How Romney Double Talked His Way to Victory

        At least one thing is clear from last night, Obama is not very good at debating, especially against an opponent who shifts his views as quick as he speaks them. Obama was obviously prepared for the debate, but whoever prepped him, failed to mention that the person he will be debating is notoriously shifty and prone to changing his mind. Romney’s strategy is pretty simple; say nothing about his policies that are unpopular, like massive cuts to education, and cherry pick all of Obama’s good ideas and co-opt them as his own. This chameleon tactic has served him well the past few months, and he showed last night that he will go step for step with the president on any policy that he likes, without committing to anything that is unpopular. I’m not sure how you combat this ‘have your cake and eat it too’ philosophy, but it certainly isn’t how Obama tried to play it last night by remaining cool and collected. He just looked weak and impassive. He let Romney throw out false claims about his own policies and Obama’s and without challenge. That was a mistake. The only way to turn the tables on a people pleaser like Romney is to call him out repeatedly on specifics; pin him down to something, anything that you know is unpopular, like the Medicare voucher program for instance.

            This was probably one of the most boring debates in a long time; it was riddled with abstract numbers thrown back and forth by both men, and lacked substance from  either side. There was a clear policy difference, however, if you stuck around to listen for it, and Obama should have seized this difference and used it to his advantage. Romney was very clear about one thing; his philosophy is fundamentally different than Obama’s. Romney made it abundantly apparent that he puts his faith in the free market, not the government. He stated that he would leave many government institutions to the private market; the entire federal education and healthcare systems, including Medicare. Romney thinks the private sector will fix all of our problems, through competition and profit.

Obama should have put his foot down at this philosophy and pointed out that what Romney was really saying; that he would get rid of our public education and replace it with private charter schools, and that he is going to eliminate Medicare and replace it with private insurance voucher system. These ideas may be popular with a small number of conservatives, but the majority of voters are opposed to them. Instead of citing study after conflicting study, ad infinitum, Obama should have just leveled a hardball at Romney such as ‘turning Medicare into a voucher system is wrong for our seniors and costs way more money in the long run.’ Let Romney debate the specifics, but at least tell people the truth. A Medicare voucher system is already in place for people with disabilities and it is one of the worst run programs in the country. Clients don’t receive enough money for benefits and there is a waiting list 10 years long to even get on the voucher system. It doesn’t work for disabled, why would it work for the elderly?

The claim that somehow letting the free market take care of all of the details is preposterous. If it were up to the private insurers, they would drop anyone high risk and refuse to insure people that are sure to have high medical expenses, ie the elderly. Just look what happened in Florida after the Hurricane season in 2004. Insurance companies cut and run, leaving millions of people without insurance because it was too expensive for them to maintain coverage on such high risk properties. Florida responded by creating a Medicare system of insurance called Citizen’s United, a government failsafe insurer of last resort. It ended up becoming the largest insurer in the state, because private companies are not going to insure losing investments. This is precisely why we need subsidies like Medicare and Citizen’s United, to provide support for all those people that are just uninsurable. Obamacare fixes this problem, but the President failed to present his case effectively. He let Romney walk all over Obamacare, picking policies he says he will keep, but not explaining how he would pay for them.

When it comes to education, Romney proposes the same thing, a voucher system and ‘school choice.’ This means privatizing our public schools. It’s the end of community based public education, and the beginning of a new era of charter schools and private schools that are subsidized by tax dollars. There is no substantial proof that Charter schools are any better that public schools, and really the only beneficiary to this system is all of the private companies that setup theses schools for profit. Why give our tax dollars to private schools, when they have no oversight, or public transparency like our current schools? There’s no accountability for these charter schools since they don’t have to answer to the voters, but rather their own small board of investors. We have a history with our current public schools that goes back centuries; it can adapt and fix itself if we invest the money and time. Rather than abandoning our schools when they need help most by cutting off money and sending it to private companies, we should be rallying behind these schools, getting grants and coming up with creative solutions that will make them viable for future generations. It will be a sad day in America if we let our public school system disappear, and that is exactly what Romney and conservatives are proposing. If you like the community feel and transparency of your child’s local school, then you have to fight for it. Otherwise, you may be driving you child 30 minutes or more a day to a privately run Charter school where you don’t really have a say in the administrative or policy choices of that school.

