The Democratic Party's Recession

Just a thought, but it just occurred to me that liberals, progressives and Democrats always blame business for screwing over the "working stiff", who they claim to protect and care about. But if you think about, the US Congress, state legislatures and local governments always, always make a grab for your earnings in the form of taxes, fees and penalties. And they never ever find any reason to cut into their own pay.

Lately, they have not only blamed capitalism, but are quick to point out that the current recession started under the previous administration. I believe it is important to add two unchangeable facts to the conversation.

1. The US President cannot appropriate a single dime from anyone, any business or anywhere, without the US Congress first passing a law to appropriate those funds. The president can only veto the legislation if he has been advised to oppose it.

2. The country's, and the world's economy was doing just fine until 2007, when the Democrats took control of the US Congress.

The democrats are still in control of the presidency and the US Senate.

June 2011, the recession continues*.

The Republicans in control of the US House of Representatives cannot make any legislation into law without the cooperation of the US Senate and the president.

We can blame zero percent of this recession and its continuation to Republicans, although they are partially complicit in setting up the playing field for an economic meltdown.

Come November 2012 we will have an opportunity reduce the influence of the US Congress' and this president's failure to understand what they are doing by putting Republicans in control.

* The government's definition of an official recession is not the definition any unemployed person who lost their home and/or life's savings would use. Much like the way the politicians calculate inflation, it is designed to minimize blame on those politicians make and enforce (or not) those laws.

Left Wing Loons Still At It

Left Wing Loons Still at It.

Joan Walsh in her piece titled "Right-wing racism on the rise" over at Salon.com, is trying her best to destroy some folks whose views are different from her's. You know, for a group of people who claim to care about the other guy and claim the high ground by being liberal minded, they sure can pile on those who don't think in lockstep with their own ideas. Ms. Walsh gives perfect examples.

She starts with her version of trying to get along with others,

"First, credit where it's due: A few lonely Republican leaders are belatedly trying to clean up the party's mess of crazy, from the racially tinged character attacks on Sonia Sotomayor to the unhinged rhetoric of the Birthers to the overall vicious and fact-free spew of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck."

She indulges her fantasy world by claiming she's giving a little credit to the other side, then immediately attempts a give childlike pounding to her perceived enemies. I would certainly like to know what "racially tinged character attack on Ms. Sotomayor" has occurred. The only discussion of racially biased quotes I have heard are Ms. Sotomayor's own remarks, e.g.,

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." - Sonia Sotomayor

Please say again, who is the racist?

For evidence that Rush Limbaugh is a racist, gives us this quote,

"Here you have a black president trying to destroy a white policeman,"

Note: (This remark was made in response to the president's remark characterizing the police as acting "stupidly" in the disorderly conduct arrest of his friend Prof. Gates in Cambridge earlier in the week.)

I see nothing racist about his remark. Mr. Limbaugh's opinion may be incorrect, but "racists"? Uh, no.

While we can't know what the president was thinking, we can make our own judgments on his remarks ("acted stupidly"). It was a statement he had planned to make and it is very racial. Ms. Walsh is using the same tactic the Obama crowd used to get him elected: Throw in race card to shut them up.

The left, Democrats and Democrat supporters tried to intimidate anyone who spoke against candidate Obama's vague policies by claiming some inference to his race. Of course, that never happened, nut the facts have never stopped them from trying to leverage the situation.

My proof? Continue to read her words, where she offers exactly zero to back up her attempts to shut the opposition down.

Joanie gives Mr. Graham a thumbs up (sort of).

"Sen. Lindsey Graham tried to kick off a new GOP flirtation with decency when he announced his vote to confirm Sotomayor last week. "

I fail to understand how Mr. Graham's surrender can be moralized. Confirming or not confirming the judge has zero to do with her race, as it is considered Caucasian anyway.


In the following example, her primary targets are Limbaugh (again) & Glenn Beck.

"These two racists are projecting their own racial feelings onto Obama. Increasingly, the ranks of the racially blinkered (and I include MSNBC's Pat Buchanan here) are playing victim, insisting Obama's modest moves -- appointing a Latina justice, using the Gates case to speak out against racial profiling -- are reversing the racial order wholesale, and putting white men on the bottom of the pile." (emphasis mine)

Ms. Walsh, much like many other leftist writers, seems to have the power to read minds, and she is a psychoanalyst to boot. She knows their feelings and in her professional opinion, recognizes that they are projecting.

