Liberal Blogger Harassed by GOP Goons

Truth is condemned as a trap; justice is jeered at; saints are harassed as social enemies. Hence this Incarnation has come to uphold the Truth and suppress the False -- Sathya Sai Baba (b. 11/23/1926) a popular Indian guru, spiritual figure and educator.

"Sorry to hear about your blog", my next door neighbor commented as I stepped out of my office into the hallway.

"What do you mean Barry?" I asked.

"Well, I heard from the local division chief that you were shutting it down", Barry explained.

"I haven't decided yet", I replied. "I just authored a new post that received a comment almost immediately".

Barry snickered. "One comment? I think perhaps you should stick with your original decision".

I closed the door to my office and locked it, preventing any unauthorized individuals from gaining access.

"I thought you said you were sorry Barry. Telling me I should stick with my original decision implies that you'd be glad if I terminated my blog".

"Honestly", Barry remarked, "I've had my eye on your office for quite some time. Mine is just a converted storage closet".

"I could use the extra space", Barry continued. "Perhaps I could even hire some of your investigative staff". "My blog's readership is actually increasing, unlike yours".

"Let me guess, the member of my staff you're interested in hiring is Janeane? Forget it Barry, you don't have a shot with her. She thinks you're a creep".

"What?!" Barry exclaimed, "I think you just want her for yourself". Barry paused, apparently formulating a thought. Then he said, "you can't eliminate the competition that easily".

"Look, Barry, we may be compatriots in the Liberal cause, but, other than that, I've never liked you. I suggest you leave Janeane alone", I said, poking Barry in the chest with my finger.

"Or what", Barry inquired, "trying to get me to back off by telling me how you'll cry your eyes out after I bed her won't evoke any sympathy from me".

"As if there is any chance of that happening", I replied. "Now, excuse me, but I've got somewhere else I need to be". I turned away from Barry and walked briskly down the hallway and proceeded down the wide spiral marble staircase. I swiftly crossed the large ornately decorated lobby. Circling the fountain and large granite statue of striking union members, I walked between a pair of towering stone pillars and headed for the front exit.

"Have a nice evening, Mr. Dervish", the security guard politely implored as he opened the door for me.

"Thank you very much Frank, you have a very nice night yourself", I replied as I passed though the open doorway and into the courtyard in front of PIF HQ.

Out in the parking lot I spotted Detective Smurf Jones leaning against my Ford Focus.

"Nice car. I wish I could afford something like this", Jones said, standing up straight. "Unfortunately that's not possible given my public servant wages".

"Jones, I don't understand why you're here", I said, baffled. "I thought you had finished your report on my blog. You're not harassing me on your own time, are you?".

"Absolutely not", Jones answered. "I was straight with you when I said my report recommended my division cease its investigation of your blog".

"However", Jones continued, "my captain wasn't convinced. I told him that you were shutting down your blog, but then you went and published another commentary. Also, not that this is any of your business, but I've been temporarily reassigned back to your case. Apparently the brass doesn't like it when you use a rocket launcher to blow up a bus full of nuns".

"Now, wait a minute!" another voice shouted. A man stepped out from behind a nearby topiary and continued talking as he covered the few steps between me, Jones, and the manicured shrub he had been standing behind. "I did NOT blow up a busload of nuns. They had already disembarked when my bazooka accidentally fired".

"Yes, only the driver was killed", Jones agreed. "This is my partner, Tony Hawkins", Jones explained, addressing me again.

"Now I've got TWO of you trying to intimidate me?" I inquired incredulously.

"Only temporarily, until the investigation regarding the incident at the Canadian border is concluded", answered Hawkins.

"Listen, I have no idea what the hell you're talking about, nor do I care", I said, opening the door of my Focus using the remote on my keychain. "Now excuse me, gentlemen, but I've got to go".

"Not so fast, Liberal", Jones barked, grabbing me by the arm. "We have unfinished business".

Image: A bus explodes after being hit by a rocket fired from a bazooka wielded by Tannis Protection Private Security officer, Tony Hawkins.

 swtd-65. polfi-3.  Previous. Next.

Conservatives Are Astonishingly Stupid

During the period 1951-63, when marginal rates were at their peak - 91 percent or 92 percent - the American economy boomed, growing at an average annual rate of 3.71 percent. The fact that the marginal rates were what would today be viewed as essentially confiscatory did not cause economic cataclysm - just the opposite. And during the past seven years, during which we reduced the top marginal rate to 35 percent, average growth was a more meager 1.71 percent ~ Eliot Spitzer (b. 6/10/1959) former Governor of New York and current co-host of the CNN political commentary program "In the Arena", as quoted in his 2/23/2011 Slate magazine article, "Tax Fraud".

Question: What's the difference between a Liberal and a puppy?

Answer: A puppy stops whining after it grows up.

The above "joke" is from the "best-selling" book, "365 Ways to Drive a Liberal Crazy", by Libertarian Conservative dumbass James Delingpole. Upon reading the setup I assumed the punch line would mention how puppies are born blind but later open their eyes - unlike Liberals. This is the joke (or some variation of it) I'm sure most people are familiar with. Mr. Delingpole must have never owned a dog, or known anyone who owned a dog. As a pet owner (or pet guardian, as a politically correct Liberal might refer to himself) I can say unequivocally that adult dogs whine - quite frequently, in fact.