Instead of citing studies that no one has ever heard of, Obama should have just been frank and to the point with his criticisms. His ideas are popular so tell people what they are! Unfortunately, he didn’t articulate his ideas clearly enough for most people to understand that, and Romney was able to capitulate on this by agreeing with the popular policies and not committing to anything that isn’t popular. Somehow, Obama thought the debate was going to be a contest of policy and specifics, when it was really what all debates are: a competition of who seems more commanding. Debates are not about facts, they are about appearances. It doesn’t matter that the $716  billion comment is misleading and false, Romney just kept repeating it over and over until people just assume he must be right. People want to see confidence and energy, not boring digressions about the intricacies of some bill no ones heard of. In this aspect, Obama failed miserably, and Romney definitely came off as if he knew what he was talking about, even if he was wrong. If Obama doesn’t turn it around in the next two debates, he’s going to have an uphill battle because Romney is looking more and more viable after last nights disaster. And that’s really all that matters; viability not content. 

New Poll Indicates Romney May Be the Anti-Christ

IS THE ANTI-CHRIST AMONG US?

In a new poll among likely Christian voters, when asked “Do you think Romney may be the Anti-Christ?” respondents answered 65% yes, to 31% no, up 12 points since August. The unexpected findings are disturbing to many from the conservative side who ordinarily see themselves and their party as on the side of God’s will. However, Romney appears to have slipped though the evangelical crack, so to speak, and his policies may actually be antithetical to Christian doctrine. In classic Lucifer style, Romney has double talked his way past the cadre of Christian supporters who were duped by his golden tongue.

The first indication that they may have been fleeced came when Romney declared “I don’t care about the poor” in a July interview. It was only a matter of time before Christian voters started putting the pieces together. They quickly realized Romney really didn’t care about the meek and helpless and in fact was aligned exactly opposite to the teachings of the gospel.

Conservative Christian John Johnson explains, “I admit, when he made the comments about the poor I was a bit concerned, but he’s so hard to pin down, it wasn’t hard to see though later, then I was like ‘wait a minute, Jesus says blessed are you who are poor for yours is the kingdom of god,’ and I realized this guys not for that.” Johnson, like so many other Christians was fooled by Romney’s guile, not unlike the way the devil fooled so many in the bible. Through promises of material wealth and worldly goods, Romney managed to convince many devout Christians that he was in their best interests. This devilish double talk tactic has been used many times with great success by the angel of darkness and it’s no wonder so many were fooled. As many Church historians have noted about the Anti Christ, "he spoke like a dragon, meaning that he is a deceiver, and not truthful.”

 However, this latest poll suggests, some are beginning to see the light again. As Sandra Sanders says, “when I saw his video from that fund-raiser, that’s when I knew, what kind of Christian would say something like that?” Like many other Christians, Sandra was able to see through the illusion after the shocking video that was surreptitiously recorded and released last week. Many on the Christian side now see just how duped they really were, “I realized, this guy really only cares about winning for winnings sake, I mean he’s out for the rich, for wealth, not to help people. If that’s not the Anti-Christ, then I don’t know what is.” Sanders continued.

