2012 Policy: Democratic Tax Rebate

No matter how much they impacted the deficit (roughly 30% of the annual deficit by Congressional Budget Office estimates, or $700 Billion over two years), no matter how much American's didn't want all of them to be extended (see recent Pew poll), no matter how disproportionately they benefit the wealthy, the Bush tax cuts--including those for millionaires and billionaires--have been extended for two more years.

It's a done deal for now. However, I have a suggestion that would help the Democrats politically in 2012 and, more importantly, would help ensure an end to the huge tax cuts for the wealthy. The extended Bush tax cuts result in about $3,000 annually per person across the county. This is an average of >$100,000 annually for the richest Americans and less than $3,000 for much of the middle and lower class (see link for details).

When 2012 rolls around, this is what the Democrats should propose as legislation and promise the American people in campaigns: every American, rich or poor, will get a tax rebate check of $2,500 for each of the next two years. Not only will this evenly spread the benefit across all Americans, but it will also cut the deficit by about $150 Billion dollars! That's right, much of the middle and lower class will get more money and we will still reduce the deficit. That's because the wealthy won't disproportionately benefit this time around.

Republicans will hate this proposal, but it would be a huge winner with the American people. Obama and congressional Dems should go to the people with this proposal in 2012. It will be a winner on numerous accounts.

The Bush Tax Cut Extension Bill Will Never See the Light of Day

Never fear liberals, there is NO WAY that the Bush tax cut bill is going to pass. "What's that?," you say, "Obama and Republican leaders have struck a deal extending all of the Bush tax cuts, including those for millionaires and billionaires." True, Obama and Republicans have struck such a deal, but when the Tea Party hears about this, it's history! The Tea Party has rallied for almost two years against deficits. The deficits that Bush began and Obama has continued have been public enemy number one for them. And the Bush tax cuts are responsible for about 30% of those deficits. Combined with the fact that Republicans would be voting for such socialist Obama policies as extension of the Obama tax cuts from the Stimulus Bill (roughly 40% of the $700B Stimulus), extension of unemployment benefits for 13 MONTHS, tax cuts to encourage green energy, and aid for college students--ALL UNPAID FOR. The tax cuts, combined with these socialist endeavors, will cost at least 1/2 TRILLION dollars annually in deficits, to be paid for later by our children. Anyone that knows anything about the Tea Party will know that there is NO WAY that they will stand for this. Therefore, the bill is Dead On Arrival!

Of course I'm being entirely sarcastic; these tax cuts are going to pass. But the point is that while it is idiotic for Democrats to go along with the tax cuts, it is just as idiotic for Republicans to push this bill, which will increase the deficit in order to extend tax cuts that massively increase the deficit. I know the Tea Party hasn't proven to be particularly intelligent, but in the off-chance that they actually figure out that two plus two equals four, the GOP might just find themselves in a world of hurt. This bill is EVERYTHING that the tea party campaigned against for the last year and a half.

Another Plea to STOP the Insanity

This has already been said in thousands of blog posts, but it is so important that I've got to at least comment on it. The fact that Republicans are even talking about extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy after they have been screaming for months about the deficit is certifiably insane! This would be like me proposing to my wife that we start the process of getting out of debt with me changing my work hours from full time to part time, thereby reducing our income by 30%. Clearly that isn't going to allow us to pay off our bills faster and clearly less government income is going to increase the deficit, not lower it. The Bush tax cuts have resulted in a large share of the deficit (>30%)--more than double of what the wars are contributing.

The public seems to understand this, since >90% of Democrats, >65% of Independents and >50% of Republicans don't want the tax cuts for the wealthy extended. So why in the hell does Obama seem to be hinting that he might go along with this?!? Is he completely crazy? It's horrible policy, it's bad for America, and the American people don't want it--especially Dems and Independents. It is simply beyond me why Obama would ever consider going along with this.

Crazy things people believe

People that believe that Obama is a Muslim
are as crazy as
People that believe that Bush was behind 9/11
are as crazy as
People that still believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction
are as crazy as
People who believe that Obama is "for the terrorists"
are as crazy as
People that believe that there is a valid scientific debate about climate change
are as crazy as
People who believe that gay marriage threatens their marriage
are as crazy as
People that believe you should offer the middle ground before negotiations begin
are as crazy as
People that believe you can argue that the deficit is the most important issue, while simultaneously proposing to extend massive tax cuts for the wealthy

Did NPR handle Juan Williams' firing well?

