Enough, Already

 After 2540 posts of political thoughts it is time to say enough, already.  While I seriously doubt if my opinion influenced any significant (or insignificant, for that matter) political decision it help me deal with the frustration felt by the incompetence of Presidents when it came to either solving problems facing the country or, even as important as signing bills that offered solutions, having an ability to convince the necessary numbers of members of Congress the necessity of their proposed solutions.  A certain part of this frustration can still be found with members of Congress who insist on putting party ahead of the country.  Also, frustrating is the amount and costs of legislation aimed at solutions in search of a problem.  But from today forward, it will no longer be my role in life to speak out unless the demand to continue is such that I cannot refuse.  For all who read my posts and agreed with my I give my thanks but have to ask why none of you did anything to help change things.  A democracy cannot depend upon a "single voice in the wilderness"  but needs to hear from all voices. 

F@#K OFF!!!

Mitch McConnell, apparently upset because a vast majority of Americans not only approve of the job Joe Biden is doing as President, also upset because again a significant number of Americans voiced approval for Biden’s proposed legislation, and finally upset because many Americans, including “corporate” America disapprove of the Georgia election legislation stated that the executives who signed letters objecting to legislation in Georgia and proposed in Texas and Arizona that has focused on making it difficult for a number of minorities to vote lashed out.  This may have been the most ridiculous moment in McConnell’s career where he said that the CEOs should not speak of their objections to the legislation but should keep making political contributions.  The only reason so much corporate money finds its way into the campaign coffers is to enable contributors to influence passage of legislation.  The next time a Republican solicits a contribution hopefully the CEO or other corporate executive will tell them to just F@#k OFF!  I can think of no better response to such an asinine statement by an elected political leader. 

 

Can’t, Don’t, or Won’t?

What is it with Republicans and the art of governing?  Is the problem Republicans just can’t govern or, Republicans just don’t govern once in office, or Republicans just won’t govern?  Actually is is probably a combination of all three coupled with a complete disdain on the part of Republicans for fact and truth.  Going back to the Reagan Administration and “trickle down” economics Republicans seem to have forgotten how important actual facts are when it comes to making important decisions.  The Republican approach appears to be first find a solution and then find a problem to which that solution can be applied.  Any facts that disprove the existence of a problem are to be ignored as are any negative thoughts about whether or not there is a problem actually in need of solutions.  Republicans can’t appear to govern when the problems involve people with low wealth.  Government cannot help people escape from poverty or attain better economic lives with government help because people in need of government help are not Republicans with Republican ability to succeed and Republican desire to succeed.  People whho need help will rely on government and never “pull themselves up by the bootstraps” in the mind of a Republican.  Republicans don’t govern because in the minds of Republicans it is not in Republican interests.  Governing in the minds of Republicans involves the focus of all solutions to all problems on those who need the solutions the least not the most.  For one thing, it is easier.  For another focusing on those who are most in need require knowing facts which, in the world of Republicans is a no, no.  In addition, governing Republican style means only helping people who can help re-elect Republicans.  The poor, the elderly, children, jobless, are all groups that cannot donate nor will ever donate to a political campaign.  Why should a Republican offer solutions to problems faced by people who will not give support in return for help. Republicans just won’t govern because to do so requires both physical and mental effort.  Republicans are lazy.  Republicans seek elective office so they don’t have to work very hard.  Republicans believe they “work smart” not work hard which is why they are in office.  Republicans do not believe in governing and will never believe in governing and if nothing else, this is a lesson taught by Trump and Reagan.

 

Of Course!