For many, Obama was previously seen as the likely Anti-Christ, so this new realization was not only shocking, but very disappointing. In many ways, Christians will now have to face the reality that Obama, far from being the Anti-Christ, may actually be their only path to salvation. “I mean, I’m not excited about him, [Obama], but I can’t exactly vote for the devil” Johnson commented. Many conservatives now find themselves in a position where they will have to bite the bullet and vote for Obama, but not all of them. “I say bring it on, if he’s the Anti Christ, then maybe we need to usher in the apocalypse. It’s high time we had the second coming and cleanse this earth of sinners” preacher Michael Michaelson said. However, most feel that a vote for Romney is akin to a vote for the devil and will either not vote or begrudgingly vote for Obama in an attempt to castigate evil 

The Policy of "NO" and How the Republicans Will Stop at Nothing to Win in 2012

Whether or not you believe the liberal hype that Republicans are unwilling to work with the President because he’s black, the fact remains that there policy of ‘no’ is perhaps one of the most brilliant political strategies of our time, and probably reflects not some deep seeded racism, but an uncompromising, no holds bar, determination to win in 2012. So powerful is the motivation to engage in a policy of ‘no’, that Republicans are willing to stake the entire financial and social future of our country on it; in fact the failure of congress and the blockading of anything remotely beneficial to our stagnating economy is the key part of the strategy.

Exactly when this strategy was conceived is hard to pin down, but most likely it came into being precisely when congress first met after Obama’s inauguration. John Boehner certainly came out kicking when he first suggested that the Republicans were going to refuse to work with Democrats on anything during the 4 years of the Obama Presidency. This attitude quickly coalesced into a mantra that Republicans began chanting as Obama worked to enact the central policies of his administration. Obama naively imagined he could bridge the political divide and create bipartisanship in a house divided, but this dream was quickly co-opted by Republicans who realized that a policy of non-compromise would force Obama to fail at his own game. Republicans said no. Republicans knew that if they were to give even an inch to the opposition, they would be perceived as collaborators in the Obama administration when they came up for re-election 2 or 4 years down the line.

There strategy was as simple as the old anti-drug campaign of the 80’s: “Just Say No.” The plan worked like this; allow Obama to announce sweeping changes and stir up support, then quickly come out and refuse to support the president, vote no on any legislation put forward by the democrats, and then wait. After the Republican sweep in 2010, their policy gained teeth in the form of a majority in the house, which enabled them to not only stand on the sidelines and vote no, but actually defeat and prevent any meaningful legislation from being passed. Looking at the record of congress over the past two years, this is exactly what they did, as this has been the worst congress on record for both bipartisan support and passing legislation. No wonder it’s facing a 6% approval rating. But the Republicans don’t care about that, they’re not worried about the perceptions of congress or whether or not the legislation put forward would actually help, there vision stay fixed on the Presidential race of 2012. By hijacking congress for two years and blocking nearly everything the President has put forward, they have finally put in place the final part of their plan, and it happens to be the most important feature: turn the tables and use all of Obama’s failures that they engineered over the past congress against him.

Suddenly, the fact that Obama couldn’t pass any legislation in the past two years is his fault. Obama’s failed bipartisanship is due to his unwillingness to compromise, when he is perhaps the most devoted conciliator of all time.  All of the partisan bickering over the past 2 years is all on him, regardless of the fact that Republicans were the one’s saying no. In 2011 the stalemate was so bad that they very nearly brought our country to financial ruin by there unwillingness to work with democrats on the debt ceiling debate. It was the Republican blockading that ultimately led to America’s credit rating being downgrade. Moody’s directly cited the Republicans as the reason for the move. Yet, again they managed to hoodwink the public into thinking that it was Obama and his ‘sublimated anger’ that prevented any compromise, and people believe them. In reality, Obama was so willing to compromise over this issue that he even put social security on the table for cuts, something unheard of for a democratic President. The reason he did that is because Obama really is a conciliator; he has always tried to work with the other side throughout his political career and truly believes that bipartisanship is a virtue. His naivety was his downfall however, and it took the truly monumental debt ceiling crisis for him to finally realize that no matter what he said or did, the other side was never going to cross the aisle. If they allowed Obama any success it would have been the demise of their overall goal; to create a failed Presidency and a failed economy.

