The Fold Blog Declares Victory, Demands Servitude

Going through my archives, I noticed I have written substantially about tea baggers. More than I had realized actually. In the list of labels "tea baggers" is second only to "Obama." And third if you count "Bush" and "Bush Legacy" as essentially being about Bush.

So some would say I have a tea bagger fetish. Okay, whatever. I'm not proud, I'm just saying I've been writing about tea baggers longer and more consistently than I had realized.

Consistent is a good word because from the very first post I wrote about the tea bagger crowd, I called them what they were, Republicans. Consistently I have argued the tea baggers are not a separate faction of anything, are not a party of their own, are not a subset of non-political people. They are nothing but the Republican base, and I've said this since day one.

Seemingly I was a lone voice crying in the wilderness.

After watching the media and even liberal or Democratic bloggers try to decipher what these people were and where they were coming from, I began a sort of tea bagger truthiness campaign acknowledging the media when they would accurately label tea baggers as Republican; while also highlighting polling data clearly showing tea baggers as nothing but Republicans.

It took months, apparently almost two years, but now the blogosphere is united and The Fold Blog is relishing.  Mission Accomplished!

More Than Even the Right Wing Can Handle

You know you're in a bad predicament as a Republican when right wing news outlets like National Journal don't even buy what you're selling.

The state’s entire budget shortfall for this year -- the reason that Walker has said he must push through immediate cuts -- would be covered by the governor's relatively uncontroversial proposal to restructure the state’s debt.

By contrast, the proposals that have kicked up a firestorm, especially his call to curtail the collective-bargaining rights of the state's public-employees, wouldn't save any money this year.

Wow. It's pretty bad when you can't even depend on a publication that hates unions more than it does President Obama to back up your lies so you can destroy union membership.  I'd have to say stick a fork in this one.

Worlds Collide (*Updated)

In case you missed it, Republican commenter, Kristen Billy (aka Sanity, Guest, Paul, Shanks and Rachel), gave us here at The Fold Blog his response to why he insists-- despite ample reality to the contrary-- the fiscal situation a president inherits is "meaningless" and that we need to move away from trying to figure out how and why we got into the fiscal mess we are in.  His treatise goes like this:

The $850 billion is not a real number. It's a projection made by the CBO in 2001 of what the world might have looked like 8 years later. How is that number at all relevant?

Yes that's his whole reply.  What's he talking about?  Who knows, and we're pretty certain he doesn't either.

In a follow up response he clarifies our source is writing in 2009 and using a CBO projection.

The only projection the source uses in the entire article from CBO is a 2001 projection that George Bush stood to inherit a government that could possibly average annual SURPLUSES of $800 billion.  Nowhere does it say anything about $850 billion.

Notwithstanding the fact that the original post was not at all about SURPLUSES or what CBO was projecting the world might look like; but about where our current deficits come from.  The 2001 projection had nothing to do with what the post was about.  Highlighting the situation Bush inherited demonstrates just how irresponsible 8 years of Republican rule was.  So bravo to Kristen.

Again, though, it's not about projected SURPLUSES.  Projections are projections. They are not meant as an exact prediction of the future, even CBO will tell you that much.  But that's not what the post was about.  Of course the annual SURPLUSES of $800 billion never happened.  Why?  Well, we had 8 years of George Bush and GOP leadership.

Could you imagine if Bill Clinton had turned over to Bush a government with a trillion dollar deficit what Republicans would be saying.  It would have been the end of the world for Democrats.  But since Bush actually did turn over a government with chronic trillion dollar deficits, Republicans want it never to be brought up.  Two years is plenty of time to move past it.  Except for the fact that our current trillion deficit is still made up of Bush policies then maybe we could move on.

We didn't go from surpluses to a trillion dollar deficit over night.  It took time.  It took numerous Bush policies, all of which were completely unfunded to get us to this point.  And that whole time, throughout the entirety of his reign, not one time did Republicans speak up or even pretend to acknowledge they had any concern for the deficit.  They did just the opposite.  They helped him push through unfunded legislation after unfunded legislation.

And then something happened.  They were no longer in power anymore.

Convenient for them, they now claim to care about the deficit.  Just as long as we never mention where it came from and how we got it.  In their world the deficit came into being on Jan. 20th, 2009.  Any suggestion that it's not Barack Obama's fault makes you an enemy.

*Update:

For what could possibly be one of the biggest dodges in the history of dodges, Kristen Billy insists the mention of a CBO projection negates everything about where the trillion dollar deficit comes from.

Too bad the projection has no bearing whatsoever on what actually happened. That's why the article I linked to in the first place was written: to show how and where the deficits came from.

Finally, Kristen Billy admits he doesn't agree with the results of where the deficits came from.  Of course he doesn't.  That's my whole point.  The reality that George Bush's two terms is the greatest contributor to the deficit is not at all what Fox News tells him.  In his world, if it doesn't come from Fox or Rush Limbaugh then it never happened.  That's why he keeps trying to focus on a number he pulled out of thin air to distract the conversation.  He can't address the substance so just deny the source.

That brings this whole thing to another point: what Fox News has wrought.  Jon Chait mentioned something the other day that has stuck with me ever since I read it. People who watch Fox News really believe that they are engaged in a process that separates them from all the people who don't watch Fox News, namely that of Truth. These people believe that Fox gives them an access to truth that is denied to Americans who are brainwashed by the mainstream media. They really believe that Fox News is not just a network that counteracts the biased liberal media, or even a network that reports the stories that the liberal media ignore, but the only vehicle for Truth that exists.  That pretty much sums up what's taking place here and why Kristen simply cannot believe Republicans created the massive deficit we have today and not Barack Obama.

Unions

Considering the fact that I do not currently belong to a union nor have I ever, I consider myself a rather pro-union person. I have close family that are FOP, NEA, AFSCME, Teamsters and Laborers, including a long history of UMWA members.  I also have a lot of friends that are NEA and SEIU members.  Most complain about the intrinsic nature of their union but all seem to love their pay and benefits.

Personally, I don't have a preference one way or another if a job is or isn't union.  I do, however, believe workers have the right to organize.

