President Obama should not have had to hold a healthcare “summit”. If the Senate were working properly, healthcare reform would have been passed long before the 2009 August recess – so would have the Climate Bill, and Cap-and-Trade. But Republican-lite Democrats Baucus, Nelson, Lieberman, et al, held up the works. Everyone knew there would be no actual work done during the summit. Everyone knew the Republicans would be spouting party talking points and refuse to negotiate. The point of the summit was to highlight the obstructionism of the Republicans, and at the same time, for President Obama to hold the hands of the Congressional Democrats, make arguments for them, and give them some courage, because they do not have the gumption to get out there and fight for what’s right.
Actually, I blame the entire Senate – both the obstructive, obstinate Republicans (who are doing only what may be politically expedient in the short term which is not good for the country in the long term) and the lily-livered, weak-spined Democrats, especially Reid, for bringing our government to the point where it is not working for anyone. The Republicans work toward their goals in a malicious manner – slashing and burning – but the Democrats are too nice, continuing to extend their collective hand for bipartisanship even though it gets bit off every time.
With Scott Brown’s arrival as the Republican Party’s 41st senator ending the Democrats’ so-called “filibuster-proof majority” in the US Senate, governing the US just got harder. There they go again: the Party of No and Obstruction is feeling emboldened. Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) has prepared a series of gun rights amendments that he intends to add to must-pass spending bills in the Senate this year, hoping to force Democrats to take tough votes and draw clear distinctions between the two parties [about guns] heading into the midterms. Coburn "believes it's important to stay on the offense," a veteran Senate GOP consultant said in the wake of Senator-elect Scott Brown's (R-MA) win.
Maybe Scott Brown really means it when he says he is a “Scott Brown Republican”. After all, he did vote against his party and for the jobs bill, along with the two senators from Maine. Maybe he will surprise everyone by being truly moderate, helping to vote down some of these ridiculously bad gun amendments. But I doubt it – the Senate will be more broken than ever, with a minority party completely obstructing the rule of the majority.
This is why people speak of the 41-59 Republican "majority".
Republicans believe it is critical that they try to make Democrats appear out of step with the average American. They believe amendments on guns and spending in particular will help GOP Senators achieve that goal. So, for example, the Education bill has a Coburn amendment allowing veterans deemed "mentally defective" to carry firearms. Senator Coburn wants to force Democrats into a situation whereby if they want to approve broad education funding, they also have to approve expanding gun rights to those who have been deemed “dangerous” at the same time.
Amendments having nothing to do with the subject of the bill are not rare, but Democrats do not do this nearly as much because there are no issues that Republicans fear as much as Red-state Democrats fear the gun issue.
As an example of Republican obstruction: After nine months, the Senate finally approved Martha Johnson to head the General Services Administration, which runs government buildings and purchases supplies. It is a nonpolitical position and nobody questioned Ms. Johnson’s qualifications: she was approved by a vote of 94 to 2. Senator Christopher Bond, Republican of Missouri, had put a “hold” on her appointment, not because he found her to be an offensive appointee, but to pressure the government to approve some pork for his state – a building project in Kansas City.
This dubious achievement may have inspired Senator Richard Shelby, Republican of Alabama. Senator Shelby placed a hold on all Obama administration nominations that remained – about 70 high-level government positions. He wanted to hold the nominations hostage until his state gets a tanker contract for the city of Mobile and a counterterrorism center placed in Huntsville. Finally, this was reported all over the media, so, eventually, with egg on his face, he withdrew his hold on all nominations but three.
What gives individual senators this kind of power? Much of the Senate’s business relies on unanimous consent making it difficult to get anything done unless everyone agrees on procedure. And a tradition has grown that allows a Senator, in return for not gumming up everything, to block a nominee they don’t like. With the national GOP having abdicated any responsibility for helping government work, it is only natural that individual senators such as Senator Shelby should feel free to take the nation hostage until they get their pet projects funded.
Until Senator Shelby pulled his stunt, no Senator, in the history of this nation, had ever blocked all nominations. Holds were always used sparingly. That’s because the Senate used to be ruled by traditions of courtesy, reciprocity, and accommodation. Rules that used to be workable in a civil society have become crippling now that the Republicans have descended into obstructionism, seeing political dividends in making the nation ungovernable.