This is the hallmark of the Republican strategy, and from a political point of view, it is brilliant; engineer a failed presidency by blocking any and everything that comes to a vote, and then turn around and blame the other side. Now Republicans can say things like, “He’s a failed leader,” “He has no vision for America,” etc, because he can’t get anything done. It’s reminiscent of a gangster “protection” racket; ‘see how badly your business is doing because you don’t have us protecting you?’ When ultimately it’s the gangsters themselves who are sabotaging the business in order to justify the protection money. It’s now a fait accompli, the shit has hit the fan because of the republican opposition and now they want to be the ‘good guys’ that will go in and clean up the house they destroyed. It’s pretty amazing that people have been so easily duped by this strategy, but then again it worked well for the mob for years. The Republicans are banking on the infinitesimally short attention span of Americans when it comes to politics. They know that people will blame the President for anything that went wrong over the past 4 years, regardless of their actions in congress. In our fast paced internet age, with 24 hour news cycles, they are betting that people will just accept anything that they say now and forget that they were the one’s who got us into this mess.

Republicans may be successful with the strategy, but unfortunately the loser is not just Obama and the democrats, but all Americans. The legislation that they have blocked and refused to comprise on, could have had a real and profound impact on American’s lives. The jobs bill for instance, would have gone a long way at helping to reverse the unemployment trend in this country. Republicans said no. If they let the unemployment rate drop below 8%, Obama may win the election. This may sound harsh, but that is exactly what the Republicans were worried about. They knew that the economy would again be the central theme of the 2012 election cycle, and therefore they couldn’t concede anything they may help it. Republicans may deny this till their blue in the face, and claim any number of invented excuses for not voting for legislation that would have helped the economy, but really there is no other explanation for their unwillingness to work together than that they were helping to stifle the economy so they could blame Obama. Preventing economic recovery under Obama was their central guiding platform over the last 4 years, with the understanding that if he failed at creating jobs he would certainly lose the election.

This is what politics is America has become: it’s not about using your power as a representative to help the people, it’s about helping the party. If that means preventing economic growth, nearly bankrupting our nation, and forcing the downgrade of our credit rating, well that’s just the price that’s paid in today’s election cycle. If this is an indication of things to come for our country, then we really are at the edge of a precipice, and if we fall in, our county will end up mired in partisan bickering and unable to even run the government. If the democrats take up the same tack if Obama loses the election, then we are in for another 4 years of nothing. Yet, historically at least the democrats have shown that they can and will cross the aisle, and don’t think of ‘compromise’ as a dirty word. During the Bush term, they facilitated many of his most conservative policies and many voted for both wars. Granted, it was after 9/11 and a feeling of patriotism swept through our country after this crisis, but what about the crisis of the Great Recession? Surely during a generational calamity such as the near collapse of our economy, our leaders could come together and tackle our problems? The Republicans said no. Their desire to retake the white house proved stronger than their patriotism. In a party of such self-avowed American lovers, it’s shocking that they would complicitly take part in the demise of our country. Regardless of your views of politics, surely the most important thing is that our country get back on it’s feet, lest we cease to be “the greatest country in the world.” Yet, that is precisely why they’ve engineered the failure; now it’s Obama’s fault, he wants to take down America a notch, he doesn’t believe in the American Dream, he’s an apologist. All false of course, but by letting the country’s world wide prestige drop down, they can then point at Obama and blame him and then claim he’s philosophically opposed to America being the greatest nation. That’s the icing on the cake for Republicans; not only can they point at his failed policy, but they can then claim that his failure is due to some apologetic philosophy that Obama has towards America, that somehow he’s really a socialist Europe-lover who wants nothing more than America to be a subordinate in the world’s stage.  

As political strategies go, the policy of ‘no’ would make Karl Rove proud, but is it worth it? After all is said and done, is this the way we want American politics to go? Is winning elections so important that our leaders are willing to let the country fail in order for them to win? Only the coming weeks will answer these questions, as it’s up to Americans now to decide who really has the country’s best interests in mind. If the hoodwinking works, and American chooses the Republicans, we will be in for many more years of oppositional politics because strategists will see that it worked and use it again and again. 