Another way a Conservative can drive a Liberal crazy, according to Mr. Delingpole, is to use the words "Oppressive" or "Regressive" instead of "Progressive". Then feign puzzlement when called on their incorrect language usage, asking, "how is it progress to steal free citizens' liberties, money, and hope, and hand it all over to government bureaucrats"?

I'm a subscriber to Mr. Delingpole's newsletter, and every day he sends me an email containing another method by which Conservatives can drive Liberals crazy. Most of them are as stupid (or stupider) than the two provided examples. Delingpoole obviously believes that, to drive a Liberal crazy, one must ignore the advice of Abraham Lincoln who said, "it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt". One Amazon reviewer accurately describes the book as "a celebration of ignorance".

Conservative ignorance is most apparent when it comes to the issue of taxation. For some reason Cons believe that cutting taxes for wealthy individuals is the most effective way to stimulate economic activity. Some of them seem to think that it is the only way. Which is why they insisted tax cuts be a part of the Democrat's stimulus bill - the stimulus bill they almost immediately began to claim had "failed".

In reality it was their tax cuts that failed to produce economic stimulation. Specifically it was (and continues to be) the bush tax cuts that are supressing the recovery. A 3/1/2011 article by Larry Beinhart on Alternet makes the point that "history shows that when spending is cut - in the name of balancing the budget - recessions immediately follow".

When he decided to extend the bush tax cuts for an additional two years President Obama said he had no choice because the Republicans were holding benefits for unemployed people hostage. After the Republicans got the tax cuts for the rich they had demanded (significantly increasing the deficit in the process) Congress repealed DADT and passed a number of other pieces of significant legislation in the lame duck session.

Politically moderate citizens across the nation rejoiced at what they (incorrectly) perceived as bipartisanship - and the president's popularity increased. Unfortunately what they apparently did not realize is the fact that the "compromise" actually sabotaged the prospect of an economic recovery.

On the 11/4/2010 broadcast of the Thom Hartmann Radio Program economist Ravi Batra said "3 or 4 months ago... [I] said to you that, if the government spending stays where it is we'll be stuck at the bottom, and we'll stabilize at the bottom. And that is essentially what we are seeing. Even now there are layoffs in the economy, although there is some growth. But now that we have this new leadership from the Tea Party and the Republicans... They're going to put even more constraints on government spending, and I think a double-dip is for sure now".

Taxes are at a historical low, and the deficit and national debt are at an all-time high. The last Republican administration passed their tax cuts (which went primarily to the wealthy) at a time when we had a budget SURPLUS. Then they spent trillions on two (illegal) wars. Finally, financial deregulation, as championed by Conservatives, lead to a housing bubble burst which brought our economy to it's knees.

Even though they are still pro-tax cutting, pro-war, and pro-deregulation, they believe continued high unemployment can be solely attributed to President Obama and the Democrats. Either the Republicans are astonishingly stupid or this is all part of a long running plan to impoverish the middle class and funnel even more money into the hands of the upper one percent.

Apparently the American people are that stupid. Many of the voters who helped elect Barack Obama in 2008 didn't bother showing up to rebuke the Republicans in the 2010 mid-term. Disillusioned moderate and Tea Party idiots were duped by Koch-funded "grassroots" organizations into showing up and voting against their own interests, which allowed the Republicans to seize control of the House and proclaim the American people had sent a message. The message was we needed to do more of the same shit (cut taxes and spending) that brought about the recession to begin with!

This is why the Cons have been circulating the ridiculous conspiracy theory which suggests it was progressives who are responsible for the 2008 crash. It wasn't excessive tax cuts, two lengthy wars, or deregulation that we can attribute the downturn to - the reason we are in a recession is because Democrats forced Fanny Mae, Freddie Mac, and private banks to give risky mortgages to irresponsible poor people.

Now they're setting up another economic downturn which they will blame on the President and the Democrats. The mind-blowing thing is that their strategy to win back the White House in 2012 may work. I think the chance of a president Palin or Bachman are quite low, but what about President Romney or Pawlenty (who Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC's "The Last Word" believes will be the GOP nominee). Whoever the Republican challenger is, they will be, without doubt, a worse choice that our current president. Yet, some Democratic voters say there isn't much difference between the two parties. Some may vote for a third party candidate (who can NOT win), or stay home (in which case the Republican WILL win).

I've seen comments on a number of progressive blogs expressing disappointment with Obama. He isn't a Socialist and he surely isn't the most Liberal president ever. He's a moderate corporate-appeasing Democrat at best. But this does NOT mean progressives should HELP elect a Republican president (by throwing their vote away)! To my fellow progressives I say, if this course of action isn't astonishingly stupid, it is at least an exceedingly bad idea.

SWTD #64

The War on Terror Babies

It's a really convoluted and time-consuming way to wage jihad, to be sure, but when your goal is to destroy Western Civilization, you'll stop at nothing -- Tim Murphy of Mother Jones Magazine; as quoted in his 3/16/2011 article, "The Return of the Terror Babies".