Did NPR handle Juan Williams' firing well? I'm not really sure. Was it was the right thing to do? Definitely!

I first heard Juan Williams after he took over Talk of the Nation. I wasn't a fan, because Ray Suarez had been so great as host of Talk of the Nation and Williams clearly wasn't on that level. He was okay though. He was a good enough journalist and I remember being okay with him. But eventually he got the gig with Fox "news" and was very different after that. The few times I saw him on Fox, he played the "liberal." Of course, how could you not given that he was paired with radical right-wingers like Bill Kristol (who's Weekly Standard led us into the Iraq war). I cringed watching Williams argue about politics, rather than report the news, or even discuss it with the objective approach of NPR. It just wasn't becoming of an NPR journalist.

Worse though, his presence changed on NPR as well. He started blurring the line between journalist and commentator on NPR. But here Williams was throwing out periodic right-wing rants. Regardless of direction, left or right, these rants are just not NPR quality. Conservatives love to call NPR liberal, but lack of right-wing bias does not mean liberal. Liberals get plenty upset and NPR as well. Just the other day I was shocked that Neil Conan and Ken Rudin had a tea party congressional candidate on Talk of the Nation and they just let him rant without any questioning at all, much less tough questioning. NPR can be frustrating to both sides at times, but they are the most objective and quality news network out there. You want liberal, go to MSNBC or Democracy Now. You want conservative, go to Fox "news" or anywhere up the a.m. radio dial from NPR. NPR is a great place to get THE NEWS. (If you're one of those people that think facts are liberal--and I know people that do, then I may have to concede that NPR has a liberal bias)

Williams had moved too far away from being an objective news journalist, into being a commentator. Fox "news" may not have any problems with that, but its unbecoming of NPR. NPR should have ended the relationship much sooner. Maybe they didn't handle it well, but they had to do it!

Air America and My Man Crush on Sam Seder

If you'd had told me in June of 2008 (when the Seder on Sunday show ended) that Sam Seder still wouldn't have a radio show by now, I'm not sure what I would have done.

In the beginning of Air America, I was really excited. I'd long thought that America really needed a good liberal network to balance right-wing radio. At first I was a fairly choppy listener, listening to Franken whenever I could and here and there to other shows. But I quickly discovered that many of the shows weren't for me. I won't name names, but some--in my opinion--really weren't a whole lot better than the crap you hear on Bill O'Reilly, with a lot of drivel and half truths, at best. Others were okay, but with too much entertainment and not analytical enough. Steve Earle had a nice music show. Thom Hartman is a smart guy with a solid show. And Franken was great. But for the most part, I didn't like Air America as much as I thought I would. I was still glad it existed, as a counter-weight to what had been out there representing the right for well over a decade. But I didn't really want to listen to most of it. But there was one particularly shiny gem in there and that was the Majority Report. I first listened in to the Majority Report for Janeene Garafalo, who I've always liked. But eventually I came to be the biggest fan of Sam Seder. Seder was the best Air America ever had, easily surpassing everyone else in humor, entertainment, and analytical depth. Seder was the REAL DEAL! I literally listened to every minute (w/ the help of podcasting) of the last year of The Sam Seder Show (a 3-hour daily show Sam hosted after Garafalo left the network for the West Wing). I also listened to every minute (one year) of Seder on Sunday, Sam's next (weekly) show. The guy was just brilliant! I couldn't believe how much I depended on him (I also listened to most of Break Room Live, Seder's next (internet)show with Mark Maron, but I'm not a huge Maron fan--sorry Mark, so I wasn't as fundamental about that show.) My wife made fun of me, saying I had a man-crush on Sam. I came to accept it. I couldn't believe how wickedly funny and intelligent the guy was. But Air America kept cutting him out...no wonder they no longer exist.

Anyway, here it is over two years since Seder on Sunday went off the air and he still doesn't have a show. I can't believe I've made it this long. But enough is enough! Sam Seder needs a daily (or at least weekly) radio show or a web show, or something! Somebody step up! I need me some Sam!