Things are so bad that even bills the Republicans have sponsored are voted against by every Republican if President Obama comes out for it. Last month Republican senators voted in lockstep against any increase in the federal debt limit, a move that would have precipitated another government shutdown if Democrats hadn’t had 60 votes. They rail against the deficit, but they also denounce anything that might actually reduce the deficit, including, ironically, any effort to spend Medicare funds more wisely such as allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices. They promoted a bill that set up a deficit panel, until President Obama said that it was a good idea, and then they were against it.
Yet, Democrats, being verbally-challenged, do not seem to be able to score political points by highlighting their opponents’ obstructionism. It should have been an easy message in the Massachusetts senate race: a vote for a Republican, no matter what you think of him as a person, is a vote for paralysis. But, then again, the so-called moderate Democrats have been holding up healthcare reform and other initiatives, despite the party’s control of the White House and both chambers of the legislature. The progressive Democrats want an all or none approach in that they will not vote for healthcare reform if it does not have the public option. This effectively does what the Republicans want – to kill health reform altogether.
The worst problem of all is how the Obama administration only mildly deals with those who would destroy or betray it. Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, accused Mr. Shelby of “silliness” when Shelby blocked all nominations until the Senate gives Alabama millions of dollars in pork. Does the Obama administration really think that using the word “silliness” to define Republican obstructionism will really rile up voters against the obstructionists?
And do not forget the Republican-lite Democrats that come from Red States – they are also obstructionists. The nation would have been much better off had they been actual Republicans. Then maybe Harry Reid would have grown a backbone and pushed things through instead bending over backward to the point that he could kiss his own **** during negotiations with these DINOS.
“The truth is that given the state of American politics, the way the Senate works is no longer consistent with a functioning government. Senators themselves should recognize this fact and push through changes in those rules, including eliminating or at least limiting the filibuster. This is something they could and should do, by majority vote, on the first day of the next Senate session.” ~Paul Krugman
According to Paul Krugman, in the 17th and 18th centuries, the Polish legislature, called the Sejm, operated on the unanimity principle: any one member could nullify legislation by shouting “I do not allow!” This made the nation largely ungovernable, and neighboring regimes began hacking off pieces of its territory. By 1795 Poland had disappeared, not to re-emerge for more than a century. After the dissolution of Poland, a Polish officer serving under Napoleon penned a song that eventually – after the country’s post-World War I resurrection – became the country’s national anthem. It begins, “Poland is not yet lost.”
America may not be lost yet, but the broken Senate is certainly working on it.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/opinion/08krugman.html
Friday, February 26, 2010
Friday, February 19, 2010
Without bees we cannot survive
Global warming is a serious problem – so is pollution – but there is another more pressing situation going on. Over the past three years, more than 50 billion honeybees have died. Scientists know why, and now need everyone to lend a helping hand.
To understand the importance of honeybees to our planet, consider that every third bite on your plate is a result of their primary role on the planet as pollinators — the most important group on Earth. Honeybees contribute at least $44 billion a year to the U.S. economy. They pollinate food crops, alfalfa and clover for beef and dairy industries, cotton for our clothes, and produce honey, wax for candles, and ingredients for medicines.
In 2006, the honeybee genome was decoded, and the genetics revealed only half as many genes for detoxification and immunity compared to other known insects. Scientists found specific "good" bacteria inside their stomachs and intestines crucial for fighting pathogens and digesting the silica casing around each pollen grain, providing access to its protein.
A combination of factors has collided to create the perfect storm responsible for memory loss, appetite loss, and autoimmune system collapse that has resulted in the rapid decline in honeybee populations worldwide. The abnormally high temperatures of 2006 were likely the tipping point for bees in North America. The searing springtime temperatures during the onset of flowering are believed to have caused sterile pollen in many plants. Sterile pollen produces little, if any, protein.
