Brookings' Intellectually Honest Analysis Of Romney's Tax Proposals Got Me Banned

Romney says he is going to balance the budget, cut taxes, raise defense, protect Medicare, and preserve all the institutions of the federal government that we need from the FBI to the FAA. You can't possibly do all of those things. That was my problem. How does the math add up? To me, he's still at war with math ~ Tom Friedman (b. 7/20/1953) NYT columnist and self-identified Republican, on the 9/2/2012 broadcast of BC's Meet the Press.

Preface 1: This is a old post. I originally intended to publish it in September of 2012, but never got around to finishing it. I wrote most of it, but never actually completed it for some reason. I was recently looking for things to delete from my computer and found this... and decided to dust it off, finish it, and publish it. Why? Because it explains MY SIDE of a debate that lead to me being banned from the blog Contra O'Reilly.

I've authored a number of highly critical posts over the last few months that take aim at the proprietor of that blog, a Mr. Willis L. Hart (who I refer to as "PA" below). This post explains why. He banned me over a stoopid disagreement over former presidential contender Mitt Romney's tax plan (a plan that was never explained in detail, therefore making assumptions necessary if anyone wished to critique it).

Preface 2: What follows is my original post which my records say I intended to publish on 9/1/2012...

According to Wikipedia Harvard ethicist Louis M. Guenin describes the "kernel" of intellectual honesty to be "a virtuous disposition to eschew deception when given an incentive for deception".

Definition-wise, Wikipedia states that Intellectual Honesty is: [1] One's personal beliefs do not interfere with the pursuit of truth. [2] Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one's hypothesis. [3] Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another. [4] References are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided.

Regarding "Intellectual Honesty", I certainly do not try, nor have I ever tried to deceive with any of my posts, although I'm not going to claim that my personal beliefs never interfere with the pursuit of truth. They do. Facts here will sometimes be presented in a "biased" manner... from my Democrat-Liberal-Progressive point of view, that is. That is my bias. I don't deny it, but I do deny that I am the most intellectually dishonest person Willis Hart this particular as*hole has ever had to deal with.

The particular as*hole (PA) who levied this insult (and then banned me from his blog) did so because I defended a report from the Brookings Institute and the Tax Policy Center that said the Romney tax plan would raise taxes on the poor and middle class (see my previous post on the subject). Regarding Brookings' determination "...that a revenue-neutral individual income tax change that incorporates the features Governor Romney has proposed... maintaining all tax breaks for saving and investment... would... increase the tax burdens on middle and/or lower-income taxpayers", PA asserted that, "this study was done for one purpose, and one purpose only, to make frigging Romney look ridiculous".

Because Romney has put forward very few specifics, Brookings was required to make a number of assumptions in order to do the analysis at all. One of the things they assumed was that because Romney has said he favors "maintaining all tax breaks for saving and investment" that items that fall into this category are "off the table".

So just what deductions is Mitt Romney talking about? In their analysis Brookings/TPC says, "offsetting the $360 billion in revenue losses necessitates a reduction of roughly 65 percent of available tax expenditures. Such a reduction... would require deep reductions in many popular tax benefits ranging from the mortgage interest deduction, the exclusion for employer-provided health insurance, the deduction for charitable contributions, and benefits for low and middle-income families and children like the EITC and child tax credit".

No way says PA. PA thinks it is much more likely that Romney would lower taxes as he has described, while keeping these deductions and allow the deficit to rise. Do I think Romney would actually put forward a budget that did this? I doubt it, but, AGAIN, he has proposed a huge tax cut that also "maintains all tax breaks for saving and investment", and that simply is not possible unless many or most tax expenditures are reduced or eliminated. This is another reasonable assumption... in my opinion.

But because of these assumptions PA determined that the Brookings analysis was BS. Why? Apparently because the American Enterprise Institute, the Wall Street Journal, and the Manhattan Institute (all Conservative) made that exact criticism. Even though Brookings concluded that "maintaining all tax breaks for saving and investment" meant taxing these items would be "off the table".

But PA says the report's assumptions are not reasonable, and when I continued to insist they are, PA flew off the handle declaring, "what an absolute piece of shit you are". Why? Because I was claiming (according to PA) that "[Brookings] included it by not including it". No. They looked at these items and determined that they were "off the table" because they fell into the category of "tax breaks for saving and investment".

So, why MUST these items be "on the table" according to PA? Because Mitt Romney has never said they were off. In other words, because Romney has not put forward a detailed tax plan, ANY analysis of a possible Romney tax plan (taking what Romney has said and making some assumptions) is completely invalid. Or any analysis that doesn't include reducing or eliminating tax deductions for "municipal bonds and life insurance savings" is invalid. Why? Damned if I know.

I do know, however, that I'm "intellectually dishonest" for agreeing with the Brookings determination that these things would be "off the table", and was banned for that reason. PA authored a post that said, "You're done. I don't want you to comment here anymore". OK by me. This guy is clearly a lunatic. Why we can't simply disagree on what is a "reasonable assumption" is beyond me.

Finally, regarding the comment from PA that the Brookings/TPC report was done, "to make frigging Romney look ridiculous"... PA says Brookings (one of the preeminent Think Tanks in the country) is LYING because they are a "Liberal" organization. He bases this on an article from US News & World Report that points out that from 2003 to 2010 most of Brookings political contributions went to Democrats (97.6% to Democrats and 1.2% to Republicans).

The US News & World Report article identifies Brookings as a "Liberal" Think Tank. However, in an article titled "Brookings: The Establishment's Think Tank", Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) points out that "much of Brookings' top brass has come from Republican administrations". FAIR says labeling Brookings Liberal is "a victory of Right-wing think tanks" and that "to this day, Brookings is commonly, and inaccurately, dubbed liberal... It's called centrist almost as often, but never conservative, though that label would be more accurate than liberal".

SourceWatch says Brookings was "initially centrist... [but] since the 1990s it has taken steps further towards the Right in parallel with the increasing influence of Right-wing think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation.

Wikipedia states that the Tax Policy Center was formed "in 2002, [by] tax experts who had served in the Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton administrations [with the objective of] providing unbiased analysis of tax issues".

Now, FAIR and SourceWatch are both progressive/Liberal organizations, but who better to determine what organizations are "Liberal" than other Liberal organizations? So why all the donations to Democrats? I say it is because that is where all the Moderates are. PA describes himself as a "Moderate", and has (previously) identified as a "Blue Dog" Democrat. So who are these Moderate Republicans he thinks Brookings should be donating to if they were really (in PA's estimation) a centrist organization?

With the ascendance of the Tea Party and Mitt having to adopt positions contrary to those he used to hold in order to secure the nomination, how can any sane person deny the Republican Party has moved to the Far Right? Beats me, yet the Hartster does just that, in agreement with his Conservative buddy dmarks who contends that Brookings is a "well known leftist group".

But articles can easily be found via Googling that correctly state that Republicans of yesteryear would not be welcome in the Republican Party of today, including Richard Nixon and the Repub saint Ronald Reagan.

In a recent Fox News interview conducted by Chris Wallace former Senate majority leader Bob Dole said he "doesn't think he could make it in today's Republican Party". Wallace referred to Dole's "generation as Eisenhower Republicans, moderate Republicans". These are the Republicans that by and large no longer exist, so how the hell can Brookings donate to the re-election campaigns of moderate Republicans when there aren't any (or hardly any)? The answer to that question should be self-evident, I say.

But I disagreed, and that was another of several reasons the "Moderate" proprietor of Contra O'Reilly asked me to leave his blog and never return (and that he'd delete my comments if I did). This is a frigging stoopid reason for a banning, IMO. What it really shows is this Willis Hart fellow is really not all that Moderate.

Afterword: On 2/10/2013 PA (AKA Willis Hart) authored a post titled "The Silence of the Lefts" in which he criticized the political Left for it's "silence" regarding specific actions taken by the Obama Administration that are very similar to actions taken by the prior administration. Specifically drone strikes, reauthorization of the PATRIOT act, indefinite detention and rendition of terror suspects, and the president's kill list.