The problem wasn't the bailout, but everything that led up to it

As awful as it was, it had to be done. Every good American hated it. I hated it. You hated it. Only the assholes with the multi-million dollar bonuses were okay with it. But it had to be done. Well, given the actions and in-actions in the decades that preceded the bank failures...it had to be done. That is the real problem, everything that Congress (and the administrations, Reagan through Bush II) did and didn't do preceding the bank bailout (e.g., the Phil Gramm lead and Clinton-signed repeal of Glass-Steagall Act of 1933). Once all of that was in place, we didn't really have a choice. But of course, once it was over we again had a choice to take action to make sure it never happened again. And Republicans again choose to do nothing. So in a sense, the GOP again chose to set us up for more bank bailouts in the future. Let's hope that the recent legislation is strong enough and the regulators are ballsy enough so that actions can and will be taken to ensure that the banks are NOT too-big-to-fail and that oversight ensures that they are managing wall street more responsibly than a back-room poker game. And of course, let's hope that Congress doesn't take action in a few years to begin to weaken it again.

Socialism vs. Capitalism?

"Under socialism man exploits man, under capitalism it's the other way around." — unattributed saying

The conservative outcry of socialism in response to Obama's policies has been intense. We haven't heard this much mention of socialism in politics in decades. It's been so long that socialism has been seriously discussed in American politics that most people don't even know what it is--including nearly every pundit that is talking about it. So are Obama's policies socialism? If so, is that horrible or anti-American?

According to Wikipedia, "socialism is an economic and political theory based on public ownership or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources." In a nut-shell, under socialism goods are produced and allocated under some sort of communal or governmental system (rather than private businesses) that promotes or enforces shared or equal distribution of wealth. Is socialism the same as communism? In contemporary America, the face of communism has been the Soviet Union or Communist China. As such, we associate communism with dictators, government secrecy and heavy-handedness, godlessness, concentration of power and wealth to a commanding few, and government control of industry. Only the last of these has anything to do with socialism. American socialists never supported the USSR or other communist countries. The Socialist Party of America (SPA) was out in front as a fierce critic of Stalinism (and fascism). In fact, the SPA was the only political party in the 1940 election that was openly critical of Stalin. The contemporary Socialist Party USA argues that socialism has never been tried by any country. So to be clear, we are talking about socialism and NOT communism--or at least communism as we are familiar with it.

Is socialism horrible or anti-American?
So often you hear people say that "America is a capitalist society." Is it? Capitalism isn't anywhere in the United States Constitution. So what makes us a capitalist society, if we are one? The only thing that could make us a capitalist society are policies of the United States Government. You see, the United States is a Democracy (conservatives would "correct" this by saying it's a republic, but a republic is a form of democracy). Our founders worked hard to make it clear that the U.S. is a democracy. They didn't work hard to make it clear that we are capitalist. Nor did they make us socialist. We are a democracy, simple as that. So constitutionally, we are neither capitalist nor socialist. And that is largely the way America operates.

The American economy has been a hybrid of capitalist and socialist policies since the beginning. The balance in this hybrid has always been based on what's good for America and the American people. Public schools and the U.S. postal system? Good for the American people. Private hardware stores and Microsoft? Good for the American people. We've always had a hybrid here in America, because we live in A DEMOCRACY. And we always will have a hybrid here, as long as Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness drives our political ambitions.

So how prevalent is socialism in American? Dan Carlin, in "My History Can Beat Up Your Politics," argues that while a socialist political party never really got a foothold in American politics (peaking in 1920), socialism has had a profound influence on our politics and day-to-day life. For example, he points out* that most of the issues laid out in the Socialist Labor Party 1896 political platform eventually became law or policies, including a reduction in hours of labor (e.g., 8 hour work day), retention of public lands (e.g., National Forests), the federal reserve (a partial victory), a progressive income tax, compulsory school education, repeal of pauper or tramp laws, prohibition of child labor, equalization of women's wages (not met, but positive steps), and legality for unions.

