The Inconvenient Truth About Rick Perry-Part I

"Good Time"Charlie Rangel might not have been too far off the point when he told reporters outside of a Rick Perry campaign stop in Harlem that Rick Perry for President might be the best thing to happen to Barrack Obama's campaign.  In part, this is because Rick Perry likes portray himself in ways that his record does not support. In the coming days I will look at a few of these stretches of the truth. The first one is his portrayal as a strong, fiscally sound governor.

For the last year, Texans have known that the state faced a large budget deficit when the legislature returned to Austin for its 2011 session. Candidate Rick Perry denied there was a problem. That alone should have raised red flags and set off alarm bells all over.  Needless to say, when the Austin Government opened for business in early 2011, fireworks would surely follow.  They did, in the litany of items being declared emergencies by the Governor to allow the GOP controlled Legislature to fast track through the process, not one of them dealt with jobs, revenue or closing the deficit.  Texas Horseman put forth a proposal that would have delivered thousands of jobs and billions in potential revenue to state coffers and that proposal never saw the light of day for debate on the floor while seeking to put guns on college campuses and voter intimidation initiatives receive the fast track emergency treatment.  All along Perry planned to cut spending on schools and social services to close his budget hole. In effect his actions, while not pulling the plug on grandma, did put grandma on the streets since many nursing homes are slated to be closed due to lack of funding.

Along the same lines, Slick Rick likes to paint himself as an ordinary Joe from Paint Creek, except in the decades he spent in government he acquired expensive tastes.  After a fire ravaged the Governor's Mansion, Governor Perry was moved into temporary quarters while the damage was repaired and the mansion habitable.  For someone who spent many years working in Austin, Rick Perry surprisingly had no local address to call his own. Using the money of the people of his fine state, the Governor rented a new mansion to live in during the repairs, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, in the midst of a budget crisis.  Given that the Texas Legislature meets for a few months every 2 years, some might see that expense as a bit excessive.  Certainly it would cost a fraction of that to set him up in a suite at a fine Downtown Austin hotel while the lege was in session and he could commute to his office from his home in College Station the rest of the time.  Perry obviouly thought differently, and reasoned that he needed to live in a swank mansion while his budget cuts to help pay for it would force grandma from her nursing home. In a nutshell that is GOP fiscal responsibility.

Next we examine Perry the Job Creator....

The Buffett Initiative: What you Need to Know

Today President Obama unveiled his grand plan which he submitted to the new Catfood Commission with a blueprint to cut the deficit nearly $4 trillion dollars over the next decade.  This plan reflects the popular public sentiment that a sense of shared sacrifice with both an increase in taxes on our highest earners coupled with some cuts in government spending with a pledge to achieve the savings without massive cuts to our social safety net. This notion of taxing the wealthiest among us at a higher rate is something that billionaire financier Warren Buffett has preached for many years.  Predictably, Koch/Murdoch fueled noise machine began to attach these proposals.  Here is the truth, and it does not support their claims.

     One of the popular myths that has been paraded around over the last couple years is that raising the rates on top earners would hurt job creation.  Facts don't lie, in recent memory our greatest period of economic expansion occurred after Bill Clinton raised taxes and the worst period of job loss occurred after George W. Bush passed his 2 tax cuts.  There is no correlation between low taxes and private sector job growth.  We see job growth when our citizens are working and earning good wages.  When they work they spend their wages in the marketplace fueling demand and thus creating more jobs.  Since the President's jobs proposal includes infrastructure spending which will put people back to work, this initiative will help boost jobs. (Though by most accounts the $50 billion must be considered simply a down payment since by most estimates we have $1 trillion in needed infrastructure work to be done.)
    
     So now it us up to us, the people to let our elected representatives know that we stand with Warren Buffett and that the wealthiest among us should be asked to bear a greater responsibility that comes with their higher station.  This is the ethic that the great Eunice Shriver instilled in the Kennedy clan, and an ethic that pays homage to the notion that America is the land of opportunity.  Aside from the squires and well born, many Americans who make it to the highest levels in our society benefited from the type of social spending that the right proposes to cut.  Many used student loans and grants to attend colleges, many of which were established with public money, just two of the programs which some would sacrifice to continue the Bush era cuts on the wealthiest among us.  Keep the pressure up on the likes of Ben Nelson, Eric Cantor, John Boehner, and Mitch McConnell.

Who's to Blame?

We are now roughly a week away from the day which the U.S. will begin to default on its obligations if the statutory debt ceiling is not raised.  Negotiations between Obama, and Congress resembles a Greek tragedy unfolding.  Each side is trying to blame the other for the situation we face.  I believe it is clear that, while the Republicans and their vow to Grover Norquist, which strangely enough is observed more stringently than some vows of marriage, is causing much of the issues we are seeing unfolding, the President has only himself to blame for even allowing us to get close to this situation.

President Obama is to blame not for his unwillingness to decimate social programs that aren't among the drivers of the debt.  His blame comes from the way he has executed the office of President of the United States.  Time and time again, in an effort to try and appear to be bipartisan, the President negotiated from a position of relative weakness, even when his party controlled both houses of Congress.

