How The Republican Party works when It Doesn't get it's way

Defunding Obamacare entirely, it is not news—it is par for the course for the take-no-prisoners extremist senator from Utah. When the Senate Republicans' No. 2 and No. 3 leaders, John Cornyn and John Thune, sign on to the blackmail plan, it is news—of the most depressing variety.
I am not the only one who has written about House and Senate Republicans' monomaniacal focus on sabotaging the implementation of Obamacare—Greg Sargent, Steve Benen, Jon Chait, Jon Bernstein, Ezra Klein, and many others have written powerful pieces. But it is now spinning out of control.
It is important to emphasize that this set of moves is simply unprecedented. The clear comparison is the Medicare prescription drug plan. When it passed Congress in 2003, Democrats had many reasons to be furious. The initial partnership between President Bush and Sen. Edward Kennedy had resulted in an admirably bipartisan bill—it passed the Senate with 74 votes. Republicans then pulled a bait and switch, taking out all of the provisions that Kennedy had put in to bring along Senate Democrats, jamming the resulting bill through the House in a three-hour late-night vote marathon that blatantly violated House rules and included something close to outright bribery on the House floor, and then passing the bill through the Senate with just 54 votes—while along the way excluding the duly elected conferees, Tom Daschle (the Democratic leader!) and Jay Rockefeller, from the conference committee deliberations.
The implementation of that bill was a huge challenge, and had many rocky moments. It required educating millions of seniors, most not computer-literate, about the often complicated choices they had to create or change their prescription coverage. Imagine if Democrats had gone all out to block or disrupt the implementation—using filibusters to deny funding, sending threatening letters to companies or outside interests who mobilized to educate Medicare recipients, putting on major campaigns to convince seniors that this was a plot to deny them Medicare, comparing it to the ill-fated Medicare reform plan that passed in 1989 and, after a revolt by seniors, was repealed the next year.
Almost certainly, Democrats could have tarnished one of George W. Bush's signature achievements, causing Republicans major heartburn in the 2004 presidential and congressional elections—and in the process hurting millions of Medicare recipients and their families. Instead, Democrats worked with Republicans, and with Mark McClellan, the Bush administration official in charge of implementation, to smooth out the process and make it work—and it has been a smashing success.
Contrast that with Obamacare. For three years, Republicans in the Senate refused to confirm anybody to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the post that McClellan had held in 2003-04—in order to damage the possibility of a smooth rollout of the health reform plan. Guerrilla efforts to cut off funding, dozens of votes to repeal, abusive comments by leaders, attempts to discourage states from participating in Medicaid expansion or crafting exchanges, threatening letters to associations that might publicize the availability of insurance on exchanges, and now a new set of threats—to have a government shutdown, or to refuse to raise the debt ceiling, unless the president agrees to stop all funding for implementation of the plan.
I remember being shocked when some congressional Democrats appeared to be rooting for the surge in troops in Iraq to fail—which would mean more casualties among Americans and Iraqis, but a huge embarrassment for Bush, and vindication of their skepticism. But of course they did not try to sabotage the surge by disrupting funding or interfering in the negotiations in Iraq with competing Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish power centers. To do so would have been close to treasonous.
What is going on now to sabotage Obamacare is not treasonous—just sharply beneath any reasonable standards of elected officials with the fiduciary responsibility of governing. A good example is the letter Senate Republican Leaders Mitch McConnell and Cornyn sent to the NFL, demanding that it not cooperate with the Obama administration in a public-education campaign to tell their fans about what benefits would be available to them and how the plan would work—a letter that clearly implied deleterious consequences if the league went ahead anyhow. McConnell and Cornyn got their desired result. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell quickly capitulated. (When I came to Washington in 1969-70, one of my great pleasures was meeting and getting to know Charles Goodell, the courageous Republican senator from New York who took on his own president on Vietnam and was quietly courageous on many other controversial issues. Roger Goodell is his son—although you would not know it from this craven action.)
When a law is enacted, representatives who opposed it have some choices (which are not mutually exclusive). They can try to repeal it, which is perfectly acceptable—unless it becomes an effort at grandstanding so overdone that it detracts from other basic responsibilities of governing. They can try to amend it to make it work better—not just perfectly acceptable but desirable, if the goal is to improve a cumbersome law to work better for the betterment of the society and its people. They can strive to make sure that the law does the most for Americans it is intended to serve, including their own constituents, while doing the least damage to the society and the economy. Or they can step aside and leave the burden of implementation to those who supported the law and got it enacted in the first place.
But to do everything possible to undercut and destroy its implementation—which in this case means finding ways to deny coverage to many who lack any health insurance; to keep millions who might be able to get better and cheaper coverage in the dark about their new options; to create disruption for the health providers who are trying to implement the law, including insurers, hospitals, and physicians; to threaten the even greater disruption via a government shutdown or breach of the debt limit in order to blackmail the president into abandoning the law; and to hope to benefit politically from all the resulting turmoil—is simply unacceptable, even contemptible. One might expect this kind of behavior from a few grenade-throwing firebrands. That the effort is spearheaded by the Republican leaders of the House and Senate—even if Speaker John Boehner is motivated by fear of his caucus, and McConnell and Cornyn by fear of Kentucky and Texas Republican activists—takes one's breath away.