Then in 2007, almond, plum, kiwi and cherry pollens that were tested exhibited little, if any, protein content. Infertile soils lacking essential nutrients, bacteria, fungi, protozoa along with climate change were implicated. A variety of pollens provide the bees’ only source of protein. Protein is important for growing the eggs, larvae, brains, and autoimmune systems of the bees. Bees evolved to feed on a wide assortment of pollens, but today many farmers use the bees in monoculture fields. This is not good for the bees. Beekeepers around the globe are now feeding their hives a form of a protein shake with eggs, brewers yeast, pollen, and honey and other special ingredients.
In 2008, researchers from Penn State found 43 pesticides in a Pennsylvania apple orchard. Many farmers combine or stack their chemicals to reduce applications costs. Stacking chemicals is known to increase toxicity levels in some cases by 1,000 fold. Each year 5 billion pounds of pesticides are applied globally. Some of those pesticides are poisonous, mimicking symptoms similar to those of humans afflicted with Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. Clearly agriculture must reduce the levels of toxicity from pesticides, herbicide and miticides globally. Do not use herbicides, pesticides, or miticides in your yard.
Research from Europe showed that bees exposed to electromagnetic radiation from cellular towers made 21 percent less honeycomb and that 36 percent, taken a half-mile from the hive, were unable to navigate their way back home.
There is hope on the horizon; organics is the fastest growing sector in the U.S. at $24 billion a year. First lady Michele Obama has an organic garden on the White House lawn with two honeybee hives close by. You can help by purchasing organic foods and cottons. Support local beekeepers by buying local honey. Plant a wide variety of native yellow and blue flowers in your yard, add a clover patch to the lawn, and participate by helping scientists in the U.S. National Phenology Network (http://www.usanpn.org/).
Without the bees, we cannot survive.
To understand the importance of honeybees to our planet, consider that every third bite on your plate is a result of their primary role on the planet as pollinators — the most important group on Earth. Honeybees contribute at least $44 billion a year to the U.S. economy. They pollinate food crops, alfalfa and clover for beef and dairy industries, cotton for our clothes, and produce honey, wax for candles, and ingredients for medicines.
In 2006, the honeybee genome was decoded, and the genetics revealed only half as many genes for detoxification and immunity compared to other known insects. Scientists found specific "good" bacteria inside their stomachs and intestines crucial for fighting pathogens and digesting the silica casing around each pollen grain, providing access to its protein.
A combination of factors has collided to create the perfect storm responsible for memory loss, appetite loss, and autoimmune system collapse that has resulted in the rapid decline in honeybee populations worldwide. The abnormally high temperatures of 2006 were likely the tipping point for bees in North America. The searing springtime temperatures during the onset of flowering are believed to have caused sterile pollen in many plants. Sterile pollen produces little, if any, protein.
Then in 2007, almond, plum, kiwi and cherry pollens that were tested exhibited little, if any, protein content. Infertile soils lacking essential nutrients, bacteria, fungi, protozoa along with climate change were implicated. A variety of pollens provide the bees’ only source of protein. Protein is important for growing the eggs, larvae, brains, and autoimmune systems of the bees. Bees evolved to feed on a wide assortment of pollens, but today many farmers use the bees in monoculture fields. This is not good for the bees. Beekeepers around the globe are now feeding their hives a form of a protein shake with eggs, brewers yeast, pollen, and honey and other special ingredients.
In 2008, researchers from Penn State found 43 pesticides in a Pennsylvania apple orchard. Many farmers combine or stack their chemicals to reduce applications costs. Stacking chemicals is known to increase toxicity levels in some cases by 1,000 fold. Each year 5 billion pounds of pesticides are applied globally. Some of those pesticides are poisonous, mimicking symptoms similar to those of humans afflicted with Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. Clearly agriculture must reduce the levels of toxicity from pesticides, herbicide and miticides globally. Do not use herbicides, pesticides, or miticides in your yard.
Research from Europe showed that bees exposed to electromagnetic radiation from cellular towers made 21 percent less honeycomb and that 36 percent, taken a half-mile from the hive, were unable to navigate their way back home.