I think most reasonable historians would agree that neither pure socialism or pure capitalism would be good for America. We have had periods in the U.S. where we have shifted more heavily toward Capitalism (the Gilded Age in the late 1800s, 1920s, the recent Wall Street/real estate boom/busts) and suffered for it. And though there was much more going on, I think it is still easy to conclude that the USSR experience did not indicate that a socialist-like system (without balance with capitalism) would work. The best model is a democracy where the people can willingly choose what works for them. [Which is why I really like the quote at the top of this blog]

So are President Obama's policies even socialist?
Probably the biggest cry of socialism resulted from the Health-Care Reform Act of 2010. This bill is diverse, but in general (and most relevant to this discussion), it requires all American's to purchase health care insurance, established cooperatives to make it easier for individuals to get affordable health care insurance, and provides health care insurance to millions of American's in poverty. All health care will be purchased from private insurers. It is this latter point that makes the health care bill decidedly NOT socialist in nature. Many liberals wanted a Single-Payer System, which, in my opinion, would have been socialist in nature, but this was never given serious discussion and never appeared in any of the various health care bills that Congress considered. The Public Option, which was favored by most democrats, would have given American's a choice between purchasing insurance from private insurers or from a public insurance program. In my opinion, this version would have been the most American version, because it would have provided the American people with a true choice. But conservative democrats sided with Republicans and this public option was not in the final bill. So, the health care bill was decidedly not socialist.

What about the Troubled Asset Relieve Program (TARP), better known as the bank bailout. First of all, this was a program developed and passed by the Bush administration, so even if it was socialist, it wasn't Obama's. But after he took office, he continued to administer it, so let's look at it anyway. I see little socialist about this. The government certainly didn't distribute the wealth of the banks among the people. The only thing even approaching socialism is that the government is temporarily holding stocks of many of these companies, and therefore are partial owners, in an attempt to compensate the American taxpayer for the bailout. TARP is not capitalist either. However, the deregulation of Wall Street that lead to the bank and real estate crashes were decidedly capitalist, and it is foolhardy to disassociate TARP with the financial crash that lead to it. So I would definitely conclude that TARP had much more to do with capitalism than socialism.

How about the Recovery Act of 2009, which was an attempt to use federal money to provide jobs throughout the nation and stem the tide of the recession. This certainly would have been something that many socialists would have promoted--they promoted the jobs programs that were part of Roosevelt's New Deal during the depression. However, this action is totally a Keynesian economics move and Keynesian theory is not considered socialist, but rather a form of capitalism. So no real socialism here.

I could go on, but these are the most common Obama Administration actions that are cited as socialist. I think it is fairly clear that there is little that is socialist about them. Perhaps more importantly though, if these actions benefit the American people in our pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness, then who cares if an Obama policy is socialist. This is a democracy and it should always stay that way. Any move toward too much socialism OR capitalism threatens our democracy and should be rejected outright.

*"My History Can Beat Up Your Politics" episode entitled "Socialism" that aired in November 2009. This is a highly informative podcast and undoubtadly influenced numerous perspectives in this blog.

[Note: I don't have enough time to do this subject justice, but I'm tired of people that don't know what they are talking about crying out "socialism," so I had to at least weigh in.]

EPA and Greenhouse Gas Regulation

I am so tired of hearing the ignorant perspective that green house gases, like CO2, can't be pollutants because they occur naturally or because we exhale CO2. What does that have to do with it? We obsolutely require nitrogen to survive, but EPA has regulated Nitrates for decades. And damn well they should, because too much of it causes massive problems. Everything in moderation!

OBAMA FURIOUS - I Didn't Appreciate "Ridiculous Spectacle" Of BP, Hallib...

Intelligence Failures Do Not Excuse Outright Lies

For years I have grown frustrated with the media for allowing conservatives to spin away the lies that got us into the Iraq War by blaming them on "intelligence failures." To anyone familiar with the facts, the Bush Administration went far beyond the intelligence they had received in their attempt to create artificial links between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein and to paint a picture of absolute certainty that Saddam was developing nuclear weapons. I know this perspective was "out there" in the media several years ago (circa 2006). But in the last couple of years, as Bush Administration officials attempt to re-write history, the media constantly allows them to dismiss the lies and avoid accountability as they blame "faulty intelligence." It makes me livid that I never hear it expressed as it actually happened. But I came across that perspective on an NPR show that is now a couple weeks old. I just listened to a Talk of the Nation podcast in which David Corn of Mother Jones debates Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute on the Iraq War, seven years in (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125065169&ft=1&f=1004). David is awesome here, totally calling out this "intelligence failures" spin for what it is. Rubin of course pulls out the old spin, but seems a little taken aback that someone is actually laying it all out as it happened. Neal Conan is typical here, trying to lay out some sort of middle ground between the facts and the right-wing spin. But Corn does a good job and gets the perspective out there. It's a GREAT listen and a relief to hear it "out there." There needs to be more pressure on the media to prevent the right-wing from constantly getting away with blaming Iraq on intelligence.