Links:
Republicans vs Straw Men
New Gop Plan same as old Gop Plan
Paul Ryan admits Marathon Lie
http://www.salon.com/2012/09/01/republicans_vs_straw_men/
http://www.salon.com/2012/09/02/new_gop_plan_same_as_old_gop_plan/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/01/paul-ryan-marathon-time_n_1848715.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

Abortion as an Indicator of A Woman's Role in Society

A Woman's Role: Conservative vs. Liberal

A Perspective of The Woman’s Right to Choose

The differences between the two parties concerning the issue of abortion are not so much differences between political ideas, but rather differences in the overall view of what constitutes the correct role of a woman in modern society. Too often, there is a tendency to classify the issue of abortion as a black and white issue decided merely by political affiliation, but the underlying question is reliant on the way one views the role of a woman; as a fully functioning member of society, or as a subordinate to the dominant male. When viewed as a fundamental difference in perception of the role of a woman in society, the issue of abortion becomes then not just a pro or anti stance but an indication of one’s viewpoint about the entire role of a woman in society.

           For a conservative, the ideal woman functions to provide support to her man, she acts as the powerful behind the scenes moral compass that the man leans on in times of crisis. She is the rock, the powerful voice of reason that keeps her man centered, so that he can go out into the world and make decisions, while she stays at home and nurtures. Think Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush, Ann Romney, and even Abigail Addams. They are all revered by conservatives because of the support they lent their powerful husbands. They sacrificed their chance at independence for the sake of helping their husbands careers, and they were happy to do so, because they are selfless providers who only want to give. To conservatives, women are strong wives, and loving mothers. Mothers who are willing to make the sacrifices and channel all of their energy into raising powerful men who will go out into the world. They are imbued with a magical energy of femininity that expresses itself through selfless acts of devotion to their children or their husbands. The ultimate expression of a woman’s role is to be a wife or a mother. That’s why when democrats made the  statement putting down Ann Romney’s ‘career’ as a mother, they were so vehemently attacked by republicans. They were attacking the core values of what it means to be a woman to a conservative. Rather than back off the statement as the democrats did, they should have explained that from their perspective a woman can be many more things than a housewife and that they were trying to express the sentiment that women can be leaders and executors too.

    

        Liberals view the role of a woman in a much different light, they see woman as fully functioning equal members of society that are free to choose whatever they want to do with their lives. To a liberal, the ideal woman is fiercely independent, career oriented and not willing to sacrifice her dreams for the benefit of her husband/partner. She can choose to have children, or not, or both, and do it well. Woman can make decisions for themselves, and are not at the mercy of the will of their men. Liberals view women as powerful members of society in their own right, independent of pressures placed on her by society or her husband. Think Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and Oprah. These women are in control of their own lives, they make decisions for themselves and their husbands are equal if not subordinate to their careers.

            Yet, conservatives don’t view the woman as in control of her own destiny; she is exclusively tied to the decisions and actions of her man.  A woman’s role is not to make decisions for herself, that is the job of the man. He is the executor of the relationship; the husband goes out into the vicious world, and is counseled by his selfless devoted wife, but ultimately he is the one that is free to make his own choices, not her. She merely provides the support for the man. The complete opposite view of the liberals.

   

         There is a much different trend in our society however, as more and more woman are living up to the liberal ideal, not the conservative ideal. There are huge numbers of men that are now stay-at-home dads, and women who are the breadwinners of the relationship. Single motherhood is almost more prevalent than married motherhood. Women are making choices completely independent of men through actions like: having children on their own with the help of a sperm bank, foregoing childrearing in favor of careers regardless of their husband’s wishes. Certainly, there is still a great number of woman who are subordinate to their husbands and are happy to be housewives, but that number is diminishing as the number of woman making choices for themselves is increasing.

           Seen in this light, the issue of abortion now becomes much clearer, not as merely a political choice, but one in which the core values of an individual are expressed. It is fundamentally a question of what you think a woman’s role in society is. As a conservative, the idea of letting a woman make such an important decision that has implications not just for her, but for the potential life she holds and her husband’s future is out of the question. Women should be guided by their husbands in everything they do, so why would he let her make such a huge decision on her own? And if he can’t make the decision, or in other extenuating circumstances, then that decision should be left up to society. A woman has no business deciding such important questions because she isn’t even capable of deciding her own future; she has a supporting role in the relationship with all decisions, especially decisions of childrearing.