What if a Democratic legislature tried to ban the Chamber of Commerce or the Farm Bureau?  Neither are unions like we define them but both are large groups of dues-paying people organized for common causes they believe are detrimental to their occupation.  And both are largely Republican.  Or what if Democrats tried to ban unions that are more sympathetic to the GOP like the FOP or firefighters?  After all, those are the two unions Gov. Walker (R-WI) has left alone in his union-busting bill because he says they provide safety and security to people unlike labor unions. Conveniently, those two unions endorsed him for governor.  We all can make up our own minds on his rationale but coincidences are rare in premeditated legislation.

One thing that really stands out at me in this whole thing is why does it always seem Republicans are always arguing in favor of 19th century norms?  I thought we already had this union debate a hundred years ago?

DC Federal Judge Upholds Constitutionality of Health Care Reform

A Democratically-appointed judge in DC has tossed out a lawsuit claiming that President Barack Obama's requirement that all Americans have health insurance violates the religious freedom of those who rely on God to protect them. In other words, Republicans were arguing Obama's reform forces people to go against the Will of God.

"Kessler rejected both arguments and ruled that Congress has the right to regulate health care spending under the Commerce Clause and that the individual mandate must be viewed not as a stand-alone reform but as an essential part of the law Obama signed 11 months ago aimed at reducing overall costs. She also said that anyone who objects to having health care for religious reasons can choose to pay the penalty instead — as the lawsuit said all five plaintiffs plan to do."

Take that God.

What is it Republicans Don't Want You to Remember?

Republican commenter Kristen suggests what a president inherits is meaningless. That we move on and forget about George Bush and what he did to this country's fiscal situation.  This is routine rhetoric from Bush enablers.

Trust me, myself along with 75% of the American people would love to forget about George Bush and his 8 years and we pretty much have. He was the most unpopular president since polling was invented. He went an entire second term without once having majority approval. He led us down a path of self-destruction, and the two years since his absence have been a rebuilding time for America. Unemployment is slowly dropping. The Dow is up 50%. GDP is in positive territory again. Budget deficits have been streamlined. And our standing in the world has greatly benefited from President Obama. Things are better than they were.  So on behalf of the American people, we would love to forgo reality and forget about Bush.  It's just there's a thing called responsibility.

What is it Republicans just want us to forget and move on from?

Oh yeah, that responsibility thing again.

We can't simply forget about Bush and move on.  Or better said, we can't fix today's budget mess without addressing the cause.  And that's what Republicans want.* They want their mess fixed, yesterday.  They want it solved and people to quit focusing on how and why we are in the shape we are in.  Like Kristen says, "[t]wo years later it's no longer a plausible excuse to blame Bush for the current state of the economy."

Except that's not true.  Only a fool would believe something like that.  Fifty-three percent of the $1.5+ trillion deficit we have today is from leftover George Bush policies.  In other words, problems the current president inherited from his predecessor.  Much to the dismay of Republicans like Kristen, inheritance is not meaningless and we just can't forget and move on if we want to fix what's wrong.  If it's so meaningless than why are Republicans all of a sudden, now that they aren't in the White House, so concerned with the deficit?

So yes, despite what Kristen Billy thinks or what Fox News tells him to think, the deficit we have today is largely a George Bush policy.  Sure the recession contributed greatly to it as well, but there is no greater contributor to the deficit than Bush's two terms.


* Actually what Republicans want more than anything is for people to think Barack Obama is to blame for the deficit when in fact it was handed to him along with two wars, an economy on the verge of collapse and a little Republican trend called "receivership." That's why they are so insistent that people not bring up Bush. Because if we don't bring up Bush the only other person to bring up is Obama. They want everything to be his to fix and nothing to be theirs.

If They Mess Up Iraq?

For a flash back in time to simpler days when the Bushies were just beginning on their crusade to rid the world of Islamofascistterroristliberals, look no further than Rummy's latest attempt to exonerate himself from blame.

rumsfeld-feith

FYI Rummy: WE MESSED UP IRAQ. NO ONE ELSE.

Heads Up

This is going to be a busy week for me so I apologize now if it appears as if I have abandoned the blog. I haven't. Or I didn't mean to is more like it.  I'm in the process of moving homes and things are going to be crazy for the next week or so.  Just a heads up.

Quickies

-- I really need to brush up with what's happening in 'Sconsin

-- House Republicans passed $61 billion in spending cuts over the weekend.  About a million jobs are expected to be lost due to the cuts.  Luckily their insanity won't make it through the senate or survive a presidential veto.  It's a good thing Republicans are still a minority party and we really can't stress that enough.

--Tea Baggers in Massachusetts want that state to finance and arm a "defense force" to guard if from invasion.  Yes, I typed that correctly.  Tea Baggers in MA want the state to fund and arm a militia that will protect the State of Massachusetts from invasion.

-- When are we going to invade Libya?

-- Ever wonder where the budget deficits come from and how they were created?

• 37% comes from the business cycle (recession and lost revenue).
• 33% comes from Bush policies (tax cuts, huge expansion of Medicare, etc...)
• 20% comes from other Bush policies like the wars, TARP and other bailouts.
• 7% comes from President Obama policies like stimulus spending.
• 3% comes from President Obama's health care reform and energy spending.

Only $1 Billion?

In a war that has cost American tax payers nearly $1 trillion dollars and counting, the City of Baghdad-- the capital of occupied Iraq-- wants the United States "to apologize and pay $1 billion for the damage done to the city not by bombs but by blast walls and Humvees since the U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein."

That seems like a very low dollar amount. I would think almost a full decade of war in one of the most ancient cities in all the world, waged by the most powerful army in world history, would do more than a billion dollars in damages.

Maybe Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld can chip in from their oil proceeds to help the cause.

What Two Years Looks Like

It's important to remember that no person elected to the presidency has ever inherited two on-going, endless wars, an economy on the verge of collapse and a budget deficit of over a trillion dollars. President Obama's inaugural was unique in not only bringing about the first black man to ever become the President of the United States of America, but that he also inherited a horrendous situation never seen before by any incoming president.

As you can see from the graph below, things are better today than they were when Republicans were in charge.

There is still a lot of work to be done, and there are still many Republicans wanting to take credit for the recovery, but facts clearly stand on the administration's side.

Fact Checking the Cry Baby

Yesterday Speaker John Boner said that President Obama had created 200,000 federal government jobs. I wish that were true. I really wish the public sector had hired that many workers.  It would be great for the economy, great for the tax base, great for the recovery and great for those wanting to cut the deficit.