"Hey! Careful, you almost knocked over my abortion!" detective Tony Hawkins shouted at the intern who had just rudely bumped his desk. "That was a personal gift from the Representative" Hawkins bellowed at the cowering teenager.

"Easy, the kid didn't do it on purpose", his partner Smurf Jones cautioned.

"If anything happens to this", he said, pointing to the jar on his desk, "I'm going to hold you personally responsible, runt", Hawkins growled, grabbing the frightened youngster by the collar.

"Yes, sir" the intern squeaked, his prepubescent voice cracking.

"You see to it", said Hawkins, releasing him. The intern scurried off.

"You know" Jones said, "the abortion Representative Ghomert was referring to was ObamaCare, and not an actual human fetus in a jar. That thing on your desk couldn't possibly have come from the Representative".

"Well", Hawkins replied, "The messenger that delivered it said it was from Ghomert's office". "And", he continued, "there's a personal message attached. It says, to my favorite TP detective, yours truly, LG".

"Whatever", said Jones, "I think it's disgusting and you should get rid of it".

"That's the point", Hawkins explained, "Abortion isn't pretty. This specimen would have grown up to become a contributing member of society, if some murderous Liberal hadn't convinced its poor mother to terminate it".

"Can we go already?" Jones asked.

"Just let me grab my bazooka", Hawkins replied, striding across the precinct room floor toward the weapons locker.

Later, after he had retrieved his weapon, he met up with Jones outside the station. Hawkins slammed down the cruiser's trunk (after placing his weapon inside) and then slid into the front seat.

"Representative Gohmert is counting on us", Hawkins informed his partner. "This is a top secret mission straight from Washington", he continued. "My Canadian contact believes a busload of pregnant Muslim females may be attempting to cross over sometime in the next several days".

"Dirty Canadian socialists", Jones muttered under his breath.

"It's not much better here", Hawkins agreed. "At least the last election went a ways to setting things straight".

"Without ACORN to steal votes they can't win", Jones remarked.

"What I wouldn't give to be the one who personally slaps the cuffs on the Kenyan and escorts him from the White House", Hawkins added as he turned the key and started the engine of their vehicle.

"Are you forgetting that ObamaCare was recently ruled unconstitutional?" Jones asked his partner. "At most he'll be president for two more years. Thanks to the efforts of the Tea Party he won't be able to run again in 2012. So far 11 states have proposed legislation requiring proof of citizenship from anyone running for POTUS in their state".

"From your lips to God's ears", Hawkins sighed. "The long national nightmare is close to being over. And with a Republican-controlled House to hold him in check the poser can't do any more damage while he illegally occupies the White House. The only thing I'm worried about is funding for our special task force".

"Or I would be, if funding for our department was actually on the books".

Both Hawkins and Jones laughed.

"That's a good one", Jones said with tears in his eyes.

Hawkins pulled onto the highway, arriving at the Canadian border approximately 13 hours later.

"You book us a room while I make contact with my informant", Hawkins told his partner.

"Will do", said Jones. He checked in and waited. A half-hour later Hawkins returned.

"Here's the scoop" Hawkins said, filling his partner in. "My contact believes a bus full of nuns that crossed the border yesterday was a dry run for the terror baby plot".

"That's good news", Jones grinned, "I'm looking forward to nailing these bitches. And by nail I mean arrest, not have sex with".

"You said it, partner", Hawkins agreed. "We'll deport the Godless Muslim whores back to Islamistan, or whatever third-world hellhole they originated from".

 swtd-63. polfi-2.  Previous. Next.

Liberal Shill Reveals Why The Left Hates America

...I have tremendous pride in being a Left-wing Liberal shill. I think that it's a fine thing to be in favor of the people rather than the corporations in America. If you want to call and defend the rights of millionaires and billionaires, or the rights of corporations to trample on us, or the rights of the health insurers to rescind our policies when we get sick, or to say, no we won't insure your kid, that's fine. I'll own up to the fact that I'm on the opposite side of that argument... proudly -- Radio talk show host Thom Hartmann, responding to a Conservative caller's accusation that he was without pride in bashing the Right (The Thom Hartmann Program, 1/6/011).

I ran the title of my latest blog post by my local division chief, Laura Fawkes.

"That's a blog post an EX-Liberal would publish", she exclaimed. "You're not planning on leaving the fold, are you?"

"No mam", I said, "it's just that readership at Sleeping with the Devil is way down... I was looking for a headline that would grab people's attention".

"Try something involving sex and the notorious Liberal acceptance of that which is deviant", the division chief suggested.

"I apologize, but, even though I'm a Liberal, that kind of thing just isn't second nature for me", I lamented. "Perhaps we should meet later tonight so I can impart some experience which may prove useful in stimulating your creativity".

"There already is a blog that uses that gimmick", I said, turning to leave. "It's called The Stinkhole of Moral Depravity. I can't just copy someone else's blog. I have to do my own thing". "Your loss", said the division chief as her office door swung shut behind me. I slunk back to my office and flicked on the lights. To my surprise, there, sitting at my desk was detective Smurf Jones.

"You again", I exclaimed. "I already told you, I don't know where any of the bodies are buried. The union bosses don't trust me with that information".

