Priority Is Not America

With news out this morning that our economy shrank 2.6% in 2009, our decision to spend another $37 billion over the next 9 months on Iraq and Afghanistan is resoundingly stupid.  Consider the following.

The $37 billion:

• Is completely unfunded

• Would pay off all state deficits

• Is twice the cost of a Jobs Bill bogged down in the senate because of GOP obstruction

• Is more expensive than the unemployment extension the GOP filibustered twice because they claimed it added to the deficit

• Is three times the amount that will be spent on HCR next year; legislation Republicans opposed on claims of its price tag

It goes without mentioning, too, the roads, schools and high tech infrastructure that could be built or initiated (all of which would create much needed jobs) with the money Congress and the president want to spend over the next few months waging war and killing people.

Even though many Democrats opposed the spending bill (war bill), it still easily passed.  There really wasn't any concern that it wouldn't pass.  But a bill that would spend $37 billion here at home????  That would require months of debate, fending off calls of socialism and tyrannical takeovers, being mocked as a sissy liberal, told that you aren't a Serious person because you support an item that is unfunded and adds to the deficit.  And most of all, a constant defense against the bill not containing tax cuts.

Spreading our wealth to Iraq and Afghanistan is easier and more Patriotic than keeping it here and making our country a better place.  This is our current discourse, priority and direction in America.  Nothing has changed since 2001.

It's All About Efficiency

The Center for American Progress has a new survey out purporting to show Americans are more concerned with government performance than it's actual size.  On the surface, I've gotta disagree somewhat with their conclusions.

I think people want more efficient government.  And they equate efficiency with smaller government, incorrectly I might add.  For the most part I don't think anyone cares if the government has 5 agencies or 5 million, as long as they aren't wastefully inefficient.

This is something I've been saying for a long time.  I'm not sure there is any way to shrink government but making it more efficient is very possible.  That's why I cringe when I hear so-called conservatives talk about shrinking government so much.  What are they going to eliminate?  I know, I know.  They talk about cutting this program and that program but in reality they have done no such thing-- and never will.

Since 1980 America has experienced 20 years of conservative rule (8 years of Reagan, 4 years of Bush followed by 8 years of Bush II).  During all 20 of those years government grew only bigger and more expensive.  So I'm not talking about the fake Republican trash talk.  I'm talking about actual, substantitve policy that has led to shrinking government.  And it's no where to be found.

Not to harp too much on the inability to shrink government, I personally don't think it's possible.  Like I said, what are we going to cut?  How are we going to make it smaller?  The only way is to reduce the waste, more specifically the wasteful spending and its various inabilities.  And really that equates to making government more efficient than it does to making government smaller or bigger.  Efficiency is the key.

Saying that you want smaller government is a fantasy pipe dream served on a platter daily by Rush Limbaugh.  Leave those wackos in the basement where they belong.  Saying you want government to be more efficient is a substantive goal that could or could not result in bigger or smaller government, and neither matter.  The point being, size is irrelevant as long at it works.  The motion in the ocean and whatnot. 

Yglesias You Just Aren't as Pretty as Ezra Klein

Matt Yglesias sure is no Ezra Klein. I think Matt considers himself the luckiest guy in the world to have ever kissed a girl. Whereas Ezra is lucky if he can manage some time to himself. What's this got to do with politics and policy? Nothing. I'm just saying.

However, I was astonished to have read Yglesias' blog yesterday where he highlights tough guy Erick "son of Erick" Erickson's post about how great things were economically during the Bush years where Matt totally let Erickson off the hook.  This is so unlike Yglesias.  Usually he's rather good at shooting down right wing lies.  Not this time.  He seems to have been drawn in by their Fantasy World.

Here's what Erickson wrote concerning the wonderful years of Bush:

“More crucially, after the 2001 initial tax cuts, the annual growth rate went from 0.3% in 2001 to 2.5% in 2002. By 2004, GDP growth was the highest in 20 years.”

Here's what Yglesias said in response:

It’s true, Bush took office at the tail of a recession and then the recession ended and the economy was growing. But as my colleague Michael Ettlinger and EPI’s John Irons detailed in their excellent September 2008 paper “Take a Walk on the Supply Side” if you compare the Bush era to the relatively high tax Clinton era it looks quite bad:

What in the world does that have to do with anything, Matthew?  You totally missed Erickson's point and let him get away with just making stuff up.

The simple matter at hand, and the very hand Yglesias should have slapped, was that everything Erickson said about the Bush legacy was a lie. GDP growth was not the highest in 20 years after the Bush cuts, nor because of the Bush tax cuts.

Erickson is just making stuff up.  The GDP levels Erickson mentions are pure fantasy.  But this is how the GOP sleeps at night.  They've convinced themselves, with the help of Fox News and hate radio, that GDP was at record levels, that unemployment was the lowest it's ever been that George Bush created 10 million jobs, that the deficit was only $400 or so billion after Bush left office and that Iraq had something to do with 9/11.  They believe all that to be true.  So why in the world Yglesias would help validate their Fantasy World legacy is puzzling to me, especially since he is usually so good at jumping all over something like this.

*Editor's Note:

H/T to Paul Krugman for the graph on this one.  For more analysis on the lies Erick Erickson is trying to tell with his blog post entitled "The Facts About the Bush Tax Cuts," give this a read.

Dems Finally Making GOP Own Its Crazy

The Democratic National Committee is set this morning to roll out a new campaign theme linking the fringe Republican tea bagger wing to its central party. The Fold Blog couldn't be happier.

For over a year now, with post after post, email after email, phone call after phone call, I have pushed for making the GOP own its crazies. I've argued what a colossal mistake it is to allow Republicans to distinct themselves from those who vote for them, belong to their party and represent this country by holding elected office. Finally, it appears, Democrats have caught on and will relate the tea baggers, their supporters and those who seek their support with their proposals for this country and how the GOP would govern if put back in the majority.

Here's the video:

Rentaboy.com Preacher Was Best Gay Hater Expert Florida Could Find

Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum has no regrets about using the Christian-Right, Republican and co-founder of the Family Research Council who innocently took a gay prostitute he had rented online from rentaboy.com to Europe for a whirlwind trip as an expert witness to testify about the immorality of homosexuality.

"You don't find very many experts out there, people willing to testify, especially on academic campuses that are, actually, very discriminating today against people with views that differ from theirs, especially on issues like the gay issue," McCollum said.

"He was the best expert that was available and willing to testify." 

Let's see here.  The best expert they could find to testify in court against homosexuality was a gay preacher that spent his leisure time renting male prostitutes from the internet?  Actually, it sounds about right.

Deep Thought

Remember when Crazy meant you opposed the president?

More Republican Jihadist Connections

Another example of how Republicans in America resemble right wing Muslim extremists abroad, or at least covet the administration of their governments, is disgraced former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich's latest revelation about how we shouldn't allow mosques to be built in NYC because Saudi Arabia doesn't allow churches or synagogues. Yes, Newt, the measurement at which to judge freedom is the wahhabist Monarchy of Saudi Arabia.  You're brilliant dude.

Like Matthew Yglesias said the other day, adhering to Gingrich's rules would turn us into a theocracy and would mean al Qaeda won.

Just to recap, Republican Rep. Zach Wamp says the dissolution of the Union is necessary if President Obama is not stopped (absolute treason).  Current Republican Lt. Gov. of Tennessee and candidate for governor, Ron Ramsey, says the Constitution does not protect Islam, just like Sharia Law doesn't protect Christians (theocratic control). And now Republican Newt Gingrich wants to copy Saudi policy to "protect us" from the evildoers.  Maybe it's just me, but I don't want America to look anything like a wahhabist country.