But, of course, Boehner was lying.  Hard to believe I know.  Ezra Klein did some number crunching and it turns out since Jan. 2009 when Obama took office and Jan. '11, roughly 58,000 workers were added to federal payrolls.  That's a far cry from 200,000.  But in the Republican Fantasy World, a world where they really believe George W. Bush created 10 million new jobs, 58K equals 200K, and maybe the most surprising thing of all, they view it as a bad thing to create new jobs.  After all, the point of Boehner's remarks was not to brag about Obama creating jobs but to say it would be a good thing if the people lost those jobs.

The hypocrisy begs me to repeat it all again.  John Boehner is a federal employee who enjoys a health care system that is completely funded by tax payer dollars.  His paycheck, his health care, his entire family benefits from his federal job.  And not only did he vote numerous times to repeal health care access for 30 million people, and vote against repealing his own socialist health care, now here he is saying people who have new federal jobs should lose them.

The Wingnut's Nut

Andrew Sullivan makes a good point about Sarah Palin's appeal to Republican voters.

She is the base's base, and her appeal, in my view, is all about identity politics.

She represents no real coherent set of ideas; merely what she would call the "real America", i.e. white and rural. I also think race is at play here. I think many people under-estimated the willingness of Americans to vote for a black president before his election, but equally under-estimated the impact of an actual black president after his Inaugural actually doing things and exercizing authority. I see Palin as a kind of cultural antibody to the future America Obama represents. And if the next election focuses on culture and not economics - or culture because of economic stagnation - I would not count her out.

I'm not counting her out. She's in. She's going to run, no doubt about it.

The Republican base believes President Obama is illegitimate in large part because of people like Sarah Palin who is paid millions of dollars to go on Fox News and stir the base with crazy conspiracy theories about the president's birth place,  his policies and/or his character.  That's her role.  It's not going to change.  It will actually get worse the closer we get to 2012.

If I've learned anything since the Summer of Hate, it's not to underestimate the Republican Crazy.  Palin will stir up what she thinks is "real America," the people most prone to believing her lies, and will have plenty of help from right wing media sources like Fox and Hate Radio.  As Sully mentions, the future America Obama represents is simply one that is not governed by Republicans.  Sure it has lots to do with a black man making decisions, but worse it's a black man that belongs to the enemy camp, the Democratic Party.  There's no worse future scenario to Republicans than that.  If it means stirring a crazy base that is full of hatred, racism and 8th grade diplomas, then the GOP will do it and not think twice about it.

Dem Senate Swiftly Votes to Extend Patriot Act

The Democratic-controlled senate voted 86-12 to extend the civil liberty-killing Patriot Act until May 27, 2011.  Ten senators that caucus with the Democrats voted against the measure.  Two Republicans joined with the dissenting Democrats.

So the count now is 156 (127 Dems, 29 Repubs).  That's how many members of the 535 that voted against extending the Patriot Act and who actually might care about civil liberties.

Since the senate version differs from the one passed by the House yesterday, the bill must go back to the House for approval.

It's Only Congress Unless It's Reagan Cutting Spending

What strikes me about the pro-Reagan video produced by the Center for Freedom and Prosperity-- I mentioned below--  that is being brandished all across the Internet (heck I had my facebook news stream full of links to the video by Republican friends) is that Republicans routinely like to claim Congress sets the budget and not the president.  That is unless they are trying to zero in on domestic spending and how Reagan slashed it a total of one GDP percentage point, then other than that it's totally Congress that controls the budget.

They are always quick to mention that Clinton's surpluses didn't come until a Republican Congress came to power.  If that's the case, and presidential policy has no bearing on spending, then Reagan's huge 1% cut in domestic spending is because of a Democratic Congress.  Yeah, I bet their Fantasy World would agree to that.

*Update:

Also, it's important to point out that when Republicans try to lump Bush and Obama together on budget matters, and that's absolutely what the video does, is that Obama inherited the $1.4 trillion deficit.  He didn't create it.  Unlike George Bush who inherited a budget surplus and turned it into the largest deficit in human history, Obama did no such thing.  That's a point Republicans purposely want to blur when talking about why the president's budgets are so full of red ink.

So what would you do?

You come into office with a $1.4 trillion deficit given to you by a Republican president, two ongoing endless wars completely left to you by a Republican president, the economy in almost total collapse with millions of jobs being lost, again, handed to you by the same Republican president, and two years later you have kept the deficit near the same level the Republicans gave to you.  You have finally began the slow process of ending one war that never should have happened in the first place while trying to create stability by managing chaos in the second war your predecessor totally neglected.  You have finally leveled off the economic free fall and returned GDP back to positive territory while creating way more private sector jobs than public sector and have for the first time in almost three years a dropping unemployment rate.  And the people who gave you the mess are demanding that you are not doing enough and should follow their policies or be labeled fiscally irresponsible by them of course.  Now what would you do??

I know one thing.  I sure wouldn't be as nice to Republicans as President Obama is.

**Update:

It's possible I'll be posting about this very inaccurate and misleading video for quite some time.  Another point I want to make is the Republican propaganda video explicitly mentions that the key to a sound budget is one that creates a strong economy by creating private sector jobs.

I absolutely agree with that thesis.  For there to be a true recovery the private sector has to grow much more than the public sector.  Essentially what this means is private companies hiring versus government doing the hiring.  Like I said, I totally agree.

So yesterday the Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, completely invented some fake number that the Obama administration had created 200,000 public sector jobs and if those new government employees lost their jobs "then so be it."  Let's look past how callus it is for a government employee to say he doesn't care if government employees lose their jobs.  Boehner must have over heard the 200,000 figure in a local tanning salon or something because it's not true.  Quite the opposite is true to be exact.  More private sector jobs have been created since Obama took office than public.

The chart is from Jan. 10-Jan 11.  The Obama administration has a net loss in public sector jobs.  Like I highlighted earlier.  It's good news when the Republican video says the key to a sound budget is making domestic cuts because Obama's blueprint makes more cuts to domestic spending than any president in American history.  It's even better news that the video says the key to economic growth is private sector job growth because the president is doing just that as well.

Anyone that can stand by this video and promote it as a subtle reminder of how fiscal responsibility is achieved either has no clue about anything on planet earth, or has their Fox News teevee sets turned up so loud that there's just nothing else getting through.