If there’s an iron rule in economics, it is Stein’s Law (named after Herb, former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers): “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.”
Detroit, for example, can no longer go on borrowing, spending, raising taxes and dangerously cutting such essential services as street lighting and police protection. So it stops. It goes bust.
Cause of death? Corruption, both legal and illegal, plus a classic case of reactionary liberalism in which the governing Democrats — there’s been no Republican mayor in half a century — simply refused to adapt to the straitened economic circumstances that followed the post-World War II auto boom.

But Detroit is an object lesson not just for other cities. Not even the almighty federal government is immune to Stein’s Law. Reactionary liberalism simply cannot countenance serious reform of the iconic social welfare programs of the 20th century. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are pledged to their inviolability. President Obama will occasionally admit that, for example, Medicare cannot go on as is, but then reverts to crude demagoguery when Republicans propose a structural reform, such as premium support for Medicare or something as obvious as raising the retirement age to match increasing longevity

The Social Justice President!

The President summed up his economic priorities  "This growing inequality isn't just morally wrong; it's bad economics," . "When middle-class families have less to spend, businesses have fewer customers. When wealth concentrates at the very top, it can inflate unstable bubbles that threaten the economy. When the rungs on the ladder of opportunity grow farther apart, it undermines the very essence of this country." "That's why reversing these trends must be Washington's highest priority. It's certainly my highest priority."

Ummmm....OK....So....you have had 5 years....how is it going Mr. President?

Mr. Obama has focused his policies on reducing inequality rather than increasing growth. The predictable result has been more inequality and less growth. The rich have done well in the last few years thanks to a rising stock market, but the middle class and poor have not.  No President has done worse by the middle class in modern times.

By now the lackluster growth figures are well known. The recovery that began four years ago has been one of the weakest on record, averaging a little more than 2%. And it has not gained speed. Growth in the fourth quarter of 2012 was 0.4%. It rose to a still anemic 1.8% in the first quarter but most economists are predicting even slower growth in the second quarter. What has never arrived is the 3%-4% growth spurt during typical expansions.

One ponders.....does our President know how badly he has done?  Did he not know what a historic opportunity the great recession presented (as recessions do) to promote economic growth then claim the credit?   Wait!....does he really believe in this Social justice crap!?

The core problem has been Mr. Obama's focus on spreading the wealth rather than creating it. ObamaCare will soon hook more Americans on government subsidies, but its mandates and taxes have hurt job creation, especially at small businesses. Mr. Obama's record tax increases have grabbed a bigger chunk of affluent incomes, but they created uncertainty for business throughout 2012 and have dampened growth so far this year.

The food stamp and disability rolls have exploded, which reduces inequality but also reduces the incentive to work and rise on the economic ladder. This has contributed to a plunge in the share of Americans who are working—the labor participation rate—to 63.5% in June from 65.7% in June 2009. And don't forget the Fed's extraordinary monetary policy, which has done well by the rich who have assets but left the thrifty middle class and retirees earning pennies on their savings.

Its almost like...he is trying to do this.....with the support of misbegotten souls like Baxter and Terry, he has intentionally trashed the economy....with Justice for All!...to form a permanent class of perma-liberal voters!

Mr. Obama would have done far better by the poor, the middle class and the wealthy if he had focused on growing the economy first. The difference between the Obama 2% recovery and the Reagan-Clinton 3%-4% growth rates is rising incomes for nearly everybody.