Well don't that beat all. The folks who have been projecting their own guilt, failings and weaknesses onto others, recognize the syndrome and accuse the opposition of doing that which they do. (it seems she must have read some of posts at the Huff)

By the way: I am not a psychoanalyst either, but I play one on the web.

Continuing... She has no proof of that any Republican or conservative in a position of power in the United States has ever claimed that the Obama appointments are racist in nature. I happen to believe that his appointments reflect a willingness to appease his base, but racist? Uh, no. Did he appoint people who if not for their political connections would be fined thousands of dollars or in prison? Yes, he did. That would be my complaint about Mr. Obama's "transparent" White House.

She rambles on,

"One look at Congress, the Supreme Court, Fortune 500 CEOs -- or conversely, at prison cells across America -- tells you how delusional the Beck-Limbaugh-Buchanan view is, but that doesn't make it irrelevant. It's likely to get worse, as persistent economic hardship plus a spike in right-wing racist rhetoric increases the appeal of scapegoat strategies." (emphasis mine)

Quite frankly, I do not see anything in her remark that proves anything racial. I can't even see her examples as explaining anything. I guess it's more than adequate for some that she merely used those words to describe people that her people dislike anyway. Yes, it looks irrational to us. But they just cannot help it. If you were a slow learner and you only half read it, you might think it says something important. If you do, then it's back to school for you. And she doesn't identify any "scapegoat strategies."

The only scapegoating I've seen is the whole of the Democratic Party, their surrogates and especially the president himself repeatedly claiming they "inherited this mess", this "crisis". The truth be known the president, the elected Democrats in congress and hope for their kind of change and childlike intellects, are at the bottom of the current financial crisis. And it is their inability to understand basic human nature (or simply disregard it) that motivates them to attack anyone that comes in opposition to their grandiose, but terminally flawed, plans for America.

More.

"It's time for more decent Republicans to take a stand against the vicious anti-Obama racism of the party fringe and their broadcast fuhrers. On Monday Ohio Sen. George Voinovich blasted the dominance of his party's Southern fringe, and its outdated Southern Strategy with its emphasis on racial division. Like Voinovich, I think GOP racism and race-baiting will consign the party to a long time in the political minority. But it could claim a lot of other victims along the way." (emphasis mine)

Again, she demonizes Republicans by implying that they need to be less vicious, racist, fringy, and to stop race baiting. As previously mentioned, it is she that is doing the race baiting.

If any Republican follows her advice, he/she should resign immediately. Her entire article is based on her hyper-partisan hate for any anyone questioning of her idol's policies. Furthermore, it is designed to make Republicans look inward for fault where no fault exists. It's a shame that many will take her words to heart.

Broadcast fuhrers. Too funny.

Cap & Trade Passes: Americans lose.

In their (now everyday) underhanded way, the Democrats in the US Congress passed this economy killer. Eight Republicans (update) turned their backs on America, while 44 Democrats revealed some common sense. Read it here and see if your representative has any common sense or not.

Underhanded because the renamed and revised 1300 page bill (Here) , with amendments (H.R. 513) was brought to the floor for debate early in the morning (3 AM) and voted on it at 7:17 Pm the same day. I wonder how many of our representatives were on hand for that? I wonder if anyone other than Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) and his staff read any of it? House Resolution 587 limited debate, changed the name to HR 2998 and designates the bill as "read". Read by whom? Clerks & Staff? I hope you read it.

In an email to constituents, Rep. Vern Buchanan writes:

"The 1,200-page bill was being rewritten hours before the scheduled vote to attract support. Washington is broken, and nowhere is this more evident than in the fact that complicated, far-reaching legislation is being brought to the floor that no member could possibly have read ahead of time."

It is amazing that anyone could have read the thing while it made it's way through 13 committees in 3 days. (OpenCongress.org). The review period for each committee of 3 hours each was ordered by the Speaker.

Here are some of the mechanisms included to bankrupt the middle, now that they've bankrupted the US financial, mortgage and automobile industries.

Health care is next.

CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that over the 2010-2019 period
enacting this legislation would:

Increase federal revenues by about $846 billion; and
Increase direct spending by about $821 billion.

The US Congress and the current president are planning to raise your taxes by and additional $846 billion

$846 billion in new taxes!

The Heritage Foundation...

"An analysis of the Waxman-Markey bill (as reported out of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce) by The Heritage Foundation found that unemployment will increase by nearly 2 million in 2012, the first year of the program, and reach nearly 2.5 million in 2035, the last year of the analysis. Total GDP loss by 2035 would be $9.4 trillion. The national debt would balloon as the economy slowed, saddling a family of four with $114,915 of additional national debt. Families would also suffer, as the bill would slap the equivalent of a $4,609 tax on a family of four by 2035."

The Heritage Foundations' Web Memo 2504, How the Waxman–Markey Climate Change Bill Would Affect the States, by Congressional District breaks the costs down. Speaker Nancy Pelosi pushed this for in her district: The personal income loss for 2012 is $560.24 Million and averages $327.30 each year through 2035. In Author Henry Waxman's district it is –$550.66 and –$318.93. Edward Markey's district: –$560.24 and –$324.47. In my district (13 FL, Rep. Vern Buchanan) it will be –$504.97 in 2012 and –$292.46 each year through 2035. This means that in my district alone it will cost a total of $7,231,550,000.00 lost to the government through 2035.


The AP describes the bill as

"an effort to curb global warming"

Uh, OK.

Rebranding the GOP

The GOP's latest gambit is to rebrand the GOP/Republican/conservative name. Branding and rebranding are marketing terms that mean the brand name, such as "GOP" becomes synonymous what whatever image the leadership is searching for, such as being labeled as moderates, and moving the image away from its current implementation, such as right wing extremists, which is a loser for the party.

On May 9th, 2009, Myriam Marquez writes:

"Jeb Bush hopes to change the GOP’s tattered image from an immigrant-hating, privacy-meddling party of the Deep South to the national optimism of the Reagan years."

To get a handle on their image problem, the primary question is, "Why does the GOP have this image?"

The answer because they allowed it to happen.

From what I have seen of the GOP playbook, if one responds to these charges of hate or racism, one adds legitimacy to those charges. While that may be somewhat true, the GOP's deafening silence on the matter only allows the lies to live and grow. Granted there are some that call themselves conservatives who go way beyond today's standards of civility and use what can be described as hate speech. But those are few and far between and have no power in influencing politics, policy or politicians.

Note: In today's political and media lexicon, if a Republican agrees with a Democrat, that Republican is a moderate. If a Republican disagrees with a democrat, he/she is an extremist. The media never label Democrats who disagree with Republicans as extremists. The media are mostly Democrats.

By the way, if the media would like to see real hate and vitriol they should just visit the Daily Kos (today's featured speaker: Bill Ayers, 6/1/09), Huffington Post, many entertainers (Here, Here) and some preachers. I see no moderation in their speech.

So, I agree that the GOP's image needs changing. But what can they do?

First, they need to put the labels to bed. When the opposition's talking points include racism, when responding to the GOP's position on immigration, the GOP needs to get their own talking points out there, and do it repeatedly. When the DNC made noises about the presidential candidate being African American and that GOP'ers better tread lightly, the GOP should have pointed to the Clinton's rhetoric to show who is using race in that election. And they should have repeated it often.

Additionally, there is a new Gallup poll that shows conservatives are the single largest voting group in America. The next smaller group is moderates, followed by liberals. Among Independents and Democrats, 34% and 22% respectively are conservative, with 73% of Republicans saying they are conservative.

Compromising on issues, such as keeping alive programs that don't work, does not help. The base wonders 'why bother? I'm not being represented'. Reports are they were really proud of Republicans in congress who all voted against the President's spending plan. The same voters ask, "Where was these convictions when you were the majority?" To me, it looks like GOP politicians have been trying the DNC's political tactics, such as voting for liberal programs to make the legacy media like them. Even though that has never worked. The base knows better and if properly stated, moderates would support them as well.