If You Focus On One Part of the Budget

There's a nifty little video produced by the Center for Freedom and Prosperity Republicans are floating around the Internet as some sort of presidential spending guide that Obama should emulate.

The video, of course, uses Reagan as an example of a president that kept the budget under control. It also uses Clinton as another example but is sure to mention that his spending restraint was held in check by a Republican Congress, while also mentioning Clinton did not control spending as well as Reagan.

Scratch that. I keep saying spending as if spending means spending. The Republican video only highlights one part of budget spending, domestic. Everyone knows the federal budget is more than just one section of spending. It contains domestic, foreign, defense, on-budget and off-budget items.  Saying that Reagan kept domestic spending in check totally ignores the simple fact that total spending increased every single year under Reagan.

Total Spending

Fiscal Years 1981 to 1989

Year GDP-US

$ billion Total Spending -

1982 1179.43

1983 1283.58

1984 1353.86

1985 1496.35

1986 1592.78

1987 1662.08

1988 1771.39

1989 1915.21

Maybe Reagan did stave off domestic spending a whopping 1 percentage point of GDP during his 8 years in office.  But that means he spent our tax money on things other than the people who pay taxes because after all, spending did increase under Reagan.  Now how is that fair?

Yet, and I don't know how or why this is so hard for the "fiscal conservatives" to understand, but increasing domestic spending by $80 billion is still a spending increase.  Nowhere did Reagan cut real dollars.  It's just that GDP grew faster than domestic spending (by 1% point of GDP remember!!).

Nonetheless, all of this totally ignores the fact that even though Reagan supposedly kept domestic spending at reasonable levels, he still ran mammoth budget deficits every year.  And he still tripled the national debt!

Good news though.  The video makes note several different times the key to overall budget responsibility is to cut domestic spending (spending less tax money on tax payers).  That means Obama's budget blueprint for 2012 is spot on because it cuts hundreds of billions from domestic resources.

Patriot Act Extension Passes on Simple Majority Vote

The Freedom Fighting Republican idea to read the Constitution on the House Floor to jump start their new Permanent Majority was nothing but a media ploy. Yesterday Republicans passed an extension to some of the most controversial parts of the Patriot Act with 275 votes, 65 coming from Democrats.

From my calculations there are only 144 Members of Congress who care one bit about civil liberties and upholding the Constitution.  Even that estimate is probably way too high.  And not surprisingly, the tea bagger caucus largely voted in favor of the extension.

We Don't Need No Stinkin Budgets

I didn't get around to doing much reading on the president's budget request today. In case you have nothing else to do for the next day or so, go give it a read.

Ron Paul Has a Brave New Theory on Government

Here's a pop quiz. I tried not to make it too difficult.

1. Have you driven on a road (federal/state/county) in the last 24 hours that you didn't build yourself?

2. Have you used a cell phone in the last 24 hours?

3. Have you, by chance, used the Internet in the last 24 hours? If not, how are you reading this?

4. Did you send/receive any Valentine's Day cards in the mail?

5. Does your home have electricity?

If you answered yes to any of the questions, you have utilized a government service. Unsuspectingly perhaps?

It's understandable that many of us don't realize how often, or how much we rely on government to provide something to us. Our daily habits and mobility are so ingrained that we forget just how supportive government actually is. It's not like we wake up in the morning thanking our politicians for the hot water or the lights. But chances are, your electricity is being supplied by government services that originated during FDR's 12 years in office. Whether or not it's a local co-op or a private company supplying the energy, the government is the one who paid to build the grid, i.e., with tax dollars.

This is not a post to celebrate government in any way whatsoever. We all know government is too intrusive and cumbersome for most of our daily lives. But that doesn't mean there are many things government does and does well. So well, in fact, we don't even realize it's government doing it.

So to read that the Republican Representative from Texas, Ron Paul, fresh off his Republican CPAC straw poll victory, has a bold new plan that encourages people to "opt out" of government is really, well, stupid.

His plan goes like this. People pay a 10% tax of their total income to the government in exchange for promising not to ask the government for anything. "You take care of yourself," stated Paul.

Really? You pay 10% of your income and you get nothing in exchange? You can't drive on the roads? You can't use the Internet? No postal service? That sounds like an even worse deal than trading The Babe to the Yankees. Obviously Ron Paul, who somehow gets labeled a libertarian even though he isn't one, is meaning you don't utilize welfare programs like food stamps, pell grants, Social Security, Medicare, farm subsidies and whatnot. Those programs have always been a thorn in the side of Republicans. And Paul with his Republican supporters are trying to portray that government services are all welfare related, thus are a drain on those of us who feel like we don't use them.

As we can see from the quiz above. We do use government services every day whether wing nuts like Ron Paul want to admit it or not.  Not to mention, paying a 10% tax of all your income to not use any of them is what some would call ignorant. Since it's a Republican saying this, we have to call it Very Serious and Smart or be forced to defend our own worth as an American.

*Update:

I'll sometimes take a peek at the self-proclaimed Libertarian blog of Lew Rockwell. I thought it would be interesting to see what Lew had to say about Ron Paul offering people the chance to opt out of government services.  I actually thought Lew just might try to bring Paul back down to earth and try to guide the debate toward a more sensible approach like, oh I don't know, not paying 10% of your income to the government in exchange for nothing.

Alas, though, the only mention I could find from Lew Rockwell was the chastising of someone at Forbes for not worshiping every word of Paul's.

Rick Ungar, a Forbes columnist, denounces Ron Paul for telling young people that they have the right to live their own lives as they see fit, and to keep their own money, rather than serving as drones for the regime. The notion that young people should have the chance to opt out of the State, its monstrous impositions and its “benefits,” is “financial crack,” he says. Actually, it’s the sweet smell of freedom.

No, Lew, that's not at all what Ron Paul said. He very clearly said in exchange for 10% of your income the government will leave you alone.

For most of the Paul supporters, 10% of their income is more than they pay to the government anyway.  I'm willing to bet most don't pay taxes, or if they do, don't pay enough to pay for all the benefits they receive.  He was not at all suggesting people keep more of their own money.  He was, without a doubt, suggesting people should pay 10% of it to the government and not to receive any of it back.  That's not the sweet smell of freedom.  That's the sour smell of getting ripped off.

The President Got This One Right

Michael Cohen

At times I've been fairly critical of this president's handling of foreign policy, but credit must be given -- this Administration handled this situation about as deftly as possible. This was truly an American diplomatic tour de force.