For the record I actually AGREE with PA. Both with his objection to these policies, and with his criticism of the Left in it's acceptance of Obama continuing these policies (when they were severely critical of bush when he did the exact same things). Willis does, however, slip in one lie. According to him Democrats in Congress were "seemingly" briefed on waterboarding. He is one of those who thinks Nancy Pelosi lied when she said the CIA never briefed her on the fact that they were waterboarding. Pelosi told the truth about not being briefed about EITs (enhanced Interrogation Techniques) AKA waterboarding, as her House colleague Bob Graham confirmed.

Also, while the Left (voters and politicians) are much too accepting of these policies just because a Democratic president is in office, there are voices of Progressive disagreement. I would have told Willis that if I had been allowed to comment (and I did tell him I disagreed with these policies prior to my banning). I am actually in agreement with the 26 members of the Progressive caucus (the real Left) who sent a letter to President Obama "demanding greater openness on all aspects of its counterterrorism-related targeted killing program".

I am also in agreement with Progressive host of The Young Turks, Cenk Uygur, who says the problem isn't with drones, because drones are just a tool. The actual problem is how we are using this tool. The three problems identified by Mr. Uygur are that... [1] We have used drones to execute U.S. civilians without a trial, [2] Most of the drone strikes are signature strikes where we have no idea who we're killing, and [3] We often do double taps where we kill first-responders and the people trying to help the wounded.

I am absolutely in agreement with Mr. Uygur on all three points. With these three concerns addressed I'd have much less a problem with the Obama administration's use of drones. But because they are not addressing them, and are in fact killing innocent civilians - I say they are creating more "terrorists" than they are killing... by angering the relatives of the innocents we are killing, who then join up to fight against the United States [1].

As it currently is utilized I strongly oppose the administration's use of drones. I am not silent in this regard. Also, in regards to the uninformed (Lefty) voters, Mr. Uygur says, "the great majority of Americans have no idea what we're doing with these drones. They think we're only targeting high level terrorists". He is correct. There are uninformed voters on both the Left and the Right. Here the Left is "silent" (in support of the drone program) because they don't understand how the drone program works.

In concluding his post PA says, "I'm beginning to think here that the Left wasn't so much anti-war as anti-Bush", but I say he is a fibbing (as well as displaying his fervent anti-Left bias). He has a point (so I don't say "lie"), but to not mention (at all) that there are those on the Left who are against these policies - the same as when bush was president - is a little dishonest. Only "a little" because I'm sure there are some on the Left who only complained about drones when bush was president because bush was president. Now they support the use of drones because it is a Democratic president doing it.

But for PA to suggest the Left is entirely silent? The progressives (that Willis dislikes with much intensity) ARE speaking out. That he ignores this fact is as dishonest as PA's characterization of me as "the most intellectually dishonest person [he] has ever had to deal with". That is way over the top and a huge distortion of reality - a reality in which I AGREE with him on some topics but disagree with him on others. The problem PA actually had with me was that, when I disagreed I wouldn't end up caving when he kept insisting he was right.

Footnote
[1] AKA blowback, which is a concept the idiot Willis, while he criticizes Obama for his drone policy, does not agree with. According to dope, the idea that all the murdering via drone that we're doing (of mostly innocents) causes anyone to seek revenge "ultimately fails". The US, in his mind, is blameless, in other words. Sounds like something a jingoist fear mongering warmongering MIC-stooging Republican would say. (Note: This footnote was added on 7/19/2015).

Video Description: Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks speaks out against Obama's use of drones.

SWTD #160, wDel #27.

Right-Wingers Don't Understand the First Amendment

[Corporations] are not the same as us. They do not have the same rights as all of us. And that decision is wrong on the law, and wrong for America, and an enormous danger for the political process as we go forward ~ Russ Feingold (b. 3/2/1953) an American politician from Wisconsin who served as a Democratic party member of the U.S. Senate from 1993 to 2011, in a speech on the Citizens United Case delivered at the Fighting Bob Fest on 9/10/2010.

The First Amendment says: 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.

Move to Amend says: On 1/21/2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions. The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule.

Dervish Sanders says: I agree with the folks at "Move to Amend". Clearly the Founders did not intended for corporations to be considered people. Just as Thomas Jefferson warned us that inherited wealth is incompatible with democracy, he also warned us of the dangers of allowing corporations to become too powerful. Now I'd wager that most people believe one of the functions of the The Supreme Court is to determine if laws are Constitutional (if there is a question). It's one of the checks and balances set up by the Founders, right?

Actually the power to rule laws passed by Congress and signed into law by the president "unconstitutional" is NOT a power granted to the Supreme Court by the Constitution. The SCOTUS granted itself this power with the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision. A horrified Thomas Jefferson declared that the ruling by the Marshall court paved the way for Judicial tyranny. Specifically Jefferson said...

If ... the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government ... then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de so (suicide pact). ...The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please. (Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Nov. 1819).

This is exactly what the Roberts Court did on 1/21/2010 when they ruled in favor of "Citizens United" (a conservative political organization). The Conservatives on the court molded the First Amendment - exactly as if it were a mere thing of wax - changing it's meaning so that it pleased them (and the corporations they serve). This act, as predicted by Jefferson, edged our nation closer to plutocracy. It seems conservatives have no problem what-so-ever with judicial activism when the Conservative judges rule to further empower the wealthy elites.

What the Supreme Court did, specifically, was to strike down "a provision of the McCain–Feingold Act that prohibited all corporations, both for-profit and not-for-profit, and unions from broadcasting electioneering communications". McCain–Feingold said that "broadcast ads mentioning a candidate within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election" are prohibited. Citizens United thought they could bypass McCain–Feingold with a "documentary" trashing Hillary Clinton. Hillary the Movie was set to air on cable TV as an on-demand movie when the FEC objected and filed a lawsuit. The airing of the documentary was stopped when a lower court ruled that, under McCain–Feingold, Citizens United could not broadcast their film 30 days before a primary election.

But the douches at Citizens United insisted that their film wasn't electioneering (and thus exempt from McCain-Feingold) because, "the movie did not say explicitly that people should vote for or against Clinton". When the CU a-holes decided to petition the SCOTUS - Judge Roberts and his Right-wing buddies agreed to hear the case (instead of laughing and turning them down as they should have). Not only that, but Judge Roberts said, "I'll do you one better". Instead of ruling on whether or not the Hillary-bashing movie was OK to air whenever (because it didn't tell people who to vote for and was thus not a political ad), Roberts decided the court should decide if corporations should be able to air any political ad, anytime, and spend as much money as they liked on them.

What Roberts proposed what that his court should overturn decades of settled case law, something he specifically promised he would not do during his confirmation hearings. Former "Law & Order" actor, TN Senator, and failed 2008 presidential contender Fred Thompson thinks Roberts, "was very forthright in explaining that he would not tell the senators how he was going to vote but that he would follow the law and the intent of the framers". Fred believes Roberts has done just that, but Fred is wrong. Roberts lied in his Senate confirmation hearings and should be impeached.

Justice Scalia, another corporate fascist like his buddy Roberts, authored a concurrence in which he states that the First Amendment, "never shows why the freedom of speech that was the right of Englishmen did not include the freedom to speak in association with other individuals, including association in the corporate form". Scalia also "argued that the first amendment was written in terms of speech, not speakers", and that "it's text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker".

Both Roberts and Scalia are members of the Federalist Society, which is "an organization of conservatives and libertarians seeking reform of the current American legal system in accordance with a textualist and/or originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution". The stated goals of this organization are, of course, total bullshit. Their real goal is to reinterpret the Constitution so that the law favors the wealthy elites (even more so than it currently does).

Justice Thomas also concurred, even though the hypocrite supposedly believes "America was founded on a philosophy of individual rights, not group rights". But he was talking about his opposition to Affirmative action. So, when the government grants additional rights of groups of individuals it is WRONG if the purpose is to promote equal opportunity and address existing discrimination, but when it does the same in regard to groups of individuals who get together to form a corporation - it's the bee's knees?

