Voters Don't Like The Job ANY Government Leaders Are Doing

The chart above reflects the results of the Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between May 2nd and 5th of a nationwide sample of 1,693 registered voters, with a 3.2 point margin of error. 

Schumer Details What American Jews Fear Most

 The following post is by Senator Chuck Schumer in The New York Times:

Fifty-three days ago, citizens of Israel suffered a horrendous attack orchestrated and executed by Hamas.

The solidarity that Jewish Americans initially received from our fellow citizens in the aftermath of Oct. 7 has since waned, drowned out by other, more disturbing voices, even from some we considered allies, while hate crimes against Jews have skyrocketed.

Today, too many Americans are exploiting arguments against Israel and leaping toward a virulent antisemitism. The normalization and intensifying of this rise in hate is the danger many Jewish people fear most.

Since Oct. 7, Jewish-owned businesses that have nothing to do with Israel have been boycotted and vandalized. Jewish students on college campuses have been harassed and assaulted with alarming frequency. A Jewish high school teacher in Queens told me about being forced to hide in a locked office from student protesters who were demanding that she be fired because she attended a rally supporting Israel.

These are just a few examples, but they point to a troubling trend. Too often in Jewish history, legitimate criticism of Israeli policies or even older disputes over religious, economic and political issues have often crossed over into something darker, into attacking Jewish people simply for being Jewish.

What happened last week at the Queens high school is an example of crossing that threshold. Walking out of school to march in support of Palestinians is completely legitimate. But forcing a Jewish teacher to hide because she had attended a rally in support of Israel is antisemitism, pure and simple.

For many Jewish people today, the rise of antisemitism is more than a crisis — it’s a five-alarm fire. That’s why I feel compelled to speak out, especially considering the growing disparity between how Jewish people understand the rise of antisemitism, and how many of my non-Jewish friends regard it.

While American Jews have always been wary of the hatemongers lurking on the edges of our society, we are proud to be American, because in this country, unlike so many others, our ancestors were able to put down roots and flourish.

Take my own family story. Only in America could an exterminator’s son grow up to be the first Jewish party leader in the Senate.

But many of my family members elsewhere met more tragic ends.

When I was a boy, I learned what happened when the Nazis invaded my family’s town in Ukraine. The Nazis ordered my great-grandmother to gather her extended family on the porch of her home. When the Nazis told her to come with them, she refused, and they gunned her down, along with 30 members of her family, from 85 years old to 3 months old.

When I heard the story of what Hamas and its allies did in Kibbutz Be’eri, killing more than 120 Jews, from the elderly to babies, it struck me on a deeply personal level.

Most Jewish Americans have similar stories — stories we learned at a young age, and that will stay imprinted on our hearts for as long as we live.

We see and hear things differently from others because we understand the horrors that can follow the targeting of Jewish people. We’ve learned the hard way to fear how such attacks can easily erupt into widespread antisemitism if they are not repudiated. I am sure Arab Americans have similar fears when they see the rise in Islamophobia and horrific crimes like the gut-wrenching murder of 6-year-old Wadea Al-Fayoume.

Of course, criticizing the Israeli government is not inherently antisemitic. Over the years, I have vehemently disagreed with many of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s policies, especially his administration’s encouragement of settlements in the West Bank, gravely harming prospects for a two-state solution, which I support. I have also been among those who have said Israel must act according to international law, and that humanitarian assistance for Palestinians is critical.

But when criticism against Israel is allowed to cross over into something different — into a denial of a Jewish state in any form, into open calls for the very destruction of Israel, while at the same time the self-determination of other peoples is exalted — that is an example of the discriminatory double standard Jewish people have always found so hurtful. And we worry about what could come next.

Because for centuries, what is good for everybody else has been too often denied to the Jew. Jews could live here but not there; Jews could hold this job but not that.

And to declare that only the Jewish people cannot have their own state, in any form, is a glaring example of that double standard Jewish Americans so fiercely object to.

I implore every person and every community and every institution to stand with Jewish Americans, and to denounce antisemitism in all of its forms. Americans are stewards of the flames of liberty, tolerance and equality that warm our melting pot and make it possible for Jewish Americans to prosper alongside Palestinian Americans as well as every other immigrant group.

America has always been exceptional. But when it matters most, are we still a nation that can defy the course of human history, where the Jewish people have been ostracized, expelled and massacred over and over again?

I believe the answer can and must be a resounding yes.

And I will do everything in my power — as Senate majority leader, as a Jewish American, as a citizen of a free society, as a human being — to make it so.

Party Leaders - Dems Viewed More Favorably Than GOP

The chart above reflects the results of a new Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between May 15th and 18th of a national sample of 1,239 registered voters, with a 3 point margin of error. 

The survey asked registered voters whether they viewed the national party leaders favorably or unfavorably. President Joe Biden was the only leader to be viewed favorably by a majority of voters. He had a 7 point margin of favorable over unfavorable. It was the opposite for Donald Trump, who had 6 point ,margin of unfavorable over favorable.

When it came to congressional leaders, none of them had a majority viewing them favorably. But Nancy Pelosi was viewed 12 points more favorably than Kevin McCarthy, and Chuck Schumer was viewed 12 points more favorably than Mitch McConnell.

