It's that time again. Election time. We just finished with a Republican primary in my home state for the gubernatorial nomination.

Both candidates promised the usual crap - they will cut taxes AND balance the budget.

How? By cutting spending naturally. And of course giving the "job creators" the keys to the store so they can steal us blind and "trickle down" some of their magic to us.

But mostly the promise is to "cut spending". 

Not just any spending mind you - but "wasteful spending". The term was even highlighted in one of the candidates ads.

How easy. How conveeeeeeeeeenient. How utterly ridiculous.

"I'm going to cut wasteful spending". It's the easiest promise to make in a campaign. And the most bogus.

Notice they never tell you what constitutes "wasteful" spending. And that's by design, because let's face it, everyone has a different definition of what government spending is "wasteful". One person's waste is another person's necessity and all that.

So the candidate doesn't tell you specifically what they will cut. He or she simply tells you they'll cut wasteful spending and leaves the rest to each voter's imagination. And each voter naturally assumes the candidate means the spending that benefits other, less deserving, people. People, who unlike them, haven't earned the government spending that comes their way.

So, the candidate gets to sound resolute and like a tough budget hawk. And not one specific promise has been made. Zero courage is required to come out against "wasteful spending".  Courage would come from defining it - during a campaign.

I keep hearing this rumor that the Republicans are the party of small government. The party of getting government off your back. The party of getting the government out of the way so businesses, entrepreneurs, and the wonderful, all-knowing free market can work their magic.
At least that's what I keep hearing them say. The markets pick winners and losers, not government. Local and state governments know better, not Washington. People can be trusted with decisions over their own lives, their own health, their own money, not politicians or bureaucrats.
But then they do stuff, and I get really confused as to what this party really does believe.
Take Tennessee for example. Please. [Rimshot]. 
Volkswagen has a plant in Chattanooga. This week the workers at the plant are voting on whether or not to join a union, specifically the United Auto Workers. And the company is taking a neutral, hands-off approach to the vote. In fact at times the corporation has sounded supportive of the idea. You see they want to institute a works council at the plant, which is a committee that includes management and workers. They have one at every other VW plant in the world. To have one here requires a union. So they will not be upset to see a pro-union vote.
But you know who will be upset and is doing everything they can to stop a 'yes' vote? Yes the Tennessee Republican party. The Governor, U. S. Senator Bob Corker, various GOP members of the Tennessee legislature have weighed in. They have threatened to withdraw the tax breaks VW was given to open the factory in Chattanooga should a union be brought in. Billboards have been taken out about the invasion from the "union" for "up north". I mean, really? And as I said this is not coming from the corporate management. It's those damned politicians butting in. 
Sen. Corker has even gone so far as to say if the vote goes pro-union VW will probably take the jobs for the SUV's built there to other plants. Or that he has been assured, by people unnamed, that a "no" vote assures expansion and more jobs at the Chattanooga plant.
Of course a VW executive denied this. He said the decision of whether to expand in Chattanooga or instead to expand an existing factory in Mexico would hinge on other factors, not the union vote. After all that plant in Mexico? Wait for it - it's unionized.
So suddenly we see the "trust the people" Republicans jumping into an issue that you would think does not concern government. It's an issue between the company and its workers and the decision is up to the workers. I thought that's what Republicans were all about, people making their own decisions without interference from the big, bad "gummint"? Instead it looks like they're trying to interfere with the market.
But this is just another example of the divergence between what the GOP says and what they actually do. They rail against Obamacare as government intrusion and scream how medical decisions should be up to you and be between you and your doctor. Unless of course you're a woman and the decision is to use birth control, or for whatever reason make the gut-wrenching decision to terminate a pregnancy. Then you can't be trusted apparently and the government must stop you. It must tell your doctor what he or she can or can't tell you about your healthcare options. The government in some states must even mandate medically unnecessary procedures and threaten the doctor with penalties if he or she fails to perform them.
Or if you're a state that has decided to allow same sex marriages. Then apparently Washington knows best and there should be federal laws or Constitutional amendments to override the wishes and laws of the individual states.
So it looks like all the Republican talk about individual freedom, freedom from government interference and intrusion is just that - talk. They trust you to make your own decisions, until those decisions run counter to their ideology or their religion. Then they are all too happy to have the government jump into your bedroom, your boardroom, your doctor's office as quickly as possible. They are very eager and willing to have the government intrude to enforce their ideology and religion on you and make you abide by it. 