Conservatives claim that the considerations afforded by Affirmative action amount to special privileges, while people who get together to form a corporation are not asking for anything special, only that they not be stripped of their first amendment rights. But the fact is, they are not. These people retain their individual right to free speech, but do not gain the special privilege of a free speech group right. Clarence Thomas may be a hypocritical dipsh*t, but he's right (even if he conveniently forgot when he wrote his Citizens United concurrence), that the Bill of the Bill of Rights affirms individual rights, not group rights. There is ONLY ONE group that the First Amendment mentions, and that is The Press. All other groups can suck it.

Individuals have the right to associate with other individuals, but they do not then gain additional rights to speak as a group under the First Amendment. Only the Press does, which is why the Founders specifically mention it. Seeing as any specific press organization is also a corporation, why would the Framers single out the press if they were already covered (by virtue of being a corporation)? Clearly the Bill of Rights was intended to apply to individuals and not groups. Neither did the Framers intend for corporations to be able to spend unlimited amounts of money influencing elections or buying off politicians. Congress is within it's rights to pass laws restricting campaign spending by these entities.

I agree that "judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules. They apply them". John Roberts said this during his confirmation hearing. Then he did the exact opposite when he ruled in favor of Citizens United, changing the meaning and intent of the First Amendment. Both of the justices appointed by President doofus made similar statements before Congress, and because fibbing to Congress is illegal, both should be impeached. Alito, in his confirmation hearing said, "courts should respect the judgments and the wisdom that are embodied in prior judicial decisions", but when Roberts said prior judicial decisions (regarding this issue) were a "mistake" and that he was obligated not to repeat them, Alito concurred.

In elections whichever candidate outspends the other generally wins. This is according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), a non-profit, nonpartisan research group that tracks money in politics and their effect on elections. In a 11/5/2008 article examining the 2008 election, CRP reports that "Money Wins Presidency and 9 of 10 Congressional Races in Priciest U.S. Election Ever". Their research shows that "in 93 percent of House of Representatives races and 94 percent of Senate races... the candidate who spent the most money ended up winning".

According to the 2/17/2011 broadcast of the Rachel Maddow Show, "In 2010, post-Citizens United, 7 of the 10 top outside spending groups in the election were all Right-wing. The Chamber of Commerce, both the Karl Rove groups, the American Future Fund, Americans for Job Security - all of these Right-wing groups. The only non-conservative groups that cracked the top 10 were the public employees union, the SEIU, and the teachers union. That's it".

The Sunlight Foundation confirms that spending on the Republican side outpaces spending on the Democratic side. Their 2010 report says, "the big change... is that independent groups are now spending more money on influencing the election than political parties", pointing out that "the outside groups are supplanting traditional party spending largely on the Republican side of the aisle. There are currently eight outside groups that have each spent at least $2 million exclusively on aiding Republican candidates. These groups are American Crossroads, American Crossroads GPS, American Future Fund, The 60 Plus Association, Americans for Job Security, Club for Growth Action Fund, Club for Growth and Tea Party Express".

I say you are naive in the extreme if you think this ruling will not allow corporations to get the politicians THEY WANT elected. Corporations will run adds FOR the politicians who dance to their tune and AGAINST those who do not. Obviously Righties believe that "free speech" is dependant on how much money you have. The more money you have, the more FREE speech you can buy. Those of us who don't adhere to corporatism recognize that this ruling is straight up fascism. Most people don't even bother voting. Of those that do vote, some of them will vote for the politicians the ads tell them to vote for. Outside groups wouldn't be spending these huge sums of money if this were not true.

My conclusion is that money is corrosive to the political process. We need to reduce the amount of money spent on elections, not increase it. Money is not speech, corporations are not people, and the first amendment only applies to individuals (and the press). For this reason we must re-elect Barack Obama so that he can appoint the next one or two Supreme Court Judges and move the court away from the radical Right. Hopefully then this very bad ruling can be overturned.

Conservative Q&A Re: The Citizens United Decision

The following questions and assertions were made during a heated debate I engaged in with a Conservative on another blog. This debate was what prompted me to compose this blog post. I've written on the topic before, but this commentary greatly expands on my prior posts...

Conservative position: A law requiring shareholders in a corporation be allowed to vote before any corporate money is spent supporting a political candidate would be wrong because shareholders all CHOOSE to invest on a corporation. Their choice to invest means they approve of the company's policies (including it's political support).

My response: This claim is utter nonsense. The primary reason people invest in corporations is to make money, not political statements. In deciding whether or not to invest an individual usually looks into past performance of the corporation, they usually do not investigate the political positions of the corporation, which are not a part of the company's prospectus. A law requiring a vote by stockholders (the OWNERS of the corporation) before any money is spend for political reasons is completely reasonable. If everyone who buys stock is assumed to agree with the CEO politically, then what is the harm in holding a vote? The only reason anyone would oppose such a law is because they want corporate CEOs to be able to spend corporate money for political reasons - even if such expenditures would be OPPOSED by their stockholders.

Conservative position: The New York Times is a corporation. Putting in the censorship regime you favor would gag any political opinions from being expressed in it.

My response: The First Amendment says that no laws shall be passed abridging the freedom of the press. the New York Times is a press organization and thus political opinions expressed in it can not legally be gagged. Furthermore, I do not favor a "censorship regime"; I favor adherence to the First Amendment as written. The First Amendment guarantees individual rights. It does not guarantee group rights for corporations or any other entity (with the exception of the press).

Conservative position: Do you honestly support the idea that caused the court decision in the first place... the government gag on a film [Hillary: the movie] people made that was critical of a US senator?

My response: I fully support reasonable laws governing how our elections are conducted. Citizens United was not "gagged" in regards to Hillary: The Movie. They were only prohibited from airing their "documentary" during a certain period of time. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (also known as McCain-Feingold) said that "broadcast ads mentioning a candidate within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election" are prohibited. They were free to air their "documentary" any other time.

Conservative position: What ever happened to, if you don't like what someone says, ignore it? We need to stop looking for excuses to censor and to bar people from the political process.

My response: I am not looking to censor or bar any individual person from the political process. I simply believe we should follow the First Amendment as written. The First Amendment protects individual rights, not group rights. Corporations (aside from press corporations) do not have rights under the First Amendment.

As for your argument that political ads can be ignored... this clearly does not happen. Why else would politicians spend so damn much to get elected? Why do they hire slick PR firms to carefully craft their message? Money has a HUGE impact on elections. This is a FACT that cannot be denied. Politically informed individuals may ignore political commercials they know are pure spin, but the average citizen is most often not informed enough to be able to identify what is true and what is spin (or an outright lie).

If you agree with the Citizens United decision it is my opinion that you do not believe in democracy. Only a supporter of plutocracy would say our election results should be determined by who spends the most.

SWTD #82

Ignorant Electorate's Conservative Confusion

Ignorant men don't know what good they hold in their hands until they've flung it away ~ Sophocles (497 BCE to winter 406 BCE) the second of the three ancient Greek tragedians whose work has survived.

"Well Look at this news!" was the title of a post on a Conservative blog I visited awhile ago. The news trumpeted by the Right-wing blogger was that "Conservatives Now Outnumber Liberals in All 50 States" according to a 6/15/2009 Gallup Poll. Obviously the wingnut believed the poll means the Republican party is on a verge of a comeback. In a few short days they'll retake the Congress and in 2012 the White House.

"I can't wait to see the liberal spin on this" the aforementioned disingenuous wingnut blogger proclaimed. I say disingenuous because, after I commented on a few of her posts she enabled comment moderation and told me to take my bullshit elsewhere. Her profile said "I'm glad you've stopped by!", although this sentiment apparently only applied to people who agreed with her.

I didn't provide a link to Mary Mary Quite Contrary's blog because it has since been deleted. Or, I assume this to be the case, since Blogger says, "blog not found". It probably has something to do with the fact that I started writing this post back in September of 2009 and never finished it - something I often do. I have a dozen or so partially completed posts.

Last Tuesday (10/19/2010) I read a Yahoo News story that says "more than half of likely voters see themselves as conservative, compared with 42% in 2006, the last midterm election, according to a Gallup Poll in early October". That line reminded me of this commentary which I never completed.