"Come on", Jones countered, "I have it on good authority that you're currently working on a post for your blog which reveals why the Left hates America".

"Exactly how did you come by this information?" I asked, shocked. "Anyway, that title was only meant to draw people into reading my blog, I wasn't really going to reveal why Liberals hate America... because they don't. They love it".

"Sure", Jones remarked sarcastically. "On the other hand, perhaps you're telling the truth... about the title, not that Liberals don't hate America. Because I know for a fact that they do. Anyway, I've been looking over your computer files and see a lot of half completed articles. They all seem to concern the vast Right-wing conspiracy and how Conservatism is ruining America. Typical Liberal crap, in other words", Jones said disgustedly. "Honestly, Liberals make me sick. I was hoping that perhaps you'd come to your senses".

"No such luck, detective. I'm a Liberal through and through, and will be so till the day I die. And, even though my readers have apparently abandoned me, I'll continue blogging about what I believe in".

"My captain back at Thought Police headquarters somehow got it into his head that Sleeping with the Devil was one of the more prestigious Liberal blogs", detective Jones remarked. "But", Jones continued, "he was obviously wrong. I'm sad to say that this will be the last time I visit you. I've finished my report on your blog and my conclusion is that it sucks and nobody reads it".

"Inconsequential and unworthy of further attention is my report's conclusion", Jones said with a grin on his face. "I'm disappointed that my investigation didn't turn up any dirt, but it always makes my day to put a smug self-righteous Liberal in his place... by letting him know his pathetic blog is a total waste of time. You got a couple of followers but it does not appear as though any of them ever returned after initially adding you to their reading list".

"I'm glad my failure to attract a readership amuses you", I lied. "Perhaps I'll take your advice and shut down Sleeping with The Devil. It's been almost two months since I published anything anyway. If anyone has visited recently they probably concluded that the blog HAD been shuttered".

"I like your defeatist attitude, Liberal". Detective Jones patted me on the shoulder as he exited the room.

"That's it, I'm done for the day", I said out loud as I powered down my computer. "The decision regarding whether or not additional blog posts are ever published shall be decided later".

 swtd-62. polfi-1.  Previous. Next.

Activist Tea Party Judge Rules ObamaCare Unconstitutional

It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place ~ Reagan appointed Florida Federal judge Roger Vision, in his 1/31/2011 ruling declaring the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act unconstitutional.

"A federal judge in Florida ruled Monday that President Barack Obama's entire health care overhaul law is unconstitutional, placing even noncontroversial provisions under a cloud in a broad challenge that seems certain to be resolved only by the Supreme Court"; according to a 1/31/2011 Huffington Post article. The judge's ruling, which included an obvious shout-out to the Tea Party, was characterized by the White House as "a plain case of judicial overreaching".

Four court rulings have thus far been handed down - with two judges upholding the health care legislation and two judges ruling against it. The two ruling in favor of ObamaCare were Democratic appointees, while the two ruling against were Republican appointees. A 2/1/2011 CNN reporter believes the case could head to the Supreme Court "as soon as later this year". How the Supreme Court will rule is "far less predictable than it might seem from the ruling by Judge Vinson".

A 2/4/2011 article from Global Research points out that while "The five Republican-appointed judges certainly embrace the political rhetoric of the ultra-right ... the entire court, including the four Democratic appointees, has been assiduously pro-corporate in their ruling[s]".

How the Supreme Court ultimately decides, I believe, will depend on what the health insurance companies truly desire, and not the what the Tea Party wants. Will the health insurance corporations want to overturn a law that mandates virtually every American purchase their product? Businessweek says "Insurers and other health care companies view the mandate as the law's bedrock - and the source of new profits".

Former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) says, in regards to elements of the legislation that he agrees with, "[they] need to be preserved, need to be cuddled, need to be snuggled, need to be promoted and need to be implemented". Because "Frist has a fortune in the millions of dollars, most of it the result of his ownership of stock in Hospital Corporation of America, the for-profit hospital chain founded by his brother and father", my guess would be that the individual mandate is one of the "strong elements" he agrees with.

So, while FreedomWorks CEO Matt Kibbe and Utah's Tea Party Senator Mike Lee believe ObamaCare will be overturned, I think the Tea Partiers, including those who responded to a recent World Net Daily poll (see below), may end up quite disappointed.

On the other hand, we know that (at least) two Supreme Court justices are sympathetic to the Tea Party. Antonin Scalia met with the House Tea Party caucus on 1/24/2011. Law professor and MSNBC contributor Jonathan Turley observed that the closed-door get-together, "suggests an alliance between the conservative members of the court and the conservative members of Congress".

And then there's Ginny Thomas, wife of SCOTUS justice Clarence Thomas, who "started a nonprofit Tea Party-affiliated lobbying group, Liberty Central [to oppose the] leftist tyranny of President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats". Ginny's group has lobbied against the health care legislation.

Can the House Republicans, which recently voted to repeal the "job killing" health care legislation, count on their activist Supreme Court allies to rule ObamaCare unconstitutional, or will the activists on the Supreme Court back their corporate buddies instead? I can't find anyone who believes with certainty the outcome will be one over the other. What do you think?