It started with the stimulus packages that was pushed for within his first 90 days.  Many people howled over the price tag of roughly $800 billion, and conservatives ultimately called it a failure.  In truth, the package was not too large, but much too stilted toward tax cuts and unemployment benefits, and failed to include enough actual job creating stimulus, that is why it began to loose steam in recent months.  At no time did you hear Barack Obama channel FDR and use his bully pulpit and dare to suggest a massive infrastructure investment that would have been bold and forward thinking.  In truth Barack Obama wasn't audacious in his plans but tried to find out how he could placate Ben Nelson.

During the healthcare reform debate, the President remained silent, never once challenging Congress on the expansion of Medicare as means to insure those who don't have employer provided insurance.  He remained silent while images of death panels were conjured up by his political opponents out of thin air in an effort to scare the electorate.

Over and over again, Barack Obama rewarded the bad behavior of the Republicans who wished to grind Congress to a halt rather than tackle the problems facing our nation during this economic downturn.  His unwillingness to use his bully pulpit and draw lines in the sand on issues such as the spending bills or extension of tax cuts for the top wage earners.  All this has done is shown that as President, he will negotiate with hostage takers, thus inviting more hostage taking.

Barack Obama has one last chance to be a strong leader and take decisive action in this debt ceiling debate, he must call upon the 14th Amendment, which states that the "debt of the government...shall not be questioned" and keep the government operating honor our obligations. This would be a bold move, and the actions of a leader who won't give in to hostage taking.

It is Time for A Little Common Sense

 The Gang of Six, or however many there are part of that cabal at this time, has come to save the day with a package to deal with the budget, deficits and raising the debt limit.  They propose spending cuts, raising revenues and plan on presenting this to Congress to pass and forward to the President for his signature and hope to avert the catastrophe of defaulting on our debt obligations.  This plan contains two huge problems.

First problem, is that it doesn't even come close to getting the budget process for the next fiscal year close to completion.  That is where the discussions of spending priorities should have occurred, but Obama let the Republicans in Congress link spending and the debt ceiling raise as one issue.  Look for all the talk of government shutdowns, and cataclysmic impasses to resume come September when we are facing the start of the new Fiscal year without a budget in place.

Second, their approach to bringing our nation's fiscal state under control fails to account for what has driven our deficits and debt increases over the last decade.  The Center for Budget and Priorities has examined the issues at length and their reports point to two issues that are largely responsible.  The first is the Bush Tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, which by most estimates cost our treasury $2.5 trillion. Think Progress, outlined all of the ways which our nation could have spent this money: such as funding education and scholarships, hire millions of teachers, firefighters and policemen across the country.

The second biggest driver of our debt and deficit are the wars in Afghanistan Iraq and now Libya.  The Bush Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, were never included in the Bush budgets, and costs our nation billions per day to keep troops there.  The mission in Afghanistan, i.e. the rooting out of Al-Queda has been largely accomplished, and the handful of operatives still there do not warrant the presence of tens of thousands of American troops.  Operations like the one that resulted in the killing of Osama bin Laden, do not require that massive presence, since those troops can deploy anywhere in the world within hours and be onsite in a day or less in most cases. Declaring victory, bringing the troops home and remind the leaders of the region that we have the will and capability to deal with terrorists and bring them to justice and will not hesitate to take action in the future. The more these conflicts drag on, the closer we get to the quagmire that was Vietnam.

Before you sit by and meekly accept cuts to programs that benefit the vast majority of our society to protect the wealth of a privileged few, challenge your representatives in no uncertain terms to show where these programs drove the debt.  Challenge them to show how trickle-down, voodoo economics 2.0 fostered a climate of domestic job creation.  Truth is that there is no evidence to support either claim.  If we make our elected representatives accountable to the people rather than corporate interests we can make great strides in reclaiming our nation back from the forces that seek to return us to 1800s.

Rick Perry and the Right's Contention of U.S. Founded as a Christian Nation

Rick Perry, as part of his flirtation with the Republican base in preparation to run for President in 2012, called on leaders to join him in Houston next month for a day of Prayer and Fasting.  In response to this, many on the right point to the U.S. as being founded as a Christian Nation as justification for such a proclamation from a constitutionally bound public servant. In reality, one look at the men we consider our Founding Fathers tells a different story.

This generation of thinkers fed off the energy of enlightenment philosophy, where men such as Locke, Voltaire and Montesquieu wrote about man being able to discern his place in the world around him through the use of critical thought.  For many ages Europe found itself embroiled in wars which centered on which religion one followed.  In England this was no different, Catholic and Anglican factions fought for years as to who would control the fate of the nation.  This is party why the U.S was founded as a secular nation which respected all religions yet would not endorse one or make religious affiliation a test for public office (Yes Herman Cain, you would be constitutionally barred from requiring Muslim-Americans to take a special loyalty oath as test for public trust).  The First Amendment and later through the Fourteenth Amendment, the Federal Government and States were prohibited from establishing official religions.