Extremist GOP Rhetoric Must Be Held Accountable

Considering the violent rhetoric from the GOP and its media establishment, some obvious notations must arise.

First, from Jan. 2001-Jan. 2009, when government and spending grew larger than at any time in its history and when the current budget deficit we face today was created, there was never an utterance from any elected official about states seceding from the Union. I think that sentence says a lot in and of itself. Now that spending is stagnant with a real legislative focus on reducing the deficit, Republicans can't quit fanning the flames about the dissolution of the Union.  Remarkable to say the least.

Okay, so what that Republicans didn't care when it was their Big Government.  Hypocrisy is blind if nothing else.  Let's at least recall what happened the last time states tried to do exactly what Republicans are cheering for now.  The result was at least 620,000 dead Americans.  Republican rhetoric about dissolving the Union isn't just Big Tough Guy talk about sticking it to the feds.  It's incendiary violent speech that has a record of mass genocide right here at home.

Okay, big deal, it's not going to happen this time right?  Take a look at the effect extremist Republican speech with its Fox News mouthpiece is already having on the populace.

• As noted by The Fold Blog last week, a right wing extremist, Byron Williams, opened fire on police in Oakland, CA during a traffic stop.  The gunman was later found to have been a fan of Fox News and Glenn Beck.  He told police his intention was to start a revolution by targeting organizations and people he had heard about on Fox News.  His mother stated Williams "watched the news on television and was upset by 'the way Congress was railroading through all these left-wing agenda items.'"
• Last month,  father and son Russell Hesch, 73, and David Hesch, 50, were arrested for threatening to kill a member of congress.  The duo sent a letter to Bart Stupak filled with lies obtained directly from watching Fox News.
• 2008, the shooting deaths at a Tennessee church by a right wing Warrior, who while being arrested quoted lines from a Michael Savage book and who had in possession at his home numerous right wing extremist books from Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity to name a few.
• 2009,  right wing extremist murdered Dr. Tiller who had been a frequent topic of hate on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor

Only a small sampling of what is going on currently.  Also, it's worth noting, too, that the Civil War just didn't breakout in a matter of days in 1861.  It was a culmination of years of conservative violent rhetoric about the evil federal government and personal liberty that eventually succumbed to an uprising by conservative right wingers who labeled themselves as freedom fighting patriots and the true defenders of the Constitution and our Founders' intent.  Sound familiar?  There's no reason to ignore today's GOP rhetoric and its pattern on American history.  All it takes is good people doing nothing for it to happen again.

The Ultimate Summation of the Modern GOP

What a bunch of b.s.

The Lt. Gov. of Tennessee, Ron Ramsey, who is also running to be the next governor of that state-- yes the same race where Rep. Zack Wamp said that states should secede if President Obama's policies aren't stopped--contemplates whether or not Islam is a religion protected under the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.

"Now, you could even argue whether being a Muslim is actually a religion, or is it a nationality, way of life, cult whatever you want to call it," Ramsey said. "Now certainly we do protect our religions, but at the same time this is something we are going to have to face.

"Now, you know, I'm all about freedom of religion. I value the First Amendment as much as I value the Second Amendment as much as I value the Tenth Amendment and on and on and on," he said. "But you cross the line when they try to start bringing Sharia Law here to the state of Tennessee -- to the United States. We live under our Constitution and they live under our Constitution."

Total B.S.  Ignorance is bliss in the GOP.

There is so much wrong with his words it's hard to even know where to begin.  Actually, no it's not.  Islam is the second largest religion in the world and the fastest growing.  It's not a nationality, it's not an ethnicity, it's not a cult.  It is a world religion.  It is one that I happen to vehemently disagree with; nonetheless a world religion.  Secondly, no one-- ABSOLUTELY NO ONE-- no matter what Fox News is telling its viewers, ABSOLUTELY NO ONE IS TRYING TO IMPOSE SHARIA LAW ON AMERICA.  This sort of conspiracy theory, Fox News crap needs to stop.

But this is the modern GOP.  You are either 100% what they are (white, Christian, George Bush lovers and hypocritical) or you are an enemy of the country that is not protected by the Constitution.  You either fit their little mold, or you face repudiation from their Freedom Fighting Patriots.

From Rep. Wamp in Tennessee a couple days ago talking about secession, to Ramsey's insistence today that people who don't believe exactly the same way he does are not protected by the Constitution, concisely summarizes the entire existence of the GOP as a sickening display of psychopaths that want to hold the country hostage to their narrow-minded view of the world.

Let's go one step further, however.  Under Sharia Law it can be illegal to not practice Islam.  Sharia Law does not protect you if you are not Muslim, it actually condemns you by setting aside separate and vague rights for non-believers called dhimmis.  That's exactly what Lt. Gov. Ramsey is proposing here in America.  The Constitution does not protect you if you are Muslim is the same concept of the law of Sharia.   It is religious intolerance, bigotry, idiocy and hypocrisy all in one.  He is proposing the exact same thing he thinks he is condemning.  And it is all coming from the Republican Party, amazingly a modern national political party in 21st century America.

The War Logs

I've spent some time reading through the Times' jaw dropping expose on the Wikileaks document dump and I wanted to make a few comments before I read any other commentary on the matter.  And before I clogged my brain with internet chatter from the pundits.

The documents provide an insurmountable amount of information.  They are the paper trail of war and its vast complexities.  A war that has gone on far longer than necessary. Judging from what I've read, everything contained in them is exactly why voters wanted a completely different direction in Afghanistan when they elected Obama as president.  Yet everything we've seen so far from the new administration has been a carbon copy of his predecessor.

People know that Pakistan is covering for al Qaeda.  We know this.  We knew this long before the leak.  People also know that there is nothing to win in Afghanistan.  It's a zero sum game.  We can't possibly kill enough people to change things.  Nor can we continue to expect that eventually hearts and minds will succumb by killing fathers and sons.  As these documents prove, we end up killing daughters and mothers along the way breeding hatred even deeper.

We wanted something different.  By different we meant better.  And what we have right now is the same sorry continuation of the policies that created this sprawling war in the first place.

Republican: We'll Secede

It's a telling sign that today in GOP America the most Patriotic and Pro-American thing you can say to prove that you are a Real American is secession from the Union is an option unless the President's policies are stopped.

Rep. Zach Wamp, one of three candidates seeking the GOP gubernatorial nomination in Tennessee:

"I hope that the American people will go to the ballot box in 2010 and 2012 so that states are not forced to consider separation from this government," Wamp told Hotline OnCall Friday.

It's also worth mentioning that Wamp is an elected Republican Member of Congress.  Not just a wacko on the street but an actual elected official.  Their crazy is their mainstream.

Normally this wouldn't be such a big deal if the very people saying this were not the very people who called any dissent against George Bush as anti-Americanism. But now that the most unpopular president since the collection of data is out of office, it's the normal everyday Republican thing to do. Wheee!

You lost

George Bush Today, George Bush Tomorrow, George Bush Forever!

Paul Krugman has an excellent op-ed in the Times today taking the GOP (and the media) to task for their love affair with George W. Bush and his policies.

The truth, however, is that the only problem Republicans ever had with George W. Bush was his low approval rating. They always loved his policies and his governing style — and they want them back. In recent weeks, G.O.P. leaders have come out for a complete return to the Bush agenda, including tax breaks for the rich and financial deregulation. They’ve even resurrected the plan to cut future Social Security benefits.