There is hope on the horizon; organics is the fastest growing sector in the U.S. at $24 billion a year. First lady Michele Obama has an organic garden on the White House lawn with two honeybee hives close by. You can help by purchasing organic foods and cottons. Support local beekeepers by buying local honey. Plant a wide variety of native yellow and blue flowers in your yard, add a clover patch to the lawn, and participate by helping scientists in the U.S. National Phenology Network (http://www.usanpn.org/).
Without the bees, we cannot survive.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Republicans, the Tea Party, and 2010
While Republicans will likely make inroads on the House Democrat's 79-seat majority in 2010, there is plenty of data that suggests it will be mitigated and fall short of the revolution that some radio and television personalities believe is just around the corner. A Smart Politics analysis of U.S. House election returns finds that while the GOP is historically likely to pick up seats in the 2010 midterms, next November's election might look a lot closer to (though falling short of) the 2002 midterms or the 2004 general elections (in which the party in power, the GOP, held and even gained a few seats) rather than the 1994 or 2006 midterms (in which the party in power lost substantially – 54 seats for the Democrats and 31 seats for the Republicans respectively).
During the past few months, several political pundits and Washington, D.C. insiders are already projecting significant Republican gains in 2010.In late August, Fox News contributor Dick Morris gleefully predicted Democrats could lose 100 seats: "It's a disaster for the Democrats. You could literally, at this point, see 100 seats changing in the House."
The Tea Party developed last year in protest to what its supporters say was overspending in Washington – by both Republicans and Democrats – following the stimulus bill, the bank bailouts and President Obama's budget. As it expanded, the protests became more partisan in nature, and the Tea Party established itself as an uprising to the far right of the Republican Party. Over the year, the Tea Party grew into a loose link of groups around the country, protesting the bank bailout, taxes in general, socialism (regardless of their own Social Security and Medicare services), and having a black president.
"The anger over alleged fiscal irresponsibility in Washington is shared by a wider spectrum of voters, including independents," said John Avlon, author of Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe is Hijacking America. Republicans are trying to co-opt the Tea Party. Democrats are trying to marginalize it. And people with personal aspirations – whether financial or political – are trying to take advantage of it. For example, the Tea Party Express, a conservative bus tour that crisscrossed the country last year, was run from inside a Republican political consulting firm owned by Dick Armey who recruited older, angry libertarian-types and bused them to various town hall meetings to act as an “angry constituency”.
But the same independent voters who are reacting against fiscal “irresponsibility” are also reacting against the polarization of the two major parties. In contrast, the Tea Partiers wanted Republicans and Democrats to become more polarized, Avlon said. The Tea Party groups are trying to flex their muscle and move the Republican Party further to the right. While the more radical activists made headlines, the voices of frustrated independent voters were being heard across the country. The White House said Republican Scott Brown's win in last month's Massachusetts Senate election was "a wake-up call." While Brown captured the support of the Tea Party, he also won over the state's independent voters. And he has made it clear that he is ‘his own Republican’ – as in no party owns him. (We’ll see if he can hold to that once he is in Washington for several months.)
"If the 'Birthers' [those who say Obama wasn't born in the U.S.] and the Tea Party people win most of the primaries in the Republican Party, it may not yield much of a Republican victory in the general election," said Curtis Gans, director of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate at American University. He pointed to New York's election last November as an example of how the Tea Party's support for more conservative candidates could hurt Republicans in the upcoming elections. Last November, Tea Party groups received credit for affecting the outcome of a special election for New York's 23rd Congressional District. Local Republican leaders backed state Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava because they thought she would appeal to centrists and independents. But more conservative party members revolted and instead backed Doug Hoffman, who ran on the Conservative Party ticket. Scozzafava dropped out days before the race and endorsed Bill Owens, the Democratic candidate. The split among Republicans contributed to Owens' win.
How will the Tea Party affect the GOP in the long term?
"What happened over the course of the summer as the town hall meetings got hijacked, you started to see a new kind of activist taking over the Tea Party movement," Avlon said. "As the wingnut fringe blurred with the base, you've seen more unhinged [crazy] attacks proliferate, and there still hasn't been a transition to a positive agenda." Many Tea Party members began directing their anger at Obama, calling him socialist and carrying posters with his face altered to resemble Hitler or The Joker or alluding to Obama being a monkey.