As soon as a Democrat took the White House, Republicans instantly did another 180-degree turn on budget deficits   the G.O.P. went from hyperventilating about debt as an existential threat during the Obama years to complete indifference about deficits under Donald Trump. Surely nobody is surprised to see Republicans immediately revert to deficit hysteria now that Joe Biden is president  Shouldn’t politicians who claim to be terribly worried about the future of America’s children support, you know, actually helping America’s children today?  That’s not a hypothetical question. Democrats are reportedly working on legislation that would offer monthly payments to most American families with children, and could, among other things, cut child poverty roughly in half.  One especially good thing about the legislation in the works is that Democrats finally seem to have broken free of Republican framing, under which every benefit takes the form of a tax credit. This will apparently be a straightforward proposal to send money to qualifying families. Economists have shown that previous extensions of aid to families with children, like the gradual rollout of food stamps in the 1960s and 1970s and the expansion of Medicaid in the 1980s, didn’t just improve children’s lives in the short run; children who received the aid grew into healthier, more productive adults than those who didn’t receive the aid. By not doing even more for children, we are stunting their future, and that of the nation as a whole.  Independent estimates of the cost of something like the reported Democratic proposal put its price tag at roughly $120 billion a year. To put this in perspective, it’s only about half the 2021 revenue loss caused by the 2017 tax cut.  Aid to children would also indirectly help the budget, because those children would later pay more in taxes and be less likely to call on safety net programs. These fiscal benefits might even be big enough that helping children pays for itself, and in any case they mean that the true cost of aiding children, even in narrowly fiscal terms, would be less than it might appear.  All in all, then, increased aid to families with children is a really good idea. It would immediately improve millions of Americans’ lives, it would make us stronger in the future, and it would have only modest budget costs.  They’ll yell about fiscal responsibility and hope that voters have very short memories. Another answer is that they’ll claim that the Biden administration and its allies have a “radical leftist agenda” — because nothing screams fanatical Marxism like giving kids enough to eat and a roof over their heads — and hope that voters don’t figure out what Democrats are actually proposing. (This goes for much more than child credits: Polls suggest that on issues like taxes and health care, Republicans, not Democrats, are the radicals whose views are out of touch with public opinion.)  Standard conservative argument that any policy reducing misery reduces the incentive to be self-sufficient — you know, unemployment insurance encourages people to stay unemployed, food stamps encourage them to be lazy, and so on. Making this argument about a broad-based program to help children will be hard, but they’ll find a way.  One unexpected thing, however, is any kind of good-faith argument against aid to families with children. That’s not to say that the Democratic proposal will be perfect; no doubt experts will see ways it could be better. But spending more on children is a very good idea, economically and morally, and should become law.

 

The Big Oh Shit

The Republican Party was essentially an enterprise run by and for plutocrats that managed to win elections by playing to the cultural grievances and racial hostility of working-class whites. Bigotry, however, was mainly a show put on for the rubes; the party would go back to its pro-rich priorities as soon as each election was over.  Billionaires may have started the Republican Party on its march toward extremism, but they’ve clearly lost control of the forces they conjured up. The G.O.P. can no longer put intolerance back in the closet after each election so as to focus on the real business of tax cuts and deregulation. Instead, the extremists are in charge. Despite a lost election and a violent insurrection, what’s left of the old Republican establishment has abased itself on the altar of Trumpism.  But while power in the Republican Party has shifted almost completely away from the conservative establishment, the party is still committed to an economic ideology of tax and spending cuts.  For now Republican politicians are doing Democrats a big favor, clinging to discredited economic ideas that even their own supporters dislike.  Will the Republican Party find its way out of the Trumpian woods?  To do this, Republicans will have to start promoting policy that appeal to a majority of voters.  They can no longer depend upon name-calling and labeling Democrats as liberals or socialists to win national elections.  The prime issues that served to rally Republicans like abortions and tax cuts have also failed as winning strategies.  The American people recognize the country faces serious problems that demand serious solutions.  Republican campaigns can no longer afford to be solution free and successful Republican politicians can also no longer be solution free.  One lesson Trump taught America is good government is far mor important than small government.  One could even say that good government trumps tax cuts as a successful election strategy.  And that, for Republicans remains a big OH SHIT!