YES, and just today CBO released an analysis that a public option introduced by Peter Stark would reduce the deficit by $53 billion in the first decade, plus an additional $200 billion by the second decade. That's an amazing amount. Since it reduces the deficit Republicans will oppose it en masse. Why? Because they are not in any way in favor of reducing the deficit. They have no track record of ever doing such and have no plans to ever do it. They merely want to talk about it and bump peter heads while talking about making government smaller. It's like Krugman says, it's Bushism to the end.

Despite what Republicans have been saying recently, the trillion dollar budget deficit we face today is a direct result of Bush's policies.  The largest contributor being his tax cuts.  With the second largest being his endless wars.  Both items were absolute presidential policies despite who controlled congress (even though it was the GOP in both cases).  They love George Bush and everything he stood for, and now want a return to power to finish his work.

Quickies

• Look for this to be the modus operandi for the GOP this election cycle. Republican Holds Press Conference, Runs Away Before Taking Any Questions.  This is what they've been doing for years-- running and hiding daring never to be questioned.  But look for the press to actually start catching on since there's something like a major election coming up in the next few months.  Mainly, though, the press will start to catch on because they will want the candidates to spend more money on ads and commercials; hence the recent uptick in coverage.  A story here in there causes Harry Reid or Sharron Angle to do a $10K ad in the Sunday paper, which then results in a $100k television commercial buy featuring the newspaper story.  It's money in their pockets and the press love it. 

• So what happens when Republicans do try and explain their policy details to the press?  Nothing, except laughter.

• In a little noticed event, President Obama signed the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act today.  It is just one of the many examples of how the Democratic administration is cracking down on wasteful Big Government.  

• Dan Choi, a 2003 West Point graduate, two-tour Iraq war veteran, who is fluent in Arabic has been discharged from the Army for openly admitting he that he is gay.  He broke no laws and served his country admirably.  All because he has a certain orientation.  This is shameful America.

• House approves jobless benefits extension by an overwhelming margin and the president is expected to sign it immediately.  Buys us another 6 months America.  Something's gotta give.

Taxes Are the Deficit

A reasonably good article in WSJ this morning about the extension of the Bush Tax Cuts and the play politicians are trying to make.  The article plainly states what's going on.  Politicians want to keep taxes low and cut the deficit.  Wishful thinking has never been so wishful.

Here's how this works. The collection of taxes is revenue. When you cut taxes you cut the revenue stream. Easy enough  I'm all for keeping taxes low, but if we do, then we keep adding to the deficit to the sum of $115 billion every year.  But this is a problem too.  Politicians claim, since Republicans are out of power, they care about the deficit.  Well, if we don't do away with the Bush Tax Cuts, then we have to cut spending elsewhere to make up for the loss of revenue.  So where do we cut?  The most logical would be defense cuts and ending the Bush wars.  Republicans, however, believe tax cuts don't have to be offset.  They believe when we cut the revenue stream we don't have to adjust spending to make up for the difference.  Insane.  Yet that's how they governed for 8 years.

You can't have this both ways.  You can't be for extending tax cuts that will cost trillions over the next decade and also claim you want to cut the deficit.  The quickest way to slash the deficit and alleviate budget shortfalls would be to allow taxes to return to Clinton-era rates.  If not, then get out your machete cause you better be able to outline what you want to cut to make up for the loss in revenue.  Those that claim (as the article makes note, both Democrats and Republicans are doing this) they want taxes to stay at Bush levels without any offset and also want to combat the evil deficit should be taken to task for their irresponsibility.  It's the very same irresponsible behavior that created the trillion dollar deficit in the first place.

Ezra Klein Is Wrong on the Bush Tax Cuts

Anyone that cares the least bit about fiscal responsibility will tell you that the largest contributor to our nation's budgets woes are the Bush Tax Cuts.  Every year the cuts add about $500 billion to the deficit.  A deficit that was a surplus when Clinton gave the reigns to Bush but that's ancient history no one wants to recall anymore (and if you do, you aren't a Real American anymore).

Next in line for being the second largest contributor to our budget deficit are the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Yet more Bush Legacies that keep on giving and giving to the American people.  He was a great guy.  So if we take away those two huge chunks of debt, as you can see from this very pretty chart below, we are left with some manageable problems.

I've posted this chart a couple different times, mainly because it's so pretty, but not quite as pretty as Ezra Klein.  I noted last week that Klein was so pretty that arguing with him was pointless.  Alas, though, we just can't magically wipe out the two huge orange-ish colored chunks.  I know, I know.  Republicans do it all the time (the link is a classic) in their Fantasy World, but we are forced to deal with reality on this one.  Which is why Klein's statement on the matter is about as clueless and irresponsible as anything he's ever written.

But the plan was never to have the tax cuts expire. Instead, the idea was that people would get used to the new tax rates, and no future Congress would want to allow a big tax increase, so when the time came, either Republicans in office would extend the cuts or Republicans in the minority would hammer Democrats until they extended them. And that's where we are now: Democrats control the government, so Republicans are screaming about tax increases as a way to get Democrats to extend tax cuts.

I have no clue where Klein has been this last decade but that was not the plan at all.  The plan was for a Permanent Republican Majority.  There was never any talk of people getting used to the new tax rate and then while in the minority Republicans would hammer the socialist liberal Democrats until they extended them.  That was never the plan.  It has always been Republicans would remain in power permanently, nee FOREVER.  This hogwash about Republicans screaming about increasing taxes is a diversion away from what really happened in 2001 and 2003.  It's a good thing you are so good looking Ezra Klein.  Life would be cruel if you weren't.

In case you haven't caught on yet, the two biggest contributors to the deficit can be wiped out this year, if not by the end of next year.  Crying about those crying about tax increases ignores the fact that Democrats are about to own the two largest deficit producers in America's history.  And that's exactly what the Republicans want, given that their original plan didn't work and all.

Debunking the GOP Lie About the Deficit

There's not much that can be done when journalists don't do their jobs. Or at least don't do their job when they are expected most to do their job. Case in point was all of last week when Republicans went to the airwaves blaming President Obama for increasing the deficit from 3.2% of GDP to over 10%.  Here's Minority Leader Mitch McConnel doing just that on the "very liberal" CNN:

"The last year of the Bush administration, the deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product was 3.2 percent, well within the range of what most economists think is manageable. A year and a half later, it's almost 10 percent."

Very simply put, that's a lie. No truth to it at all.

Here's another Republican, Sen. John Cornyn and Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, doing the very same thing on the "ultra liberal" NBC:

"You know, in the last year that President Bush was in office, 2008, the deficit was 3.2 percent of the gross domestic product. Today it's 10 percent."

Again, simply put.  President Obama has not more than tripled the deficit.  This so-called liberal media isn't doing it's job very well now is it? The facts are when Obama took office the budget deficit was at $1.3 trillion.  CBO scores the next fiscal year budget deficit to be $1.3 trillion.

That's just half the problem with the GOP lying machine, however. Both Republicans claim that when George Bush left office the deficit was a meager 3.2% of GDP.  NO IT WAS NOT.  When Bush left office the budget deficit was $1.3 trillion, the amount President Obama inherited.  The same amount that Republicans are now so concerned about by crying that it's too much.  Yes it's too much, and it's because of 8 years of a Republican administration.  Quit with the lying!

Republicans know they are lying when they say this stuff and journalists know too. Yet it continues daily. Republicans are hoping that they are not fact-checked (and they aren't) so that people will really believe that things weren't so bad when the GOP was in power. If they are fact-checked, which is rare, Republicans do their usual routine of questioning the fact-checker's patriotism and end the discussion by stating whoever it is that corrects them is obviously not a Serious and/or Real American.

Looks like by now the media would be on to Republican behavior and its constant lying.  Instead, though, they fear that calling them out for their lies would result in the same tiring tirade of being called a liberal rag.  It's just easier to let them spout their lies. (H/T Steve Benen)

Right Wing Republican Opens Fire on Police, anger about left wing agenda items

When you're mom calls it, there's no spinning it.