Speaker Boehner:

"I think they've handled what is a very difficult situation about as well as it could be handled."

times are a changing

Mubarak Cedes Power, Leaves Egypt

Republicans Give Themselves Awards and Bump Peter Heads

I'm not sure what's funnier. That Republicans gave Donald Rumsfeld the "Defender of the Constitution" award (I can't think of anyone other than George Bush that is less deserving). Or that the Tea Baggers overwhelmingly voted to extend the Patriot Act while the media still narrates them as Very Serious small government crusaders.

Republicans Pass Patriot Act Extension-- Rule Change

Republicans in the House of Representatives passed an extension to the Patriot Act [Rule Change not the actual extension], the largest Big Government, civil liberties killing bill in American history. Only 4 Republicans voted against renewal compared to 172 Democrats.

Nearly every single member of so-called House tea bagger caucus, the pretend group of Republicans who regularly trick the media into portraying them as fiscally conservative, civil liberty protecting patriots, voted in favor of extending the Patriot Act.  viva Bush!

Nut Sack Fail

I really hate it when people comment or email me and never mention the nut sack on the sidebar. We are living in a society, aren't we people?

Tea Baggers Did Not Hold Off Patriot Act Extension

This is hilarious.

Tea Baggers are trying to claim that they held off passage of the extension of the Patriot Act because 8 newly elected Republican congressman who caucus with the Tea Bagger faction voted against its renewal.

What does this say about the 122 Democrats that voted against it? Why aren't Democrats getting the Freedom Fighting, small government label???

Never mind the fact that a majority of the tea bagger congressional caucus voted to extend the Patriot Act. Let's pretend the 8 people who voted against it are proof the GOP is the true government shrinking, America-loving party that truly cares about civil rights.

Mubarak Rumored to Resign Today

Many media outlets are reporting Egyptian president Mubarak will make an announcement tonight that he is going to step down.

This can only mean one thing. President Obama will use his Muslim Brotherhood to annex Egypt as the 51st state where he will continue his anti-British colonial rule on the world; oh and of course, use it as a place where he plans on deporting millions of Republicans.

*Update:

Nope. Says he's staying and anyone who doesn't like it can go suck some truck nuts.

Why It's Stupid to Constantly Say We Need to Return to Our Founding Principles

As I posted last night, it suddenly dawned on me that our led-by-God Founding Fathers never intended, nor envisioned, a black man becoming president.  Now this is a Founding concept the right wing wouldn't necessarily agree with publicly.  But when they say things like "we need to return to our Founding Principles" Barack Obama's ineligibility for the Executive Office most certainly would happen.  They would be happy with such a result, not necessarily because of racism but because they would favor anything that removes a Democratic president.

Republicans would have no problem with Clarence Thomas as president because he's Republican.  Likewise for Michael Steele.  None of it has really anything to do with a desire to return blacks to slavery.  Anyone who would suggest such is crazy. But the constant rhetoric by Republicans to return back to our Founding Principles has everything to do with the fact that they do not believe Democrats as legitimate upholders of the Constitution. More precisely, it's because they have no clue what their rhetoric even means other than they just like to paint Democrats as being anti-Constitutional and thus anti-American.  Republican Representative Michelle Bachmann makes my point perfectly.

Asked via a Web questioner whether her Tea Party rhetoric might be considered divisive, Bachmann said that "far from being divisive in any way, what we're trying to do is bring together a great unity." The source of that unity? The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, documents about which differing interpretations are apparently of little use. "Our founding documents, they cannot be improved upon," said Bachmann, giving an almost Biblical rendition of the work product of the nation's first generation of politicians.

Frankly, that's just dumb. Of course our founding documents can be improved upon. That's why our Founders wrote into the Constitution a means to amend it. They intended for the document to be improved upon when necessary.  Actually, the very first thing our Founders did when they realized not every state was thrilled with the original document was they amended it ten times!!  In other words, they improved upon it.

I don't think for a second Republicans really want to return to the days where blacks were slaves and women were second class citizens.  Which is why it's so stupid for Republicans to suggest we need to return to those Founding Principles.  What they really want to do is be able to portray themselves as protectorates of the American way of life by constantly equating themselves to the people who founded this country.

Also, as Steve Benen makes mention, how can a group of people claim they want to return to our Founding Principles while simultaneously claiming our Constitution can't be improved upon, and yet have sponsored 42 Constitutional Amendments last year!?!  It's because they are stupid.  Plain and simple.

*Update:

In reading more about Michelle Bachmann's Freedom Fighting speech to her fellow tea baggers this week, Political Correction picks up on another completely false aspect of her completely stupid views of America and the Constitution.

BACHMANN: The people who came to the United States — other than the Native Americans who were here — all of us have the same story. And our story is, we come from someone who was a risk taker in their home country; doesn't matter what the country is. But they took a risk and they came here. And they knew when they came here they weren't coming for a welfare state, they weren't coming for unemployment insurance, they weren't coming here for health insurance. They were coming here for the thrill of writing their own ticket.

Nothing really could be any more inaccurate.

Millions of people from Africa were brought here without a ticket and against their will.  They were in chains when they landed on our shores for the sole purpose of a lifetime in bondage to their white owners.  The terms "welfare state," "unemployment insurance," or "health insurance" didn't even exist and highlight Bachmann's insistence to completely rewrite American history to fit her little Republican tea bagger vision.

Deep Thought

It just dawned on me that our Founding Fathers never intended for a black man to be president.

I'm a little slow, I'll admit it. But now I finally understand what this whole getting back to the intentions of the founders is all about.

Tea Bagger Led GOP Wants Patriot Act Renewal

Steve Benen has an excellent take down of the fanatical and oft-repeated myth that Republicans are small government conservatives with their Tea Bagger base being even more so. Benen, justly, uses the latest GOP scheme to renew the Patriot Act as Exhibit A in debunking any serious claim to their small government mantle.

Before we get too far into it, the Bush Patriot Act is the most far-reaching, Big Government, police state piece of legislation in American history. It was passed with almost unanimous Congressional consent a little more than a month after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.  The only no-vote in the Senate came from Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), who, sadly, lost his reelection bid in 2010.  In the House, only 65 members voted against it, 62 were Democrats.  Nonetheless, the Patriot Act is the greatest legacy of Big Government in America and has been opposed by both liberal and conservative groups ever since President Bush signed it.