Patriotic Disqualifiers

I was in the south recently admiring southern pride in the confederate flag, and it got me thinking about patriotism. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that most of those that proudly fly the confederate flag are conservatives. Conservatives, in my experience, spend a lot more time trying to claim to be more patriotic than non-conservatives. So how does patriotism jive with flying the confederate flag? Isn't it fundamentally anti-American to fly a flag that represents splitting off from America? Or is it possible that I'm missing something here? It seems like there are several things that should automatically disqualify a person from being able to claim to be highly patriotic. These include--but are not exclusive to-- the following examples:

Swastikas: You can't have a swastika tattoo, or hat, or headband, or swastika on anything (unless you are clearly dismissing it as evil or making fun of it as evil), and still claim to be patriotic. We fought a bloody war where many American's lost their lives to the Nazi's. Combining this with the fact that Nazi's were inherently evil in their treatment of Jews, their general racist views, and their militant, dictatorial worldview, leaves no room for trying to rationalize displaying a swastika.

Confederate flag: I've already covered this above, but I just can't see how flying the confederate flag can be consistent with patriotism. Maybe there is some window here for southern pride in Alabama or Georgia, but if you live in Indiana or Michigan, there can be no excuse. And I don't even buy the southern pride bullshit. Southern pride in what? Wanting to exit the United States? Slavery (i.e., all men are NOT created equally)? It may be demonstrating pride in the south, but it's clearly anti-patriotic.

Suggesting that your state might succeed from the U.S.: Besides being bat-shit crazy, anyone that suggests that their state might find itself in a situation where succession is necessary cannot claim to be Patriotic. The rationale here is the same as for the Confederate flag, but even more clear cut. Of course many will recall that Texas Governor Rick Perry recently stated that Texas may need to succeed from the union, perhaps because they don't wish to live within a country with a black president. Regardless of the reason, there is NO WAY that Rick Perry, or any of his supporters at this point, could claim to be patriotic.

Routing for your country to fail: If you route for your country to fail for political or pretty much any purpose I can think of, you cannot claim to be patriotic. I heard conservatives claim that liberals wanted the US to fail in Iraq. While I personally never heard any of the liberals that I know (or liberal political pundits) wish for anything like this, if they existed they cannot claim to be patriotic. Similarly, anyone who celebrated when Rio was awarded the Olympics of Chicago cannot claim to be patriotic. This one I did actually hear with my own ears happening on Fox news and Rush Limbaugh--decidedly not patriots! Obama's Nobel Peace Prize was a little like this as well, though I would give it a pass because it was a little premature.

Of course I'm fully aware that there are individuals within each of the above groups that strongly claim to be patriotic. But claim as they may, I don't think there can be any question that they ARE NOT proud patriots of the United States.

Of course there are many other examples of patriotic disqualifiers that I didn't cover here. There are the obvious such as treason, spying, taking up arms against the US, or criminal activity. But there are other obvious actions that I'm also not getting into, such as willingly despoiling the natural integrity of your country or sacrificing the economic integrity of your country for your own financial gain. But these are each complex issues in-and-of themselves and admittedly include many gray areas. The examples above are more symbolic, but important and more clear-cut. What are some other automatic non-patriotic activities that I missed?

Preamble to the United States Constitution

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Franken: Perversions of the Filibuster

Journalism and Free Trade

The state of journalism is this: readers are getting their news from a much wider variety of sources and increasingly for free. As a result, the mainstream media is suffering financially. In response, they have been downsizing their journalists and fact-checkers in order to provide a cheaper, all-be-it poorer, product (i.e. to ensure that the company shareholders are still making money). The public doesn't care. In fact, they almost seem to cherish the cheaper product. And what is the cheaper product? Well, since there is fewer time for gathering facts, mainstream news sources focus more on sensationalism and opinions. Worse, the opinions are presented in such a way so as to seem factual. Since there isn't time or resources to fact check or research, then the focus is less on the facts behind any particular issue, and more on the horse race or what each side said.