History Repeats Itself

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

 Quote by Dwight D Eisenhower

just came across this quote! interesting

Good News on Healthcare Costs

New York is the latest state to announce health insurance rates coming down as a consequence of Obamacare. Individual rates will fall by 50%. In California, the monthly average premium on the exchange will be $321/mo (before subsidy, if any), about 40% less than forecast by the CBO. An Obama Medicare pilot program to improve care and reduce costs has done exactly that as reported today in Politico.

Gosh - just imagine if the Dow had doubled and the annual deficit had been cut in half under Obama's presidency. Then, we could honestly say that he is one of our great presidents. Principled conservatives would drop their petty partisanship and much would be accomplished these next three years by working together. If only...

Taking Ownership

"Do you know that Negroes are 10 percent of the population of St. Louis and are responsible for 58% of its crimes? We've got to face that. And we've got to do something about our moral standards," Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. told a congregation in 1961. "We know that there are many things wrong in the white world, but there are many things wrong in the black world, too. We can't keep on blaming the white man. There are things we must do for ourselves."

Not one commentator that I have heard or read has been willing to acknowledge Trayvon Martin's share of the responsibility for his death.  I think it is a shame that he was killed.  I think Zimmerman is a dope.  But engaging in a fistfight with someone you don't know in the dark and rain is dumb.  My interpretation of events is that Martin probably threw the first punch and probably was the only one to land any punches.  There wasn't a mark on him except for a mark on his knuckle, probably the consequence of punching Zimmerman. 

I have a good friend who spent more time than he should have in bars and in fights.  He warns against the practice because he said, "You never know what the other guy is carrying."  Initiating or engaging in fighting with grown men is risky.  Period.  When you do dumb things you can get bad results.

Liberal commentators have focused on the dispatcher telling Zimmerman not to get out of his truck.  I agree.  I wish he had stayed in his truck.  But getting out of his truck and following Martin did not give Martin the right to punch him out.  Getting out of the truck did not start a fight.  The first punch started the fight.  Martin had plenty of time to get home.  His father was 100 yards away.  His  girl friend told him to run.  He decided not to do so.

When liberal commentators absolve Martin of all responsibility they perpetuate the "victimology" of blacks.  Take ownership.  Recognize your share of the problem.  My same friend told me, "A problem well stated is half solved."  Denying a problem solves nothing.

Hags

So the Filibuster Survives (Kinda)

I have been consistently opposed to the Filibuster rule for 30+ years. I thought the anti-democratic rule that our founders never contemplated would have died by now, but it remains in place in a terminally weakened state. Harry Reid will have all of the executive appointments approved by the Senate after two Labor Relations Board candidates are replaced by (Big-Labor approved) replacement candidates. I was disappointed that we didn't see the "nuclear option" imposed.

There will soon be judicial appointments that Mitch McConnell is expected to oppose. If more than one is Filibustered, I expect that we will be right back against the nuclear option. Perhaps, Reid's brush back pitch will have worked and the GOP will wisely provide the few votes necessary to avoid such a conflict. I do not believe this Senate will tolerate further obstruction this term. It's over until January of 2015, at which point I do not believe the GOP will need to Filibuster. They will have the votes to block things the democratic way - control of the body.

Does anyone believe that a GOP-controlled Senate will brook a meaningful Filibuster with a Republican president in office? The majority now has the ability and temperament to go nuclear. Any future Filibusters concerning appointments will need to truly be extraordinary. In fact, legislative Filibusters will not last long the next time that the Senate, the House and the White House are held by the same party. It simply will not be tolerated. I think that is good news for all of us.

Django and the Zman

So I recently saw Django-the one where Jamie Foxx got to kill all the while people-and thought....Wow, they were very mean to black people in that era (duh), but the point was...it would not occur to me now that another human in our society would be treated so badly.  Our society is pretty color blind, most of the current "issues" are manifested by a small, vocal, portion of the population angry about a smaller segment of the population who still harbor dumb ideas.  These dumb people don't represent me and I am not responsible for them.

In the civil rights era, true injustice was addressed.  Its been almost 50 years.  As our President said, some act like nothing has changed. 

Does it not occur to the pseudo oppressed that they are being used?  Used as always for money and power?


Then there is the Zman and Trayvon.  That lesion is nothing about race and more about forgotten responsibilities.  Like acting like a responsible person, presenting yourself well, like the proverbial (as Mothers say) wearing clean underwear.