           Conversely, for a liberal, the exact opposite is true. If the ideal woman is someone who makes all of her own decisions and is imbued with all the rights as a man, why on earth would we make this important, crucial decision for her? She is intelligent and capable enough to know whether having a child is the right thing for her, and certainly does not need the government making decisions for her.

           So the question of abortion really is a question of whether or not you view women as full members of society, with all the rights of men, or if you think that women should be subordinates and at the will of their men or society. I can’t help but think, that if in some alternate universe, where men were the ones who carried the child, this question wouldn’t even be considered. It would be laughable to suggest that a man is not capable of making a decision for himself in our male-dominated society, and the question of abortion would be a non-issue. Men must be masters of their own destiny, they cannot be stifled by the pressures of government or society, and to even suggest such a thing would be considered an attack of his basic rights. Yet, for a woman, who is considered a subordinate in all matters, there is no question that she should have her rights limited at the expense of her freedom. It is this philosophical difference that is at the core of this and many other woman’s rights issues. Whether or not we view women as true members of our society that enjoy all of the freedoms like everyone else, or as semi-free subordinates that are subject to the will of a society that makes decisions for her. 

Tampa's RNC Failure Should Wake Up The Right

A Response to Salon.com article: "Tampa: America's Hottest Mess" by Will Doig

Doig hit it out of the park with this article, and to think this guy isn't even from Tampa and yet can sum up all of our issues so accurately. Makes me wonder why our local media can't report like this. Anyway, Doig writes that..... hold on, Doig is just a funny name, I just like saying it; Doig, Doig, Doig. Ok, sorry for that. Doig writes that...now it just sounds really weird cause I said it too much. Crap. Ok, I'm going to refer to the guy as Will.

Will basically points out that Tampa is stuck in the 80's when it comes to development planning and infrastructure, and refers to our obsession with traffic-congested roads, lack of density through proper zoning, and complete aversion to public transportation as reasons for Tampa's downfall. Tampa consistently ranks highest in the country for traffic and pedestrian fatalities or the lack thereof. Tampa's also very low on the walkability list due in part to our sprawl. Will cites that many of our problems stem from a lack of vision by our leaders, and a pathetic pandering to developers by a conservative commission. He also points out that citizens are unwilling to pay for improvements to their city by the repeated voting down of capital improvement taxes. For the most part I completely agree, and am happy that Tampa is getting this kind of publicity as well as the crap that the chamber wants to hear.

In my opinion Tampa suffers from a lack of self-image which is reinforced by our lack of vision for the future; leaders and citizens are too afraid to make real changes that may cost money and could lead to actual improvements. Our leaders always refer to other cities, and how they built such and such program and look how successful it is, instead of coming up with creative ideas that work exclusively for Tampa. Stop comparing Tampa to freakin' Charlotte or San Antonio for God's sake, and come up with ideas that actually address our particular problems and needs. We need progressive ideas that may not be initially popular, but that need to be addressed regardless of this generations views. If we don't start looking 50 years into the future then we will always be reactionary in our development and planning models. Our politicians need to grow a pair and stop pandering to the Marilyn Smith's and other old people who bitch about everything and prevent change; there all gonna be dead in 20 years, why are you supporting their interests? If Tampa wants young people to stay and live and work there, then they need to start acting like a young vibrant sun-belt city, not a podunk retirement-home, do-nothing city that caters to the elderly. 