 

The Time for Filibuster is Long Past

Senate Democrats are signaling they will reject an effort by Mitch McConnell to protect the legislative filibuster as part of a deal to run a 50-50 Senate, saying they have little interest in bowing to his demands just hours into their new Senate majority.  McConnell has publicly and privately pressed Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to work to keep the 60-vote threshold on most legislation as part of their power-sharing agreement. Democrats have no plans to gut the filibuster further, but argue it would be a mistake to take one of their tools off the table just as they're about to govern.  Many Democrats argue that having the threat of targeting the filibuster will be key to forcing compromise with reluctant Republicans. They also believe it would show weakness to accede to McConnell’s demand as he’s relegated to minority leader.  “Chuck Schumer is the majority leader and he should be treated like majority leader. We can get shit done around here and we ought to be focused on getting stuff done,” said Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.). “If we don’t, the inmates are going to be running this ship.”  “It would be exactly the wrong way to begin,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). “We need to have the kind of position of strength that will enable us to get stuff done.”  Four years ago, as McConnell himself came under pressure from former President Donald Trump to gut the filibuster, 61 senators signed a letter to Senate leaders emphasizing the importance of protecting the super-majority requirement. And even now Democrats like Sens. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia say they want to keep the filibuster, emphasizing that it drives compromise.  For that reason, the filibuster appears safe for the immediate future regardless of what happens in the coming days. If Democrats were to change it, it would likely be in response to Republicans blocking their bills repeatedly. And there’s plenty of pent-up angst in the Democratic Party, which is now in control of both chambers of Congress and the White House for the first time in more than a decade.  Republicans say that the time to commit to keeping the filibuster is now, not at a moment of political fury over legislation that the minority blocks. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said the GOP simply wants to hear Schumer say “that we’re not going to change the legislative filibuster.”  “You want to do it before there’s an emotional, difficult, controversial issue. So that it isn’t issue-driven, it’s institution-driven,” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who organized the 2017 letter from rank-and-file senators to Schumer and McConnell.  The fight over the filibuster holds major consequences, both immediate and into the future. McConnell and Schumer met on Tuesday for a half-hour about how to organize the Senate but came to no resolution. McConnell brought up the filibuster in that meeting, while Schumer argued the Senate should adopt the same rules from the last 50-50 Senate in 2001, which didn’t touch on the 60-vote threshold.  The longer the standoff over the organizing package persists, the weirder the Senate will become. New senators have not been added to committees and the ratios have not changed, leaving the GOP in the majority on some panels. That’s already complicating the ability of the Senate to confirm some of President Joe Biden’s nominees.  “It’s exactly the opposite of the conversation that we should be having today,” said Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.). “To sort of jade the day of the inauguration and three new senators being sworn in with sort of political hostage-taking is, I think, an indication of how Machiavellian politics around here have become.”  Democrats could change the Senate rules to a simple majority with the support of all 50 Senate Democrats as well as Vice President Kamala Harris via the “nuclear option,” or a unilateral rules change. The rules have been changed by a majority three times since 2013, once by Democrats and twice by Republicans — first on gutting the filibuster on most nominations, then on Supreme Court picks and finally to shorten the debate time for some nominees. Changing the legislative filibuster would effectively make the Senate much more like the House, a majoritarian institution.  Democrats have not discussed the filibuster impasse with McConnell as a caucus yet, though they are expected to hold a party meeting by phone as soon as Thursday. And several Democrats said they aren’t sure exactly how Schumer will thread the needle with his GOP counterpart. Schumer has repeatedly declined to comment on the talks with McConnell and on the filibuster. Notably, McConnell held firm on keeping the filibuster rule in place even as Trump repeatedly attacked him on Twitter. But Democrats have strong feelings on the subject that will be hard to reconcile with McConnell’s demand. As Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) put it: “I don’t think there is any way that Democrats would find it acceptable to invoke new rules that McConnell certainly never volunteered to abide by himself.”  “It’s generally up to the majority as to whether they want to pursue a conversation about changing the rules. And we should reserve that right,” added Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). “I’m a supporter of filibuster reform, I obviously want to make my case to the caucus when and if that moment arises.”  Schumer may be able to satisfy McConnell with something less than a written commitment, perhaps a speech on the Senate floor or a verbal acknowledgement that his preference is not to invoke the nuclear option. But even some Republicans are skeptical that Democrats will give up their leverage so easily and simply trust that Republicans will work with them on legislation.  McConnell’s “reasoning is let’s do it now while we’re all in this management mode as opposed to under fire when there’s a burning issue,” said Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.). “I’m skeptical of the outcome. I think Mitch’s effort is noble but I just don’t think it ends there.”

 

In What World?