If you want further proof, look no further then a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to Horatio Spafford in March of 1814: " In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot ... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose"

The Republicans have fanatically courted the Christians, especially through the Bible Belt, through the use of coded language meant to goad them into voting for the Republican Candidate.  In recent times the same Republicans, elected partially on the strength of the voting in the bible belt have attacked public education and these maps might show why:

The greatest concentration of those with the least education sits in the bible belt, an area that is quite reliably Republican leaning, even thought Republican economic policy ignores the economic circumstances for the vast majority living there.

The Republicans must attack education, because the greater the level of education the less of a chance that they will blindly follow something rather than question and examine the world around themselves. 

This Bud's for you...except if you live in Minnesota that is

Minnesota is as of right now still closed for business.  While their former Governor, Tim Pawlenty,  is out touting his record in Minnesota which created the mess they are trying to clean up. Their government shut-down, which could begin to resemble what the U.S. would look like if the Republicans continue to cling to their blood oath to Grover Norquist and refuse any semblance of common-sense in their approach to raising the debt ceiling.

Now while much of story that has come out of Minnesota has focused upon the closure of highway rest areas and state parks, it is the unintended consequences of the shuttering of government offices that has been featured of late.

Nobody considered all the work that the Minnesota civil servants do on a daily basis, but the fruits of their labor will become clear in the near future, since average Minnesotans will be touched by their absence soon. 


First up: the alcohol tax office.  It seems that many distributors, bar owners and retailers have licenses to buy beer that have lapsed or will soon lapse with no way of renewing them.  Miller Coors' failed to renew their trademark for brand labels and pulled all its products from shelves. If the shutdown goes on much longer, Minnesota will resemble a dry county in the bible belt, and with the state of Minnesota professional sports, that can't be a good thing.

Next in a closely related manner, there is nobody to collect taxes and issues tax stamps on tobacco, so the amount of cigarettes, cigars and the like is rapidly diminishing.  While this might not hurt the profits of big tobacco too terribly, especially since they have shifted focus on peddling their wares without regulation and oversight in the 3rd world especially Indonesia, where even 2yr olds chain smoke (though the child has since quit his 2pk a day habit).

Third is the shuttering of Canterbury Park and their thoroughbred racing season. The government shutdown has closed the Racing Commission offices, so there is no governing body to oversee and officiate the races.  Canterbury Park has cancelled their 9th straight racing card and could rapidly face its horsemen moving operations to other tracks, thus compromising the entire meet if a solution to the track shuttering isn't reached soon. 

All of this courtesy of the mess left by Tim Pawlenty, and he wants to do for America what he did for Minnesota, for the sake of the nation I hope not.

Rick Perry's Real Texas Miracle

Time for another humorous look at the state of Texas politics today.

Rick Perry, when he isn't scheming with his cronies in the Lege, has been flirting with the Republican primary voters hot and heavily.  He has been touting what he and other call the "Texas Miracle" and I am pretty sure that he doesn't mean the precise makeup of his hair care product regimen.

He points out to all the jobs he created in the face the great recession as proof positive that a steady diet of lax regulation, low taxes and fervent pro business environment are the keys for economic prosperity.  But as Tip O'Neill was fond of saying, "You are entitled to a difference of opinion, but not your own set of facts..." and Slick Rick certainly has a problem with the facts.

In a recent article in  Fiscal Times by Merrill Goozner, the truth of the state of the Texas economy becomes clear, it isn't the land of milk and honey.  Beginning with W, or as Molly Ivins christened him, Shrub,(Shrub : The Short but Happy Political Life of George W. Bush) Texas began a race to the bottom, see how far they could go toward privatizing everything.  Such brilliant ideas as No Child Left Behind, got their start right here in the Lone Star State, and boy have the standardized testing companies showed their appreciation for getting all that extra business.

Sadly today, Texas is slipping in education, and with another $5 billion cut from that budget, maybe they can finally achieve Perry and his cronies goal of finally getting that coveted 50th place ranking in education.  Texas is the only state that ranks in greatest number of citizens among the wealthiest and living in poverty, with more headed to the latter group monthly.

While Rick Perry may boast of all the jobs that have been created here, we are nowhere close to North Dakota in unemployment rate or job creation. Also with a future where the Texas labor pool will gradually become less well educated, companies that came here to tap into a well educated workforce will leave and take their jobs with high salaries to other states who can provide an educated workforce.

When and if Slick Rick announces his intention to run for President in 2012, we should all remember that when he speaks of a Texas Miracle, he is really talking about him still surviving as Governor.....but as Kinky Friedman said, the job of Governor of Texas is so easy, George W Bush could do it.

How Democratic is the Electoral Process

Has anyone ever really sat down and questioned the process we go through to choose our President?  If you take a little bit of time to look at it, it is a process that puts the greatest power in the hands of Iowa and New Hampshire at the expense of giving the majority of Americans to opportunity to have their voice heard in any meaningful way.

If we look at the elections process that much of the nation follows where party primaries are followed by a general election, the Presidency is alone in how little say the vast majority of voters have in the candidates themselves.  In many cities where you have more than two candidates vying for the party nomination, a citywide primary is held and either one candidate wins a clear majority and becomes the nominee or the race moves into a runoff where the two two candidates in vote count face the electorate again.  For President we see primary elections and assorted caucuses spread out over several months, and only one or two many actually have any significant impact on the party's choice of candidates.