Further Reading
[1] Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance - In 1798 by Rick Ungar, Forbes 1/17/2011.
[2] Our Socialist Founding Fathers by Mark Brown, Jurist 10/12/2009.

SWTD #61

Repeal of ObamaCare Likely Because American People Want and Expect It

...I wouldn't concede that it has to be a 60-vote break the filibuster cloture vote. They sent some of ObamaCare to us on a reconciliation package, which was a simple majority. So I'm hopeful there'll be people over there that will find the way for a simple majority vote in the senate ~ Republican Representative Steve King (Iowa's 5th congressional district), as quoted on the MSNBC program "The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell", 1/20/2011.

A guest commentary by: the lovable Radical Right Wing Terrorist Free Market Guy (an infrequent commenter and more often lurker on this blog)...

Hi, RRWTFM Guy here, back for another guest commentary. As you may recall (and I'm sure you do) my last guest commentary on this blog concerned the threat posed by the illegal alien invasion. If you didn't read it, I suggest you check it out. I'm proud, but not surprised, to report this post received many more comments than usual for this blog. And, even though the majority of the comments disagreed with what I had to say, I'd like to believe I got some of you Liberals to re-think some of your positions - at least to some small extent.

Which brings me to the reason I've decided to return and give it another shot - "it" being the futile attempt by us on the Conservative side of the aisle to convince our Liberal friends that Big Government isn't the answer. Today I shall argue in favor of repealing the Democrat health care legislation, known by some as ObamaCare, although, in reality it is known by another name which implies it's effect will be to make healthcare affordable. Please, before you automatically dismiss what I've got to say, let me explain why this bill is anything but affordable.

Republicans say the election this past November was an affirmation of their position regarding ObamaCare, and now a 1/17/2011 public opinion poll from Rasmussen Reports confirms that "support for repeal of the national health care law passed last year remains steady" and "55% of Likely Voters favor repeal".

The Poll states that those opposed are concerned that the legislation will increase the deficit. (Although I'm certain Liberals will be quick to point out that Rasmussen Reports has been accused of being conservative-leaning, I'm not buying it. It seems that Liberals are quick to agree with polls that confirm what they already believe, but equally quick to dismiss those they disagree with as being produced by "conservatively biased" surveyors).

Bob Corker, the Republican Senator from Tennessee (the state where the proprietor of this blog resides) is also concerned about the high cost of ObamaCare. In a 3/21/2010 press release Corker points out that (now ex) governor Phil Bredesen (a Democrat) opposed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, because it is "estimated to cost Tennessee $1.1 billion over five years". Agreeing with Bredesen, Corker says ObamaCare is "a huge unfunded mandate that creates a very difficult financial situation when our state is already dealing with the effects of a bad economy".

Now I've heard that the House's vote on HR2: Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act is purely symbolic and a total waste of time. An email I received yesterday from FreedomWorks set me straight. I also used to believe the vote was purely symbolic - but NOT a "waste of time" - but President and CEO of FreedomWorks, Matt Kibbe (in a post on the blog RedState) insists that "Repeal is Real". Mr. Kibbe reveals that the vote to repeal isn't "merely symbolic", but that "repeal is achievable, and in fact likely, because the American people want and expect it".

Democrat politicians say that the CBO reported that the legislation will reduce the deficit, but the truth is the CBO was duped by the bill's "disingenuous accounting mechanisms". As explained in Bob Corker's press release, "the bill applies 10 years of new taxes to finance six years of spending, resulting in huge deficits over the next decades", that "even President Obama's own Medicare officials have determined that Medicare savings are counted TWICE in the bill, hiding the legislation's true cost", and (lastly) "Americans have not been dealt with squarely on the true accounting associated with this bill" (because it didn't include the doc fix).

Instead the Democrat majority sleazily passed it later as a separate piece of legislation (the doc fix further increases the cost of ObamaCare by $200 billion over 10 years).

In other words, the Democrat bill's arithmetic was phony-baloney, and so the numbers fed to the CBO were phony-baloney, and so the CBO conclusions were (and couldn't be anything other than) inaccurate.

There is also the problem concerning the mandate being unconstitutional, and so (at least) that provision of the law will eventually be struck down by the Right-leaning Supreme Court. As anyone can see, this legislation is getting more and more expensive as time goes by, and invalidating the mandate will, I am convinced, be the final nail in the coffin of ObamaCare. Thus one can not help but conclude that repeal of ObamaCare is not only likely, but inevitable - case closed.

Also, as I recall, a lot of Liberals were (at least initially) opposed to the Democrat health care legislation because they didn't think it went far enough (they wanted to go the full-blown socialistic "public option" route). They eventually decided (along with Liberal heroes like Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders) that it was better than nothing. But now, instead of believing it to be a good starting place that can be improved upon later (a foolish hope), perhaps they'll concede that we've got no choice but to repeal it.

Democrat voting supporters of ObamaCare need to face facts. This bill simply isn't something we can afford. And it isn't even what you wanted. Liberals advocated in favor of the so-called public option (even though that would have produced a inferior product, i.e. rationing - like they have in Canada). Instead we're faced with unsustainable budget busting deficits. The sensible solution is to repeal ObamaCare now. Free market competition enabled by allowing consumers to buy health insurance across state lines, tort reform, and other sensible solutions are the answer, not bigger government, more debt, and unconstitutional mandates.