Yesterday an angry right wing extremist and convicted felon opened fire on police officers during a traffic stop in California. The shootout left the suspect, who was wearing body armor, seriously wounded. He was taken to the hospital and is listed in stable condition. No police were shot in the incident. The victim's mother said her son had been watching the news and was upset about the direction of our country. Most specifically he was upset at "the way Congress was railroading through all these left-wing agenda items," his mother said.  Wow.

In the Republican Fantasy World, if a left wing gunman had opened fire on police because of his frustration with right wing government, it would be an act of terrorism and treason.  But this incident, just one of many, gets barely a mention in the media.

Of course this right winger opens fire on the police.  He watches Fox News where he's constantly told that Obama is going to be sending the police after people who are Republican.  I'd be a little nervous too if all I did was watch Fox and listen to Rush Limbaugh.

Republican Legacy: Huge Expansive Government

One of the biggest hypocritical complaints from Republicans and so-called conservatives about the Obama administration is that he wants to grow government. But no one grew government bigger, larger and more expensive than Republican George W. Bush. It was an administration cheered on by Republicans and when he left office, the only people that still supported President Bush were Republicans, everyone else despised him. So how big and expensive did government get because of Bush's Republican policies? HUGE!

Via a two year independent investigation into post 9/11 America found that “[t]he top-secret world the government created in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work.”

I know somehow this will get blamed on Obama. Just like TARP and the trillion dollar deficit have. The Bush reign will undoubetedly be remembered for its budget slashing, government shrinking, tax cutting, small government conservatism.  Anything post 9/11 that involves the growth of government and out of control spending will be because of liberal Obama.  It's how it is.  If you bring out facts that George Bush grew government so large that it's impossible to even track, you will be discredited because you are not a Serious, Patriotic American and are only being guided by your hysterical hatred.

Keeping Up With the Clintons

I'm a bit more optimistic than Digby about the Obama administration's strategy for the midterm elections. With that said, it would be hard for anyone even the slightest bit left of center not to agree wholeheartedly with this:

Therefore, his political advisers should know that when the country is still reeling from unemployment and foreclosures after nearly two years, the passage of an inadequate stimulus bill, which unrealistic benchmarks and a giddy victory party ensured would be the only chance they got, the only people who will consider that a "success" would be beltway insiders. They should have realized that a health care bill that nobody in their right minds would have designed from scratch, the worst aspects of which liberals will be asked to defend for years to come, would be met with dampened enthusiasm by those who watched the process devolve from a sense of progressive purpose to an exhausting farce. They are expected to be able to predict that financial reform without accountability for what's gone before, combined with the administration's unwillingness to confront the civil liberties abuse of the last administration -- indeed expanding on them in some cases -- would show a lack of fundamental concern for justice among those who care about such things.

I think that about sums up the last 18 months. You come in on a wave of populism, a huge progressive victory backed up by the largest majorities in a generation and you give us tepid policies designed to not step on the toes of the people responsible for the mess you'd been rebuking for 4 years.

Sir Rand Paul: "foreign policy is a complete non-issue"

Just another topic Rand Paul doesn't want to talk about, be asked questions about, or have to define in any sort of sense that might put him on record. He just wants to sit back and call himself a conservative Freedom Fighting libertarian Patriot without actually proving any of it.

Here's what he told the right wing extremist magazine National Review:

"As we turn to foreign policy, Paul says it is on this front that he finds himself most at odds with the GOP. However, he confides that he seldom talks about his foreign-policy positions, because what the voters really care about is economic matters. On the campaign trail, he says, “'I’m not thinking about Afghanistan; foreign policy is really a complete non-issue.'”

Of course it's a non issue to him.  He's not the one doing the fighting or dying.  He's at home in his comfortable air conditioned office collecting millions of dollars from socialist Medicare.  That and he doesn't want to have to say that he supports more war because that would collide totally with his fake libertarianism. It is, after all, the official stance of the Libertarian Party that our war in Afghanistan is worthless and that we should come home today.  Coming out in support of that would alienate his Republican base that is so war hungry they are licking their chops for an invasion of Iran.  

A war that we have been fighting for the last 9 years, in a country that is responsible for the September 11th attacks, that has cost the lives of thousands of service men and women, and has cost this country nearly half a trillion dollars of tax payer money (the same money that pays him his lucrative millions) is a non-issue.  Unbelievable that this guy is actually the leading candidate to be the next U.S. senator from Kentucky.  What a world we live in.  A world where only a Republican could get away with something like this.

No Big Finish

I haven't followed the newest Gore saga with any particular attention at all. But I did notice this morning that the masseuse exclaimed she had kept the pants that she claimed contained an infamous Clinton-like stain. Not so much. The pants tested negative for any such material.  The best part of the story is the Portland Tribune's title, "Gore chase had no finish."

Taking the Debate Where It Needs To Go

I just love this debate. I love it because it makes Republicans cringe. I love it because it chronicles the attachment so-called conservatives have with the GOP. I love it, too, because this is the conversation that makes Republicans go quiet. That makes them try to change the subject. Or eventually agree that there are some emerging problems with the modern conservative movement. And finally, I love it because it puts America on track to the debate that we really should be having when it comes to budgets, deficits, and debt.

As has been written over and over again all over these internets, Republicans are claiming that the Bush tax cuts did not cause a loss in revenue. They are also claiming that tax cuts do not have to be offset and that tax cuts do not contribute any to our current budget woes.  So let's go to the graphs.

As we can see revenue was at its strongest rise in the 90s, well before Bush cut them.  And then they dropped during the mini recession at the turn of the century.  By late 2004 they began to rise again and things might have gotten on the right foot.  The revenue coming in, however, was not enough to cover the expenses.  In fact, CBO clearly states that in 2005 had it not been for the Bush tax cuts, there would have been a budget surplus.  But the tax cut gave us a huge deficit that year and every year since their inception.

What Republicans see is the line rising again in 2005, and that's it.  They take this to mean that despite cutting taxes, revenues rose.  Yes, revenues rose.  But not enough to cover the expenses.  The loss of revenue comes in the fact that without the tax cuts, there would have been plenty of revenue.  By the time that logic sets in, the recession of 2007 hit, millions lost their jobs and revenues plummeted.  So out of the 7 years of the Bush tax cuts listed on this graph, only two years did revenue rise but not near enough to cover what Bush was spending.  I wouldn't really call that much of a success really.  But Republicans get hard ons just talking about it.

Their defense of the Bush tax cuts over the massive debt it caused goes to show that Republicans and conservatives really do not care about deficits.  Nor do they care about spending.  Like Yglesias says, they care about taxes, and only marginally at that.  Not to mention there is not one thing conservatives can single out to prove they have ever cut spending or the deficit.  They have never done either.  But they have cut taxes and raised them, and ran up huge amounts of debt without the slightest bit of concern for what they now claim they care about.

No More Racist Than the Next Guy

This is stupid. For all my disagreements with the tea baggers, I do not think they are racists. Rather, I don't think their movement is based on racism. I think it's based on their insanity brought about by watching too much Fox News but I don't think they are entirely motivated by racism. Or at least I don't think they are any more racist than the NAACP is.

So to see the NAACP and tea baggers going at each other both accusing each other of racism is pointless to me.  I think tea baggers would be around if our president was white and Democratic.  I think they would be around if it was a white female Democrat too.  Are there racist elements in the mix?  Yes, indeed.  Does it help matters none that the president is both non-white and a Democrat?  None at all.  But the movement is more about a Democrat being in charge than anything to do with skin color.