There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the residents of Iowa and New Hampshire de facto control of our process for selecting candidates to represent the two major parties in the Presidential election.  What about the states that come toward the middle of end of the electoral process, if the candidates for President are already decided what incentive is there to go to the poll?   This is one of the central arguments made when we discuss the calling of the national elections.  In years where the race for President is decided early and called, there was a significant drop off in voters in the Pacific time Zone and West showing up for the polls, why...because the major race has already been decided.

There is much to be debated when we speak of reforming our electoral process.  Mark Crispin Miller's book Loser Take All: Election Fraud and The Subversion of Democracy, 2000 - 2008 shows us how little transparency we have in our elections, and how widespread fraud regularly occurs.  We can also spend significant time debating a move towards publicly financed elections to insulate the process from monied interests seeking to subvert the system.    The first step we could take as a nation is to move to a national primary day during our Presidential Election Year.  This would give the entire electorate a chance to evaluate the candidates and weigh in on their choice to head their party's ticket in November instead of having a small few voters in Iowa and New Hampshire usurp this responsibility

Austerity equals Jobs?...Fuzzy Math or Voodoo Economics 2.0

Many people remember the 80s when we heard our political leaders speaking about fuzzy math or voodoo economics when it came to describing their opponents economic policies.  In the wake of the great hostage debate, better known as the debt ceiling talks, it would appear that voodoo economics is poised to make a comeback.

In a recent study conducted by the Center for American Progress, a not too surprising correlation has been found between government spending cuts and the job market.  Their study found that the states that cut their budgets lost jobs in proportion to the amount cut from the budget.  Or to put it simply, when states cuts their budgets and reduced spending their unemployment rate increased.   Does this sound familiar?

Paul Krugman thinks this sounds eerily familiar. He likens President Obama's adoption of the rights fiscal mantra to Hoover and his economic policies.  Any economist who studied the Great Depression points to the point in which congress and the President prematurely focus upon the deficit and debt matters as the point in which the second dip in the recession began.  When government stops spending, one doesn't usually see private industry jump in and fill the void, they do the opposite and anticipate reduced demand by shedding jobs and reducing output.

So the Republican Party lead by Speaker Boehner and Senator McConnell are pursuing their stated policy agenda, to ensure Barack Obama has the best chance of being a one term president.  Unfortunately this policy is inherently bad for American's struggling in this economy.  They seem to be as Senator Shumer from NY suggested, opening trying to destroy the economy for political ends.

Bill Maher points out the problem in no uncertain terms, that we continually fail act in our own self-interests and propel ourselves closer to the cliff and thus eliminating every societal gain realized during the 20th Century.  When you have Warren Buffett and others point out that they pay less taxes than their secretaries, we might want to listen.  The 8yrs of George W. Bush's economic policies of lower takes on the wealthy resulted in a net job loss, while Clinton's modest tax increase resulted in the greatest economic boom our nation has ever seen, so the choice become clear.   This latest pitch of low taxes and austerity demanded by Grover Norquist is really just some more fuzzy math and voodoo economics that will do nothing but doom American prosperity. 

The Conscience of a Liberal Unequal Protection: How Corporations Became "People" - And How You Can Fight Back Hopes and Prospects

The Texas Democrats' Circular Firing Squad

There is probably no greater voice describing Texas politics than the late Molly Ivins. Using her sharp wit, she wove tales of just how interesting the Texas political scene and those who represented the people in the lege as she called it. I can only imagine what she would have written in her column about the session of the Texas Legislature that just concluded, but would have been amusing to say the least.

Even if we didn't pay attention to Rick Perry preening for the cameras and flirting with the Republican rank and file about possibly putting his hat in the ring and make a run for President in 2012, Texas politics has been nothing but interesting since the lege closed up shop and headed home for a couple years. Most of the action on the part of the Democratic Party and their propensity to form a circular firing squad.

Since the days where free wheelin' Tom DeLay had been spreading Jack Abramoff's money around, the Republicans in the state of Texas have been trying to get rid of Lloyd Doggett. Lloyd Doggett had been representing the capital city of Austin for many years and was a source of constant irritation to Tom DeLay and the rest of the Texas caucus. His voting record is stellar, getting high marks from NAACP, ACLU, and civil and gay rights organizations. Though probably not on the NRA's Christmas card list, and that might be what irked Tommy DeLay. Doggett Survived the 2003 redistricting that was supposed to oust him, and now it 2011 the lege was going to try and have at it again.

After the district maps came out Lloyd Doggett became resigned to run in, if the plan is approved, in the newly created 35th district, that stretches from San Antonio through southern Austin along the I-35 Corridor. Now the fun begins.

Joaquin Castro, one of the rising stars of the Texas Democratic Party decides he wants to run for Congress. Does he pick, either of the two incumbent Republicans whose districts include parts of San Antonio? Of course not, he declares to run against the most progressive and solid Dem in the Texas Caucus. The fervor that the Texas Republicans have shown in their efforts to oust Doggett from Congress speaks volumes about good of a Democratic soldier he is. To choose to run against him and make his path to re-election that much more difficulty, is in effect doing the bidding of the Republican party. So instead of keeping a good soldier in Congress and targeting one of your own, the Texas Dems opt for the circular firing squad, results be damned.