What Mary's post - and what anyone else who hears about how the electorate is more "conservative" now than ever before probably doesn't understand - is these Gallop poll numbers include people identifying as conservative Democrats and conservative leaning Independents. Either group (Independents more so than Democrats) could conceivably vote Republican. I laid out my fears regarding Independents with my 11/09/2009 post "It's Everybody Else's Fault". Now, only a few days from the midterms, it appears as though my worst fears are about to be realized.

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts" was the quote I opened my previously mentioned 2009 post with. According to the Yahoo News story "Tea party candidates vow to make a difference in Senate". The story also mentions 63-year-old "Louisville resident Sherry Gerst" who is voting for Rand Paul because "[she's] just absolutely sick of the Democrats". I believe this is comment represents the typical political ignorance of your average voter.

The Democrats who might vote Republican are of the same ilk as the morons we called "Reagan Democrats". These dummies betrayed their party by voting for the worst US president in history. It's easy to tell Sherry Gerst is one of the dummies who doesn't understand politics in the least - because she didn't say "I'm voting Republican because it's the party that best represents the political philosophies I hold". This is the ONLY question you should ask yourself when deciding who to vote for. You should NEVER vote for one party because you're sick of the other one!

This is why a total nut who says she has been mistaken for Asian and that she can't tell if illegal immigrants sneaking across our border in her recent campaign ad are of Hispanic heritage might actually defeat Harry Reid. I don't live in Nevada so I don't know why Nevadans (supposedly) hate Harry Reid so much - but, whatever the reason, electing a total wackjob like Sharron Angle will only make Nevada's problems worse.

So what we are faced with this midterm is a politically ignorant electorate voting for politically ignorant candidates. Christine O'Donnell, when "debating" her Democratic opponent Chris Coons on 10/19/2010 questioned whether the prohibition against Congress making any law respecting an "establishment of religion" was contained within the First Amendment. Later she says she high-fived her campaign advisors, believing she had nailed Coons in the debate because - get this - he (Chris Coons) didn't know what the First Amendment says!

These people believe that if one party isn't "getting the job done", then, perhaps we should give the other party a chance. Never mind the fact that the parties are diametrically opposed. Never mind the fact that the Republican's stated strategy has been to obstruct any and all legislation put forward by the Democrats - even if they previously voiced support (or even co-sponsored) said legislation. And, also never mind the fact that it was Conservative economic policies that caused the current recession.

How many times is the electorate going to be snookered into voting against their own best interests by snake-oil selling Right-wing con men? The "snake oil" I'm referring to being the fairy tale notions that supply side economics and outsourcing are sound economic policies, or that a belligerent foreign policy and wars of aggression make us safer. Or that we can solve the deficit problem by cutting non-military spending and taxes on the wealthy.

When asked specifically what spending they'll cut they usually have no answer. Carly Fiorina, who is running to unseat incumbent Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer, was recently asked by Chris Wallace of Faux News what spending cuts she would support. Despite being asked seven times, she never answered. Fiorina (who wants to extend all the bush tax cuts) says she wants to "rein in out-of-control government spending", but "has no idea how" (according to a 10/17/2010 Think Progress article).

I don't believe this to be the case. Fiorina - like all Republicans - wants to cut entitlements. The reason they won't say this is what they want to do is because they know it will cost them votes. People LIKE Medicare and Social Security, and will vote against candidates who support cutting or increasing the age of eligibility for these programs.

So why the hell are the Republicans posed to make big gains in the upcoming election? The Alaskan teabagger candidate Joe Miller thinks Medicare and Social Security are unconstitutional - as well as the minimum wage. Do people like the idea of working for slave wages while living in their cars?

An email I received in November of 2009 (when I originally started writing this article) from Newsmax declared "Reaganomics is dead". According to NewsMax, Reaganomics drove us deeply into debt is a proven method of building a healthy economy by "reducing the growth of government spending, reducing income and capital gains marginal tax rates, reducing government regulation of the economy and controlling the money supply to reduce inflation".

Reduce the growth of government spending? This is code for attacking entitlements. Referring to Social Security as a "ponzi scheme" or claiming that it is "bankrupt" are examples of this. Social security isn't a ponzi scheme, nor is it anywhere near being bankrupt. According to a press release issued by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders "The Social Security Trust Fund has a $2.6 trillion surplus that is projected to grow to more than $4 trillion by the year 2023".

The recent health care reform legislation is also being attacked by Republicans for the same reason. Several Republican fliers I received in the mail recently all attacked the Democrats running in my state/district because they supported "ObamaCare" and it's "$1 Trillion" price tag. Actually the cost of health care reform will be, as reported by CBS news, "$940 billion over ten years". It will also "reduce the deficit by $130 billion over ten years [and] $1.2 trillion dollars in the second ten years". Obviously referring to a bill's (extremely high) "price tag" when the bill actually SAVES money is absurd in the extreme.

Reducing income and capital gains marginal tax rates is Republi-speak for "supply side economics" which is a scam designed to shift taxes onto the backs of the middle class and poor. Reducing regulation? Do they REALLY think they can run on this again? They really DO think they can run on this again, despite the fact that Reaganomics caused the 2008 financial meltdown which lead to the current recession.

As for "controlling the money supply to reduce inflation" - certainly this sounds like a good idea? But current Fed chairman Ben Bernanke (who is a carryover from the bush administration) is currently considering increasing the money supply (the policy is known as "quantitative easing"). According to talk radio host Thom Hartman, "the environment right now is so deflationary that it looks like, and it looks like the Fed has agreed on this, that they can do QE, they can do this quantitative easing.

They can print more money, basically, and it won't produce an inflationary result. Instead it will simply stimulate the economy", because it "makes our exports cheaper which helps industries in the United States that export things". This is why the Chinese government undervalues their currency (we call it "currency manipulation" when they do it). The website "Economics Help" explains that "keeping a weak currency helps to boost demand for Chinese exports and therefore Chinese jobs".

The Newsmax email also asked the questions "how did we get so far off track?", and, "how do we find our way back?". Find our way back? To Reganomics? To this I say "no thank you". Reganomics has been proven wrong on all counts and should be relegated to the trash heap of history. The election of Barack Obama signaled that the American people have had enough of the bubbles and busts caused by Conservative economic policies. Or, I had hoped that people are waking up to that fact. Indications are that this midterm election will prove otherwise.

Which brings me to the point I wanted to make regarding the Gallup Poll. I am convinced that when people indicate that they are "conservative" what they really mean is that they are concerned about the level of debt our nation is amassing. Heck, it worries me. What is doesn't mean is that they're eager to vote in favor of outlawing same sex marriage, overturning Roe v. Wade, tax cuts for the wealthy, corporate welfare, or declaring unemployment and social security unconstitutional - does it?

No, when people say they are "conservative" what they mean is they are fiscally conservative. It stands to reason that when people have to watch their own pocketbook more closely they believe the government should do the same. Unfortunately most voters don't realize that the rules which apply to their own personal finances don't apply to those of the government. Conservatives mock Democrats who they say believe we can "spend our way out" of a recession. What they fail to realize is that if the government "tightens it's belt" (as they must) there is absolutely nothing to stop a downward spiral from pulling the economy deeper into recession.

If you think tax cuts are the answer you couldn't be more wrong. Businesses aren't going to start hiring people because they got a tax cut. Businesses hire workers when there is demand for what they are selling. Supply side economics has cause and effect reversed - it says that if a business produces a product demand will magically materialize. The answer to this conundrum is deficit spending to stimulate the economy. The economic theory is known as Keynesian economics, and it was the Keynesian polices employed by the Roosevelt administration that pulled us out of the Great Depression (regardless of the Republican effort to rewrite history to deny Roosevelt and Keynes the credit they deserve).

Republicans claim the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 failed because unemployed rose above the eight percent the Obama Administration assured us it wouldn't. Obviously the forecast was incorrect, but that hardly means the stimulus failed! For some reason Republicans they think the American people will buy their claim that spending over 500 billion (the portion of the cost of the bill that wasn't tax cuts) created zero jobs.

The White House Council of Economic Advisers says the stimulus saved or created 3.6 million jobs. The main problem with the stimulus, according to economist Paul Krugman, was that it contained not enough direct spending (but the tax cut portion was to large).