Sir Rand Paul Reaffirms His Trinity

One of the biggest fallacies of modern American politics is the labels cast upon people. In America, the Party that took the largest surplus in history and turned it into the largest debt in American history, gets to enjoy the label of conservatism, in large part due to their views on fiscal matters. None of it makes a lick of sense. Thanks to the MSM, political labels aren't changing any time soon.

A perfect example of the inaccuracy of modern labels is in Kentucky. In the case of Rand Paul, as is with most Republicans, he enjoys three labels. Republican, libertarian and tea bagger. That's why he's The Trinity. Not only does Paul get to enjoy his own self labeling, he also gets to define what those labels mean, like he did with right wing magazine National Review.

There's really nothing much in Rand Paul's philosophy that would suggest he's conservative or libertarian. In large part he's no libertarian simply because the Libertarian Party of Kentucky proclaims he isn't.  But since he's Republican, he gets to label himself as fiscally responsible and a lover of personal freedoms.  Anyone that says otherwise is ignored and labeled a liberal.

Dems Break Obstructionist Filibuster of FinReg

Via The Hill:

"The Senate voted 60-38 on a key procedural motion to end debate on the 2,315-page bill. The move sets up a final vote as early as Thursday afternoon. The House already approved the legislation."

The Republican filibuster had been in place for months.  Previous attempts by Senate Dems proved futile in overcoming the obstructionist measure.

Now the bill comes to the floor for a final vote.  The bill can pass with 51 votes.  The President is expected to sign the legislation into law in a matter of days.

Be Proud GOP, Be Oh So Proud

I'll see you hell Costanza!

This is the 1400th post!!!

Wahabist Republicans, 40 Virgins for Everyone

So when politicking abroad, who do Republicans line up to help support their principles? The right wing controlled Saudi government, amongst others, of course. It's a perfect fit.  Both believe they are led by God.  Both have no toleration for dissent.  Both love Big Oil.  Both support endless war on groups of people who practice a different religion than them.  And in this case, both think gays are subhuman.

Sharron Angle Obeys God

Walking With God has never been easier. Just run for elected office as a Republican and God will have a plan for you too.

"How do you explain all this? You're now a national story, are you kind of overwhelmed by it all?" asked Reed.

"I believe that God has been in this from the beginning and because of that when he has a plan and a purpose for your life and you fit into that, what he calls you to he always equipped you for," Angle replied.

Welcome to the Toilet, or the people Bachmann thinks should be in Congress

I don't care who it is, calling someone a threat to this country is calling someone an enemy of it. We are locking people up in a concentration camp in Cuba because the government perceives them to be a threat. We classified them as enemy combatants. People who pose a threat are enemies, no framing it any other way.

For Republicans to call President Obama a threat to this Union is to call him an enemy. They do it for many reasons. One is they are batshit crazy. Another is they truly do not view Obama as a legitimate president-- for his birthright or his views, it's all the same.

Despite their idiotic and insane rhetoric President Obama is a legitimate president. He is the President of the United States of America. For all the disagreements I ever had with the Bush administration I never once called it an enemy or treated the Executive with such utter disregard and disrespect simply because I didn't vote for the person occupying it.  You people really need to grow up and take a civics lesson.  But they aren't.  They are running for office, gladly proclaiming to the world that they think the president is an enemy.  I can't think of anything more un-American or more disgraceful to this country as a whole than what the GOP has turned into.

Jane Norton, GOP Candidate for Senate in Colorado:  "Obama is spending this country into bankruptcy. Admiral Mullen said our debt is a greater threat than terrorism. It's time to end the culture of political correctness. Obama's brand of big government is a threat to America."

Her primary opponent Ken Buck:  "The other day my good friend and supporter Tom Tancredo said that the greatest threat to this country is the man who occupied the White House, Barack Obama," Buck said Saturday at the Conservative Western Forum. "And there is a lot of truth, a lot of truth in what Tom Tancredo said. The greatest threat, folks, is not a single man, but rather the progressive liberal movement that is going on in this country. It is the $13 trillion of national debt; it is a huge threat to our security and financial system; Obamacare, cap and trade, card check, our disintegrating relationship with Israel. It is a huge threat to this county."

Totally pathetic.  Like I said, I can't think of anything more un-American than that.  You should be so proud GOP, so proud.

Ezra Klein Is Too Pretty To Argue With

I noticed a tiff brewing between The Corner's Daniel Foster and WaPo's Ezra Klein. Normally I'm inclined to disagree with Ezra just cause he's so pretty. But in this case, both Foster and Klein are wrong.

The spat is about something to do with Sen. Jon Kyl's statement that tax cuts should never be offset.  Foster accuses Klein of being philosophical and Klein says he's rubber and you're glue and Foster is philosophical too.  That part is right.  Both are philosophical arguments.  But here's why Foster's is way more philosophical.

Foster, bless his heart, sums up the Republican rationale that tax cuts are a great way to add to the deficit and should never be offset:

To put it plainly, conservatives tend to think you need a better reason to raise taxes, to grow government, and to infringe liberty than you do to cut taxes, shrink government, and increase liberty. Klein may disagree with that, but it is not an incoherent position — or for that matter, a position without a rich and noble tradition.

Rich and noble tradition. Did you catch that part? Tax cuts, small government and the protection of liberty are not only "conservative" principles they are rich and noble in tradition. Except for the fact that "conservatives" have never shrunk government, or had the slightest bit of concern to not infringe liberty. In reality, there is no tradition at all, which would make it entirely philosophical to espouse such talk.  No conservative government has done any of that except for maybe Bush's tax cuts but in the end those tax cuts led to huge fiscal deficits and ginormous debt. So how that equates to small government requires some real fantasy thinking.

Just like all Republicans, Foster merely likes to talk about small government, chopping taxes and shrinking the fed.  They love to talk it.  In practice, they do nothing of the sort.  It's not just a George Bush thing either.  Reagan never once shrunk government, cut taxes (without an offset),  or did anything to increase liberty.  And by there not being a single historical instance for Republicans to prove they have done any such thing, it means they have a rich and noble tradition.  It's like saying the Seattle Mariners have a rich and noble tradition winning the World Series even though they've never done any such thing.

The Unraveling Part II

Public confidence in President Obama has hit a new low, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll. Four months before midterm elections that will define the second half of his term, nearly six in 10 voters say they lack faith in the president to make the right decisions for the country, and a clear majority once again disapproves of how he is dealing with the economy.

And there's nothing on the horizon to suggest unemployment is going to get any better any time soon.  Call it the summer that wasn't.

More People Michelle Bachmann Thinks Should Represent Americans in Congress

Prostitute frequenter Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) said yesterday that he supports lawsuits questioning the citizenship of President Obama.  He's an actual elected Republican member of congress.

This one's a dandy. GOP candidate for Congress out of Missouri says President Obama is endangering our "ultimate freedom...to get your salvation."

If we elect and reelect these people then we'll have true freedom in America.  God help us all.

How Far We've Come America, We Can't Go Back

As far back as I can remember, it's always been the same. It's one of the very reasons I started blogging in the first place. It's what controls the line of thinking of a national political party that is mindbogglingly absent in any reasoning on my part. What is it? It's the automatic self assumption by Republicans that everything they do, say and believe is what's best for America. That they are the only True Americans left and everyone and anyone that does not believe EVERYTHING they do is cast aside as being anti-American. Those that disagree with them are immediately an enemy bent on destroying the country.

That line of reasoning is foreign to me. I can't even comprehend the logic much less the resignation of it. Who in their right mind thinks that way? What kind of person with blood flowing through their veins can immediately accept the notion that someone with different ideas than them is an enemy?  I don't even know how it's possible, but it is.