In conclusion I'd like to (as suggested by Matt Kibbe) request that you call and write your Senators, and tell them you want Majority Leader Harry Reid to schedule a debate and vote on the House-passed repeal bill as soon as possible. As previously mentioned, Democrats like governor Phil Bresden agree that ObamaCare is bad for our country. Democrat Representatives Dan Boren (OK), Mike Ross (AR), and Mike McIntyre (NC) also voted in favor of repeal, proving the Republican legislation has bi-partisan support - and deserves an up or down vote in the Senate.

Following his negotiation with the Republicans to extend the bush tax cuts for all Americans President Obama's favorability rating increased. The reason for this was because Americans desire compromise. Americans knew it wasn't wise to raise anyone's taxes in a recession, and the president worked with the Republicans to ensure that didn't happen. The House has already voted to repeal ObamaCare. If the Senate does so as well President Obama will have no choice but to sign the legislation. if he vetoes it his approval rating will surely plummet and the Democrats will lose the White House and more congressional seats in 2012. Then we can all work together to replace ObamaCare with affordable alternatives, which is what the American people wanted all along.

(I said I'd "like" to request you call and write your Senators, but I'm asking you hold off on that for now. The proprietor of this blog says he wants to post a "rebuttal" first, and then let his reader decide which argument is the strongest. Which is fine by me, as I believe the strongest argument is mine).

SWTD #60

An Insurance System That Places Profits Over People Isn't The Best In The World

I was asked if I could be tough, because I was going to be telling doctors that they couldn't do things and that I would be expected to keep a 10% denial rate. ...we were told that the medical reviewer that had the highest denial rate was going to receive a bonus at Christmas ~ physician Linda Peeno, in a 6/21/2007 interview with Democracy Now's Amy Goodman, recounting her experienes working as a medical reviewer for Humana in the 1990s.

An email I received yesterday from the astroturf Teabagger billionaire-funded FreedomWorks says, "This is our moment. The House of Representatives will be voting next week on a FULL REPEAL of the 2,000 page, job-killing ObamaCare law. Send your letter to Congress to show your support! This is a huge chance for the Tea Party movement to start reversing the Democrats' big government agenda which threatens to bankrupt America". According to FreedomWorks the House will debate and vote on the bill on Wednesday January 12th.

I clicked the link and was shown a sample letter which FreedomWorks wanted me to sign my name to and forward to my members of Congress. The sample letter, which FreedomWorks said I could make edits to, read as follows...

FreedomWorks Sample Letter: As a constituent, I urge you to vote Yes on H.R. 2, the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law" Act. Voters spoke loud and clear on Nov. 2nd: No government takeover of health care. This is an unparalleled opportunity to show Americans that this Congress means business and will stick to the promises made on the campaign trail, however difficult they may be.

We need to fully repeal ObamaCare because it will kill jobs, bankrupt the government, drive up everyone's health insurance costs, put bureaucrats in charge of our health care, and ruin the world's best health care system. Our government can't afford the $2.6 trillion price tag - and our families can't afford the taxes and sky-high insurance premiums that come with this massive bill.

Congress needs to focus sensible reforms like tax credit vouchers for the uninsured, and reforms to the individual market. These are reforms that are affordable, and don't grow the size of government. With 60% of Americans in opposition to ObamaCare, the time to repeal is now. Please vote Yes on H.R. 2.

Edited letter I forwarded to my Congresspersons: As a constituent, I urge you to vote NO on H.R. 2, the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law" Act. This bill is a complete joke, and put forward for political reasons only - which is made clear by the name of the act. The health care legislation passed in the last session will not kill jobs, is not a "government takeover" of the health care industry, and will save money (according to the nonpartisan CBO). The majority of Americans either are in favor of this bill or think it didn't go far (wasn't progressive) enough. A single-payer system would qualify as a "government takeover", but that option was never on the table, even though it would have been the most cost effective.

In the last election people identifying with the Tea Party turned out and voted. Many Obama voters, disgusted by Republican obstructionism in the last session of Congress, stayed home. Republicans are gravely mistake if they believe, and conduct themselves as if, they were given a mandate. A vote to repeal the health care legislation will be a vote against the wishes of the majority of Americans. As a constituent, I urge you to take a stand against obstructionism and work with your fellow congresspersons and the White House to get our economy back on track and not waste time voting on ridiculous legislation that has no chance of becoming law.

Finally, if you are truly interested in lowering the cost of health care please support legislation that opens up Medicare to any member of the public (regardless of age) that wishes to buy into it. The Democratic health care legislation does not need to be repealed to further bring down costs.

Sign the Petition: If you wish to sign the FreedomWorks petition click here. Fee free to use my letter in any way you see fit (by attaching your name to it or by modifying it).

Further Reading
• Repeal health law? Poll shows many think it should do more by Jennifer Agiesta and Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, The New Republic. 12/7/2010.
• America's Pay-or-Die Health Care System by Ralph Nader, Counterpunch. 5/6/2008.

