyranny. This is for us when our government becomes tyrannical… And you know, I’m hoping that we’re not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems.”

- Sharron Angle, to conservative talk show host Bill Manders, June 2010

Again, Angle is a Tea Party favorite. Her rhetoric is, at best, ridiculous, and at worst, dangerous. When prospective lawmakers start talking about “Second Amendment remedies” regarding sitting politicians, when they speak of the government for whose office they are running as “tyrannies”, you can see how the 2nd Amendment is being twisted. My guess is that such talk at the time of the founding fathers may have been found treasonous. Instead, she gets the GOP nod.

Amendment 4

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Here, the southwestern US Republicans, particularly in Arizona, have trampled all over the Constitution. SB1070, the controversial law that had major portions struck down in late July, is a particular problem.

The issue here is with the the requirement that law enforcement officers check the citizenship status of anyone who they have made a legal contact with. The key here is “unreasonable searches and seizures”. If you happen to be in a car when the driver is pulled over, should you be subjected to being required to show your citizenship papers? Should you be detained while the citizenship of all the occupants of the car are verified?

Leading this charge are AZ Gov. Jan Brewer, Senators John Kyl and John McCain, and a whole host of others. To listen to them, it’s an issue of immigration. And of course, that should be enough justification to throw out the 4th Amendment in its entirety.

Amendment 5

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Yup, they’ve gone after this one too.

After the capture and arrest of the individual who tried to set off a car bomb in Times Square earlier this year, the cries became loud and shrill to revoke the rights guaranteed by the 5th Amendment and the Miranda Act. Marco Rubio, Republican candidate in FL, John McCain, and Peter King (R-NY), all denounced the fact that Faizal Shahzad was read his Miranda rights. In fact, they even started talking about revoking citizenship of anyone suspected of having terrorist ties. Once again, if it fits their agenda, throw out the Constitution.

Amendment 6

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”

Again, Republicans would abolish this if they could. Under the guise of “terrorism” and “national security”, they are perfectly happy with locking away individuals without trail. When the Obama administration announced it would be working to close the Guantanamo Bay facility and try some of the prisoners as criminals, the right went ballistic. Their claim was that it was “too dangerous”. Their alternative? Keep them locked up without trial. Another example of where the Republicans love the Constitution, right up until it doesn’t advance their interests.

Amendment 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This is a real favorite of the right. They use it to decry every act the government takes, claiming they violate states rights. And it might be a good argument, right up until they decide to ignore the 10th Amendment. Like they did with – wait for it – SB1070 in Arizona. With this law, they tried to get past the federal government’s ownership of immigration law. This is, in fact, why portions of the law have been stricken in court. The right uses this to argue that the federal government is not doing their job, isn’t interested in fixing immigration, etc., all the while ignoring the fact that they have deliberately violated the 10th Amendment.

Added 8/3/11: Texas Governor Rick Perry, who as of this date has not announced whether he will run for president, is the latest to flip-flop on the 10th Amendment. When New York passed legislation recently to allow same-sex marriages, Perry said he was fine with it. His reasoning was, of course, the 10th Amendment. Since it is not explicitly forbidden under federal law (nor mentioned), Perry said that meant it was up to the states, and he was ok with that. Then came an interview on the Christian Broadcast Network (8/3/11) where Perry reversed himself:

He’s such a believer in states rights that he’s defended state decisions that he fundamentally disagrees with.

But on issues like traditional marriage, which he says are important to the fabric of the nation, he supports amending the constitution to make it the law of the land.

“I support the federal marriage amendment and I also support the same with the issue of abortion. And I also that same process for a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution so Washington will finally get the message of, ‘Hey, quit spending all the money,” Perry explained.

So, he was fine with it, until he decided it was time to amend the Constitution to outlaw it. This is a fairly common tactic of folks who want to use and abuse the “Constitution” arguments. They will tell you up and down that they know what the founding fathers’ intent was in writing the Constitution, unless of course, that section of the Constitution supports something they don’t like. Then they suddenly toss all that fatherly wisdom of the founders out the window and demand a change to the Constitution.

Amendment 14

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Their latest attack is on the 14th Amendment, which gives citizenship to those who are born on US soil. They now say they want to repeal that portion of the 14th Amendment to stop so-called “anchor babies”, children of illegal immigrants. Of course, this ignores the fact that nearly all of us are descended from immigrants. So the question then is: How many of the Republicans who are clamoring for change to the 14th amendment actually come are descendants of immigrants to the US?