They need the intestinal fortitude to vote their convictions. What the GOP should have learned from the 2006 elections is that conservative issues win votes. When the DNC ran their candidates on conservative issues in 2006 to take incumbent seats from Republicans, it should have been a rallying point rather than abdication of their platforms. The left's rhetoric that Republicans lose votes due to being too conservative is total nonsense.

So, If the GOP wants to win elections, how about being conservative? That would include voting and talking conservative.

Next, the GOP should be facing the media with clearly stated answers to the country's problems without the name calling, hostility or anger that their friends across the isle use.

There are several changes that the GOP could emphasize to put them back into the good graces of conservative voters.

1. All things in Moderation. The vast majority of Americans, including me, are moderates. Conservatism is moderate by nature. We don't don't want a lot of radical changes in the way government interacts with the people, make and enforce laws. We do not want the country to become bankrupt by the out of control spending that is going on now. And the scary part is that the Democrats are considering more "stimulus" money.

Personally, I want the government to restrict itself to those constitutionally authorized functions. And picking which businesses live, which ones die, who runs them and what they produce, is not listed anywhere in the US Constitution or in any US law, as the job of the federal government. All of this to the detriment of the average working family. Republicans need to go on ABC, NBC & CBS, and their subordinate outlets, to pleasantly and calmly explain in just a few words why government cannot keep spending Hope Dollars. The country is already broke and the value of the dollar is dropping fast (gas at the pump is up 25% in eight weeks) due to deficit spending.

2. The legacy media. Republicans need to take charge of the conversation and get up front on this label to prove the image wrong in the legacy media. Republicans talk, talk talk, on CNN, Foxnews network and MSNBC and have always portrayed a moderate point of view. They don't seem to know that most average American voters do not watch cable news channels. The Democrats in the legacy media has told them that cable news channels cater to right wing extremists and no one needs "extreme" anything. Why would they tune that in if they consider themselves to moderates?

O'Reilly may have the most popular cable news opinion show, but he reaches a very small percentage of the voters in America. Republicans need more face time on these legacy media programs.

2. Campaign Finance Reform. Revamping federal and state election rules to remove the money from people and groups that are not eligible to vote for that Mayor, councilperson, state or US senator or representative, Governors, etc. To me, this non-eligible group includes all non-residents, companies, corporations, unions, PAC's, lobbyists and foreign nationals. Many will claim a First Amendment right to donate to any candidate, but that is a twisting of the intent of the First Amendment. Just recall the Boston Tea Party. Its message was "taxation without representation". Since the colonials had no say in how government was conducted, they did not want to finance it. In our time, our representatives' should be focused on their own constituency, not campaign financing and perks from special interests and other entities who are ineligible to vote. (small note: I sent a letter to Senators McCain and Feingold during the debate over campaign finance reform and recommended what I've written here. You know the outcome.

3. Feelings. I've heard it said that many people agree with conservative principles and Republican policies, but the GOP must be doing something wrong because they don't talk like they care about anyone other than their big business friends. To remedy this, Republican candidates and elected officials need to use the words "feel", "feelings" and "my feelings" whenever they are being interviewed or make speeches. I can guarantee you that you will never here a Democrat making a speech or being interviewed that does not talk about his/her feelings. It seems to be a key factor in the likability index. The GOP speaks with passion, but does not reveal feelings. So, instead of saying something like, "The president's plan will bankrupt America". They should say, "I feel like we are headed for trouble with all this spending. My feeling is that the poor will suffer the most when the dollar is devalued. That's how I feel about it". Don't use any statistics or facts. We know this from the Obama campaign. Even some tried and true Republican voters start saying, "yeah, yeah, yadda, yadda, yadda", when you tell them any facts. They just don't have a feel for it.

On a final note. I doubt that many voters are going to fall for more marketing gimmicks. If the GOP really wants votes, they need to go back to the dictionary and look up the words "represent" and "representation". These are not hard words to understand. The voters understand the meaning and they think they've been shortchanged. That is why Republicans were replaced by Democratic Party candidates. The people want people to represent them, not lobbyists, special interests, big business or each other. The GOP seems to have forgotten this. The Democrats that won incumbant GOP seats by campaigning on less gun control, smaller and more responsible government and caring about the people's issues. As it stands now, many voters, such as myself, have a difficult time determining exactly who has been represented. My skeptical side says they have been representing themselves and this will not do.