 

First of all let me begin by wishing everyone a happy and healthy Thanksgiving. Most of us have much to be thankful for no matter what else is going on in the world around us.

This morning I had another "Is it just me?" moment. It came while reading about what is suspected to be the next Republican tactic to thwart democracy and prevent the President from being able to put his nominees on the courts in this country. It deals with a practice known as "blue slip".
This practice began in 1917. Basically it works like this. When someone is nominated to fill a federal judgeship the Senate Judiciary Committee sends out two blue slips, one to each Senator from the state the nominee is from. The blue slip is used by each Senator to signify if they approve or object to the nominee. Traditionally if one of the Senator's objects, or fails to return the blue slip, the nomination does not proceed. 
You can see how this can easily become the next tactic of Republican obstructionism, simply have a Republican Senator withhold his or her blue slip. If the Democratic leadership decides to follow tradition the nomination will not even get past the Judiciary Committee let alone come to a vote. The Republicans will keep all these judgeships vacant, at least until such time as a Republican wins the White House. Then we'll see how often blue slips, or filibusters, are invoked to prevent the winning President from appointing his or her officials and judges. And if the Democrats ever tried the tactic you know the Republicans would scream about how nefarious and unpatriotic this was, and the traditional mainstream corporate media would bleat along with them. 

But that is not the part that struck me and made me ask "Is it just me?"

No, it was the date. 1917. The year the tradition of the blue slip was introduced into the rules of the Senate. That date rang a bell. And then it hit me. That was the same year the Senate introduced the filibuster into its rules as well.
So let me get this straight. There is no mention of filibuster in the Constitution. And for the first 128 years of the Republic (1789 - 1917) there was no filibuster in the Senate. Likewise there is no "blue slip" or requirement to consult and get approval from the Senators of a judicial nominees home state before proceeding with the nomination found in the Constitution either. And for the first 128 years there was no such practice either.
So what is so magical about 1917? It finally hit me. That was when the 17th Amendment to the Constitution went into effect allowing for members of the U.S. Senate to be elected by popular vote. The Constitution had given that power to state legislatures, so it was the state legislatures that elected the Senators. The "people" only directly elected the members of the House of Representatives. 
It would seem that all these rules adopted around the same time have the same thrust. Namely to put a brake on a majority elected by popular vote and protect the losers. It would seem the Senators in office already feared this new found power being given directly to the citizens and were busy putting up roadblocks to keep popular public opinion in check. 
And while there were times when it was frustrating and aggravating (as in the filibusters of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts), there was little visibility or evidence that the filibuster or blue slip rule had dramatic impact on the direction of the country or on the ability of the majority party, or the party who won the White House from being able to govern.
That is until 2007. That is when Democrats regained control of the Congress. The Republicans did not take kindly to their newfound minority status and began using the filibuster at a frequency never before seen. This only accelerated when they lost the White House as well in the 2008 election. There have now been almost as many filibusters by the Republicans from 2007 to present as there had been in the period from 1917 to 2006. Since 1917 there have been 168 filibusters of executive branch or judicial nominees. Over 80 of those 168 have occurred since Obama became President. Clearly the Republicans have abused the filibuster and are prepared to abuse the blue slip tradition as well. 
We now see how a party bent on partisan advantage and putting the good of the nation behind their own political ambitions and ideology can make a government dysfunctional. 
It is one thing to protect the rights of the minority. It is another thing entirely to allow them to abuse rules and protections to completely thwart the majority and attempt to nullify the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box.
And I believe this is also related to the movement among some Tea Party Republicans and their billionaire benefactors to undo the 17th Amendment and return election of U.S. Senators back to the state legislatures rather than letting people vote for them directly. It is much easier after all to control state legislatures and control local elections than it is to control state-wide elections. Costs a lot less money too. It all part of a pattern to allow corporations and the very rich and powerful to exert ever more control over the politics and economy of this country. 