The conclusion which can be drawn from the preceding facts is that Republican economic policies (AKA Reaganomics or "supply side economics") don't have anything to do with fiscal conservatism - they are all about redistributing wealth upwards. And to suggest that the Tea Party candidates are populists is a sick joke. They represent the interests of the wealthy elite the same as the Republicans. George W. bush certainly didn't practice fiscal conservatism, nor did his father, or the president before him, Ronald Reagan. They all grew the deficit by unprecedented amounts. Cons now say GWB was a "big government conservative" and after this election they'll be different.

A campaign commercial from the Right-wing advocacy group "Let Freedom Ring" asserts "it's time for fiscal sanity", and claims the way to achieve that goal is to "vote for candidates who will save us from national bankruptcy". Obviously they believe you should vote Republican tomorrow. But House Minority Leader John Boehner recently pledged that Republicans "are not going to be any different than we have been".

In other words, if placed back in power we can expect more of the same fiscal policies that crashed our economy (most likely starting with an extension of the bush tax cuts for the wealthy that will add 36 Billion to the deficit). Given that fact, why would anyone - including voters concerned about the level of debt - even consider voting the "party of no" back into power?

SWTD #54

Tea Party Hearts Breitbart Lies

The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth ~ H.L. Mencken (9/12/1880 to 1/29/1956) an American journalist, essayist, magazine editor, satirist, acerbic critic of American life and culture, and a student of American English.

Unqualified Candidates

If you're like me, you're probably asking yourself "how much longer will the Tea Party joke continue?" Wednesday night (9/15/2010) a lesser qualified and not quite as intelligent Sarah Palin wannabe and Conservative Christian nutjob by the name of Christine O'Donnell "defeated" her Republican opponent, nine-term US congressman and former Delaware governor Mike Castle in the Delaware Republican Primary. Her Democratic opponent in the November race for Joe Biden's old Senate seat will be moderate Democrat Christopher Coons.

O'Donnell, who has been accused of using campaign donations for rent and personal expenses, claimed a "big victory", even though only roughly 16% of registered Republicans in Delaware's closed primary cast their ballot for her (30,561 out of approximately 179,941). The fact that this is double the Republican turnout in the 2008 primary shows how much an influence angry idiots can have on an election.

The Tea Party apparently likes the idea of electing unqualified candidates to political office. Although I'm sure that isn't the way they'd state the case. I'd guess the Palin-endorsed O'Donnell is another "regular Jane" Tea Partiers mad at the "establishment" can relate to. Barack Obama is "professorial" and Liberals are intellectual elites who just don't understand them. The Tea Party Joes and Janes don't want someone to explain the issues to them, they want a dumbed-down message delivered by a charismatic Lonesome Rhodes everyman (or woman) who tells them what they want to hear, regardless of the facts.

Professional Liars

This explains why they turned out for the newly minted televangelist and huckster prophet Glenn Beck's sermon and book promotion "restoring honor" rally on 8/28/2010. And why they continue to place their trust in professional Conservative mud slingers like Andrew Breitbart. Most Democratic voters who follow politics know this is the slimeball who attempted to smear Shirley Sherrod with a deceptively edited video and got caught (7/19/2010).

But this wasn't the first nor the last manufactured video controversy Breitbart has been involved in. James O'Keef's undercover ACORN "sting" videos were used by Breitbart to launch his "Big Government" website (the videos were released between 9/10/2009 and 9/17/2009). The ACORN videos were found to be "heavily edited" deceptive splice jobs by investigating law enforcement agencies. In at least one instance an ACORN employee later called the authorities and filled them in regarding the illegal activities O'Keefe had described to him. No charges were ever filed against ACORN in connection with the videos.

Are we to believe Breitbart posts excerpts but never views complete videos? This is the lame excuse he offered when his Shirley Sherrod clips were revealed to be highly misleading. He offered no excuse or apology in regards to the ACORN tapes, but I suspect he viewed the complete tapes and was a participant in the editing process... in both cases. With his reputation (theoretically) on the line, it would be unlikely he would post any clip without viewing the complete tape. Breitbart's strategy clearly is simply to get the damaging video out there and hope the public doesn't notice (or care) when the "evidence" is debunked later.

It worked with ACORN, which no longer exists thanks to his efforts. I'm sure he expected the same results with the Sherrod tape... he just wasn't expecting to be outed as soon as he was. And, even though it was quickly debunked, there was damage done - the Obama administration was made to look foolish when US Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack over-reacted and asked for Sherrod's resignation without investigating the veracity of the claims. Being caught lying means nothing to the operatives defending the Republican (and now Tea Party) noise machine. It's guerrilla (class) warfare, or what Rush Limbaugh refers to as "the drive-by media".

Accusing your enemy of using the very same tactics you are employing tends to deflate the criticisms against you - especially when you make the accusations before your enemy does. This explains why Glenn Beck claimed President Obama has a "deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture", why Breitbart (attempted) to smear Shirley Sherrod as a "black racist", why the Tea Party members often carry signs stating the Obama Administration is racist, and why so many conservatives blogs display placards saying the same (see images below).

More Video Evidence?

This brings me to a third (or second, chronologically - see "Breitbart Deceptively Edited Video Timeline" below) Breitbart manufactured video controversy that you may have previously been unaware of. Or at least I was until my recent visit to "The Voltron Ruffian Blog" (VRB). As reported by the Huffington Post, a 3/20/2010 health care legislation protest rally turned ugly when several Democratic Congressmen were assaulted by Tea Partiers who shouted racist and homophobic slurs at Georgia Representative John Lewis and Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank.

Indiana Representative André Carson recalls that, "while walking with John Lewis and his chief of staff from the Cannon building, amid chants of Kill the bill he heard the N-word at least 15 times". Missouri representative Emanuel Cleaver reported that he was spat on by a protester. Democrat Heath Shuler of North Carolina (who is white) said he also heard the slurs.

Of course I'd heard about the "Kill the Bill" D.C. rally and the verbal and spitting assault on our Democratic House members - and Breitbart's offer of a $100,000 donation to the United Negro College Fund for any audio/video footage of the incident - but I wasn't aware that Breitbart actually found video footage proving the attack didn't happen as reported.

When I responded to the VRB post "Andrew Breitbart: The American People Are The 4th Estate", post author and VRB contributor Freedom Fan told me to "study the video evidence if you really care about the truth". According to Mr. Fan, "there is no question that Andre Carson and Eldridge Cleaver, The CBC, [and the] NAACP are liars". Freedom Fan described the incident as part of the Left's "Goebbels Big Lie Smear of the Tea Party movement as racists".

The video evidence, as one might expect, is of a different moment during the protest, and not of the moment when the racial slurs were uttered. Columnist Tommy Christopher of Meidaite correctly points out, "several crudely-shot 5 to 7 second video clips of poor audio quality [are not] proof positive that nothing happened that day". More importantly, "[we need] to go over the other evidence that the incident did occur, at least as told by the corroborating testimony of three credible eyewitnesses", notably "John Lewis [who] is a hero of the Civil Rights movement". Christopher concludes that "no video of the incident [is the] thinnest refutation possible".

Also, while no footage exists (or has been released) on which the racial slurs can be heard (possibly because of the poor audio quality of the Breitbart clips), the same cannot be said of the homophobic epithet hurled at Congressman Barney Frank. A 4/11/2010 Washington Post article reveals that "an ABC News video recorded the incident inside a House office building". The video "clearly captures a protester shouting, Barney, you faggot". The article does suggest that the spitting incident may not have been deliberate, but an accidental spraying by a rabidly screaming tea bagger. Fair enough, I say. It is believable that the loogies may have been unintentional.

However, while there may be no video on which the N-word can be heard being uttered, we do have the word of three respected members of Congress, "each of whom [has] little motivation to lie". It is NOT believable that the event was fabricated by the Left "to marginalize Tea Party supporters", as Breitbart claims. I think we have more than enough evidence to conclude that the incident happened as described by the Congressmen who were there. Breitbart was not present, and his video footage proves nothing.