A funny thing about the Tea Party convention: not very many young people showed up. As the Tea Party's first national convention got under way, an overwhelming majority of white, middle-aged (and older) army of angry conservatives/libertarians, furious with government spending and influence, ready to do whatever they can to stop it, united in their anger but divided over the future of the movement. The convention was marketed as an opportunity to bring Tea Party leaders from across the country together to network and support the movement. But the high-priced-ticket convention, organized by a for-profit organization, is contradictory to the group's bottom-up, grass-roots beginnings. The convention has been dogged by infighting, with some protesting its $549 entrance fee and its hierarchical organization.
The organizers say it is all about cultivating the political anger that's out there and generating it to power political change. They do not like Obama Democrats, and some do not like Republicans. But when talk turns to the possibility of a third party, a Tea Party, that is when people in the movement seem to get queasy. Tea Partiers almost unanimously say it's not their goal. Something that is organized and national seems the very antithesis of what they're about -- being grass roots, staying local, more states rights, and less federal government. Mark Meckler and Jenny Beth Martin, founders of the Tea Party Patriots, say they are frustrated that other Tea Party groups are being run by Republican political consultants. Meckler and Martin refused to attend the convention.
"It wasn't the kind of grass-roots organization that we are, so we declined to participate," Meckler said.
Rival Tea Party factions are battling over who will carry the Tea Party banner. Some members worry powerful Astroturf groups are profiteering from the Tea Party. In fact, Tennessee Rep. Marsha Blackburn and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann were supposed to speak at the convention, but both dropped out, citing problems with the for-profit status of the Tea Party Nation, the group behind the event.
For the Tea Party to be a constructive movement, it will need to repudiate the unhinged Obama-haters and then focus its anger at fiscal irresponsibility into policy proposals instead of bumper-sticker platitudes. But the likelihood of that happening is nil. Author Eric Hoffer warned in his book, The True Believer: "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket."
Avlon said the concerns over the proceeds have undercut the event's attempt to be a rallying point. "They like to compare themselves to the founding fathers. Well, imagine if John Hancock had been trying to make a buck off the constitutional convention….If it [the Tea Party] just empowers the extremes in the party, then when extremes control parties – when wingnuts hijack a political party – ultimately, they take it off a cliff."
I surely hope so. Then the Republican Party can start over and once again welcome moderates.
During the past few months, several political pundits and Washington, D.C. insiders are already projecting significant Republican gains in 2010.In late August, Fox News contributor Dick Morris gleefully predicted Democrats could lose 100 seats: "It's a disaster for the Democrats. You could literally, at this point, see 100 seats changing in the House."
The Tea Party developed last year in protest to what its supporters say was overspending in Washington – by both Republicans and Democrats – following the stimulus bill, the bank bailouts and President Obama's budget. As it expanded, the protests became more partisan in nature, and the Tea Party established itself as an uprising to the far right of the Republican Party. Over the year, the Tea Party grew into a loose link of groups around the country, protesting the bank bailout, taxes in general, socialism (regardless of their own Social Security and Medicare services), and having a black president.
"The anger over alleged fiscal irresponsibility in Washington is shared by a wider spectrum of voters, including independents," said John Avlon, author of Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe is Hijacking America. Republicans are trying to co-opt the Tea Party. Democrats are trying to marginalize it. And people with personal aspirations – whether financial or political – are trying to take advantage of it. For example, the Tea Party Express, a conservative bus tour that crisscrossed the country last year, was run from inside a Republican political consulting firm owned by Dick Armey who recruited older, angry libertarian-types and bused them to various town hall meetings to act as an “angry constituency”.
But the same independent voters who are reacting against fiscal “irresponsibility” are also reacting against the polarization of the two major parties. In contrast, the Tea Partiers wanted Republicans and Democrats to become more polarized, Avlon said. The Tea Party groups are trying to flex their muscle and move the Republican Party further to the right. While the more radical activists made headlines, the voices of frustrated independent voters were being heard across the country. The White House said Republican Scott Brown's win in last month's Massachusetts Senate election was "a wake-up call." While Brown captured the support of the Tea Party, he also won over the state's independent voters. And he has made it clear that he is ‘his own Republican’ – as in no party owns him. (We’ll see if he can hold to that once he is in Washington for several months.)