Never mind the fact that the concept of “anchor babies” is as unfounded as the “welfare queen” of the 80′s. The argument is contradictory with the other claim, that illegal immigrants hurt the economy by sending money out of the country. Who would they be sending it to if their “anchor family” is here.

Updated 8/6/10: Republicans have a new front, or at least a new battle on an old front – gay marriage. A federal judge struck down Proposition 8, the California law prohibiting gay marriage under the grounds that it violates both the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. This, of course, flies in the face of what conservatives and the right believe is “morally” correct. They like to declare that they arefor  protection for all, as long as that doesn’t extend to sexual orientation. At that point, they throw out the Constitution. Whether they try to use this as a wedge issue remains to be seen, but they will certainly speak up – and they won’t be arguing the Constitution. They will have plenty of other reasons to argue against this ruling, but precious few will actually argue that the law is Constitutional.

Again, the Republicans tout the Constitution as the law of the land. Except they can’t stand major portions of it.

So Why Do They Hate The Constitution?

As you can see, Republicans have problems with half of the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, unless it serves their purposes. But they claim to want to instill lawmakers that are strict constructionists and followers of the Constitution. They use that argument in judicial nominations and confirmations. They rail against those who they deem as unwilling to follow the Constitution.

Then they back laws and policies that go against everything that they claim they want to protect. Why?

The answer is fairly simple. The right has become a party concerned with one thing: The preservation of the party. They do not care for the Constitution – to them is is a quaint, antiquated document that gets in the way when they want to raise the hackles of their favorites. When they claim to “protect” the Constitution, they are doing so to wrap themselves in the imprimatur of patriotism, showing their faithful that they are the “true” Americans.

When the Constitution gets in their way, then things become the federal government’s fault, or it’s time to change the Constitution. Forget the founding fathers. Nope, time to change the document they were so vehemently protecting 10 minutes earlier.

It’s all in an attempt to confuse the issues, to change the subject, to fake out everyone else. It’s disingenuous, it’s cynical.

And for now, it’s working.

What needs to be done is that they get called out. That every time they take actions that go against the Constitution, it is pointed out, given a bright spotlight, and the question asked “Why do Republicans hate the Constitution?”

Posted on by

GOP Names Their Super-Committee Choices – Impasse Imminent

As part of the debt ceiling deal signed off on last week, a “Super-Committee” was created to decide on the next round of spending cuts and reforms that will make up $1.3T in deficits. This committee is made up of six Republicans and six Democrats, with three of each coming from the House and Senate respectively.

It’s important to note that if the committee does not agree on further cuts before the end of November, cuts will be automatically be made, with 50% coming from defense spending. This would seem to be an incentive for both sides to put members on the committee that can come to a bipartisan agreement.

So who did the Republicans name to the committee (h/t Think Progress)?

  • Rep. Jeb Hensarling (TX) – He believes that the best way to eliminate corporate tax dodges is to lower the tax rate, rather than eliminate the loopholes. He also believes that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are Ponzi schemes to defraud the American people. He has signed Grover Norquist’s pledge to not raise any taxes under any circumstances.
  • Rep. Dave Camp (MI) – Main guy in the House for tax legislation. Well, as long as that means writing tax cuts. Has actually said he’d rather see a bigger deficit than lose the Bush-era tax cuts. He’s already said that he considers tax increases off the table. He has signed Grover Norquist’s pledge to not raise any taxes under any circumstances.
  • Rep Fred Upton (MI) – Perhaps the least stringent on taxes of the bunch, Upton has said that he hasn’t ruled out tax “reform“, but that tax increases are “just not going to be part of the equation.” He was a supported of Cut Cap and Balance and the Balanced Budget Amendment.   He has signed Grover Norquist’s pledge to not raise any taxes under any circumstances.
  • Sen. John Kyl (AZ) – A hard liner against taxes. Walked out of debt ceiling negotiations because of proposed tax increases to the wealthy and defends tax subsidies for oil companies. But, he is a staunch defender of military funding, always looking to get more. This may be one place where the bargaining may gain a foothold. He has signed Grover Norquist’s pledge to not raise any taxes under any circumstances.
  • Sen. Pat Toomey (PA) – Does not believe that extending tax cuts and giving corporations tax breaks impacts revenue. Also may be willing to hold the line on taxes more firmly than Kyl, as he believes there is much waste in all government, including the military. He supports cuts to military spending. He has signed Grover Norquist’s pledge to not raise any taxes under any circumstances.
  • Sen. Rob Portman (OH) - Believes that “spending, not tax cuts, causes future deficits,” He is another advocate of extending the Bush tax cuts permanently while believing it is possible to  balance the budget in 10 years without a single tax increase. He would support defense cuts, which, like Toomey, could actually give him more room to hold the line. He has signed Grover Norquist’s pledge to not raise any taxes under any circumstances.