This trajectory for mainstream media totally parallels the fate of American manufacturing over the last 15 years. As jobs have been shipped overseas in search of cheap labor to maximize corporate profits, product quality has deteriorated. Sure, my coffee pot and DVD player were pretty cheap, but they'll only last 2-4 years. I bought my parents a VCR in 1986 and it still works. No one will be able to say that about a 2010 DVD player in 2020, much less 2034. Unfortunately the American citizen (known today as the American "consumer") doesn't give a damn. They'll buy something and replace it every other year because it was half the price of the old one that lasted ten years. As a result, we have been in an economic spiral, with the quality of goods getting worse and worse, and people (consumers) increasingly less willing to pay more for products (not to mention the lost jobs and lower wages!). Therefore, we are basically locking high-quality manufacturing out of the American market. As a result, it is impossible for American manufacturing to return to the U.S.

Do you see the parallel with journalism? The more American's get used to crappy products (e.g. a poorly made shirt or Glen Beck), the more they depend upon them. I'd love to say there is potential to rebuild American investigative journalism, but I don't think it's going to happen. American's are increasingly presented with simple "this or that" descriptions of issues that are much more complex. And they increasingly like it, because it's hard to think through complex issues. [And the way journalism is now presented (simple "this or that" scenarios) directly leads to the bitter partisanship we see in Washington.] It appears that we're going to be increasingly stuck listening to people argue instead of hearing the facts to draw our own informed conclusions. Unfortunately, many of us are going to be unemployed and will have plenty of time to "consume" this new factless journalism.


Note: Of course, I'm writing this in the blogosphere, where many see the future of journalism. I obviously think the blogs play a very new, unique and quality role, but not as a replacement for professional, independent journalism with resources to travel to Bagdad or to spend two months or more investigating a story.

Empirical evidence for man-made global warming

Where did the Dems come up with this reconciliation?!?

Free trade and the decline of the American middle class

I increasingly hear people who support free trade talking in very pessimistic terms about the decline of the middle class and their inability to envision improvement in this trend. For example, I listen to the podcast "Left, Right and Center" and Matt Miller, the moderator who was in the Clinton Administration and has never said anything (that I've heard) to question free trade (in fact, even the leftist voice on the show supports free trade), has been very pessimistic about middle class prospects since the economy crashed.

Unfortunately, none of these voices seem to be making a connection between free trade policies and the decline of the middle class. Many, including Mr. Miller, go as far as to tie the middle class decline (at least in part) to competition with China and India. So with that perspective, why on earth aren't these voices making the obvious step of questioning the wisdom of free trade? Well, that's largely because most political pundits drank the Cool Aid, most of them work for Corporate conglomerates that benefit from offshore exploitation, and many have--or aspire to attain--such wealth that they financially benefit from the exploitation. With most of the media refusing to see the light, it's left for the American people to figure it out on their own. By the time we figure it out as a country (clearly many individuals get it), so much American money will have funneled to China and India that it will be too late. And the fat cats that made a fortune out of the transfer will just smile knowingly and feign pity (or at least a handful will pretend to care).

It's becoming increasingly obvious that the corporate interests that make so much of their money off of exploiting cheap, offshore labor (and more often off-shore tax breaks) have such influence in Washington that is not going to change until it's too late. The only scenario that I can imagine at this point is for American's to get so pissed off that enough of them refuse to buy Chinese (start with China and then build from there). Only enough Americans would have to participate to build credible competitors and then it would start eating into corporate profits enough to make it unprofitable to move overseas. But even that seems close to unimaginable, given the zombie shoppers in Wal-Mart. I did a quick search to see what kind of sites are out there encouraging non-Chinese made purchase, and I can't find anything! Unbelievable!!! There is no web site www.dontbuychinese.com! How is this possible? Did the Chinese purchase the domain to keep it from establishing? Seeing this makes me almost certain we are headed toward American economic catastrophe, the likes of which will make 2008 look like a warm-up. But just maybe...maybe...some of these pundits will finally get it and start speaking out about the pitfalls of outright free trade before it's too late. Matt Miller? Anyone?