"If the 'Birthers' [those who say Obama wasn't born in the U.S.] and the Tea Party people win most of the primaries in the Republican Party, it may not yield much of a Republican victory in the general election," said Curtis Gans, director of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate at American University. He pointed to New York's election last November as an example of how the Tea Party's support for more conservative candidates could hurt Republicans in the upcoming elections. Last November, Tea Party groups received credit for affecting the outcome of a special election for New York's 23rd Congressional District. Local Republican leaders backed state Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava because they thought she would appeal to centrists and independents. But more conservative party members revolted and instead backed Doug Hoffman, who ran on the Conservative Party ticket. Scozzafava dropped out days before the race and endorsed Bill Owens, the Democratic candidate. The split among Republicans contributed to Owens' win.
How will the Tea Party affect the GOP in the long term?
"What happened over the course of the summer as the town hall meetings got hijacked, you started to see a new kind of activist taking over the Tea Party movement," Avlon said. "As the wingnut fringe blurred with the base, you've seen more unhinged [crazy] attacks proliferate, and there still hasn't been a transition to a positive agenda." Many Tea Party members began directing their anger at Obama, calling him socialist and carrying posters with his face altered to resemble Hitler or The Joker or alluding to Obama being a monkey.
A funny thing about the Tea Party convention: not very many young people showed up. As the Tea Party's first national convention got under way, an overwhelming majority of white, middle-aged (and older) army of angry conservatives/libertarians, furious with government spending and influence, ready to do whatever they can to stop it, united in their anger but divided over the future of the movement. The convention was marketed as an opportunity to bring Tea Party leaders from across the country together to network and support the movement. But the high-priced-ticket convention, organized by a for-profit organization, is contradictory to the group's bottom-up, grass-roots beginnings. The convention has been dogged by infighting, with some protesting its $549 entrance fee and its hierarchical organization.
The organizers say it is all about cultivating the political anger that's out there and generating it to power political change. They do not like Obama Democrats, and some do not like Republicans. But when talk turns to the possibility of a third party, a Tea Party, that is when people in the movement seem to get queasy. Tea Partiers almost unanimously say it's not their goal. Something that is organized and national seems the very antithesis of what they're about -- being grass roots, staying local, more states rights, and less federal government. Mark Meckler and Jenny Beth Martin, founders of the Tea Party Patriots, say they are frustrated that other Tea Party groups are being run by Republican political consultants. Meckler and Martin refused to attend the convention.
"It wasn't the kind of grass-roots organization that we are, so we declined to participate," Meckler said.
Rival Tea Party factions are battling over who will carry the Tea Party banner. Some members worry powerful Astroturf groups are profiteering from the Tea Party. In fact, Tennessee Rep. Marsha Blackburn and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann were supposed to speak at the convention, but both dropped out, citing problems with the for-profit status of the Tea Party Nation, the group behind the event.
For the Tea Party to be a constructive movement, it will need to repudiate the unhinged Obama-haters and then focus its anger at fiscal irresponsibility into policy proposals instead of bumper-sticker platitudes. But the likelihood of that happening is nil. Author Eric Hoffer warned in his book, The True Believer: "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket."
Avlon said the concerns over the proceeds have undercut the event's attempt to be a rallying point. "They like to compare themselves to the founding fathers. Well, imagine if John Hancock had been trying to make a buck off the constitutional convention….If it [the Tea Party] just empowers the extremes in the party, then when extremes control parties – when wingnuts hijack a political party – ultimately, they take it off a cliff."
I surely hope so. Then the Republican Party can start over and once again welcome moderates.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
All you need to know about the Tea Party
As Tea Party activists attend this weekend's convention in Nashville, it is safe to say that shrinking the federal government will be the principle they put forward. After all, to the extent that the group has an organizing principle, it is that Washington spends too much.