Poverty and Austerity

 What Our Leaders Should Be Addressing: A Response to Paul Ryan's Budget and Austerity Measures

Poverty is on the rise

            Recently the amount of Americans living in povertyreached the highest levels in 20 years. Nearly 16% of us now live below thepoverty line. This means that 45 million Americans now live on an income of$23,000 or less for a family of four. A large chunk of us now live at 2^ndor even 3^rd world country standards. The GDPs per capita in Saudi Arabia, Trinidad and Tobago, Kazakstan, and Iran are between $25000 and $15000.(1) These are not traditionally countries we compare America to; these are countries welook at as developing or backwards, yet 45 million of us live at or below theirstandards. But this is the new America:a highly stratified society where the majority of us barely survive month tomonth, and a very small elite control 90% of our wealth.

            The future is looking grim for a lot of Americans; thesenumbers are only getting worse, due in large part to the lack of effectivepolicies and political support to change them. This includes conservatives aswell as liberals. Poverty isn’t even a social issue worth talking about formost policy makers. They’re not worried about the 16 million children in theirown country that are starving or the vast ghettos full of dilapidatedbuildings, and failing basic infrastructure. (2) Instead, they’re opining aboutthe national debt, and blocking healthcare legislation that could actually helpthe poor. And most prominently they babble endlessly about unemployment.

Wages continue to stagnate

Whyworry about high unemployment, when even employed, most workers are paid hourlyand will make either minimum wage or slightly above it, which when averaged outover a 40 hour week is at or below the poverty line. There were nearly 6million workers making at or below the minimum wage in 2011, forcing them tohold down multiple jobs just to survive. Sadly, many of these same workersfinished high school, and some even college, but due to stagnant wages they areforced to work longer hours at reduced rates just to make ends meet. (3)This iswhat our leaders should be focusing on, not the incessant arguing about debtceilings, and tax cuts.

            As Americaslips further and further into the conservative grip, the real issues get moreand more sidelined. The conservatives distract us with meaningless dialogueabout the debt or hot-button social issues that affect a very small minority; theydon’t want to talk about the real problems in this country, since they don’thave any real answers. In the midst of the worstrecession in years, our congress has passed nearly nothing that addressed thereal problems facing Americans, and in fact had literally passed nothing atall. This congress has passed only 61 bills this year out of the nearly 4000put to the vote. (4) This abysmal performance highlights the ineptitude andgridlock that our current political system is capable of.

Why the deficit doesn't matter right now

Insteadof discussing poverty and the foreclosure crisis they have been obsessed withscaring people about the national deficit. Running a country with a high debtto GDP ratio doesn’t matter to the guy living in a box on the side of the roadwho lost his home to foreclosure. And it doesn’t matter to you either. Anyonewho’s ever taken a basic economics class in college could tell you that: a country having debts is not the same as aperson having debt. There is no comparison, because ultimately, the US can print itsown money and sell bonds to pay off its debt. Of course, this action is notsustainable forever and carrying a high debt to GDP ratio indefinitely is notgood economics for our country, as it could lead to higher interest rates andfalling purchasing power. Yet, the only way to get our debt back to manageablelevels is to get the GDP to go up by stimulating the economy, and that entailsmore spending by the government. Rather than cutting local government jobs andrefusing federal money, policy makers should be borrowing money and creatingmore jobs at the state and local levels. This may sound counterintuitive, butthe only way to end a recession is to spend you way out as demonstrated by Roosevelt in the 1930’s. Austerity measures as proposedby the conservatives will not and do not work because they are a net drain onthe economy. Great Britainand most of Europe are finally realizing thisnow after several years of severe austerity, with little or no GDP growth.

Weshould of course have a long-term vision of our country that doesn’t saddlefuture generations with debt, but in order to get the economy running again, itmakes good economic sense to continue spending. “There is no intrinsiccontradiction between providing additional fiscal stimulus today, while theunemployment rate is high and many factories and offices are underused, andimposing fiscal restraint several years from now, when output and employmentwill probably be close to their potential.” From Douglas Elmendorf, director ofCongressional Budget Office. (5) Aslong as the market-makers continue to buy and sell our bonds, then our countrywill remain financially solvent no matter what the GDP/Debt ration is. The proofis in the pudding, countries are still buying our bonds at phenomenally lowrates. This means that the rest of the world thinks America is going to be around alongtime. If they thought our deficit was going to crush us, our interests rates onbonds would look like Greeceand be at 20%. Many countries run very high debt ratio’s for years; consider Japan with adebt to GDP ratio of 197%. It makes our current public debt ratio of 62% seemmuch more manageable. (6)