One would think, then, that the small government crusaders in the GOP-- since they've had their little Tea Bagger Revolution where they have promised to usher in a new era of government shrinking miracles-- would finally take a stand against renewing what is the epitome of Big Government.  Seriously, Tea Baggers are pro-small government.  They are against federal power becoming so strong that states and individuals have no rights left.  They are, by their own claiming, Reaganites that want a return to the Founders' Intentions.

Well, yeah, that's what they tell us at least.  That's how the Republican-controlled media portrays them.  They are but poor peasants marching in the streets against a tyrannical government that is forcing them to have health care when all they really want is their Medicare and Social Security left alone.

So why is Steve Benen's post so great?  Cause he does the counting (the legwork journalists won't dare do) and discovers..."[o]f the 26 Republican "nay" votes, only eight came from the massive freshman class, and many of those generally associated with the right-wing faction -- including Michele Bachmann and Allen West -- voted with the GOP leadership in support of the bill. Indeed, looking specifically at the 52 members of the House Tea Party Caucus, 44 of them voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act."

Like I've been saying, it's all about saying the right things.  You don't have to do them to be considered a fiscal conservative or a small government libertarian.  You merely need to talk about doing it, and of course be a Republican.

More Troops Would Have Been Great, But the Invasion Was Still Terrific

One of the most unpopular and hated men in America, Donald Rumsfeld, told Diane Sawyer of ABC News the decision not to send more troops to Iraq in 2003 to squelch the uprising of their Great Liberation could be seen as one of the war's biggest mistakes.

Rumsfeld wasn’t in total accordance with the orchestration of the Iraq war decision-making process. Rumsfeld told ABC’s Diane Sawyer that “it’s possible” the war’s biggest mistake surrounds the decision on how many troops to send to Iraq.

Sawyer cited a line in Rumsfeld’s new book, “Known and Unknown,” in which he says, “more troops could have been useful [in Iraq].”

“It’s possible,” Rumsfeld responded. “In a war, many things cost lives.”

Somehow not sending any troops at all to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, that did not possess WMD-- i.e., nothing Rummy & Co. told us about the war turned out to be true-- didn't pop up in the conversation.

One thing we as a country have learned from Glorious War; in waging war that is because I don't think we have learned anything at all about partaking in it, is the worst thing you can possibly do when fighting a war is have George W. Bush and Rumsfeld in charge.  This we know.

Endangered Species = Bad Choice of Words

Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT):

When I first heard his decision, like many of you I wanted to take action immediately. I asked: how can we put some of these judicial activists on the Endangered Species List? I am still working on that! But in the meantime, I have introduced legislation that would permanently end federal jurisdiction over the gray wolf population - and return responsibility to the wildlife managers here in Montana.

As we all know, "judicial activists" simply means Democratic judges.  Because that is what you do with people who don't agree with you when you are a Republican. Anything Democratic has to mean it's against freedom.  Let's hope he means by winning elections and not by hunting them like they want to with the gray wolf.  It's an issue he's still working on as he tells us.

Super Bowl XLV Most Watched Program Ever

I haven't had much motivation to post anything today. It's probably because the Steelers played so crappy yesterday that has me in such a funk. But a friend emailed over this press release from Nielsen Ratings showing last night's Super Bowl was the most watched program in the history of television.  They estimate about 111 million people tuned in to watch it.

This number surpasses last year's Super Bowl, which was much more beneficial for my viewing pleasure, of 106 million viewers.  Those are huge numbers to say the least.  No wonder it costs so much for commercials.  Interesting in the press release is how much NFL viewership has grown in just the last five years alone.  Audiences are becoming younger and tune in much more regularly.  There probably isn't a program on television that can claim its audience is growing larger and younger.

Super Bowl Blues

Normally I wouldn't mind seeing Green Bay win the Super Bowl. Just not against Pittsburgh. Congrats to all the Cheese Heads everywhere.

Reagan's Legacy is Full of Things He Never Did

Sarah Palin, who used to be governor of the third least populated state in the union until she quit in the middle of her term so she could go make millions of dollars as a motivational speaker and a contributor to Fox News, spoke at a 100th birthday tribute to Ronald Reagan last Friday.  Palin told the attendees that unless, and until, President Obama gets instep with the values of Reagan we will continue down a path of ruin.

In her speech she made numerous references to socialism, big government, less liberty and how Reagan fought against all of it.  She's quite insane to say the least.

It's almost as if all Republicans in 2011 were not alive or were on another planet during Reagan's two terms.

Reagan is hardly the embodiment of  small government or fiscal conservatism.  He tripled the national debt.  He ran chronic budget deficits for 8 solid years. He increased spending by 25% in 8 years.  He ballooned the size of government-- heck he created the Dept. of Veterans Affairs which is a ginormous expansion of government.  

The public workforce grew under Reagan.  He didn't shrink anything.  And get this, instead of privatizing Social Security like he pledged to do in every speech he ever gave, he gave it a $165 billion bailout.  He raised taxes numerous times.  He compromised with our bitter enemies, the Soviets, instead of engaging them.  He sold Iran arms for hostages and he aided and funded both bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

The only other post-WWII president who added more to the national debt, grew government larger and emboldened terrorists more was George W. Bush.

What explains the Republican love affair with Reagan then?  As Steve Benen puts it, they have no one else.  There's Lincoln and then 120 years later they get Reagan. They simply have no other presidents to be proud of, and they don't even like Lincoln for the most part.  So that's leaves them with Reagan.  Since there is only one, they have to lump all of their so-called principles onto him.  Given the reality that Reagan never shrunk government, never reined in spending, never paid down the debt, never privatized Social Security, never cut taxes without paying for them; just never did anything Republicans give him credit for, it's hard to imagine why they celebrate him so much.

With much respect and credit to Benen, my answer is a much, much simpler one. In the Republican Fantasy World none of what Reagan did ever happened.

[for more of The Fold's "Never Happened" series click here, here, here, here, here, and here.]

Insulting

I don't think anyone can constitute Bill O'Reilly's pre-Super Bowl questioning of President Obama as an interview. It was totally disgusting. Begs the question of why did we never see Keith Olbermann sitting down with Bush for a pre-Super Bowl discussion. At Least Olbermann knows something about sports geeez.