 

So last night the family was sitting around talking about the recent shenanigans in DC around the government shutdown and the debt ceiling.
The TV was on in the background and the story was about the Virginia's governor race. They were talking about Ken Cuccinelli, the GOP candidate and incumbent Attorney General. Specifically they were detailing how much of his focus and energy is on social issues, especially dealing with female reproductive health. Dude is downright obsessed.
At one point it was mentioned that he was in favor of outlawing contraception, even the birth control pill. This blew my wife away, as in how in 2013 could we possibly have to be fighting about something so basic that so many women use? I reminded her that the "conscience clause" that so many conservatives want to add to Obamacare was about the last vestige of health care reform nullification demands the GOP took off the table before their abject surrender.
You know the "conscience clause"? That's where an employer is given the right to object to, and opt out of, paying for plans that provide coverage for anything the employer finds morally objectionable. Presumably it would be for employers to be able to say that the health care plans they offer to their employees will not cover female contraception, at least not without a copay as mandated by Obamacare.
Well this must have gotten my subconscious working and in the wee hours of the morning I awoke with a thought. "Why is it that only female contraception goes against God's will, but erectile dysfunction medications do not?"
I mean at the heart of it that does seem to be the moral/religious objection to the Pill and female contraceptives. (I know, we all know it's really about control of women and certain people always being afraid that someone is having more fun in this life than they are, women having sex with less fear of consequences, etc.) But taken at face value the objection seems to be that contraception is interfering with God's plan. Only God decides when, where and how life begins. By taking the Pill women are taking the power away from God and making that decision on their own. (We won't get into a discussion about how God supposedly gave us all free will, but so many conservatives will fight like hell to be sure nobody is allowed to exercise it.)
And if that's true then why is it morally okay for a man to take Viagra or some other erectile dysfunction drug? Obviously God intended for you to have a limp dick or you wouldn't have one. He has decided you should not reproduce (which we are often reminded is the only acceptable reason for sexual relations). By taking an ED drug and being able to have a boner you are thwarting God's plan. 
Yet the Ken Cuccinelli's of the world never talk about outlawing ED drugs. And apparently nobody believes there needs to be a conscience clause added to Obamacare to allow employers to opt out of paying for treatments that are so obviously morally objectionable. 
A glaring inconsistency if you ask me. Sticks out like a sore thumb.

Don't do it. That is the usual advice from "serious" people when it comes to negotiating with terrorists. Sure it's tough not to, and see innocent people get hurt. But if you do it once then everyone becomes more vulnerable the next time around as the terrorists are emboldened to continue their extortion.
This is what has crossed my mind as I watch the unfolding story surrounding a continuing resolution on the budget to keep the government up and running after 10/1. Then there is the issue of the United States paying its bills and not defaulting, which is estimated to occur about 10/17 if the debt ceiling is not raised.
The Republicans in the House are willing to do both, as long as the Democrats in both the Senate and the White House accede to their demands. Defund or delay the President's signature health care reform law, roll back Wall Street reforms, remove the authority of the EPA to regulate carbon emissions, approve the Keystone XL pipeline; these are a smattering of the ransom to be exacted for even a short-term period of keeping the government up and running and paying its bills.
And the GOP is not even hiding the agenda. Paul Ryan, their boy wonder, admitted that the Republicans have to resort to these tactics because they lost the election and there is not another in sight, at least not soon enough for their tastes. So they need to use this leverage to impose their agenda and policies which were rejected by the voters in the 2012 election. I mean every Republican running in 2012 promised to get rid of "Obamacare". The other pieces they are going after are right out of Mitt Romney's economic policy proposals. 
They lost. Romney by about 5 million votes. The Democrats increased their majority in the Senate even though the numbers going into the 2012 election favored Republican gains. Even in House races Democratic candidates outpolled Republican candidates. The GOP maintained their majority only due to the severe gerrymandering that occurred in many states. In fact this is one of the few times in American history that the party that received a clear majority of votes for the House races did not end up winning the majority of the seats.
So basically what we have is this: the Republican agenda was rejected by the voters at the polls; there is no election on the horizon that will allow the Republicans to control both houses of Congress and the White House; therefore the Republicans have to threaten to bring the government and the American economy to its knees in order to try to coerce the Democrats to capitulating to the GOP demands and agenda. 
What's really remarkable is not only that this is seen as an acceptable strategy, that the Republicans are so openly blatant about what they're doing, but that they do not pay a greater price for doing it. The traditional media again is falling flat on its face, providing no historical context about just how brazen and unprecedented these Republican moves really are. That would interfere with the pundit class' meme of always finding balance, even if it's false. Both sides do it is their mantra. 
Not only is the Republican tactic an assault on democratic government (with a small "d" mind you), but the total lack of reporting by the media as to how outrageous this really is, also undermines democracy and our Constitutional system of government.
Good going guys and gals.