And yet, apart from the surging bills that Washington absorbs for health care, the surprising reality is that Big Government is not all that big by historical standards. Even with an economic stimulus, a bank bailout and two wars, non-medical spending by the federal government is a smaller percentage of the economy than it was during most of Ronald Reagan's administration.
Even though Reagan began paring back government, non-medical spending hovered around 20% of the economy during his administration. The reason for this is no mystery, even if it is not part of the daily political narrative. As the government's medical tab surged from $72 billion in 1980 to an estimated $912 billion in 2010, traditional government functions — things like roads, criminal justice and education — had to be more tightly controlled simply to avoid the kind of outlandish deficits we've seen in recent years. In other words, taking care of Grandma is expensive.
In just a few years, as the stimulus shrinks and the economy expands, government spending outside of health care will drop to about 16% of the economy, roughly where it has been since the mid-1990s.
Where government spending is concerned, the Tea Partiers are barking up the wrong trees. If their goal is to control spending, they should be demanding curbs in Medicare and answering President Obama's call for health care reform with counterproposals heavier on cost control. But, in my opinion, controlling government spending is not the main reason for the Tea Party.
Tea Partiers also say taxes are too high, but here, too, perception differs from reality, at least by history's measure. Because of the recession and the Obama tax cuts this past year, tax collections are at their lowest since 1950. In 2009 and 2010, tax receipts collected by Washington will total just 14.8% of the economy.
Tea Partiers seem to be promoting more partisanship, not less, by rejecting candidates deemed too likely to cross over and negotiate with Democrats. That is a recipe for more debt. If the Tea Partiers truly want to reduce the deficit, they would be demanding that the two parties work together. With the minority party always poised to attack when the majority sticks its neck out, nothing gets done. But reducing the deficit is not the real reason for the Tea Party. If it were, the Tea Partiers would have been out en masse during the Bush years when they racked up a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit.
This is not to say an uprising against Washington is not merited. Lawmakers of both parties are simply ignoring the nation's drift toward fiscal suicide. Nor is it the case that populist movements cannot serve constructive purposes. The last one – Ross Perot's presidential bid in 1992 – forced both parties to focus attention on the deficits, which then turned into surpluses under a Democratic President.
Until the Tea Partiers can channel their anger toward more productive solutions, the Washington spending machine will continue.
But it won’t happen, because…
Real Reason for the Tea Party
It is being said that "Old racists don’t fade away they just join the Tea Party movement."
Being white no longer guarantees you a pass to the front of the line. That is what is summoning up the hate and fear fueling the Tea Party movement. The shouts of “We want our country back” and “Our way of life is being attacked” say everything about this movement. Individuals who fought against the civil rights movement also make up the core of the Tea Party movement. They now see the Tea Party as a way to once again fight against what they see as the evils of letting everyone into this country.
“People who could not spell the word ‘vote’ or say it in English put a Barrack Hussein Obama in the White House,” said former Colorado Republican Rep. Tom Tanceredo, as the opening speaker at the Tea Party convention. (Emphasis on the name “Hussein” is his.)
Tanceredo’s statement tells you what the Tea Party is really against. To me, they sound more like the movement that put Hitler in power. Well maybe that is a little over top, but I think that describes the Tea Partiers more than as a group of “Real Americans” because they only consider far-right-leaning, white, rural and small-town Americans as “real”.
Why do I think this? Because as I study this so-called “Real American” movement, I have noticed that many of those who were against the Civil Rights movement now have found a new voice. I recently read an article by the associated press in which the reporter interviewed a 61-year-old woman who repeated the Tea Party line “Our way of life is under attack” and was all too proud about helping ban books from the library in her West Virginia town. Yet, when asked, she didn’t really know who “they” were – other than the fact that she hated Obama. Another woman said, “We want our country back!” Translate that into “our white-ruled, white-dominated country.”
These statements alone tell everything you need to know about the Tea Party. Add to that the horrible, hateful signs that they carry in their demonstrations.
I am not saying all Tea Partiers are racist. Some just plain cannot stand it that the Democrats are in charge. But enough of them (probably a majority) are racist to make that the main reason behind the Tea Party.