Today's news of Republican Michelle Bachmann's rant about slavery and freedom is nothing new, either from her or the GOP. It's been going on for way too long. It didn't begin 18 months ago. It was the same way during the 8 years of George Bush (and all throughout Clinton's two-terms-- as long as I can remember, like I said). If a Democratic member of congress had said about George Bush what Bachmann just did there would have been hell to pay. Why? Because saying such things about a Republican is, in their warped minds, saying that stuff about a True American that loves Freedom and upholds the Constitution. And, more importantly, the Democratic mindset is not programmed to immediately assume someone that disagrees is an enemy.  It's all too common the very first assumption for the GOP.

Here's what Bachmann proposed in her speech we do:

• Privatize Social Security
• Eliminate capital gains tax, estate tax, amt tax
• Limit individual income to 20% of income
• Limit business tax to 9%
• Total repeal of Obama's HCR

Got it?  Those are her plans and goals for this country.  I disagree with her with every fiber in my being.  But I would not dare call her an enemy.  Nor would I ever say that her policies create slaves out of us.  None of that would even come to my mind.  Why can't we discuss the merits of each others policies and quit with the anti-American, enemy of the state crap?  Why can't we have a civil debate without all the fear mongering?  How in 2010 can this be the leading charge coming from the major opposition party in America?

We've done all this before America.  We've seen every fear mongering smear hundreds of times.  We have long endured our Civil War where such rhetoric as today's actually led to bloodshed and the lives of over 600,000 of our countrymen.  We have overcome our anti-immigrant divisions of WWI and its fear mongering squashing of dissenting views.  We have lived already once through McCarthyism and the paranoia it creates.  We have witnessed as harshly as any nation has the racist fear inducing rhetoric of Civil Rights and the promise of equality for all.  And we have prevailed through it each and every time.  Some times were not as easy as the others.  But we learned and lived as a country vowing not to go back.  There's no reason to go through this again.  There's no reason to turn America back in time where fear and lazy rhetoric rule the day.  There's no reason America to take for granted how far we've come.

Bachmann: A Nation of Slaves

Via the crazy right wing. Also known as actual elected Republican members of congress:

“‘We are determined to live free or not at all. And we are resolved that posterity shall never reproach us with having brought slaves into the world,’” Bachmann read from founding father John Jay , ending her reading with the statement, “We will talk a little bit about what has transpired in the last 18 months and would we count what has transpired into turning our country into a nation of slaves.”

She reiterated her concern more forcefully toward the end of the program. “I think this describes so well where we are right now,” Bachmann said before reading an excerpt from C.S. Lewis: “‘Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of it victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under a robber baron than under omnipotent moral busybodies… .’”

As always, the only way to combat becoming a nation of slaves as Michelle Bachmann so amply puts it, is to elect Republicans into office. The same Republicans that governed for 8 years-- 6 years with total control-- and did nothing but grow government and run up mountains of debt. The same Republicans that oversaw the largest loss of wealth since the Great Depression. The same Republicans that gave us two endless wars that we are still fighting today. The same Republicans that would have called anything minutely similar to what Michelle Bachmann just did as anti-American. We've already been that route America. We won't go back.

It's grotesque to see the level the GOP has succumbed since losing power. Calling the Obama administration's policies an equivalent to a nation of slaves is appalling. It's sickening in every sense.  Nothing has changed with the GOP since the days of Bush. In their world, you are either a Republican or are an enemy that hates America. They are a childish bunch of goons. Deranged to their very core. Their current rhetoric is an unspeakable madness sought only in the halls of an insane asylum.  We won't go back.

*Update:

Here are some (and I stress some) of the people Rep. Michelle Bachmann thinks we need to elect or elect more of.

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX)
Actually believes there are women (Muslim of course) in this country planning to give birth to future terrorists. For this reason, Gohmert believes the 14th Amendment of the Constitution needs to be repealed.  The 14th Amendment is the one that guarantees anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen despite their parent's origin of birth.

"And then they would turn back where they could be raised and coddled as future terrorists. And then one day, twenty, thirty years down the road, they can be sent in to help destroy our way of life. 'Cause they figured out how stupid we are being in this country to allow our enemies to game our system, hurt our economy, get set up in a position to destroy our way of life."

Gohmert is an actual elected Republican member of Congress.  Unfreakinbelievable!

GOP U.S. Senate Candidate, Sharron Angle
Believes the separation of church and state is unconstitutional.  And it gets worse...

GOP U.S. Senate Candidate, Sir Rand Paul
Believes the 1964 Civil Rights Act went too far with parts being unconstitutional, specifically the parts that prevent businesses from banning non-whites.  Wants to do away with Medicare, except for the payments to doctors part.  Paul is an eye surgeon.  Also opposes TARP but keeps all his campaign funds in TARP-supported banks, and raises money from politicians that voted in favor of TARP.

GOP MN State Senate Candidate, Mike Parry
Had to delete scores of racist and unflattering comments from his twitter page.  But only after the press started reporting on them.

GOP U.S. Senate Candidate, Ken Buck
Unequivocally stated that he believes the greatest threat to America is President Obama and Democrats.

Yes we definitely need more people like this as elected officials.

Monday Quickies

• Why are Republican candidates in hiding?  Illinois GOP senate candidate Mark Kirk has stopped talking to reporters altogether about his military record, a record he substantially embellished.  Sir Rand Paul will only take questions in writing.  Rick Perry in Texas refuses to debate his opponent.  Sharon Angle is a basket case.  I thought the GOP was the party of tough guys?  If you can't handle the Liberal Media...

• My man Steve Benen is on a role with David Broder's latest column about the Tea Baggers.

For one thing, Tea Partiers aren't really a "movement" -- we're talking about an effort with no real leadership, expertise, policy agenda, clarity of thought, or internal structure, made up almost entirely of the most hysterical wing of the Republican Party base. For another, Tea Partiers aren't really populists -- they're anti-government zealots, actively hostile to efforts to materially improve the lives of working Americans.

Not only are they not a movement, they aren't even sane.  They are, for the most part, a group of people who widely receive government benefits protesting people receiving government benefits.  It's like rich people protesting people having too much money.  Their almost clinically insane.  Benen goes on:

The problem isn't that Broder's advice is wrong; it's that his advice seems oddly out of place. The Tea Party crowd will succeed, he argues, if they appear mainstream, craft a coherent policy agenda, back off their demands to destroy nearly every federal program, and distance themselves from the "kooks."

That's fine, as far as it goes, but what about the realization that the Tea Party crowd isn't mainstream, doesn't know enough about government to craft an agenda, wants to destroy the modern welfare state, and includes an overabundance of kooks?

Steve is finally catching on.

• Kevin Drum points out that John Judis and Ruy Teixeira were right about the emerging Democratic majority.  Now it seems, even better news for the future of the Democratic Party.  Here's my two cents.  Quit letting Republicans stifle the debate.  Death panels, socialist takeovers, and freedom fighting is so last summer.

• Do Democrats have a plan for this November?  Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was very realistic on the Sunday talk shows plainly stating there's no doubt Republicans will pick up seats with enough in play for Republicans to possibly gain control.  I'm glad to see him being so forthright.  It also seems liberal and progressive bloggers are in an uproar about why Democrats aren't hitting back so they don't lose the house.  Here's my two cents.  Quit letting Republicans stifle the debate.  Death panels, socialist takeovers, and fighting is so last summer.

Sen. Lugar Takes Down Big Love Romney

There's been way too little attention given to the current crop of Republican presidential hopefuls and their unhinged policy ideas.