One way I like to get a rise out of people when getting into a political discussion between those not of like mind is to assert that 50 years from now Jimmy Carter will be hailed as the best American President of the era encompassing the second half of the 20th century and beginning of the 21st century. Fans of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush find that statement especially galling. 
Now I am quick to add some caveats. I am a partisan Democrat but I do like to be reality based. I don't actually believe Carter was a great President. He really was not all that effective despite coming into office post-Watergate with huge Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. Anyone who has read Ted Kennedy's autobiography is familiar with some of the issues Carter had with the Beltway Democrats and why he failed to get along with them to get a lot accomplished.
There is one area though where Carter really shone. And that area becomes increasingly apparent and important with each passing day. His biggest success was in the area of energy policy.
It is the one period of my life where I believe our country actually had a comprehensive energy policy. Much of this was a reaction to the OPEC oil embargo of 1973 and 1974. The embargo was in retaliation for America's support of Israel in the Yom Kippur War of 1973 between Israel and some of its neighbors, primarily Egypt and Syria. The embargo lead to shortages, long gas lines, price spikes. Jimmy Carter, however, saw it as a wake-up call and opportunity for the nation.
In his plan there was an emphasis to conserve energy complete with inducements and tax credits for private individuals and businesses. Homes and businesses were insulated. Scrubbers were put into smokestacks to recover lost energy and reduce pollution. Gas efficiency standards were increased for vehicles. 
The other side of the policy was to spur domestic development of alternative, sustainable sources of energy. There was a recognition that domestic oil production had peaked and would never achieve the output of the past. There was also a recognition that reliance on fossil fuels carried steep costs in terms of the environment, public health and national security. Relying on oil meant being dependent on foreign oil no matter how much you might "drill, baby, drill". 
The government provided seed money for research projects for solar, wind and geothermal energy. News stories abounded of the efforts and trials, some big, some small, in these areas. Solar panels were even installed on the roof of the White House. 
All of this of course was abruptly halted once Ronald Reagan defeated Carter and assumed the Presidency. Saint Ronnie worshiped the free market and stated that the wisdom of the free market would determine our energy policy, not bureaucrats in Washington. It didn't hurt that OPEC began dropping its prices around this time so that the average person felt less urgency around supporting programs to find alternate fuels. 
The tax incentives for business and individuals to conserve energy were discontinued. The seed money for research and development into alternative energy sources were cut off or severely cut back. Reagan even made a point of removing the solar panels from the White House roof.
This is a classic example of the limits of the free market as a tool for setting policy. Obviously the best long-term interest of the country was to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels and develop home-grown clean renewable domestic sources. However, fossil fuels had been the primary energy source for decades, heck close to a hundred years. An entire infrastructure had been developed and was already in place for the production and distribution of fossil fuels whether it be coal, oil or natural gas. On a per unit cost basis there was no comparison at that point, fossil fuels were cheaper and easier. The wisdom of the free market sent us merrily on the path to hell.
So where are we at today? President Obama with his budget and recovery package of 2009 attempted to boost America's position in research and development of renewable energy sources, an area where we are quickly being outpaced by the Germans and Chinese. So almost 30 years after the last big effort at developing alternatives to fossil fuels we see a renewed effort. A lost generation.
Meanwhile all around us we see the impacts of climate change: droughts in some areas, massive flooding in others, disappearing Arctic ice and tundra, disappearing beaches, increased severity of storms, and the list goes on. Water is becoming an ever more precious commodity. And this is only 2013. 
And with Syria in the news lately and the possibility of the United States becoming further entangled in yet another Middle East conflict, we wonder why we are always being dragged into this arena. If we didn't have such a thirst for oil would we be as concerned about Iraq or Iran or Syria or Middle East stability? 
So when the next generation is fighting wars over water, wondering why everyone in the Middle East seems to want to attack us, dealing with the fallout from a radically changing environment and its impacts on agriculture and public health, they may someday open their history books to a discussion of the Carter Administration and sit there dumbstruck. They will at first be amazed and then an anger will well up inside them. 
"You fools! You had the answer! The blueprint was there and in place! And you tore it up and went back to burning fossil fuels like drunken sailors on shore leave! And this is what you left us! Thanks for nothing!"
And we'll see how those generations will rate Jimmy Carter versus Ronald Reagan. 