These six have a lot in common, but one glaring commonality is the last line in each description. They have all signed Norquist’s pledge to hold the line on taxes. They will be pressured – mightily – to not accept any increases in revenue if they look like taxes. But note that the other definition of revenue increase is tax reform. They have staunch opponents to that as well  in the form of Hensarling, Camp, Kyl and Toomey. So unless Dems are united and can get one of the other two Republicans to agree to revenue increases, nothing including revenues will come out of the committee.

Let’s keep in mind that one of the reasons given by S&P for the downgrade is that they have little faith that this committee, this Congress, will do anything to fix the debt problem. They are convinced that Republicans will do whatever they can to keep the Bush-era tax cuts. The end of those cuts is what the current deficit estimates are based on. Without the expiration of those cuts, the current deficit numbers will balloon, which is what S&P s expecting.

So, it comes down to whether those cuts will be extended, and if Democrats can hold the line. If Democrats simply choose not to extend the cuts, the Republicans will face a very difficult situation, especially Kyl and Toomey. They support more money for defense, but if a deal isn’t reached, cuts to defense (on top of what has already been agreed to) will come automatically. There are Republicans on this committee who are perfectly happy with defense cuts but won’t allow revenue increases.

The question becomes: Where will the Republicans on the committee fall? If they protect defense, they’ll likely have to budge on revenues. That has little chance of passing in the House on an up and down vote. Since there are no amendments allowed to anything the committee recommends, that’s all that can happen. If they hold the line on revenues, and no deal is cut (assuming Dems hold the line that revenues must be included), then no deal will go to Congress, and the automatic triggers will lop huge chunks off the defense budget. Given that the ratings agencies already have no confidence that Republicans can come to a proper agreement, the chances of a deal coming out of this committee in the next 3 1/2 months are slim.

By selecting the individuals above for this committee, the Republicans have sent a clear message – this ain’t going anywhere. So be prepared for the impasse, and for the cuts to come. Meanwhile, Democrats can take advantage of this corner the Republicans have painted themselves into – by simply standing firm on revenues.

Posted on by

Miss the 8/9/11 Show? Catch 24/7 On Demand

Topics on tonight’s show:

  • WI recall elections
  • S&P downgrade and the Dow – and the blame game
  • What the right does incredibly well, and what the left can learn from it
  • EFC’s #EFCpolfacts launch
  • Anonymity online
  • Glacier calving

Posted on by

The Most Powerful Force In American Politics

There’s one thing that’s certain about the current atmosphere in Washington D.C.: Most people think it’s a disaster.

Whether it’s the debt ceiling deal, the lack of effort in presenting jobs legislation, the going on recess while thousands of FAA employees are left hanging – the list is seemingly endless – one common thread runs through it all. The situation has to change for the better of the country.

But this is where people hang their heads and shake them slowly.

“Change? We can’t do anything”.

We can.

“It’s gonna take a whole lot of money”.

Maybe, but there’s plenty that can be done without it.

“These politicians don’t care about the American people”.

Quite possibly true, but you do.

The fact of the matter is, if we accept the current situation as the way things have to be, we’re sunk. What true change is going to require is not more money, or different politicians. It’s going to require a powerful, resilient and innovative tool to effect change.

You.

The real problem we face is that people just feel powerless. And at the national level, for now, there may be some truth to that. That’s why the change has to start small. At the local level. At your level.

Start with voting. If you haven’t voted, you have no basis for complaining. You haven’t exercised your power to effect change, and you’ve allowed someone else to dictate the rules. Get out and vote. But keep in mind, it’s not that easy. You need to do your homework. You need to know where candidates for every  office stand.

From “The American President”:

 America isn’t easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, ’cause it’s gonna put up a fight. It’s gonna say “You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who’s standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can’t just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms.

It’s not easy. You need to be willing to learn about your choices, and pick the folks that most closely align with how you believe the country should be run.

Start at your local school board, your city council. Start with groups that represent what you believe.

Once you’ve done that, we run into the next bit of reality: You’re not going to get everything you want. Ever.