SWTD #59

Growing Uncertainty

The uncertainty meme is just mind boggling. Businesses always have a certain amount of regulatory uncertainty to deal with, and there's simply no evidence that this uncertainty is any greater now than it usually is ~ Kevin Drum (b. 10/19/1958) an American political blogger and columnist, as quoted from his 11/14/2010 Mother Jones article, "The Uncertainty Meme".

How uncertain are you? Answer the poll and leave a comment regarding what you are uncertain about.

View Poll Results (The poll has expired).

Further Reading
[1] The Uncertainty Canard by Jonathan Chait, The New Republic. 12/7/2010.
[2] The Uncertainty Myth: The Latest GOP Fraud on Taxes by Jon Perr, Crooks & Liars. 12/6/2010.

9/25/2014 Update: The poll expired a LONG time ago. In any case, my point with this commentary was to point out the stupidity of the Republican meme that business isn't hiring due to "uncertainty" - and poke fun at it. But I don't think I did a good job of it, and this post, IMO, is one of my worst.

I might delete it if not for the fact that it received a few comments. And I've been numbering my posts and deleting one would leave a hole. Anyway, this is a rare bad one, I think. On the whole I'm pretty proud of the body of work I've created here on this blog.

SWTD #58

How The Wealthy Elites Stole Our Prosperity

Those seeking profits, were they given total freedom, would not be the ones to trust to keep government pure and our rights secure. Indeed, it has always been those seeking wealth who were the source of corruption in government. No other depositories of power have ever yet been found, which did not end in converting to their own profit the earnings of those committed to their change ~ Thomas Jefferson (4/13/1743 to 7/4/1826) 3rd President of the United States (3/4/1801 to 3/4/1809). He was the eponym of Jeffersonian democracy and the co-founder and leader of the Democratic-Republican Party, which dominated American politics for 25 years.

Alan Greenspan served as Chairman of the Federal Reserve of the United States from 1987 to 2006. This period of time covered the presidencies of Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. As Fed chairman, Greenspan worked to advance the interests of the upper-class at the expense of the interests of the rest of the nation.

During the Clinton years the economy boomed. Business did well and the real wages of workers began to rise. This worried the investor class. If wages continued to rise it would affect their profits. Sure, they'd still go up, but they deserved a BIGGER piece of the expanding pie. In early 1997, the sixth year of economic expansion, Alan Greenspan made a statement before the US Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs meant to reassure the business community that he knew how to keep wages low.

Greenspan said that, while "the performance of the U.S. economy over the past year has been quite favorable", there was nothing to worry about because "workers fear of losing their jobs restrains them from seeking the pay raises that usually crop up when employers have trouble finding people to hire" (Wall Street Journal 1/27/1997). And Greenspan saw one of his main responsibilities as Federal Reserve Board Chairman to be to maintain "a high-enough level of worker insecurity [so] employees wouldn't demand pay raises and benefit increases" ("Screwed: The Undeclared War Against the Middle Class" by Thom Hartmann, p.48-49).

Fed chairman is an influential and prestigious position. People listen to the top economist in the land, so when the Maestro advised that, in order to ensure continued good times, we needed to go after "wage inflation", the President and Congress listened. Under Greenspan the federal government abandoned previously held pro-labor positions. When businesses violated laws on illegal strikebreaking and hired permanent replacement workers, the agencies responsible for the enforcement of these laws declined to intervene (citations issued by the The International Labor Organization attest to this fact).

Immigration laws were inadequately enforced and people willing to work for less diluted the labor pool. Companies were encouraged to, and rewarded for, sending American jobs to low wage countries. Various "free trade" treaties were championed by both Republican and Democratic presidents and ratified by their respective Congresses. ("Power in The Global Arena", Lecture by Noam Chomsky, 5/1998).

The strategy worked. Profits soared (along with upper-class incomes) while pay for the middle class and the working poor remained flat (or went down). Throw the bush tax into the mix and it's easy to see why the economy is in the dumper. Economist Ravi Batra explains that, "a healthy economy requires that there is a balance between supply and demand. Here supply means the production of goods and services offered to entire society, and demand means society’s demand for such things. Thus, economic balance requires that [supply equals demand]. Without this balance, there is either high unemployment or high inflation".

In other words, Supply side economics and anti-wage inflationary policies lead to unemployment and recession. Because The average citizen (who is still employed) can no longer afford to purchase what is being produced (especially after they've mortgaged their home to the hilt and maxed out their credit cards).

I made this point on another message board in a recent discussion with an "Independent Moderate". I claimed that the solution to the problem we now face is for our elected officials to take steps to "ensure" wages rise. The Independent Moderate's incredulous response was to ask, "how do you ensure that people's wages increase? The government... not unless you're talking about the old East Germany... can't do that".

Does Willis Hart (the aforementioned Independent Moderate) think I was expressing my desire that the government step in and dictate to business what they pay their employees? If that is the case I'm surprised he didn't cite a Communist country as his example. The reason I wrote this post was to explain how, while remaining a democracy, our government can take steps to ensure that wages rise. Just as the adherents of "Greenspan-nomics" enacted policies ensuring wages remained low, polices can (and should) be enacted to ensure the exact opposite.