And yet, apart from the surging bills that Washington absorbs for health care, the surprising reality is that Big Government is not all that big by historical standards. Even with an economic stimulus, a bank bailout and two wars, non-medical spending by the federal government is a smaller percentage of the economy than it was during most of Ronald Reagan's administration.
Even though Reagan began paring back government, non-medical spending hovered around 20% of the economy during his administration. The reason for this is no mystery, even if it is not part of the daily political narrative. As the government's medical tab surged from $72 billion in 1980 to an estimated $912 billion in 2010, traditional government functions — things like roads, criminal justice and education — had to be more tightly controlled simply to avoid the kind of outlandish deficits we've seen in recent years. In other words, taking care of Grandma is expensive.
In just a few years, as the stimulus shrinks and the economy expands, government spending outside of health care will drop to about 16% of the economy, roughly where it has been since the mid-1990s.
Where government spending is concerned, the Tea Partiers are barking up the wrong trees. If their goal is to control spending, they should be demanding curbs in Medicare and answering President Obama's call for health care reform with counterproposals heavier on cost control. But, in my opinion, controlling government spending is not the main reason for the Tea Party.
Tea Partiers also say taxes are too high, but here, too, perception differs from reality, at least by history's measure. Because of the recession and the Obama tax cuts this past year, tax collections are at their lowest since 1950. In 2009 and 2010, tax receipts collected by Washington will total just 14.8% of the economy.
Tea Partiers seem to be promoting more partisanship, not less, by rejecting candidates deemed too likely to cross over and negotiate with Democrats. That is a recipe for more debt. If the Tea Partiers truly want to reduce the deficit, they would be demanding that the two parties work together. With the minority party always poised to attack when the majority sticks its neck out, nothing gets done. But reducing the deficit is not the real reason for the Tea Party. If it were, the Tea Partiers would have been out en masse during the Bush years when they racked up a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit.
This is not to say an uprising against Washington is not merited. Lawmakers of both parties are simply ignoring the nation's drift toward fiscal suicide. Nor is it the case that populist movements cannot serve constructive purposes. The last one – Ross Perot's presidential bid in 1992 – forced both parties to focus attention on the deficits, which then turned into surpluses under a Democratic President.
Until the Tea Partiers can channel their anger toward more productive solutions, the Washington spending machine will continue.
But it won’t happen, because…
Real Reason for the Tea Party
It is being said that "Old racists don’t fade away they just join the Tea Party movement."
Being white no longer guarantees you a pass to the front of the line. That is what is summoning up the hate and fear fueling the Tea Party movement. The shouts of “We want our country back” and “Our way of life is being attacked” say everything about this movement. Individuals who fought against the civil rights movement also make up the core of the Tea Party movement. They now see the Tea Party as a way to once again fight against what they see as the evils of letting everyone into this country.
“People who could not spell the word ‘vote’ or say it in English put a Barrack Hussein Obama in the White House,” said former Colorado Republican Rep. Tom Tanceredo, as the opening speaker at the Tea Party convention. (Emphasis on the name “Hussein” is his.)
Tanceredo’s statement tells you what the Tea Party is really against. To me, they sound more like the movement that put Hitler in power. Well maybe that is a little over top, but I think that describes the Tea Partiers more than as a group of “Real Americans” because they only consider far-right-leaning, white, rural and small-town Americans as “real”.
Why do I think this? Because as I study this so-called “Real American” movement, I have noticed that many of those who were against the Civil Rights movement now have found a new voice. I recently read an article by the associated press in which the reporter interviewed a 61-year-old woman who repeated the Tea Party line “Our way of life is under attack” and was all too proud about helping ban books from the library in her West Virginia town. Yet, when asked, she didn’t really know who “they” were – other than the fact that she hated Obama. Another woman said, “We want our country back!” Translate that into “our white-ruled, white-dominated country.”
These statements alone tell everything you need to know about the Tea Party. Add to that the horrible, hateful signs that they carry in their demonstrations.
I am not saying all Tea Partiers are racist. Some just plain cannot stand it that the Democrats are in charge. But enough of them (probably a majority) are racist to make that the main reason behind the Tea Party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)