In what world is Joe Manchin living?  He recently opined, that passing the For The People Voting Rights Act without Republican backing would overly upset volatile Trump supporters. “The only thing I would caution anybody and everybody about is that we had an insurrection on January 6, because of voting, right? And lack of trust in voting?” Manchin told HuffPost then. “We should not, at all, attempt to do anything that would create more distrust and division.” Joe, What about the real fact that the lack of confidence in voting results totally from fake fraud claims. It’s the definition of pandering. It’s indulging a mass delusion.  Most people tell pollsters they think elections are fair. Overall trust in elections has gone up and down over the years, but it’s been much lower among Republicans since Trump’s loss, likely because Trump has falsely claimed the election was stolen. Democratic confidence in election results similarly declined after 2016, but most still said that election had been fair.  In his op-ed, Manchin said there is actually bipartisan support in the Senate for many provisions outlined in the For the People Act. The bill doesn’t have a single GOP co-sponsor, but Manchin claims Republicans actually do support many of its provisions.  “Efforts to expand voting hours and access, improve our election security and increase transparency in campaign finance and advertisement rules should and do have broad, bipartisan support and would quickly address the needs facing Americans today,” Manchin wrote. “Taking bipartisan action on voting reform would go a long way in restoring the American people’s faith in Congress and our ability to deliver results for them.”  Giving wings to a frog would prevent said frog from bumping its ass on the ground as well.  Neither will happen in this world.  Bipartisanship, Republican style, is exemplified by the 2017 tax cuts which were, like most recent Republican legislation, based upon myths and lies.  Republicans are unified around the failure of the Biden Administration.  Republicans realize that the policies they promote appeal to a shrinking population and are searching for any means to offset the lack of appeal to a general population.  Rather than adopt a policy that American wants, needs, and solves major problems Republicans obstruct and then change voting rule so as to be less penalized by their incompetencies.  For Joe Manchin to suggest Republicans are interested in bipartisanship is a myth not unlike trickle down economics.  Bipartisanship on the part of Republicans has not happened since the days of Ronald Reagan and will not happen in the future.  For Joe Manchin to fail to realize that the concept of Republican bipartisanship is but another myth that does not exist in the real world.

 

Size, Really?

Republicans who are critical of Democratic policy constantly talk about small government.  From their conversations one might believe that there is a certain size for government to be and anything bigger is bad for the country.  But let’s face it; in the case of government size does not matter.  What matters is the competence of government that is far more important than size.  If the country learned anything from the last Republican/Trump attempts to govern they should have learned that competence is what is needed when it comes to solving problems the country faces.  The Trump administration was a textbook example of not only bad, incompetent government but also an example of small government that did not have the necessary resources to deal with any of the country’s problems.  The Biden administration has focused on the major problems facing the country that are in need of solutions.  In some cases, legislation was passed that will go far towards solving these problems.  In many cases, however, more necessary legislation is either pending passage or proposed but is being blocked by the Senate filibuster, a rule that requires 60 votes for passage instead of the simple majority that is required by the Constitution.  All but two Democrats in Congress have indicated intent to end the filibuster.  Former President Obama and current President Biden have also voiced a need to pass much needed legislation with a simple majority of votes in the Senate.  The Senators from West Virginia and Arizona seem to want to ignore the Constitution and continue the tradition of the filibuster in spite of countless examples of the filibuster resulting in incompetent government.  Republicans will insist on the need for bipartisanship but have failed time and time again to match their words with actual deeds.  There is no reason on earth to think this will change yet the Senator from West Virginia must think he will wake one morning and at least 10 Republicans will be waiting outside of his office to pass legislation that will rebuild the nation’s infrastructure, create jobs, increase corporate taxes to pay some of the costs of both infrastructure maintenance as well as research into better, more efficient infrastructure.  Will these same 10 Republican Senators also have solution to the immigration problem?  Do you really think there are 10 Republican Senators who will vote to make sure the wealthy pay income tax on all of their income or will recognize the need to eliminate tax shelters and all other schemes for both individuals and corporations to shirk their responsibilities to pay taxes?  The Senators from West Virginia and Arizona need to be made aware that competencies far more important than traditions and that the job of the Senate is to write and enact legislation that solves existing problems rather than legislation that is a solution in search of a problem.  None of the solutions to the country’s problems have anything to do with the size of government but are all dependent upon good, effective, competent government.  Hopefully the country will benefit from learning that lesson from the Trump government.