Sara Palin and the crybaby conservatives

In his 2005 article "The New PC: Crybaby Conservatives" in The Nation magazine, Russell Jacoby describes how conservatives are constantly whining about liberal bias in college classrooms. He describes attempts to bully professors on college campuses across the country to remove liberal perspectives and increase conservative perspectives. As Jacoby points out, conservatives "are at least as prickly as any other group when it comes to perceived slights. After years of decrying the 'political correctness police,' thin-skinned conservatives have joined in; they want their own ideological wardens to enforce intellectual conformity." But since the 2005 article, conservatives have become increasingly thinned skin whenever criticized or satirized, as demonstrated by Sara Palin's recent reactions to Dave Letterman and the Family Guy.

Keep in mind, conservatives have attacked political correctness for decades, claiming that political correctness has left us vulnerable to terrorists acts, proliferated welfare, ruined our education system, among other vast claims. Of course, the rants against political correctness by conservatives haven't faded. They continue alongside the whining that David Letterman, college professors, and comedy shows are not sufficiently considering the feelings of conservatives before speaking (a.k.a. political correctness). But at some point, someone has to point out that you can't have it both ways.

I've been inclined toward political correctness for a couple of decades. I like comedy, but there are lines that shouldn't be crossed. I love Sara Silverman, but some of her jokes definitely make me cringe. And I didn't particularly like the Family Guy's spoof on Trig Palin (though it wasn't nearly as bad as I expected based on the coverage). But in not liking the Family Guy's spoof, I'm being consistent with my own standards that I've followed for at least 20 years. Conservatives, on the other hand, constantly flip back and forth, depending upon what they find advantageous. If you speak out against the Family Guy, you sure as hell better have also spoken out repeatedly against Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage, who's hateful and bigoted rants (that have gone on for years) make the Family Guy (which is doing a comic spoof) look like Barney.

Unfortunately though there's really nothing new here. It's just one more example of conservative hypocrisy, which has become so anticipated that the media doesn't even recognize it any more. As a result, they repeat Palin's rants repeatedly and never put them into perspective.

Is it just rhetoric or not? More on conservative hypocricy

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" These words tend to either make conservatives cry or piss their pants. For more than 20 years, conservatives have cited this statement (by Ronald Reagan) as playing a key role (I have heard it claimed as THE key role) in the downfall of the Soviet Union. Of course many of Reagan's other words (e.g. morning in America) are also used to describe what a great President Reagan was. But now conservatives have been on the attack for months saying that Obama is just out there giving good speeches, but that words aren't actions. You can't claim that Reagan's speeches rallied a nation and caused the USSR to disband, and then turn around and dismiss Obama's speeches as contributing to nothing.

The Massachusetts Miracle

When Scott Brown defeated Martha Coakley for Ted Kennedy's Massachusetts Senate seat, the media ran with stories of a conservative upswing, a backlash against Obama, and a 2010 repeat of the 1994 GOP congressional take-over. No doubt, Republicans were elated and Democrats were distraught. Nevermind all of Coakley's blunders--it really was a huge upset and definitely signaled some serious shifts in public attitudes. But there is a very good chance that we'll look back at this as a miracle of another kind.

The Massachusetts upset will undoubtedly embolden Republicans to claim that Americans love their policies and they will continue to do everything to keep the Democrats from accomplishing anything, therefore basically shutting down the government for the next 9 months. With their new 41 seat minority in the Senate, they will now be able to filibuster anything they want, without the help of conservative Democrats. Given that this congress has already filibustered much more than any other congress ever has, I'm guessing that we ain't seen nothin' yet. I think we can anticipate GOP extremism like we've never seen before.

Combined with the fact that Democrats look as if they may finally be getting a clue (based on Obama and Biden's recent performances) and have begun to expose the Republican hypocrisy, I think the political picture may look a lot more balanced come November. I'm pretty sure that American's don't want to go back to the George Bush/Tom Delay days. And the GOP is doing their best to remind them of those days. When the dust clears in November, the American people will have realized that Republicans had effectively been able to stop the policies for which they had elected Barack Obama on, and I don't think that they are going to be too happy about it.