Trayvon had previously acted like a punk (gangsta), proudly I think...did he learn the life lesions of walk away from trouble, treat others (especially your elders) with respect, watch you language?...Do you think Trayvon knew these things?  Do you think a society where the a young man who acted like a gangsta would be corrected, counseled and told to shape up, would be a society where many break in's occurred and resulted in the need for neighborhood watchmen?  Do you think a man like Trayvon can be told to shape up?  What would be the response?  Positive or accusatory?

This was not about race, its about...

And no I was not there, I don't know if Zman was the bad guy, but consider the following from IBD:


The bias of Nelson, Florida Circuit Court judge and a lifelong Democrat, in favor of the prosecution and its efforts to railroad Zimmerman as a racist murderer has been palpable throughout the case. Her actions, which have actively aided the state, could poison jurors and factor into future litigation.
Her shameful rulings and behavior, therefore, are worth cataloging, and include:
• Suppressing exculpatory evidence recovered from the (double-password-protected) cell phone of Trayvon Martin that reveal deleted texts of the 17-year-old bragging about street-fighting with friends and relatives and photos showing him brandishing guns, gangsta-style. This evidence supports Zimmerman's claim he feared Martin and shot in self-defense.
• Disallowing Martin's criminal background, including arrests by Miami-Dade school district police for drugs, theft, graffiti and other delinquent behavior. (Martin, in fact, had been suspended from school the week he jumped Zimmerman inside his gated townhouse complex, after police found stolen jewelry and burglary tools inside his backpack.)

I DID NOT SEE IT THEREFORE IT DID NOT HAPPEN?

What's happened to our Jury system in America? Yes it's the best in the world, I'm sick of hearing that when I see Casey Anthony, Robert Blake,  walking around and don't let me get started on OJ of course!
 Now we have "just stay in the car" Zimmerman free. What is the matter with juries now, you need eye witness's now to convict people, well that is not available people.

 Casey Anthony's baby found blocks from her house, Robert Blake's wife dead in his car, while he went back to restaurant.
 Juries found these people not guilty? I don't get it!, Juries are supposed to solve mystries thats what they do, if it was clear cut we wouldn't go to trial.

 Zimmerman is told to stay in his car, he doesn't, a 17 year old kid walking home is scared a fight breaks out, who cares who started it, you can't point the gun at the kid and tell him to stop, no you shoot him in the chest, and six ladies say well I don't know who was guilty? Really!
Who do you think killed Casey Anthony's baby, Robert Blakes wife ? Travon Martin?

 Juries now watch too much TV crap and think if I don't have the smoking gun, then I can't convict.

As John Guy so eloquently said in his closing remarks " What is that? That's not anything? Is that nothing? Is that where we are now?' Yes!  John that is where we are in America now we don't want to be involved, we don't want to take responsibility, we don't want to judge other people?
 It is sad when a kid walking home in the dark is followed, and shot to death, and nothing happens!

A REPUBLICAN THATS GET IT RIGHT

Last week Republicans were gleeful when the White House announced delays in Obamacare. Even as a Republican, I did not share in the enthusiasm of my colleagues.
Obamacare is a good start and we Republicans need to embrace it. Why are we so ridiculously shortsighted? Universal health care is a good thing and it will be popular; it is always popular. Even when is it over budget and poorly implemented, as it is in many countries, it remains popular.
Why are we blind to this fact? I cannot comprehend our idiocy.
Republicans have lost the battle to stop Obamacare and must admit it. A few weeks ago the House passed a bill to repeal part or all of Obamacare for the 37th time. We are in denial.
Scott Brown couldn't stop it. The Supreme Court didn't stop it. Even Mitt Romney -- ironically, the originally architect of the plan structure -- couldn't stop it. The law will be enacted. Rather than continuing to fight a losing battle, Republicans must begin to embrace Obamacare and mold it in a way that will be more effective for the people of America.
In the past, Democrats routinely underestimated the strength of the American health care system; they overemphasized its deficiencies and constantly focused on those who were not covered. Republicans have done the exact opposite, proclaiming that our health care system is the "best system in the world."
The truth: America's health care system is good, but it certainly isn't perfect. For those who are covered, the vast majority of citizens, it does an excellent job of providing care on par with the best countries of the world. But for those who have minimal coverage or none at all, it is a nightmare.
But the uninsured are not the only problem. The insurance and billing system is nearly impossible to navigate, and causes significant unintended harm to those who don't understand it. Additionally, costs are considerably higher than in any other nation. Part of this is due to the fact that doctors are financially rewarded for ordering too many tests and hospitals are financially rewarded for admitting too many patients.
Obamacare misses the mark in so many ways. It does not lower costs -- in fact it costs a lot more in the long run. It does not sufficiently take on fraud, or abuse, or a system that rewards excessive and useless care. And it limits our freedom to make decisions about our own healthcare. But it gets coverage up, and that is very important to the voting population.
Fellow Republicans, mark my words: Obamacare will be popular. As such, we should begin to call it the Affordable Care Act and embrace it immediately, so Obama doesn't get all the credit.
Unlike Democrats, I don't believe health care to be a "right," but I do think it is the right thing to do. President Obama got to universal his way, now let's work to fix it our way. Keep it private, keep costs low, and regulate it smartly so it works!