Doggett Survived the 2003 redistricting that was supposed to oust him, let us hope a rising Democratic star doesn't accomplish what Tom DeLay tried to do 8 years ago. 

The week of injustice....

Today, America seemed transfixed as they sat waiting with bated breath to hear the verdict in the Casey Anthony murder trial. When the jury found her not guilty, many feigned shock and outrage at such an injustice. Much like the OJ Simpson case, the prosecution built a case on forensics and circumstantial evidence and when the defense brought that evidence into doubt, the case falls apart. That does not mean that she didn't commit the crime, but that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Casey Anthony's guilt to a jury.

While all of this went on, the Supreme Court committed a real injustice in the case of Connick v. Thompson. In this case the Orleans Parish District Attorney's office headed by Harry Connick Sr. tried John Thompson for murder. A jury found Thompson guilty and sentenced him to death. He spent the next 18 years in prison, including 4 on death row. Shortly before his 1999 execution case, a private investigator uncovered evidence that the DA's office withheld which would have proved Thompson's innocence. He was freed, then sued the DA's office for wrongful imprisonment. A jury found the DA's office liable in that action and awarded him $14 million in damages. Based upon precedent in a 1963 case, Brady v. Maryland, where the Supreme Court ruled that prosecutors had the duty to hand over all evidence, including evidence that might prove the defendant's innocence during discovery as part of fulfilling the constitutional requirement of due process. This Supreme Court thought differently.

Our favorite Justice, Clarence Thomas, authored the majority opinion where, in a surprise vote of 5-4, the Court held that the DA's office could not be held liable for the actions of a lone prosecutor. In defense of decency, Justice Ginsburg authored a scathing dissent and opted to read it aloud in open session. She clearly pointed to numerous cases over period of many years where the DA's office under Connick routinely suppressed exculpatory evidence, particularly in capital cases.

When you look at these two cases, while Casey Anthony's case can be labeled tragic, it is the Thompson case which seriously undermines our sense of justice, which is the bedrock our nation and its freedom is built upon.

Welcome to the Oligarchy

Over the last several years, the conservative movement sought to rein in what they saw as government intrusion into areas where the believed it ought not to be involved. Over the few weeks it has become clear that the movement wishes to dismantle our form of representative democracy and replace it with a neo-feudal society headed by an oligarchy.

While the Republicans in congress hold the full faith and credit of the United States Hostage as they try to extort the elimination of the social safety net as their price for doing what everyone says has to be done, the Supreme Court has been laying the groundwork for corporation to supplant the our elected representatives as policymakers for the nation. Last week, they denied class status in a sex-discrimination case brought against corporate behemoth, Wal-Mart on flimsy grounds. Research conducted by Barbara Ehrenreich and Nelson Lichtenstein clearly show evidence of a corporate climate that institutionalized gender bias in the realm of promotion, a claim 5 Justices said they found so egregious that a Jury should not even have to power to consider the merits at trial.

Then today the gang of 5 sought to chill political speech, when they ruled that Arizona's public campaign financing law, which sought to provide relative parity between candidates and their ability to spend money on speech as going to far. They clearly showed that, in this decision, they want only those with unlimited financial resources to have a say in our elections.

What can we do about this?

First, we need to pressure Congress to extend the ethical codes that govern our federal judiciary to the Supreme Court. These codes define conflict of interest, and specify when a justice must recuse themselves from a case. It also defines what conduct would be unbecoming of a justice. It would prohibit them from engaging in partisan and political activity or accept gifts that might be viewed as means to curry favor. Our founders wished to see a judiciary that could act as arbiters of justice and not become law unto themselves. Remember every member of the House and one third of the Senate will be up for reelection, if the cries for this become deafening, the incumbents might fear ouster if they try to block such a measure.

Second, contact your Senators and voice concern over the ethical behavior of members of the Supreme Court and that members of the Judiciary committee should investigate the issues that have arisen. Clarence Thomas has had many issues, from the financial disclosure documents that failed to report his wife's income as a political operative, to the gifts he has received from the likes of Christopher DeMuth and Harlan Crow who had interest in many cases before the court. Justices Thomas, Scalia and Alito all engaging in partisan political activites, such as the speeches given by Thomas and Scalia at one of the Koch Brother's Secret Retreats. Investigate the activities in the full light of day and then if the evidence suggests that they may be true draft articles of impeachment against any Justice whose conduct falls short of the ethical behavior we expect of our Supreme Court.

Remember, political change can only come from the governed. We need to see the political activism like the world saw in 1968. We need to harness the spirit of Egypt, Tunisia, Wisconsin and tell the likes of John Boehner, and Mich McConnell and their patrons that we will not allow our nation to devolve into an oligarchy as we sweep them from power.

A Victory for Equality

Today, the State of New York embraced equality and voted to allow gays/lesbians/trans-gender to marry and receive the same rights afforded to heterosexual couples. This was a bi-partisan effort where many Democrat and Republican legislators stood up to be counted on the right side of this historic vote. Let this be a lesson to others on what can be done if we all work together for justice and equity. One can only imagine the party going on at the old Stonewall Inn tonight.