          

Ryan's Plan will leave millions unempolyed

           So let’s stop talking about meaningless issues that inreality have no bearing on our economic health whatsoever. We need to focus onthe fact that a growing number of Americans face a bleak future of minimum wagejobs and abject poverty. We are facing the worst recession in years in thiscountry and the conservative’s solution is to make more cuts, and to pass abudget that would put us back to 1950’s levels of spending. The Ryan budgetwould strip almost all spending at the federal level except for the military. Itwould reduce the amount spent on all other government programs besidesentitlements to 4.75% of GDP, and this includes the military, which takes at minimum4%, leaving 0.75% for everything else. (7)That’s less than $100 billion for allother government agencies including, among other things the Department ofEducation, Agriculture, the FBI, and the DOT. It would also mean the loss offunds, not only for social programs that conservatives despise, but federal moneythat goes to local agencies and States to pay for things like law enforcement,roads, bridges, and ports. Not to mention, slashing the federal governmentwould mean the loss of jobs for literally millions of Americans. What is theplan for all these unemployed federal workers? What is in the plan for all themillions more at the state and local level that would be cut due to huge lossesin their departmental budgets?

            From a purely idealistic viewpoint, Ryan’s budget may bethe epitome of everything that conservatives stand for, but from a realisticpoint of view it would be a disaster for millions of Americans and push ourcountry into a depression. This is not the time to be introducing sweepingchanges to our already shaky economy.

References:

Congress statistics:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-08-14/unproductive-congress-not-passing-bills/57060096/1

Hunger statitics:

http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/hunger-facts/child-hunger-facts.aspx

Minimum wage earners:

http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2011.htm

GDP/Debt Ratio for US:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist.pdf

Why austerity doesn’twork:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/02/opinion/02krugman.html?_r=1&ref=paulkrugman

GDP per capita of select nations

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD

Rick Scott and State's Rights?

Governor Scott Says No To Supreme Court

In yet another display of complete arrogance and disregard for the neediest Floridians, Governor Rick Scott vows to not implement the Affordable Care Act. Even though Scott and his entourage were the driving force behind the lawsuit that eventually led to the US Supreme Court, Scott still claims the law violates the Constitution. Which constitution? The one in his make-believe land?

Scott's denial is indicative of the prevailing attitude of republicans lately; a complete disregard for the rule of law and a policy of obstructionism. Rather than take the loss like a man and admit defeat, Scott and so many republicans like him, refuse to follow the laws passed by the federal legislature. It's the State's Right's argument all over again, but it's not the 19th century and the federalists won. Scott and his bedfellows need to do their job as executors and implement the legislation that is passed by the congress. There is no provision in the US constitution about the executive branch deciding legislation, just as there is no power of congress to enforce the laws directly. What Scott and the obstructionists are effectively doing is breaking the law, and at the expense of the most needy. 

Those still on the fence about Scott should now see the writing on the wall: he doesn't give a damn about people in need or the poor, but will do everything in his power to continue the cycle of poverty, presumably so his cronies can stay at the top of the heap. There is no other explanation for his behavior at this point other than just blatant disregard for the people at the bottom. The provision to expand medicaid in Florida will cover an additional 2 million of the 4 million uninsured in this state and at a cost that is minimal to the massive budget of Florida. Yet this paltry sum is too much for Scott to fork out in order to do the right thing, he would rather maintain his political stance at the expense of the poor.

This seems to be the prevailing attitude among the entire republican party since 2008. They are sore losers and refuse to cooperate in any meaningful way. The people spoke in 2008 and elected a democratic President and Congress; why then can't the republicans just accept that fact and do their jobs? Is it because he's black? It makes you wonder.