Daily Kos: They Just Can't Help It.

I don't know why or how I came across this video from the dailykos, but nthey just don't get it over there.

In this link to Daily Kos TV, they describe a GOP ad as an attack on the Obama's new dog, Bo. Of course it is a satirical bit highlighting the President's irresponsible spending. But they don't want to talk about that.

I wonder why?

The left's universal health care plan, explained at Think Progress, The Case For A Public Health Care Plan, tries to make the case for government run "competitive" Medicare replacement. The smartest people in the room say that they want a "new public health insurance plan that can compete with private insurers equally and transparently within an insurance exchange" and is "on a level playing field with private health insurance plans". In several major sections, they describe the benefits, as they see them; Lowers cost, improves quality, designing fair public-private competition.

Is this a smart idea and will it accomplish those goals?

Uh, no. It is not a smart plan unless your goal is to wipe out private insurance companies and make virtually everyone dependent on the government's largess.

First off, it is impossible for private insurers to compete with government. Proffering the idea that it can be done "competitively" is pure nonsense designed to influence the slow witted, the uninformed and the gullible. Recall that the federal government is allegedly a "non-profit" organization with the ability to print money (hope dollars) and force us to pay for their mistakes.

Take the lesson from the Great State of Hawaii. In the editorial, Study: Hawaii's Lessons in the Perils of Universal Health Insurance, By Carrie Lukas, 4/3/2009, the consequences of government mandated universal health care are spelled out.

Highlights from the study:

• Before expanding government programs to create “universal” health insurance, policymakers should consider states' experiences with similar efforts.

• Hawaii created a universal health insurance program in hopes of reaching the uninsured population, but found that more than eight in ten of those who enrolled previously had insurance. Lawmakers decided to terminate this program just seven months after its launch.

• Government programs to create free or subsidized insurance will encourage many who currently have private insurance to join the government program. This is inefficient and will ultimately erode the private insurance system in the United States.

It was sold as "competitive" with private insurance policy rates, 8 of 10 who signed up for the government program already had health care insurance. This means that for those had to stay with their private insurance company, the costs were going to skyrocket. Fewer paying customers means higher premiums in order to provide the same level of coverage. They new that, so they dropped it in favor of the "free" health coverage.

Then, the legislature did not expect the mass migration to the state system and it ran way over budget.

Congresses, state and federal, have a long grand tradition of unintended consequences. Normally, average citizens shouldn't worry too much about it, but in recent months their unintended consequences have cost us at least 6 million jobs, over $500,000.00 in debt to each household (TARP, Stimulus, budgets, etc.), and a breakdown of traditional families.

Finally, Hawaii had to rescind the law after 7 months to save their budget and to save those privately insured voters who were going to take a beating from their government. Just like President Obama is planning on doing to you.

Medicare and Medicaid spiraled up in a similar fashion and continues to spiral out of control even now. The US Congress created Medicare in 1965 (H.R. 6675) and have changed it many times. But nothing they've changed has helped to lower health care costs.

The power of government is a free market killer when abused by those who do not understand the US Constitution, the American way, or capitalism.

Republican Plan: A one page idealistic document at this point, looks a lot like an Obama campaign speech, only less substance.

My plan: There is a simple fix to health care in America: Tax cuts, tort reform and get government out of the way.

A direct one or one dollar tax cuts to those who buy their own health care insurance. It will incentivise individuals to buy their own insurance. This will be hard to enact because it would remove the need for our earnings from the US Congress. They don't like that sort of talk either.

Tort reform. Too many judgments are based on emotion rather medical fact. This vastly increases the cost of liability insurance for doctors, nurses, hospitals and emergency medical services. While I believe in holding medical personnel and pharmaceutical companies responsible for their services and products, the laws that allow any law suit to turn a "victim" into a prize winner needs to change.

Liability judgments have the additional consequence of making free clinics extinct. Remember them? Free clinics used to be everywhere and doctors along with other medical personnel could provide pro bono services to the poor. No more. It costs too much and the government is taking care of the poor, right? Not.

Government has been unfairly competing against private insurance companies with Medicare and Medicaid, as mentioned above. With the government's lack of oversight billions of dollars are wasted each year on fraud and abuse of the system. The answer is to get rid of that system.