  
 

I must be psychic or something. Or a master of the obvious.
In my 8/12 posting I noted that the Obamas were now vacationing on Martha's Vineyard and predicted that even though he has taken only about 1/4 of the vacation days at this point in his administration as George W. Bush had at the same point in his, that we would soon be treated to the annual snide faux outrage of the right wing over the travesty of our "goof off in chief" daring to take time off.
We did not have long to wait.
Sure as shootin' one of our local papers, whose editorial page spouts the same far right wing nonsense heard incessantly on FoxNews, reprinted commentary from a conservative site about Obama's vacation.
The site in question is called Canadian Free Press and is the playground of a Canadian journalist who apparently believes there is no free world without the United States so everyone should worship America. The post even refers to Obama as "our President" .
Basically Obama was compared to Nero who legend has it fiddled while Rome burned. The money quote is "Nero fiddled, Obama golfed."
It noted how Obama has played 133 rounds of golf during his Presidency and here he was at it again while the death toll in Afghanistan approaches 2,300 Americans. Obama is also blamed for the poor economic conditions in the U.S., the growing disparity between rich and poor, and worsening race relations in the country. 
Apparently all of us hard-working Amerkans (you know, "white Americans" wink wink nudge nudge...) are invited to be suitably outraged that this uppity man in the White House dares take vacation and relax while there is any suffering anywhere.
So apparently it was alright for W to take over 300 vacation days (don't know how many rounds of golf and bike rides that included but we've seen the pix, we know it happened). Meanwhile the death toll in Iraq was raising as was our national debt thanks to unpaid for record tax breaks for the wealthy and wars fought on a credit card.  Don't even get me started on how Bush was so anxious to go on one of his bike rides on his first month long vacation (after having been in office seven months mind you) that he blew off the intelligence warning titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S." with the curt "okay you've covered your ass" response to the presenter and hit the trails.
And we don't even have to go into how the policies of the Bush administration laid the ground work for the economic disaster we still have not recovered from. Or how he fiddled while a great American city drowned. 
But you know damned well none of these conservative sites or pundits or the paper that reprinted this tripe were complaining then about the time off by Bush or calling it an affront and insult to the rest of us.
I never begrudged any Republican President his time off. Hell the fewer days on the job the better as far as I'm concerned. But as usual the conservatives do not give the same courtesy or respect to Democrats as they insist on for GOP leaders. Which makes them nothing more than partisan hacks and hypocrites.