Eldridge Cleaver (who Freedom Fan identified as one of the liars in his response to my comment) wasn't there either... because he has been dead for more than 12 years. Eldridge Cleaver was a leading member of the (original) Black Panther Party, and isn't related to Missouri Democrat Emanuel Cleaver. I mention this identification of the wrong man as being present at the rally because it is the lie direct from Breitbart's lips. The fool can't even be bothered to get the genuine facts right in his mostly fabricated story - and Mr. Fan can't be bothered to do any independent research - instead using a known liar as his only source.

Breitbart: Tea Party Hero?

Freedom Fan concludes by saying "Andrew Breitbart is a national hero for calling the Libs' bluff and defending the honor of the decent folks in the Tea Party movement". First of all, the preponderance of the evidence has unequivocally proven Breitbart to be a unethical lying slimeball. Secondly, no one on the Left has ever claimed EVERYONE who identifies with the Tea Party movement is a racist (or a homophobe). I believe, while I strongly disagree with their politics, there certainly are decent people who have been deluded into believing Tea Party economics would solve America's ills.

Because of the recent NAACP resolution that condemed "extremist ELEMENTS within the Tea Party, and called for "Tea Party leaders to repudiate those in their ranks who use racist language in their signs and speeches", Freedom Fan included the "current president and chief executive officer of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People" Ben Jealous on his list of liars. However, when the Tea Party claims the NAACP resolution is without merit they deny ANY of it's members harbor racist sentiments. Not one single racist has ever attended a Tea Party rally? That REALLY is unbelievable.

As I pointed out in my 11/29/2009 post titled "The Racists Who Disagree With Us", Jimmy Carter was absolutely correct when he said the racists in the Tea Party are a "radical fringe element". The debate could be put to rest very easily. The Tea Party leaders could agree with the NAACP resolution and issue a zero tolerance policy for any racist language or signage. The reason they don't do this is because they are using the racists in their movement to their advantage (in their smear campaign against the Obama Administration).

Asserting that our President isn't Constitutionally eligible to serve because he was born in Kenya or that he has an "anti-colonialist agenda inherited from his father" - is an attempt to delegitimize his presidency. It is also thinly veiled racism. Those putting forth these cockamamie theories are telling their base that it's OK to use racist arguments against Obama, his administration, and all minorities - so long as your racism/bigotry is at least thinly veiled. Or not. Take a look at some of the signs these Tea Partiers carry. I wouldn't call them "thinly veiled" at all. Which is why they attack Obama and the Left for their "racism". To deflect criticism of their own racism.

Tea Party Loves Liars

And this explains why Tea Partiers like Freedom Fan are eager to believe a discredited moral cretin like Breitbart. The Breitbarts, Gingrichs and D'Souzas tell them what they want to hear - it's OK to associate with a movement that condones racism within it's ranks. It's OK to use whatever methods, no matter how vile, if they are effective in taking down your opponent. The Communist and Socialist accusations have been levied at Democrats for decades now, and despite the fact that their side favors plutocracy, the Communist/Socialist/Marxist charges have gained traction. They've conflated socialism with fascism to the point where their followers don't know the difference.

Under the Obama administration they've managed to conflate legitimate concerns over racism with attacks on the entire Tea Party movement. They actually believe the Left is attacking them by labeling policy disagreements racism! The Tea Party fancies itself an anti-establishment movement - but this simply isn't true. They are pawns of wealthy elites like the Koch brothers who are playing them for suckers. You can't get more "establishment" than the upper one percenters. Don't try making this argument to a Tea Partier, however. They honestly believe the billionaire-funded FreedomWorks (headed by establishment figure and former House Majority Leader Dick Armey) is "grass roots".

In other words they truly do admire daring liars and detest those who try to tell them the truth. I don't know how a rational mind could reach any other conclusion regarding anyone who would suggest Breitbart is a "national hero"... but these are the same people who buy into Frank Luntz's spin (although, I'd say Luntz is a tad classier than Breitbart). Andrew Breitbart is a morally repugnant sleaze merchant and exposed liar - and the Tea Party loves him for it. That, and the fact that they'd vote for someone as unqualified as Christine O'Donnel to represent them in the US Senate really speaks to just how gullible and misinformed these people are.

Breitbart Deceptively Edited Video Timeline
->9/10/2009 & 9/17/2009: Deceptively Edited ACORN videos released. Note: O'Keefe dresses as a pimp outside ACORN offices, but wears a dress shirt and pants inside.
->03/20/2010: Breitbart releases several crudely-shot 5-7 second video clips with poor audio quality which he claims "prove" nothing "racially charged" happened.
->7/19/2010: Shirley Sherrod is forced to resign from her position as Georgia State Director of Rural Development for the US Department of Agriculture after blogger Andrew Breitbart posts deceptively edited excerpts of Sherrod's address at a March 2010 NAACP event to his website.

Further Reading & Viewing
[1] Teabaggers Money to Be Had! by Grung_e_Gene, Disaffected And it Feels so Good (blog), 9/15/2010.
[2] American Thinker: "Obama's racism against whites is upfront, in your face racism" Posted by Media Matters staff 11/23/2009.
[3] Zazzle T-shirt: I'm a typical white person appalled by Obama's racism.

Images: Placards often found on Conservative blogs.

SWTD #52

The U.S. Republic Is Dead, Long Live The U.S. Democracy?

What is wrong with us, America? Why are people not in the streets? Your Republic is over ~ Glenn Beck (b. 2/10/1964) The Tea Party Prophet ranting on the 7/22/2010 edition of his television program.

To answer Glenn Beck's question, it must be because we are a republic when there is a Republican in the White House and a democracy when the president is a Democrat - and in the last election, the people voted for democracy. The reason Republicans like to insist the United States is a republic and not a democracy is because "republic" sounds like "Republican" and implies that their party best represents the vision of our Founders.

Prior to 1787 the words "democracy" and "republic" were interchangeable. Before the ratification of the Constitution, the form of government our Founders sought to institute was referred to as a representative democracy (and still is by the rest of the world). James Madison created the artificial distinction in Federalist No. 10.

Ironically, Federalist No. 10 argued that the United States government should not be partisan! Ironic because our government has never been more partisan than it is today. The Founding Fathers would be horrified by the modern day Republican Party's attempt to deliberately sabotage our economy.

The Democratic Senator from Michigan, Debbie Stabenow recently observed, "it is very clear that the Republicans in the Senate want this economy to fail. They see that things are beginning to turn around. In cynical political terms, it doesn't serve them in terms of their election interests if things are beginning to turn around".

Keep this in mind the next time you hear a Right-winger rabidly proclaim that we're a republic and NOT a democracy. Although it isn't quite as nonsensical as their other assertions regarding the Founding Fathers (that they were, for the most part, Conservative Christians who used the Bible as their guide when writing the Constitution), their simplistic view is a misrepresentation of historical fact. If you encounter a Right-winger who wants to play that game simply point out to them that it was the Democratic party that first paid tribute to our "republican" form of government and can trace it's beginnings back to Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republican Party.

On second thought, it's probably far to complicated for your average tea-party type to comprehend. The Democratic-Republican Party is referred to as such by historians to differentiate Jefferson's Party from the modern Republican Party. However, while the Party officially was the "Democratic-Republican Party", and members referred to themselves as Republicans, the Democratic-Republican Party was actually the forerunner to today's modern Democratic Party (they represented yeoman farmers and the working class).

The Republican Party is the modern day incarnation of the Federalist Party, which was formed to represent the interests of urban bankers and businessmen. The Federalists, who distrusted the public and believed that government should be run by the elites, were "too wedded to an upper-class style to win the support of ordinary voters". This explains their eventual demise.

The political Party representing the elite and the wealthy today is undoubtedly Republican. Yet average Americans continue to vote for their candidates. Unbelievably Republicans are expected to gain seats in the November election, possibly retaking the House. When will the average voter wise up and vote for the Party which most represents the people? How much longer do we have to wait, and how much more damage can our representative democracy endure before the voters set this Party clearly on the path to it's eventual demise?