This Land Was Made For You and Me

When George Bush ruled the world there was never any talk of not abiding by his laws. The exact opposite occurred actually. Anyone that dared question his authority, his "near dictatorial" power, was immediately brought up on charges of anti-Americanism from the right and its media network Fox News.

Though there are plenty, the easiest example of this is Bush's No Child Left Behind legislation.  It is one of the most disliked pieces of legislation in America, and that's saying a lot. School districts all over the country despise it, and as a result, have had all kinds of unfunded mandates thrust upon them. Many states have been forced to make budget cuts in non-tested school subjects such as science, foreign languages, social studies and arts programs, and for books, field trips and school supplies just to be able to monetarily comply with Bush's government takeover of education.  Sounds like a great way to boost education in America.  So there's no doubt nearly every state would love to opt of No Child Left Behind.  But they can't.  It's federal law and states do not get to choose what federal laws they will abide by.

Moreover, there was not a single state legislature, governor or school teacher insisting that they nullify federal law and do as they please with their education goals when Bush's laws went into effect.  Now that George Bush is gone and Republicans are but the minority member of government, it is perfectly acceptable to not only question the authority and legitimacy of the president, but to also have multitudes of Republican-controlled states try to exempt themselves from federal authority.

It's not hard to understand that federal law is the Supreme Law of the Land.  States cannot nullify federal law.  No court in the history of America has ever upheld state's rights to nullify Congress and the President.  For Republicans, however, they cannot fathom having to live under any policy Rush Limbaugh doesn't agree with.

The point, though, is not how blatantly hypocritical and retarded Republicans are acting since they lost an election 2 yeas ago.  It's the double standard that is applied by the media and the GOP to everyone else when they are in power.  I cannot imagine what would have happened if Illinois or New York tried to nullify NCLB or the Patriot Act, or refused to allow George Bush to send their National Guards to fight his endless wars.  I do know it would not have been celebrated as a simple movement for more states rights but instead as an act of treason and subversion by liberal states.  That's just how things are when Republicans are in power.  And when they're not, it's a crime to force people to live under federal rule.

GOP Effort to Repeal ACA in Senate Fails

Senate Republicans failed to get the necessary 60 votes to waive an objection to the repeal measure because it will increase the budget deficit thus a repeal does not comply with budget rules.  In other words, the very fiscally conservative and deficit slashing Republicans did not get enough votes necessary to increase the budget deficit.

It would be one thing if Republicans were offering up some sort of replacement.  But they aren't.  They just want it repealed because it's Democratic policy.  And as we all know, Democratic policy is socialism and we can't have socialism in this country.

• Bush's government takeover of education aka No Child Left Behind.  That's not socialism.  That's patriotism.

• Bush's massive and multiple airline bailouts.  That's not socialism.  That's patriotism.

• Bush's completely unfunded trillion dollar expansion to Medicare.  That's not socialism.  That's patriotism.

• Bush's redistribution of American wealth to Iraq.  That's not socialism.  That's patriotism.

• Bush's trillion dollar tax payer funded bailout of AIG, Citigroup, Lehman Bros., Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, is in no way socialism.  It's total patriotism.

• Bush's $700 billion TARP.  That's not socialism.  That's patriotism.

• Obama's completely funded health care reform that expands insurance coverage to 30 million Americans by utilizing private insurance companies and shrinks the budget deficit.  That's socialism.

Democracy is a Virus that Threatens a Theocracy

President John McCain, on Fox News of course:

MCCAIN: Yes. And the other Arab country, Jordan, is — the president has just had to replace the whole government. He wouldn’t be — excuse me, the king, King Abdullah, has had to replace the whole government. This virus is spreading throughout the Middle East. The president of Yemen, as you know, just made the announcement that he wasn’t running again.

This, I would argue, is probably the most dangerous period of history in — of our entire involvement in the Middle East, at least in modern times. Israel is in danger of being surrounded by countries that are against the very existence of Israel, are governed by radical organizations.

According to Republicans, the only possible way the spread of democracy is a good thing is when it is brought to a country through invasion and occupation, and don't forget only when George Bush is leading us to victory.

Reagan's Solicitor General Resoundingly States Individual Mandate is Constitutional

We've reached a critical point in American politics. For all the affinity Republicans like to throw at President Reagan, the truth is, if he were still around his policies would be way too liberal for today's GOP. Not that Reagan is a liberal or even that much of a moderate. His administration definitely was right of center. But that's how far to the right and how radical the modern GOP has become.

We've all heard Reagan's former budget director time and time again say tax cuts do cause deficits if not offset with spending cuts.  That notion is absolutely rejected out of hand by Republicans today.  Today's Republican Freedom Fighters think tax cuts are the answer to everything.  Yet in addition to cutting some taxes, Reagan raised them 11 different times.  An act totally unthinkable by Republicans today.

Then we have this constant fascination with the national debt by the GOP.  Sure it's only because it's politically expedient for them to want to focus on debts now that they are out of power.  But mention to them that Reagan tripled the national debt and they will insist it was because of patriotic reasons.  Mention Obama has increased it by 15% and they come unglued and rant like crazed monkeys about socialism and government takeovers.

But maybe the biggest topic of the day is Obama's health care reform package he ushered in last year.  Every single elected Republican, along with every single word ever spoken on Fox News, has called the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional. Their reasoning is because it carries a mandate that everyone who can afford it has to purchase insurance through private providers or pay a fee/tax to the government. This act alone has caused some of the most heated arguments and moments in America since the Civil Rights Movement in the 60s.  It brought us the Summer of Hate where multitudes of elected Republican members of Congress were organizing protests against the government and frighteningly calling the president an enemy of the state.  Unfortunately it also gave us the Tea Baggers, who are still trying to figure out why everybody can't sit around and protest government services while partaking in government services just like they do.

Yet something interesting happened today in a senate hearing on the Affordable Care Act.  Former Solicitor General, Charles Fried, who was Reagan's SG his entire second term as president, firmly told his Republican colleagues that not only is the ACA constitutional, but the individual mandate is too.

It is unthinkable to hear a Republican say such a thing nowadays.  It would cost them their job, their career and result in being labeled a liberal by the current establishment.  Though it's refreshing to see just how moderate Republicans used to be.  At the same time it highlights just how numbingly stupid and completely controlled they are by Fox News, neoconservatives and the Religious Right.