As adults, we seem to be able to realize that intellectually. But for some reason, when it comes to politics, the ideologies get in the way of everyday common sense. You can’t have everything that you want. The world is full of compromises. You do it every day. You want that creamy, delicious, high fat ice cream, but you know it’s going to go straight to your waistline. So, you either go for the low fat or decide that you’ll do an extra hour in the gym to compensate. You compromise.

It’s no different in the political arena. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be trying to get what you want. It means that you won’t always get it. If you vote for an individual to represent you because they stand for what you believe in, and they can’t get it all for you, the answer isn’t throwing your vote away to “teach them a lesson”, or “voting the bums out”. It’s finding the next candidate that can do a better job. Or even more productive – help your current candidate do the job better. Far too many people seem to think that a mayor, or assemblyman, or Congressman – or even a President – can snap their fingers and things will magically align to their interests. Sorry, folks, it doesn’t work that way.

A Congressperson represents over 700,000 Americans. A President represents all of them. There’s a pretty safe guess that in either of these situations, at least half are going to disagree with your point of view somewhere along the line. Assuming that these legislators are going to just ignore those dissenting voices is no better than assuming your own voice will be ignored. You need to help them, and realize it’s about compromise.

Have you ever been to a little league game, and seen parents screaming at the kids to do better? Do you think it really makes the kid do any better, or is it just noise? Instead, most folks would agree that you celebrate their successes, support their efforts, then coach them, guide them to being even better. But we don’t take this path in politics. We simply assume they are the best from the get-go, and when they fall short, we scream, yell, kick – and fail to support them.

What needs to happen is that their successes need to be shouted from rooftops and mountain peaks. And we look at them and say “about that other thing…”, and keep working at it. If they’re moving in the direction you want, the speed isn’t all that important. Change starts slowly, glacially. But like a glacier, once moving it is virtually unstoppable. Unless you blow up the glacier. That’s what happens when people pull their support because they didn’t get everything they wanted, or it’s not happening fast enough.

The folks who are gumming up the works right now have been at it for decades. They started by cultivating like-minded people at the local level and worked their way through the system. And they did it by keeping their eye on the ball, and not fighting amongst each other like siblings. They have stumbled, but those stumbles were ignored and they moved forward. You may not like their policies, but you have to respect the discipline of message.

They fought the little fights, won them, and started winning the bigger fights.

And that’s what has to happen for change to be effective. Start with the little fights. Work up to the bigger ones. And when you disagree with your own people, remember one thing: If you are divided, you can’t effect change. So decide what is the most important thing right now and make your decisions based on that. Make your decisions based on the greater good. You can’t effect change if you haven’t got the power to put it into effect. Which means what’s most important to you, may have to wait until some other things get fixed. But you won’t fix them at all if you don’t have folks in place that can make those changes.

The most powerful force in American politics boils down to just one thing, one person. You. Don’t let it go to waste.

Posted on by

Hey Tea Party – How’s It Working Out For You?

Anyone who has actually spent any time objectively looking at the development of the Tea Party and the co-opting of the Tea Party by the Republicans could have seen this coming. Republicans used the Tea Party momentum to get themselves into office, but once there, began quickly discarding the promises they made.

Joshua Holland at Alternet has detailed a dozen promises made by Tea Party backed candidates that have already – in just a month, been completely reversed.

It’s only been a month since the new Tea Party lawmakers took office, but the entirely predictable results of their ascension are already coming in. The Republican Party’s newest class of “mavericks” have again stormed into office intent on proving their theory that government is inherently evil by screwing up everything in sight.

Before we embark on our tour of the Tea Party politicians’ early moves – and those of the party they were supposed to be “taking back” — let’s recall exactly what they promised: they were relentlessly focused on economic issues – and, we were told, would eschew the kind of social issues that had long marked Republican politics in the era of the Religious Right. They would bring greater transparency and accountability to government. They promised to be good fiscal stewards, respond to the wishes of the people and, above all else, they swore up and down to obey the letter of the Constitution.

Let’s see how they did in the early going.

Spoiler Alert: It’s not looking good for the Tea Party.

Republicans got elected not on any platform of their own, but simply on not being Democrats. They played on fears and anger and frustration to say “We’ll do a better job!” and have done nothing of the sort. Their moves thus far are creating larger, not smaller deficits. They will be raising  the debt ceiling. They are wasting time on legislation that has no chance of passing.

So, Tea Party… how’s it working out for you so far?