On a positive note, after the November elections it will be possible for the Senate to change the filibuster rule. At the beginning of every new Senate the rules for that session are voted on by it's members. Only a simple majority is needed to reform the abused filibuster. "The Constitution's framers never meant to design a system that would enable the GOP's modern level of obstruction". I think that, after the election and provided the Democrats hold the House, we may actually get a Congress that is more effective than the current one.

If the Democrats don't hold the House, then it may only be a matter of time before the people take to the streets, because our representative democracy will be over. The will of the people will be supplanted by the will of the wealthy elites. Congress will grind to a virtual halt. Instead of bills designed to stimulate the economy and get people back to work, the House will concentrate on cutting taxes for the upper class and investigating President Obama.

In my opinion this upcoming election will determine the fate of our country for many years to come. Will we chose to help the Democrats pull our nation out of recession, or elect Republicans and slide into a full blown depression?

Buzzflash guest commentator Stephen Crockett asks, "Is the Republican Victory Plan Another Great Depression?"... Tax cuts at the highest marginal incomes brackets do concentrate wealth and political power in the hands of the economic elite. ... This reduces the ability of most Americans to buy goods and services. As a result, the economy unwinds because customers do not have enough disposable income to keep the flow of goods and services at a healthy economic level. (7/31/2010).

Further Reading
[1] House GOP "Jobs Plan" Would Give Billions In Budget Busting Tax Breaks To Huge Corporations by Ethan Berman, The Wonk Room 8/3/2010.
[2] Momentum For Senate Filibuster Reform Builds by Ryan Grim & Sam Stein, The Huffington Post 7/26/2010.

SWTD #48

The Grassroots Organizing Business

There are three critical ingredients to democratic renewal and progressive change in America: good public policy, grassroots organizing and electoral politics ~ Paul Wellstone (7/21/1944 to 10/25/2002) a two-term U.S. Senator from the state of Minnesota and member of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party.

...there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies... bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up ~ Saint Peter (ascribed) referring to false prophets (2 Peter 2:1-3 NIV).

Why is the Left so afraid of Glenn? Could it be because he's shining a light where they don't want it to be shined?

This question was asked in the 7/6/2010 edition of Glenn Beck's "newsletter". Why should the Left be afraid? Because of the soon to be launched "Beck University". Motto of the online "university" is "Revolution Against Tyrants; Submission to God". Obviously Barack Obama is the "tyrant". Because he stole the 2009 election with the help of ACORN, presumably. But now, with ACORN's corruption revealed and it's funding cut, the people of American will "take our country back" starting this year.

The Tea Party morons have been a gold (line) mine for Beck. "Beck U" is another in the growing list of scams devised by Beck (or his advisers) to separate Right-wing fools and their money.

Other topics covered in the newsletter were President Obama's appeasement of our enemies (which started with his "apology tour"). Now, after cutting the space program, Obama has tasked NASA with making Muslim countries "feel better about themselves". The email didn't include details, just a link to a Beck radio program transcript.

He also trashed President Obama's "spin" regarding the touted "recovery". I'm not going to go into either of those topics. I've already established that Beck is an greedy hypocritical opportunist who is ripping off the "movement" he is pretending to lead - with God's help. He's a snake oil selling huckster, racist and false prophet. In my opinion, in any case. He's the one who is going to have to answer to the God he professes to believe in.

Finally, the Beck email contained a link to the self-proclaimed grassroots organization "FreedomWorks". Dictionary.com defines "grassroots" as "of, pertaining to, or involving the common people, esp. as contrasted with or separable from an elite".

In a 9/2/2009 post (Who Opposes Healthcare Insurance Reform), I noted that FreedomWorks contributors include foundations controlled by the conservative Scaife family. An organization run by foundations representing the interests of the wealthy elite is fake grassroots (or Astroturf). The purpose of FreedomWorks is to dupe low information voters and idiots into electing Republicans. Because the Republican Party has completely sold out to the interests of the wealthy.

Referring to grassroots organizing as a "business", which Glenn Beck and FreedomWorks do, shows just how stupid they believe the "common people" who watch Beck's show, listen to his radio program, buy his products, and show up at their rallies to "take America back" - on behalf of the wealthy elite - are. They are programmable pawns to be used to achieve their goals.

I clicked on the link and ordered their "Take America Back Action Kit". The kit includes... "a detailed strategy DVD video laying out how FreedomWorks plans to turn these many protests into electoral results this November, and a Don't Tread on Me souvenir flag. Because it was free. For me that is - of course it will cost them something. Next they asked me for a $20.10 contribution, and I told them to fu*k off. I said this not via email, but only in my mind. Which worked out OK, because they probably wouldn't send me an action kit otherwise.

Although, they did previously send me an "impeach Obama" bumper sticker. That was after I filled out an online poll of their's, selecting all the answers which clearly indicated that I am a Progressive. Obviously they did not match up the answers to the names and addresses, otherwise they would have realized that sending me the bumper sticker was a waste of money.

Also, they must have made a mistake, because a short while after I received the bumper sticker, they mailed me a second one (I only filled out the poll once). I did NOT attach either sticker to a bumper. I took some magnets and stuck it to my refrigerator. Because I find it hilarious! It was the last president who should have been impeached, not Barack Obama.

So, if you too want to screw with FreedomWorks by requesting a free action kit from Freedomworks and waste their money as I did - click the link below. However, as a tree hugging Liberal I must implore you not to order the kit if you intend to throw it in the trash as soon as you receive it. Personally, I could not resist. I'll keep ordering free items from them as long as they keep offering them. It's a way to amuse myself while I wait for Glenn Beck's swift destruction.

9/26/2014 Update: The Freedomworks "free action kit" is no longer available. Clicking the link takes you to a "page not found" error message on the FreedomWorks site.

Also, Glenn Beck's "swift destruction" obviously has not come quite yet. Instead he has become fabulously wealthy fooling conservative morons, earning $40 million in 2012 with subscriptions topping 300k to his TheBlaze TV (according to The Wall Street Journal).

Meanwhile, Keith Olbermann has left the world of Progressive punditry and returned to his old gig of sports commentating. Proof that pandering to stupidity pays (and pays big). *Sigh*.

SWTD #46

It's Everyone Else's Fault

The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) English Logician and Philosopher.

I'm becoming disheartened. In regards to political discourse in this country... and in regards to blogging. My last post received ONE lousy comment (7 actually, but the other six I posted myself by way of sock puppets). Man, how pathetic. Meanwhile, Conservative bloggers are getting 100 PLUS comments! Maybe I should hang it up.

I have less than a half-dozen readers, and (by my estimate) only three people (or less) who actually ever comment. Why am I wasting my time? Just like the radical Righties disrupted the town halls they're dominating the blogosphere. At least, as far as dinky one-person run blogs go. These morons are mad and they want everyone to know it (I'm talking about the people who have commented on the blog I just linked to, and others like them, not the blog proprietor specifically).

The sad thing is that the corporate-funded astroturf organizations have them deluded to the point where they think the majority of Americans are with them. Their idiotic worries regarding socialism, the President purposefully bankrupting the government, and health insurance reform being akin to Hitler's final solution ARE TAKING CENTER STAGE!

(for the record, Republicans are the ones who are purposefully attempting to bankrupt the government. "Starving the beast" is a fiscal-political strategy of some American conservatives to use budget deficits via tax cuts to force future reductions in the size of government. The term "beast" refers to government and the programs it funds, particularly social programs such as welfare, Social Security, and Medicare.)

Witnessing this, the "independent" voters may jump ship in 2010 and 2012, not realizing that to actually make progress they should pick an ideology and stick with it. Saint Reagan and bush-the-stupider (whom I have dubbed "President Doofus") proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that conservatism is NOT the way to go. We'll be f*cked royally if Barack Obama is not re-elected in 2012.

I guess it's "cool" to be independent though, and vote based simply on your feelings. GWb was president when the economy crashed? Conservative economic principals aren't to blame, just the man. Maybe McCain can fix the problem. No matter that his "solution" would be more of the same, HE'S A DIFFERENT GUY! Plus, Hillary voters, he has a woman VP! No matter that she's clearly not that bright. Who, when asked which news periodicals they read, would say they read them all, but then not be able to name ONE?