Progressive radio talk show host Thom Hartmann agrees that it is possible. According to Mr. Hartmann, "Government can set the rules of the game of business in such a way that working people must receive a living wage, that labor has the power to organize into unions just as capital can organize into corporations, and that domestic industries can be protected from overseas competition. When these rules are combined with a democratic form of government, a strong middle class will emerge. The middle class vanishes and we return to the con's Dickens-era form of economics, where the rich get richer and the working poor are kept in a constant state of fear and anxiety so the cost of their labor will always be cheap" (Screwed, p.50).

The cure for our economic ills is to re-adopt pro-labor, pro-middleclass policies and dump the Conservative policies that favor the wealthy. Repealing NAFTA, raising tariffs and penalizing corporations for shipping jobs overseas will encourage corporations who want to sell goods in America to hire Americans. This will bring jobs back to our country.

Passing comprehensive immigration reform backed up by a program like E-verify will drastically reduce unemployment. That and the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act will cause "worker insecurity" to evaporate and allow more workers to negotiate for higher pay. Throw in health care for all - by way of a public option - and the result will be increased prosperity for a majority of Americans instead of a select few.

For 40 years and counting the economic elites have been inflating their pay by depressing worker compensation. It's a transfer of wealth that has left 20% of the population holding 85% of the nation's wealth. This was not an accident. It was by design, and in my mind amounts to nothing less than thievery.

During the previously mentioned discussion with the Moderate Independent I asserted that the wealthy are "overpaid". The Hartster's response was to claim that I was "casually foisting" my value judgments on everyone else (Republicans and other Moderates like him, presumably). Willis conclusion was that was "ballsy" of me. No Willis, there is nothing "casual" about my conclusions.

I've done my homework on the matter and come to my conclusions based on an investigation of the facts. Actually I think you're the one who is "pretty ballsy" to suggest Liberals have reached their conclusions based on jealously and class envy... instead of a love of country and a desire to do what's in the best interest of a majority of it's citizens.

SWTD #57

The Liberal Cure For An Economy in Crisis

It would be easier to pay off the national debt overnight than to neutralize the long-range effects of our national stupidity ~ Frank Zappa (12/21/1940 to 12/4/1993) an American composer, electric guitarist, record producer, and film director.

The exchange below recently took place on a "moderate" blog I frequent. A progressive blogger that my "followers" most likely have heard of, LORD TRUTH 101 (what Joe Kelly called himself at the time), made an observation, and a Conservative blogger who frequents said moderate blog responded. BTW, the Con blogger (a guy who doesn't actually have his own blog) refers to President Obama as "Obie"... a term of endearment, I'm sure...

LORD TRUTH 101: I'd love to see real progressive policies enacted. Alas; the Right's propaganda machine is too powerful. The sheeple need their daily fix of lies.

Rusty Shackleford: just what do you consider "real progressive policies?" You guys continue to bitch and moan about Obie being too centrist yet you never ever say what these progressive wonderment cures actually are.

LORD TRUTH 101: Single payer national health insurance that takes the burden of health insurance expense off business. Leaving Iraq and Afghanistan. Actually enforcing labor law and safety regulations ... We've had 40 years of supply side nonsense that led to a 14 trillion dollar deficit. Your answer is keep doing the same thing. You're nuts dude.

My 2 Cents: I believe the most important thing we need to do is pass some serious campaign finance reform legislation. Without it the Republicans will just continue to buy the elections (Something they have been doing for some time, but made much worse by the recent Citizens United SCOTUS decision). Key to accomplishing that feat includes re-electing President Obama to a second term - so he can appoint 1 or 2 more Supreme Court justices - which will tip the balance of the court back to representing the people, instead of the wealthy and corporations.

Return to pre-Reagan tax rates (when the top bracket was 70 percent). Slash the military budget. Withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan. Medicare for everyone (The health insurers should be put out of business). Lower the Social Security retirement age - this will free up jobs for younger workers and thus lower the unemployment rate.

End privatization - anything the private sector can do a profit the government can do for less. Withdraw from NAFTA and the WTO. Bring manufacturing back to the US using tariffs and the tax code (penalize, not reward companies for shipping jobs overseas). Go after rich tax cheats who hide their money overseas. Pass Employee Free Choice legislation and abolish so-called "right to work" laws - this will put more money in the hands of workers (more of whom will be able to negotiate for fair pay) and stimulate the economy through the resulting increased demand (DEMAND drives an economy, not supply. Supply side economics IS nonsense).

Finally, reinstate Glass Steagall and the STET tax - and Nationalize the Fed. It's time to put an end to parasitic fat cat bankers making a profit off of controlling OUR money supply.

In short, I agree with my esteemed colleague LORD TRUTH 101 - people who vote conservative because they think the Con policies will work ARE nuts. We've been following them since Reagan was elected and they clearly haven't worked. What they have done is make the rich richer and everyone else poorer. Which actually was their goal - so actually they did work, just not for the majority of us.

See also: The big lie: Attacking the Debt is Good Politics by Steve Kornac, Salon 11/11/2010

Dead Link Notice (9/25/2014): The blog of Joe Kelly (AKA Joe Truth, AKA "Truth 101", AKA Joe Hagstrom) is no longer accessible and any link to it (above) now displays a error message that says the blog is "open to invited readers only".

SWTD #56