Media Review: The Return of Countdown

Keith Olbermann returned to television yesterday when his show Countdown: With Keith Olbermann debuted on Current TV, and is showing a bit of rust after his long hiatus. The show looked quite familiar but seemed to lacking in something. One thing that surprised me is how much he tried to make the new show like the old show rather than take the blank page he was handed and go take the concept further.

I don't know what I was expecting, but the debut seemed to be lacking in something. At his best, Olbermann is the modern generation's equivalent of Edward R. Murrow or Walter Cronkite. His special comments health care rank among the most poignant moments I have seen on television. He captured the moment and framed the issue in a way that it seemed our nation's leaders were afraid of.

Yesterday, let us be frank, was slow and uneventful. The day lacked the type of stories that would normally provide good fodder for commentary. We had the Obama impersonator getting yanked, Rick Perry flirting with RLC, and the Jon Stewart interview. Not much excitement there.

I will say that, compared to Lawrence O'Donnell's show, he came out on top. The Michael Moore and Markos Moulitsas segments really set the stage for what could be greatness yet to come. I look forward to seeing more of those segments, and perhaps new segments to add humor and insight as opposed to Worst Persons or Time Marches On.

Where are the Jobs?

Recently, Speaker Boehner took time out from holding the full faith and credit of the United States hostage to try and cripple medicare or demand draconian cuts in federal spending to ask once again "Where are the Jobs?" What is even funnier was his assertion that under his leadership the House has been focused upon job creation. That seems to be an interesting take on the facts.

Since he took up the gavel in January, the legislation that has come out of the House has been concerned with cutting spending. This move towards austerity does have a tendency to hurt job growth. When the government cuts spending it can have both a direct and indirect. The federal government can cut funding to various agencies that are forced to layoff its own staff, thus increasing unemployment. It can cut funding to the states, which can cause states, counties and cities to layoff their staff, increasing unemployment. All of these layoffs create a lessened demand in the market for goods and services, thus potentially causing layoffs across the broad spectrum of private sector industries. In short cutting government spending during a fragile recovery can stall or reverse job gains.

Conversely increasing government spending in such a manner so as to directly put people to work can increase the pace of recovery. There are currently many ways to put people to work. There are billions of dollars worth of infrastructure repair projects that need to be done to prevent disasters such as Katrina from wiping out wide swaths of a major city. We can push to bring broadband internet to all corners of the nation, and try and catch up with nations such as India who are further ahead of us in that regard. We can invest in research into clean energy and transportation research. We can bolster the staffs of the agencies charged with protection our borders, financial markets as well as workplace and food safety so that they have the personnel to perform their job effectively.

When you put these people to work you begin to thin the unemployment rolls and thus reducing expenditures in that program, and subsequently other poverty prevention programs that these newly employed may have relied upon before. These people will then contribute payroll taxes which will replenish the national coffers. These people will now have money to buy goods and services again, thus creating demand for those goods and services. This demand creates a need to hire more people to meet the demand, putting more people back to work.

Contrary to Speaker Boehner's assertion that taxes and regulation are hampering job creation, most businesses cite weak demand as their primary reason for lack of private sector job creation.

So I say to you Speaker Boehner, "Where is your jobs bill that addresses demand?"

Follow the Money

In the post Citizen's United political reality, the presence of unprecedented amounts of money in our political system has sought to remake our government. With this decision, Harry "Lighthorse" Lee's pronouncement of the Constitution of 1787 as being a gateway to oligarchy comes to fruition.

Take for example the struggle the President and others have had in establishing the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, many called for a reexamination of the financial regulations and the agencies charged with enforcement. The resulting legislation, while lacking the teeth of Glass-Stegall it at least sought to establish an agency charged with ensuring that consumers would not fall victim to predatory lending and other unsavory practices. Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, believes this is a bad idea. And the head of the House Banking Committee believes that government and its regulators exist to serve the banks. These positions are not unexpected if you see who their major campaign contributors are. The financial services industry has given over $5 billion dollars in campaign contributions directly to federal legislatures, an investment they certainly expect to pay dividends in the form of favorable legislation and regulations. On today's Cenk Uygur show a journalist from Wall Street Journal said financial regulation would harm job creation, and parroted the views of the financial sector.

Protecting consumers in the marketplace is one function that our federal government is uniquely positioned to perform effectively. Consumers should know, in plain language, what the contract for credit they are entering into entails of them. An agency charged with ensuring this practice should find at its head someone who is not on the financial services industry payroll. Elizabeth Warren is someone who understands this, and that is why the Republicans in the Senate have been against her appointment as well as anyone to head an agency that would protect the consumer from the financial services industry.

In Oliver Stone's film JFK, X told Jim Garrison to follow the money if you wanted to know who killed Kennedy. If you want to know why your elected representatives are taking the positions they are, you should follow their money. Look at who are their largest campaign contributors, and how their voting record supports those donors. When in doubt, follow the money.

Blind Allegiance?

As Americans, we should pride ourselves in the notion that we have numerous means to involve ourselves with our political system. What should worry us is that many abdicate this responsibility to others, and blindly follow one party or the other without questioning its leaders over their decisions.