Again, this is one of Reagan's people disagreeing completely with not just a policy viewpoint of the modern GOP but disagreeing entirely with what is the very foundation of the modern GOP.

Big Love Mitt Romney Missed His Calling as a Comedian

This is pure comedy. After he loses yet another bid for the presidency in 2012, Romney really should consider a show on Comedy Central.



Romney is obviously confused. The health care reform he is touting and says he's proud of has an individual mandate just like the federal plan which he says is unconstitutional. This might come as a shocker, but if the federal government isn't allowed to do something then certainly neither is a state.

Republican: Egypt in Revolt Means Iran Should Be Bombed

The people who listen to Fox News radio are constantly told that spreading war is a good thing. Freedom Bombs are pretty much the answer to every situation in the world. And when Uber Patriot Sean Hannity has Tough Guy John Bolton on his hate-radio talk show, there isn't any question that can't be answered with the casual reply of bombing Iran.

HANNITY: Do you think that the Israelis are going to have to strike — they are going to have to take action. … As you pointed out, El Baradei, you know, ran cover for the Iranians for all those years that he was with the IAEA. And, I just don’t think the Israelis have much longer to wait…they’re going to have to act in fairly short order.

BOLTON: I think that’s right. I don’t think there’s much time to act. And I think the fall of a Egyptian government committed to the peace agreement will almost certainly speed that timetable up.

I don't know about you, but listening to two guys who have never seen an ounce of combat in their entire lives shoot their wads to spreading Glorious War the world over is better than a warm blanket on this cold winter morning.

Liberal Group Planning 2012 Opposition

But, but...Barack Obama is the most liberal person ever to occupy the White House so what in the world are these insane people talking about?  Somehow, and maybe I'm just too moderate to know anything about politics, but I don't think helping to elect a Republican is going to advance their cause any.

Quickies

• Lots of things happening in Egypt but none more important than Mubarak saying he'll step down-- in September. His countrymen want him out now.

• Laura Barbara Bush, daughter of George W. Bush, says she supports gay marriage and urges equality.  This is a definite break from her father's administration, his base and Neanderthal Republican ideology.

• The Dow closed above 12,000 for the first time since 2008.  

• I'm not sure what frustrates frequent Fold Blog commenter Kristen more.  That he can't form a coherent intellectual response to anything we post here.  Or that Ayn Rand went to her grave clinging to the modern welfare state.  [hint: he's going by fold-sanity today]

• A leaked email from an editor at Fox News demonstrates his "fair and balanced" intentions to have his network paint then-candidate Obama as a "socialist."  From his email, his words were copied nearly verbatim all over Fox's programming.  Special Note:  This is the third time the same editor at Fox News has been busted trying to alter on-air programming to fit the Republican narrative.

Ayn Rand Wrote Government's Role and It Was Rugged

There are some interesting things to point out about the story of Ayn Rand and her decision to partake in a single payer health care system like Medicare as well as the New Deal program Social Security.

There's no doubt that if you paid into a service you should receive the benefits, if that's your decision. It appears Rand definitely decided to partake in a system she claimed to despise. But Medicare is not mandatory. It's optional. She didn't have to use it. She was a wealthy woman even into her old age. She could have opted out of the system, purchased her own private plan and lived the life she claimed everyone should. But she didn't. She chose to receive Medicare because, as her social worker and power of attorney makes clear, "[d]octors could cost an awful lot more money than books earn, and she could be totally wiped out by medical bills if she didn’t watch it."

Yes doctors cost a lot of money. Health care, in general cost a lot of money. Even wealthy people like Ayn Rand, if they get sick, oftentimes cannot afford to pay for doctors and treatment. That's the whole point of Medicare. Because health care is so expensive it can wipe out everything you have. This happens every day to millions of people in America. Imagine if you are poor or middle class and get sick. Your financial situation will be much worse than one of the best selling authors of all time that's for sure.

We cannot control when we get sick, and at some point we all will need health care. In the case of Rand, it was all her own doing. She had lung cancer from a two-pack a day smoking habit. Her life of personal freedom, living to do as she pleased led her to get sick and become dependent upon government services. That's not hypocrisy of the system like so many Rand supporters are defending. It is the system. That's what Medicare is there for, to keep the elderly from becoming destitute on medical expenses. The Medicare system does not care if Rand didn't like it. Neither does the system care that she spent her whole life trying to dismantle it. The system is non-discriminatory. Rand proved the system worked. Does her partaking in it negate her philosophy? Not at all. Her partaking in it proved the system is viable and necessary, no matter what she thinks or causes other people to think.  Without Medicare paying for her health care, she would have died penniless and probably without proper treatment.  That's absolutely the purpose of Medicare.  She used it precisely as it was intended.

Furthermore, Medicare had been in existence a mere 9 years before Rand applied. That means, at best, she only paid into the system a very small time, if at all. Therefore, she received way more benefits from it than she ever paid in. That does, in effect, constitute welfare in every way possible and imaginable. This is where the problem occurs in terms of philosophy.

Libertarians have always tried to maintain that earmarks, Social Security benefits, and the like, is merely their money coming back to them. It's when people, namely the poor, who don't pay into the systems receive the same benefits does the self-righteous and self-professed "conservative" right wing complain. However, not only did Rand get money she paid in, she also received lots of other people's money. Yet, again, that was her choice. She didn't have to do it. But because she didn't want to wipe out her fortune, she chose to do something she railed against her whole life.

I see nothing wrong with her decision at all.  I'm not one who thinks Medicare and Social Security are unconstitutional.  In fact, I believe Medicare should be opened up to everyone because the elderly are not the only ones who get sick without the money to cover health care expenses.

Last but not least, why in the world did she use a fake name when signing up if for no other reason than to avoid the stigma of hypocrisy? If there was anyone who could have philosophically argued her way out of being labeled a hypocrite for utilizing the mantles of the American welfare state it was Ayn Rand. Yet she ran and hid using made up names hoping the public would never know. No it's not hypocrisy, I agree. It's the fact that people like Rand aren't against welfare or socialism in the least bit. Like I've been saying forever: They are only against other people besides themselves receiving it, which is way more about self-delusion than hypocrisy.  And that is why her supporters try so hard to make this more about hypocrisy than about government's role when in fact, if Rand's philosophy and life proved anything, it's that government's role is way more a personal matter than Republicans want to admit.