Reading Sen. Dick Lugar's (R-IN) total smack down of Big Love Mitt Romney and his criticism of START definitely exemplifies an obvious divide between the calm, reasonable Republican foreign policy thinking of the last few decades and the new order of Republican Fox News junkies. 

Governor Mitt Romney’s hyperbolic attack on the New START Treaty in the July 6 edition of The Washington Post repeats discredited objections and appears unaware of arms control history and context. In advancing these arguments, he rejects the Treaty’s unequivocal endorsement by the Defense Department led by Secretary Robert Gates and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He also distances himself from prominent Republican national security leaders, including Jim Schlesinger, Henry Kissinger, James Baker, and Brent Scowcroft, who have backed the Treaty after thoughtful analysis. 

That's gotta hurt.  Big Love just wants to appear tough.  The only way to appear as a tough guy in today's Fox News-controlled GOP is to disagree with everything the president does.  Applauding anything from the Obama White House like Sen. Lugar does, as well as every past Republican official who has had anything to do with foreign policy since Nixon, doesn't give you airtime.

The huge divide between this current crop of Republican thinking and the old Republicans who have actually led this country is also something Fox News isn't going to air.  So we get left with people who have scary crazy ideas with dangerous world consequences like Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin smiling on teevee.

Anger As Metaphysical Madness

I'm a little slow at getting around to stuff, nonetheless I just finished reading a short opinion piece from J.M. Bernstein from the Times' Opinionater, entitled "The Very Angry Tea Party" from June 13.  As you know the term tea baggers is much more fitting but we'll go with it for now.

It seems Dr. Bernstein sums up quite well the entire nut slapping movement in his first couple sentences.  It's a paragraph I greatly agree with and something I've been saying for quite a while.  Actually it looks like something I have written concerning the tea baggers.  It's so similar with just a tweak of one word and it could be mine.  See for yourself:

Sometimes it is hard to know where politics ends and metaphysics fantasy beings: when, that is, the stakes of a political dispute concern not simply a clash of competing ideas and values but a clash about what is real and what is not, what can be said to exist on its own and what owes its existence to an other.

The seething anger that seems to be an indigenous aspect of the Tea Party movement arises, I think, at the very place politics and metaphysics fantasy meet, where metaphysical fantasy sentiment becomes political belief.

The strikeouts are my own.  Replaced with the word fantasy.  Because metaphysical is just a nice way of saying fantasy.  And that's exactly what the tea bagger movement is.  It's fantasy colliding with reality.

There's nothing that can be done to separate the two.  Tea baggers are bred full of conspiracy theories and outright falsehoods.  When confronted with ardent facts, they simply discard them because it's not possible to exist in the metaphysical knowing full well that it's not real.  So on the way home from their cushy tax payer funded job or cashing their disability, unemployment and/or Social Security checks, or coming from their Medicare-paid doctors visit, Republican tea baggers simply want government not to exist in their reality.

I think Bernstein calls it some sort of love affair with the idea of government not acting as government.  But that's simply skipping over the reality that tea baggers want government interference in their lives to stop.  They think they can do fine on their own without government.  Just don't mess with their fully funded tax payer health care or their fully funded tax payer job, or their social security benefits and everything will be just fine.

CBO Says Dem Energy Reform Will Reduce Deficit, Repubs Get to Remain Fiscal Hawks

It seems here lately that Republicans are engulfed with their fantasy that they care about fiscal responsibility and reducing the deficit. Put aside the fact that Republican George Bush inherited a surplus-- the largest ever to be exact-- and turned it into a $1.3 trillion deficit. And put aside the fact that every single one of Republican Bush's major accomplishments (if you can call them that) increased the deficit by leaps and bounds (the largest contributor being Bush's tax cuts, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, No Child Left Behind and the huge Republican expansion of Medicare that was completely unfunded).  Let's leave that alone for the moment.

Lately the GOP has talked feverishly about their concern for long term debt and short term deficits.  Just yesterday I wrote about Rep. John Shimkus and his statements that he can only consider legislation that cuts spending in other areas and/or reduces the deficit and debt.  This is routine language by Republicans these days.  They really, truly think they are the fiscally responsible people.  Again, don't mention their past, just leave it aside for the moment.

Given their grave concerns for cutting spending and reducing the deficit, one would think they would gladly vote for legislation that does just that.  That's too much sanity, however.  Instead of supporting HCR that was the largest deficit reducer in modern American history, Republicans opposed it and offered an alternative plan that actually added to the deficit.  Genius I know.  But these are our fiscal conservatives.  They are the Serious fiscal hawks that truly care about our financial situation.  Just ask them, they will tell you.

So given today's news that Democratic energy reform would cut the deficit by $19 billion and increase revenues by $750 billion over a ten year period, one again would think these Great Patriotic fiscal hawks would be all over it.  In a sane, realistic world, yes.  But not in the Republican Fantasy World.  They will oppose it en masse, say it doesn't do enough to cut spending and reduce the deficit.  They will get branded by the media as fiscal hawks and get to enjoy endless amounts of coverage where they blast trillion dollar deficits and outlandish spending.  Don't bring up their past or their record of never reducing spending or the deficit.  Don't bring up their record of only increasing the deficit and debt.  And don't dare bring up anything about any alternatives they might suggest beyond talking points about their fiscal conservatism.  Doing any of that only proves that you are a liberal and not a Serious fiscal hawk.

Disagreeing With Obama's Immigration Policy

I knew in 2007 when talking to Senator Obama's legislative director, Chris Lu, that when the senator ran for president he would probably win, that I would be supportive of the campaign and that I would have some policy disagreements with an Obama administration. One of those disagreements I knew I would have would be on energy. Another would be immigration.

Reading through some of the president's ideas on immigration reform, it all seems a little too George Bush to me. Even some reporters at the LA Times concluded the same thing. I disagree with providing a path to citizenship for those that are here illegally.  I don't, however, support deporting all illegals.  I think that task would be impossible and illogical.  But I think those that are here illegally and are arrested for other crimes they have committed while here should be deported.  I don't think we need a law that makes people of Hispanic/Mexican/brownish skin origin automatically have probable cause for police to check their citizenship.  We might as well have them wear arm bands to prove it if we are going to do that.

Immigration has always been an issue in America.  Right now, I think more focus should be applied to the businesses and corporations that are recruiting, hiring, and transporting illegals into this country.  Meat packing plants are the worse about this. The clothing industry is a close second.  Large fines don't seem to be doing the trick. Jail time, larger fines and more law enforcement applied in this direction rather than only border patrol I feel would help dramatically.  But a pathway to citizenship for those that had no regard for our laws in the first place only invites another generation to ignore our already liberal immigration policies.

*Update:

As luck would have it, a friend emails me a link to the latest statistics showing deportations have increased dramatically under the Obama administration.  The new administration has deported more illegals in 17 months than the Bush administration did in his first four years combined.

From the Annals of Complete Idiocy

Republican Senator Pat Roberts speaking about President Obama's recess appointment: 

This recess appointment proves the Obama Administration did not have the support of a majority of Democrats and Republicans in the Senate.

Majority support would mean 51 votes. So why don't the Republicans allow a simple up or down vote on the appointment if all Roberts is worried about is a majority of support?

The answer:  Because when Roberts says majority what he really means is 70-80 votes.  Since Democrats have had held the largest senate majority in a generation, Republicans have constantly argued a moving definition for what a majority means.   When Bush was in power Republicans cried the phrase "up or down vote" continuously.  So let's go Sen. Roberts, up or down still applies.