 

Make voting harder

The Georgia law is part of an ongoing effort by the Republican Party to make voting more difficult, mostly because Republicans believe they win when turnout is low.  There is no accurate way to describe this effort other than anti-democratic.  The Republican Party’s justification is “election integrity” — that is, stopping voter fraud. But voter fraud is exceedingly rare. There is no reason to believe it has determined the outcome of a single U.S. election in decades. If anything, the most high-profile recent examples of fraud have tended to involve Republican voters. Yet former President Donald Trump and other Republicans have repeatedly and falsely claimed otherwise.  In truth, the spate of “election integrity” laws over the past decade are mostly a response to Barack Obama’s presidential victories. They created a consensus, among both parties, that Democrats benefited from high turnout (which may not be true). Republicans in many states have responded by trying to make voting harder, especially in cities and heavily Black areas — through onerous identification requirements, reduced voting hours, reduced access to early voting and more.  The new Georgia law largely fits this pattern. It is a response by Republican legislators and Gov. Brian Kemp to their party’s close losses there in the 2020 elections. The law reduces hours for absentee voting; increases ID requirements, and limit the distribution of water and food to voters waiting in line.  One provision seems obviously targeted at Atlanta, the Democrats’ most important source of votes: a new limit on absentee-ballot drop boxes. It is likely to reduce the number of drop boxes in metropolitan Atlanta to fewer than 25, from 94 last year. “There is no rational motivation for the passage of its new election law other than demonstrating fealty to the false claims elevated by Trump,” The Washington Post’s Philip Bump wrote. Perry Bacon Jr. of FiveThirtyEight put it this way: “The enactment of this law in that state is a particularly alarming sign that the Republican Party’s attacks on democratic norms and values are continuing and in some ways accelerating.”  Sadly, this approach goes hand-in-hand with today’s Republican Party.  The selection of an incompetent like Donald Trump as a party leader coupled with the efforts of groups like the Koch Brothers focused solely on reducing income tax reduction has failed to offer a single solution to the major problems facing the country.  Political obstruction will not attract voters and an actual platform designed to make the Democratic President a failure offers nothing that would earn the support of a voter.  The only alternative left for Republicans is efforts to keep people from voting.  If the courts uphold these restrictive measures it will be a sad day for democracy.

 

The Purpose of Tax

As one of America’s most hated procedures it is time to question the real purpose of personal and corporate income taxes. Congress, with bipartisan support, has passed a variety of corporate tax breaks over the years meant to foster innovation, trigger domestic investment and boost hiring.  Recent Republican legislation also cut personal income tax rates based upon claims going back to the Reagan administration that reducing tax rates for individuals will result in increased tax revenue for the government.  In both cases, the justification for tax reduction is based totally upon myth.  In both cases, corporate and personal tax reductions none of the promised results of the tax cuts have become true.  Corporations did not use the tax cuts to increase jobs or employee wages and individual tax cuts failed to “trickle down” to improve the economic lives of those on the lower ladders of the economy.  Tax cuts accomplished a single objective which was reducing the tax obligation of those who could most afford to pay taxes.  A major side effect of tax reductions has been a massive increase in debt and deficits and pushing the costs of today’s government onto tomorrow’s citizens.  Republicans have made tax reduction the cornerstone of political platforms to the extent they are totally lacking policies that might actually solve the country’s problems.  The wealthiest Americans have managed to convince a majority of voters they would benefit from tax cuts in spite of the reality that over 80% of the savings from tax cuts only went to less than 10% of taxpayers.  The same is true for corporate taxes.  Over 55 of the wealthiest corporations paid no income taxes on record profits in 2019 but have successfully convinced the small “mom and pop” incorporated businesses of the benefits of tax cuts.  It is time to eliminate the bullshit surrounding tax cuts and craft legislation with but one purpose...raise the necessary money to adequately fund the government.  In the history of America, tax cuts have never resulted in increased hiring or have actually boosted investment.  It is past time to recognize these justifications are unproven myths and the actual results proven that to be the case.