For much of W's term in office, few if any people seriously challenged the direction he was bringing his party and the nation. Commentators such as Limbaugh and Hannity called anyone who did challenge the President unpatriotic. When the administration began to assault the notion security in one's papers and home by demanding the telecommunications companies turn over customer records without the benefit of a warrant, Qwest dared to challenge that in court, and for that found their government contracts cancelled.

This behavior is not limited to the right, Democrats are just as guilty of this fault. Over the last few years, Barack Obama has not lived up to the promises he made in his campaign. He has moved the Supreme Court to the right to the point where states such as Texas, Kansas and Louisiana feel confident in passing legislation that repudiates Roe v. Wade because the court has shifted sufficiently to the right. He allowed congress to wait until a lame duck session to take up the extension of the Bush tax cuts, and allowed the minority party to dictate terms. The same issue pressed before the recess going into the elections would have forced Congress take a position, and dare anyone to vote against the extension of the middle class tax cuts, with voters waiting in the wings to cast judgement.

In America, a citizen's responsibility to the governance of the nation does not end at the ballot box, it begins there. If we are truly going to honor the memory of our nation's founders, we as a nation need to become more involved in the system. A President shouldn't expect a free pass when it comes to re-election, he should expect a primary challenger who will keep him honest. He should expect hard questions from constituents from both sides of the aisle to be reminded that America is a land of diverse opinion. In the future our political system should reflect this diversity, by embracing measures that would encourage third, fourth and fifth party participation. This would be something we could do to increase participation and break the stranglehold that corrupting interests seem to have on our government.

Now that Wienergate has played out...

Now that Anthony Wiener has admitted to sending the tweet in question , can we now go on to more important matters.

This story is not what needs to dominate the public discourse, since it is in many ways a non story. Did Rep. Wiener exercise poor judgment in carrying on the way hi did? Yes, he did, though compared to John Edwards, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Mike Ensign, his antics were downright sophomoric. If someone with the Name Wiener enters public life two things are certain, one is a sense of humor and the other is thick skin. Some of the shots such as him with a me sign or the alleged pussy shot (featuring him and his tabbies) are cute and funny in most contexts.

While his actions were juvenile and showed a lack forethought, they were not criminal. Anthony Wiener did not solicit money from his parents to use as hush money, nor did he father a child with the domestic help, nor did he even use campaign money to help keep the issue silent and at bay. He proved that he was human.

There are people who have the right to sit in judgement of his actions, and I am not one of them. Due to the nature of his actions, his wife is one of them. Whether or not they are able to successfully work through this and strengthen their relationship. That is by definition a private matter and should not be food for public consumption. The others are his constituents, should he decide to run for reelection. They have to decide if his actions have detracted from the zealous advocacy he has shown those who elected him while in their service. I have a couple of friends who live in his district who, barring something unforeseen still plan on voting for him in 2012.

Now that all of this that has become known as Wienergate has played out, isn't it time that we focus our attention on something more pressing such as the debt ceiling vote, the budget and maybe jobs and education? Just an idea.

The Hypocrisy of the Pro Life Right

One look at the slate of bills promulgated by the Republicans in Congress and the State Houses across the nation points out that the pro-life movement and their sympathizers in government care nothing about lowering the instance of abortion in the nation. In fact it points to a movement that seeks to marginalize women and return them to a status that would resemble the lot of women in Afghanistan under the Taliban.

In the first five months of the year, legislatures have raced each other to see who could come up with the most restrictive abortion bill short of an all out ban. Coming in a close second are bills that seek to eliminate funding to non-profit agencies whose primary goal is the promotion of women's health issues and access to medical care for women. In short Koch Industries subsidiary, otherwise known as the Republican Party has declared war on women.

Within all of this debate, no serious proposal to promote contraception, including the promotion of condom use could be found. If one is truly wishing to see abortions become a rare event, it would only make sense to seek to promote the use of contraception so that the instances of unintended pregnancies begin to diminish.

In the not too distant past, when HIV and AIDS were synonyms for death, safe sex became fashionable. Condoms awareness exploded and even the schools began to include safe sex as a topic within health education program. Condoms also are unique, in that not only do they have a good record of protection against STDs but they also, prevent unintended pregnancies.

So next time you see the Pro-Life people proselytizing about their cause, challenge them to put the same effort towards promotion the use of condoms. If they are serious about ending abortion, they should readily embrace this cause. If they balk, ask them point blank, are the trying to resign women, especially poor women to breeding class of their own conception?

The Race to the Bottom

These days it has become too routine to turn on the news and find out that a Republican governor proposes to cure their state's budgetary problems by eliminating that which actually benefits the citizens of their state.

Chris Christie, when he is not commandeering a police helicopter to make a short trip to his son's

baseball game, keeps busy by trying to undermine the successes New Jersey has earned over the years. He told the federal government that they could keep their money and cancelled a tunnel project that would have employed hundreds and helped alleviate congestion on the existing structures linking NJ with New York City. He then proposed to cut the eligibility threshold for Medicaid to less than $6000 for a family of 3...or so that a person who works 20 hours per week at minimum wage would be too wealthy for assistance.