Democrat Gov. Jerry Brown Getting it Done!

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Gov. Jerry Brown is drawing praise and glowing reviews from the national media for his deft political maneuvering in closing a $25 billion budget deficit and restoring some of California's financial luster after years of recession.
The state's credit rating is on the rebound, schools are expecting an infusion of money this fall, and the budget for the new fiscal year even includes a modest rainy day fund after years of deficits forced billions of dollars in program cuts.

“When Republicans recently charged the President with promoting 'class warfare,' he answered it was 'just math.' But it's more than math. It's a matter of morality.

Republicans have posed the deepest moral question of any society: whether we're all in it together. Their answer is we're not.

President Obama should proclaim, loudly and clearly, we are.”
― Robert B. Reich

Jim has it wrong again!

Jim, as usual we are on opposite sides. Judge Scalia does not understand the basic principle of the United States Constitution, let me repeat that a Supreme Court Justice does not understand the basic principle of the Constitution EQUALITY for all.
 It is sad and appalling that a man like Scalia would not stand up for the equality of all Americans Gay and straight. My gosh a happy gay person is a threat to whose freedom, am I missing something Jim. You see Scalia votes for the right of people to not have rights. Scalia is the one who paved the way for corporations to to provide unlimited money toward elections without having to disclose anything. Scalia's defense of corporations like General Electric and Koch Industries who by the way he went and sho guns at their exclusive hunting camp, but he did not exclusive himself like Kagen did. Scalia's stupid statement "it's one thin for a society to elect change ; it is another for a court of law to impose change" Wow!  Under his thinking then women would still not get the vote! Scalia and Thomas are an embarrassment.

 Jim as far as my Roman Catholic Church my faith is not in the Pope or his male minions, but in the belief of the truest line from Peter to now and it simply has it wrong on gays, and divorced, and male priests only.

 But I have faith in this: When you arrive at the pearly gates, the question won't be did you keep the commandments?
 The question will be "Did you feed the hungry? Did you clothe the naked? Did you love your neighbor no matter their religion ( yes that's Muslims too) Did you give without expecting a return? 

Gay Marriage?

Thoughts?


Good?  Bad?   




My preliminary.....It is about bias, prejudice...financial bias.


To my knowledge....Gay's can enjoy the same rights as others, by legal maneuvers...designating  a POA, Wills, etc.  It is just more expensive...and therefore discriminatory.  Now they can be miserable like the rest of us!   Rod Stewart: "I'm not getting married again, I'm just going to find a woman I don't like and buy her a house".


Seems to me that a party who believes in freedom...mine...should believe in the right to be (especially legally) with who they wish. 

NOW ON THE OTHER HAND!...religious ideas (me not religious) are also due their rights...they may recognize their belief and should not be compelled to comply.

Course...I'm just one voice.   Don't reply to me...reply to the blog.


Terry!  Hope life is great!  You liberal dolt!  How you gonna reconcile your religion with your President?   I know...life if full of choices.   Wait!...that is a baby!  Sorry...that won't work either.

expanding equality of opportunity increases inequality because some people are simply better able than others to exploit opportunities. And "assortive mating” — likes marrying likes — concentrates class advantages, further expanding inequality. As Muller said, “formal schooling itself plays a relatively minor role in creating or perpetuating achievement gaps” that originate “in the different levels of human capital children possess when they enter school.”