BUT... then McCain made the mistake of "suspending" his campaign and rushing back to Washington to "fix" the crisis. And he screwed that up. By canceling on David Letterman to chat with Wolf Blitzer.

That made him look stupid, so the Independents were pushed towards Barack Obama. Not because they agreed with Democratic economic principals. Because he offered "hope" and "change". I'm not knocking Hope and Change, because they were more than a slogan. But the slogan is all that a lot of Independents (and Democrats) heard.

So now they may be ready to swing the other way. No matter that reversing course 100 degrees back to a plan of action which has been proven disastrous is idiotic in the extreme. They may do it anyway! Why?? For no other reason than they're "independent", apparently.

And the Democrats may stay home. Because Barack Obama isn't changing things quickly enough for them. No matter that the primary agenda of the remaining Republicans in Congress is to obstruct. Also, even though Democrats gained a bunch of seats in the last election -- and I'm sure it has something to do with demographics and who they're representing -- why does it seem like the Republicans who are left are the craziest of the crazy?

Virginia Fox and Michelle Bachmann are loony toons. I apologize ladies; there are some crazy dudes as well. Joe Wilson rudely called out "you lie" as the President spoke before a joint session of Congress, then immediately afterward lied about having worked as an immigration lawyer. In a vain attempt to stop people from voicing their suspicions that what he really meant to say was "You lie, boy". And John Boner claimed that the public option was a popular as a garlic milkshake, even though a majority of Americans support it.

And of course we have Joe Lieberman, who was for Universal Coverage before he was against it. Apparently he saw all the attention that Olympia Snowe was getting and wanted the media to fawn all over HIM. So, even though he caucuses with the Democrats he'll stand with the Republicans and single-handedly be responsible for health care insurance reform getting shot down. He gets to feed his ego and collect some big donations from the health care insurance lobby. As Stephen Colbert pointed out recently, the party he formed after he lost the Democratic primary in Connecticut was called "Connecticut for Lieberman", NOT "Lieberman for Connecticut".

If the Republicans are given another shot at destroying this country it will be because the moron electorate allows them two. Yes, Republicans are the masters of election fraud, but when people turn out in high enough numbers they can overcome that fraud.

People were so disgusted with George W. bush at the end of his presidency that they turned out in record numbers and pushed Barack Obama over the top. Next time around they may say to themselves, "this guy was not as hopey and changey as I was lead to believe, I think I'll vote for the other guy... or stay home". What they fail to realize is that the President is not a king. There is only so much he can do. He's up against the power of big money and their ability to buy off our elected officials.

Low information voters fail to take this into consideration. Which is why we may be doomed. If so it's everybody else's fault, not mine. I've done a lot of things that were stupid, but I'm not a moron. A blogger I follow who calls himself "Truth 101" recently posited that the morons shall inherit the earth. I'm worried that he may very well be right.

SWTD #27

Faking Fiscal Conservatism

Republicans used to be, once upon a time, for fiscal conservatism, and there are a few of those left, and they're starting to murmur more, and, you know, people forget Ronald Reagan raised taxes, you know, he cut taxes, but then he raised taxes. George Bush, the father, raised taxes ~ Evan Thomas (DOB 4/25/1951) an American journalist and author who currently teaches journalism at Princeton University.

That the Republican Party is socially conservative can't be denied. Examples of Republican "social conservatism" include their homophobic defense of "traditional marriage", their phony claim that American is a Christian nation, that Christians are discriminated against and that there is a "War on Christmas". These socially conservative Republicans, represent the morally superior "Religious Right" (or "Culture Warriors", according to Bill O'Reilly). Liberals, on the other hand are godless "secular progressive" atheists whose moral decadence is responsible for all of society's ills.

As far as their political agenda goes, however, enacting their fiscal policies are paramount. The "social conservative" nonsense is simply a means to achieve that end. The socially conservative issues are how they motivate the poor, ignorant and gullible to vote against their own interests (these saps are often described as "misinformed" or "low information voters" by those wishing to be polite).

George W. Bush ended up the fall guy for some of them. Others blame the Democrats who controlled the Congress during Bush's final two years in office. They let Fannie and Freddie get out of control and the Republicans couldn't do a thing to stop them. I'm sure that if you asked any Republican that they'd blame social programs. Even though corporate welfare dwarfs the money we spend on social programs it seems to be completely off the radar of most self-identified Conservatives.

According to Conservatives the patron saint of all things fiscally conservative is Ronald Reagan, but they conveniently overlook the fact that it was Saint Reagan that increased the national debt more than all the administrations that came before him combined. Conservatives may attempt to assert that it was Congressional Democrats that ran up the debt, and poor Saint Reagan couldn't stop them. Or that Reagan needed to drive us deeply into debt to "win" the cold war.

Neither claim is true. Saint Reagan requested $29.4 billion more in spending than Congress passed. His tax cuts did not stimulate the economy and increase revenue. The nonsensical "supply side" theory was a "Trojan horse to bring down the top rate" - this according to Reagan administration Office of Management and Budget director David Stockman.

Ending Communism through an arms race that would cause the Soviets to go bankrupt when they futilely attempted to keep pace was a scam for funneling billions to the military industrial complex. Revised CIA estimates indicate that "the Soviet Union's defense spending did not rise or fall in response to American military expenditures". And Saint Reagan's military buildup actually prolonged the cold war.

To pay for the increased military expenditures - including the ridiculous boondoggle dubbed Star Wars and the inane "trickle down" economy stimulating tax cuts for the wealthy - Saint Reagan raised payroll taxes (the largest tax increase in US history) and raided the social security trust fund.

Is this fiscal conservatism?

Disciples of Saint Reagan currently bemoan the "fact" that George bush Junior strayed from the path, becoming a "Big Government Conservative". But Junior was following the Reagan playbook! First on his agenda was cutting taxes for the wealthy (and getting rid of President Clinton's surplus). Next he ignored the numerous warnings of a potential terrorist attack and was rewarded with the "new Pearl Harbor" that the "Project For The New American Century" had been praying for.

The "war on terrorism" replaced the "cold war", two illegal wars were launched, and the money flowed. A former attorney who filed dozens of civil "whistleblower" lawsuits against Iraq war contractors, Congressman Alan Grayson concluded, "The Bush administration doesn't give a damn about contractor fraud in Iraq". The reason they didn't care may have had something to do with the fact that a lot of the contracts went to bush administration cronies like Halliburton - whose stock tripled in the 2 years after the invasion.

"Fiscal conservatism" is clearly code for running the government in order to benefit the wealthy and spending as little as possible on social programs. The only problem is that people like social programs, and will vote for politicians who provide them (and vote against those who threaten to take them away). The "fiscally conservative" solution is to outsource these programs to their private sector cronies. Apparently there isn't any job the government can do for less (since anything the government does involves no profit for CEOs or stockholders) that they don't think should be outsourced at greater expense to the private sector.

One example of this during the bush administration would be the never fully funded "No Child Left Behind" (NCLB), which took a multi-million dollar testing industry and turned it into a multi-billion dollar industry. Beneficiaries of NCLB include Bush brother Neil's Ignite!, and former Secretary of Education Bill Bennett's K12 Inc. -- that would be the same Bill Bennett who wants public schools "to fail so that they could be replaced with vouchers, charter schools, religious schools, and other forms of private education". Would you hire someone to help students in public schools succeed if they had a publicly stated desire to see public schools fail?

I could go on, but this article is already running long. Instead I'll again ask - is this fiscal conservatism?

The theory of crony capitalism states that, "since businesses make money and money leads to political power, business will inevitably use their power to influence governments". Republicans (and some Democrats) call it fiscal conservatism - I call it theft.

Further Reading
[1] Was Ronald Reagan an Even Worse President Than George W. Bush? by Robert Parry, Consortium News 6/5/2009.
[2] Bush Budget Would Inflate Corporate Welfare, Slash Social Programs, The New Standard 2/8/2005.
[3] The Myth of the Gipper: Reagan Didn't End the Cold War by William Blum, Counter Punch 6/7/2004.

SWTD #25