In Florida, Rick Scott refused money to help create a modern rail network in his state. He didn't want the jobs or the prosperity that jobs and work might bring to his state.

Go to Texas, and witness what Rick Perry and his cohorts did this legislative session. At the beginning of the session the Governor may declare some projects emergency priorities and thus getting them moved up on the list of projects to debate on the floor of the legislature. With the state facing a large deficit, the emergency priority included nothing that addressed this. Instead his emergency priorities were, an assault on women's health and reproductive rights, replicating the Arizona Papers Please law and getting guns on college campuses. Proposals that would have brought jobs, such as the proposal to allow slot machines at the state race tracks could get the same expedited treatment.

In all of these examples, the governors of these states are falling all over themselves to shower money on business interests and paying for it by gutting education, funding for nursing homes, and programs that actually work to help the citizens and attract businesses by providing a well educated workforce capable of innovating with the best on earth.

In 2012, you must ask yourself, is the person you are voting for working in your best interests, or for his wealthy patron's interests.

Deregulation Illustrated

All we here coming from the Republicans in Congress, is that to grow jobs we need to lower taxes and cut regulations. The concept becomes laughable. George W. Bush did that and the nation's economy bled jobs and caused a global economic crisis. Leaving the tax debate aside, let us look at what deregulation looks like in a manner that most might be familiar with.

Take a look at Facebook or Android market. They operate on a model of limited oversight as to the what app developers can place in the marketplace. How many times have we, or someone we know, discovered that some of these apps were little more than malware delivery vehicles. One click and you have spammed your entire friend list, and then need to work hard to undo any damage caused. This causes grief, and perhaps the expense of having any virus or malware professionally removed.

On the other hand, Apple's App Store controls the content in its marketplace. They examine apps that developers wish to sell in their marketplace to ensure that it is free of malware and won't harm the device it used on. This regulation hasn't stifled business, except in the cases where the developers business model is to spread spam or malware. The Apple App Store is the benchmark by which all others are judged for its ease of use, ease of access and the volume and breadth of its offerings.

There is no evidence that proper regulation harms the market, in fact it is quite the opposite. Proper regulation keeps the market fair and prevents harm to the consumer, and therefore is beneficial.

What we learned from the events of Arab Spring

This past spring, the world witnessed several populist uprisings across the Arab/Muslim world which sought to bring about democratic reforms. In places such as Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, the people used social media such as twitter and facebook to organize mass protest demonstrations against their respective governments. These protests successfully forced the Egyptian and Tunisian governments to step aside and make way for democratic reforms. In all these populist movements, with little direct U.S. intervention have proved successful in setting the groundwork for true democratic reforms in the region.

In this light, the Bush Administration's path to War in Iraq was clearly the wrong move that has produced poorer results. The U.S. has been in Iraq for almost 8 years and does not seem any closer to seeing a stable Iraqi government. It is not out of the realm of imagination that had the U.S. simply continued the Iraq policy of enforcing the no-fly zones and using the U.N. to apply economic and diplomatic pressure on Saddam's government, that populist uprisings could have happened there as well this spring. Like Egypt and Tunisia, Iraq was a fairly modern company which boasted a healthy technological infrastructure, the elements utilized in mobilizing the protests elsewhere. We could have achieved the same end result, the removal of Saddam from power, without spending billions of dollars, and without the loss of life all have suffered over the last 8 years.

The Lies the Right are telling America about Debt Limit Increase

For the last month, the Republicans in Congress have been telling lies to the American people and are playing partisan games with the financial health of the word markets. The demand amendments which stipulate spending cuts in exchange for the passage of this bill. This is a debate best left for the ongoing budget negotiations.
In reality a vote to raise the debt ceiling does nothing to increase spending, other than ensuring that interest on our bonds is paid in a timely manner, and all the other bills are paid in a timely manner as stipulated in the budget passed for this fiscal year. No increase of spending can occur without corresponding legislation authorizing such spending. There is nothing to be gained in stalling something that all parties recognize as necessary for the good of the nation and the financial markets.
Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic caucus offered to support a clean bill, one that simply raises the debt ceiling, thus reassuring markets and announcing to the world that the U.S. will continue to pay its obligations like clockwork. Speaker Boehner has flatly refused and continues to listen to Grover Norquist and the Koch brothers and continue a course of brinkmanship that might destroy the world's financial markets and reduce us to little more than a 3rd world country. Even Ronald Regan emphasized the necessity of performing this task as he was working with his Congress to hammer out a budget agreement. To do otherwise is plain irresponsible.
After they do what must be done, the House and Senate should begin to examine the only responsible budget proposal made this year. The People's Budget, created by the Progressive Caucus is the only one that seriously addresses America's future and its fiscal stability. This budget calls for shared sacrifice to stabilize our nation's finances while it invests in the future. This budget plan creates a balanced budget in 3 years, produces a budget surplus in 2021, and by then drives the national debt down to less than 65% of GDP. It does this while investing in infrastructure repair and modernization, education, and clean energy driven energy independence. Call upon your members of congress and tell them to pass the damn debt ceiling increase and take up the People's Budget.