Posted on by

Tea Party Fail – Cut Taxes, Head Straight Into Debt

So, the Taxed Enough Already folks got one of their own into the office of Nassau County Executive in New York State. Edward Mangano, who ran under the Tea Party platform, made sure he kept his promise of eliminating taxes the first day he stepped into office. Except he should have asked somebody first. Now, the county is swimming in debt (from AlterNet)

Upon taking office, Mangano — who ran on both the Republican and Tax Revolt Party lines — made good on a key campaign promise. On his inauguration day, Mangano signed a repeal of an unpopular home energy tax, instituted by Suozzi. The tax was implemented two years before as part of a deferred-pay deal Suozzi brokered with public worker unions, which was intended to spread around the sacrifice to deal with the county’s budget problems.

In a special report, Reuters details how the repeal of that tax lead to a budgetary crisis and ultimately a takeover of the county’s finances by a state-appointed fiscal overseer. Noting that Mangano’s actions are “a black eye for the Tea Party,” the report explains how the Tea Party county executive had no plans for how to replace the lost tax revenue:

The home energy tax cost households on average $7.27 each month — a fraction of most tax bills. But in an area already paying some of the highest taxes in the country, it took on symbolic importance. [...]

[Mangano's] struggle began almost the minute he repealed the energy tax. “I’m not sure that (Mangano) understood the magnitude of the fiscal problems that he faced and he had promises from the campaign that he had to keep,” said Lawrence Levy, a dean at Hofstra University and a former member of the editorial board at Long Island daily Newsday. Eliminating the energy tax “blew a bigger hole in his budget and added to the problem with really no plan to replace the revenue,” he said.

Within two working days of Mangano’s inauguration, a letter from [the Nassau County Interim Financial Authority] landed on his desk — the opening salvo of what would fast become a testy relationship. In a two-page letter, NIFA’s chairman Ronald Stack requested a revised multi-year plan and asked Mangano how he planned to make up for the lost revenue.

He never did provide an answer that satisfied them. On Wednesday, NIFA said the county’s $2.6 billion budget was out of balance by $176 million, meaning it could take control of its finances. Mangano said he would sue NIFA….In November, Moody’s Investors Service downgraded the county and put its finances on outlook negative, citing weak liquidity and an over-reliance on nonrecurring revenues. The rating agency singled out the energy tax repeal as problematic.

And this is the problem with so many of these Tea Party folks. They have these grandiose ideas about cutting budgets, slashing taxes, giving the money back to the people. But many of them just don’t have the experience in or knowledge of the way things work to be able to realize they’re about to make a huge mistake.

Most of us know all about income and expenditures. We have to deal with it daily. If you want services, they have to be paid for. And for most of us, reducing the income is not an option. we have to cut our spending first, or give up on some things. But we realize there’s a bottom line below which we cannot cut. Tea Party folks refuse to acknowledge this basic fact. They want services, they want their Social Security and Medicare. They just don’t want to pay for it.

Mangano is learning the hard way that it’s just not as easy as it sounds.

Posted on by

The Tea Party Caucus. All Four Of Them.

Today, the Tea Party Caucus had its first meeting. Not what you’d call a rousing success. In all, four Congresscritters actually showed up. One notable exception: Tea Party favorite from Florida, Marco Rubio.

Rubio’s reason for not showing was that he was concerned that the Tea Party was being usurped by old guard politicos and was just another bunch of politicians and not what the original Tea Party folks intended. Hey Marco – that boat saiked a LONG time ago, like in 2009.

Dave Weigel (@daveweigel )at Slate was covering the event:

“Senator [Rand] Paul and I have been discussing this since the election,” said Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, to me. “We want to have a way for the movement to stay in touch with us. If we can hold meetings like this once a month, that would be great.”

Variations of that question went to Paul and to Jim DeMint. There was a patina of controversy because Marco Rubio, the man the media chose to exemplify the Tea Party in 2009 and 2010, has not joined the caucus. So Paul got asked about Rubio’s objection, that the movement was about outsiders.

“This doesn’t look like an ‘inside’ crowd,” said Paul, standing surrounded by mostly middle-aged Tea Party activists with varied levels of flair.

Great. They barely have enough members to start a poker game, btu they’re going to be the earthquake that shakes Washington to the core.

These guys just don’t get that they’re done, and they were done long ago. Republicans used them as pawns to foment public anger with existing candidates, particularly Democratic ones, and now that they’ve gained those seats, the Tea Party can just sit ndown and shut up.

They got what they paid for, basically. They threw out the incumbents, only to find that it would be business as usual. Silly Tea Partiers.