Without the Massachusetts miracle, the GOP would have continued to whine for the next year and Dems would likely have had significant losses in November. But I think we'll look back at that race and realize that it was a game changer of a kind that the media has entirely overlooked.

National Dept

Why the extreme hatred toward Obama?

Conservatives are REALLY ANGRY at Obama. The vitriol has been profound since summer. But what exactly has Obama done that has driven all of this anger? Most of what we hear is completely generalized anger of how un-American he is (e.g., he's a socialist), without any specific policy complaints. The lack of specificity by the critics, but especially in the media's reporting of it, has really been bothering me. Conservatives seem angrier than liberals ever did at Bush and he lied us into a war, ignored warnings that terrorists wanted to fly airplanes into US buildings, allowed Enron and Banks to rip us off, cut taxes for those making record profits, etc. What has Obama done that is as bad or worse than that?!? Here is my attempt to understand specifically what has conservatives so upset about the Obama Administration.

Taxes
You have to start with the tea parties, which has been the center of conservative anger. And the tea parties must be about taxes, right? After all, their namesake, the Boston tea party, was about taxation without representation. But Obama has CUT taxes for 95% of Americans and kept them the same (so far) for the remaining 5%. Since the tea baggers weren't protesting Bush's tax rates, then we know taxation can't be the source of the anger. Right? Unfortunately, it probably is for some. A recent poll showed that 24% of American's believed that Obama has raised their taxes. Only 12% believed that Obama had lowered their taxes.

National Debt/Deficit
This is one of the few specifics that I actually ever hear about. But this is an outrageous and hypocritical criticism coming from conservatives, who support the party of national debt. Over the last 60 years, the presidents that have primarily driven up the national debt have been Reagan (especially Reagan!), Bush, and Bush Jr. I don't hear them bashing the Reagan presidency for his debt. Don't believe me on this? Go to Google Images and search "national debt" to see numerous graphs of the national dept(see example above). These three presidents are the only ones since WWII that have had an increase in the national dept as a % of GNP. The national debt is such a mainstay of conservative policy that Dick Cheney stated that "Reagan taught us deficits don't matter."

Bailout
The bailout is another criticism I've heard of Obama. For the most part, this is a ridiculous criticism since the bailout was passed under the Bush Administration. As a senator running for president at the time, Obama supported it, but so did McCain and Palin. So it's clearly not fair to lay this at his feet. I would agree that he should have forced some reversals of Bush policies in how it was administered. However, I think he's addressing much of that by proposing taxes on the big banks that got us into the financial crisis and then begged for the bailout. Of course, conservatives will likely oppose these taxes when it comes time, therefore removing any sliver of legitimacy them may have to criticize Obama on this issue.

Stimulus
Obama passed the stimulus and conservatives have effectively confused the stimulus with the bank bailout (which passed under Bush). The stimulus was a bill to put American's back to work and virtually every economist agrees that it has helped, though there is obviously debate as to how much. Given the talk of one year ago, that we were heading into a potential depression, it seems obvious to me that it has helped immensely, but no one can name exactly how many jobs have been added. There's no question that it's a lot though. Conservatives have purposely confused the stimulus with the bailout, because few people like the idea of throwing money at bankers (which is what Bush did), but most people like the idea of throwing money out there to create jobs in a time of growing job losses (what Obama did). Do conservatives hate Obama for the stimulus? Probably, but they'll never tell you that without talking about the bailout at the same time.

So what is it that has conservatives so angry? I've not addressed the socialist label, mostly because I want to hit that head-on in a future blog. But obviously Obama isn't trying to convert our economic and governmental system into socialism. My shoes, shirt, pizza, television, computer, milk, paper, car, camera, music, movies, etc. are all made by private companies and no American politician has even hinted at questioning that. Of course there was, at one point, a public option in the health care bill. But most Americans supported that (at least initially when 77% of American's said they wanted health care reform) and it has now been abandoned anyway.

So why the extreme hatred? Well, it obviously has a lot more to do with lack of control than with specific policies. If it were about policy, I think we'd hear more specifics and less angry cries of socialism (or Nazism). Of course, there may be worse motivations behind the hatred and while I hate to go there, I'm not sure how you can ignore it given the level of hatred that really is directed at little more than his character.