Gallup Poll Points To GOP Ownership of Tea Baggers

Another poll (amongst the numerous) shows the Freedom Fighting tea bagger movement is, wait, surprise, overwhelmingly Republican. I know, it's a shock isn't it. The Fold Blog has been trying endlessly to correctly label the fringe movement as nothing more than the motivated faction of the Republican Party. Clearly, as the polls are indicating, they are upset they lost the 2008 election, don't view Obama as a legitimate president (just like they didn't view Clinton as one), and simply want a Republican back in the White House.

This time Gallup breaks it down for us. 

PRINCETON, NJ -- There is significant overlap between Americans who identify as supporters of the Tea Party movement and those who identify as conservative Republicans. Their similar ideological makeup and views suggest that the Tea Party movement is more a rebranding of core Republicanism than a new or distinct entity on the American political scene.

Wow where have we heard that before?  Oh yeah I've been saying it for a year now.  Check out the breakdown.

Not surprising in the least bit, nearly 80% of tea baggers claim to be Republican.  When asked how they plan to vote in the next election, another 80% responded REPUBLICAN.  That's nearly as high as an internal Republican poll. 

Let's sum this up.  Every single poll ever conducted has shown overwhelming loyalty to the GOP by tea baggers-- even ones conducted by the GOP itself.  All around the country people are running on the Republican ticket as tea bagger candidates desperately trying to create some purgatory where they can elude their name brand and yet allow the GOP to pick up the seat.  If a fringe group of people were slapping nuts with their talk of small government and claimed loyalty to the Democratic Party the way the tea baggers are doing with the GOP, there is no doubt the media along with every pundit in the world would have labeled it a Democratic movement a long time ago.

Once again, as with every poll I've seen so far, I'm disappointed Gallup did not ask the profession of the respondent (or if they did, they haven't released it yet).  That would really cut to the core of what these crazy people are all about.  My guess is a large section of them would either have a tax payer funded job, be receiving unemployment, disability, Social Security, on Medicare or other government welfare services like farm subsidies.  I think all are critical to any group of people who claim reducing the size of government is their biggest concern.  We have no reason to believe polling data of that question would demonstrate anything else.

Democrat Greene Has the Greatest Jobs Plan Ever!

"Another thing we can do for jobs is make toys of me, especially for the holidays. Little dolls. Me. Like maybe little action dolls. Me in an army uniform, air force uniform, and me in my suit. They can make toys of me and my vehicle, especially for the holidays and Christmas for the kids. That's something that would create jobs. So you see I think out of the box like that. It's not something a typical person would bring up. That's something that could happen, that makes sense. It's not a joke."

The Fold Blog is stopping just short of making a full endorsement of this guy.

Shimkus Magically Cares About Deficit

When it comes to great concern for fiscal discipline Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) doesn't come to mind. For 8 years he voted in tandem with George Bush. During this time there was not an ounce of concern about the deficit from Shimkus. He was so unconcerned, in fact, that he voted in favor of the largest contributor to our deficit and debt, the Bush tax cuts.  But he didn't stop there.  Shimkus also voted in favor of the Bush's multi-hundred billion dollar expansion of Medicare that was completely unfunded.  And Shimkus, being the good soldier that he is, also fully supported the second largest contributor to our national debt and budget deficit, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Like all Republicans, deficits were never his concern when his party was in power.  But now, magically, John Shimkus wants everyone to believe that he has some great concern for deficits and debt.

Southern Illinois' two U.S. representatives split their vote on the House bill, with U.S. Rep. Jerry Costello, D-Belleville, voting in favor and U.S. Rep. John Shimkus, R-Collinsville, opposed.

Shimkus had supported past bills to extend unemployment benefits. But he said that with the federal deficit continuing to climb - it is at more than $13 trillion - he could not support a bill that would add to that debt.

"We simply must make the very tough decisions of what we, at the federal government, fund," Shimkus said. "This particular unemployment extension was not paid for by reducing other spending, and I could not support it. I do not believe that our economy - and thus, job creation - is helped by increasing our annual deficit and total debt."

Oh I see.  So when he voted for the Bush tax cuts he wasn't worried about adding to the debt.  Or when he voted for a completely unfunded $500 billion expansion of Medicare, he wasn't worried about "reducing other spending" or "increasing our annual deficit and total debt."  But now that George Bush is gone, John Shimkus, magically, has a deep concern for fiscal responsibility.

*Update:

I think it's worth mentioning in this post that unemployment benefits have very little effect on long term debt.  It's also worth mentioning that unemployment benefits are not designed to just allow people to sit around and not find work.  Just the opposite actually.  By receiving benefits, the unemployed are also receiving services to help place them in new work.  I don't know if you have ever tried to look for a job but it costs money to find employment.  That's why such expenses can be written off on your taxes.  By cutting this off Congress is effectively cutting off a key element to finding new employment.  Not to mention helping families survive while out of work.

As evidenced by Shimkus' voting record, he isn't the slightest bit concerned with the deficit or debt.  He's more concerned with doing away with social programs than anything else.  Social programs that don't benefit him to be more precise.

What'd I Miss? Glorious War, the Queen and Dems Failing to Lead

Looks like I didn't miss much while on my travels. The biggest item that occurred from what I can tell was GOP Chairman Alan Keyes Michael Steele running his mouth off again. This time we got to hear his true beliefs and how he really feels about one of the GOP's most prized possessions, war without end.  It's hard to imagine the figure head of the GOP not supporting Glorious War.  It's a good thing figure head is all he is.

What else?

• The right wing Economist gets busted airbrushing a photo of President Obama to make him look friendless

• The Queen's in town

• Wall Street contributions to Democrats are down 65%.  That's kind of odd since the Dems are doing nothing to reform Wall Street.

• Failing to lead.  Ignoring nearly everything that is going on in this country, the House of Representatives last night, by a vote of 215 to 210, passed a "budget enforcement resolution" setting discretionary spending levels and making it almost impossible to imagine that any job-creation measures will pass in 2011.  Why?  Because this means there really is no budget.  Why?  Because Dems didn't want to vote for a budget that was over one trillion dollars in the red.  Why?  Because they would rather go the easy route and not have to actually do what's best for the country. All this sets us up for a possible double dip recession.

Happy Independence Day

Have a good day everyone. I'm out of town for awhile.

Sir Rand Paul Now Supports Farm Subsidies

One of the biggest forms of a socialist welfare state is farm subsidies. The federal government pays farmers not to work. This supposedly keeps the markets from being flooded with grain, food and other farming materials. It keeps the markets regulated via price controls, central planning and is absolutely a redistribution of tax dollars. Yet the so-called most "conservative" amongst American voters are farmers that claim to be against the welfare state. Farmers are hard workers, America's backbone if you'll recall. And the state of Kentucky received over $300 million in farm subsidies in 2008.  That's a lot of tax money going to a lot of Republicans. 

In a complete reversal from his primary, Rand "Trinity" Paul now says he's for a socialized farming industry.  Of course he is.

Another perfect example of a socialist welfare state is Medicare.  It's a single payer system.  Millions of people pay into it and receive not a single benefit from it.  And just like socialized subsidies to farmers, Paul also isn't against doing away with Medicare.  Or as we learned months ago, he's against doing away with the part that pays him.

The two biggest forms of socialism in America and Rand Paul supports both.  But...

Here's how this will go.  Rand Paul, someone who is in support of a socialized farming industry, who supports a socialized health care system just as long as he keeps his payments, who loves TARP so much that he raises money from Members of Congress that voted in favor of it and keeps his campaign funds in a bank that received $95 million of TARP money, will be branded by the MSM as a staunch fiscal conservative that is standing up to Big Government and fighting to restore America to the way it was before socialism took over.  Even though in reality he is nothing of the kind.  But that's exactly how it will go.