Mitch McConnell was viewed least favorably among all the leaders. Only 26% viewed him favorably, while 61% viewed him unfavorably.

Schumer Promises Change/Progress If Democrats Elected

 The following is part of an op-ed by Senator Chuck Schumer (D-New York) at NBCnews.com:

Change is hard, but it is never impossible. Unlike some countries around the world, when politicians in America fail to rise to the occasion, we have a way to replace them: elections. On Nov. 3, Americans will have a chance to exert their power, refresh the body politic and move our country in a dramatically different direction.

Given the gravity of the issues facing our country, the Senate must confront the deep-seated problems of racial injustice and redeem our nation's promise of equality, fairness and opportunity for all people — immediately.

The direction of our country will thus be shaped by the leaders we select.

I am committed to ensuring the passage of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act in the Senate. This legislation, developed by Sens. Cory Booker, D-N.J., and Kamala Harris, D-Calif., as well as the Congressional Black Caucus, would ban chokeholds, "no knock" warrants and racial profiling while creating new tools at the state and federal levels to reform police departments engaged in systemic misconduct. It would also make it easier for Americans to hold individual officers accountable when those officers violate people's constitutional rights.

The challenges of racial injustice, though, extend far beyond law enforcement. More than half a century after the Voting Rights Act was signed into law, Republicans are still finding ways to make it harder for Americans of color to vote. In the wake of Shelby County v. Holder, Republican lawmakers have instituted draconian voter-identification laws, eliminated polling locations in the most diverse neighborhoods, purged voter rolls and drawn congressional districts with the explicit purpose of limiting the influence of African American and Hispanic voters.

We must put a stop to all forms of voter suppression by passing the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.

Finally, we must open the doors of economic opportunity to communities that have suffered from discrimination and underinvestment for decades. Democrats this year unveiled the Economic Justice Act, a $350 billion investment in child care, mental and primary care and new job opportunities for Black communities and other communities of color. I will work to get legislation passed that would invest — substantially — in communities that have been ignored for far too long.

Faced with a national reckoning over issues of civil rights, voting rights and racial justice, Senate Republicans squandered a historic opportunity to move our country closer to its highest ideals. It can feel disheartening that progress, so long delayed, has been delayed once more.

But you have the power to change that.

In a much different era, bus boycotts, lunch counter sit-ins and a march from Selma to Montgomery shook the conscience of the nation and propelled President Lyndon Johnson and a bipartisan majority in Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act — proving that when we give "the best that all of us have to give," progress is possible.

As our country confronts this once-in-a-generation pandemic and our voices are again shaking the conscience of the nation, we must take up the generations-long struggle for racial justice and equality. I and my colleagues are prepared to do it with bold and far-reaching legislation.

So don't lose hope in the fight for racial justice. Vote.

Most Want Senate To Hold A Fair Trial With New Witnesses

Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has asked that the Senate trial of Donald Trump call new witnesses, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is backing him up -- delaying send the impeachment to the Senate until she knows what the rules of the Senate trial will be. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell doesn't want that. He wants a short trial with no new witnesses.

McConnell may have to give on this, because the majority of the public agrees with Schumer. About 54% of voters want more witnesses called (including 66% of Democrats and 51% of Independents). Only 27% say no new witnesses should be called. Even a plurality of Republicans want to see more witnesses (43% to 39%).

Denying the right to call more witnesses is just going to make the Senate trial look rigged -- an unfair debacle designed to protect Trump by his party. Republican senators are going to have a tough time trying to defend that in the next election (which is now less than a year away).

The chart above is from the Morning Consult Poll -- done on December 19th and 20th of a national sample of 1,387 registered voters, with a 3 point margin of error.

Infrastructure: Real Agreement Or Feel-Good Headlines?

(Photo of Pelosi and Schumer Talking to press about infrastructure "deal" is from MSNBC.)

The big headline news on the cable shows yesterday was about Trump meeting with Pelosi and Schumer and reaching an agreement to spend a little over $2 trillion on repairing and rebuilding this country's infrastructure.

The news was that Trump and the Democrats had reached an agreement -- an agreement that showed Trump could work with the Democrats he hated, and the Democrats could do good for the public while investigating Trump. It was a feel-good story that made everyone involved happy. It was also pure bullshit.

It was no achievement to agree that a couple of trillion dollars needs to be spend on this nation's infrastructure. Everybody in the country already knew that. That was the easy part.

Note that there is no infrastructure bill pending in Congress, or one awaiting Trump's signature. And there won't be one until the two sides agree on how to pay for that new $2 trillion in extra spending. We already have a record national debt that is growing larger by about a trillion dollars a year (thanks to the Trump/GOP tax cuts for the rich). neither side is going to be willing to tack another $2 trillion on that debt. So, how will it be paid for?

The Democrats will want to pay for much of it by taxing the rich more (either raising the taxes Trump lowered or inventing some new taxes for the rich. Trump is never going to agree to that. He's proud of the tax cuts he gave himself and his rich buddies -- and he's not about to agree to giving back even a penny.

Trump has already shown us how he will want to pay for it. He did that with the awful budget he proposed. He will want to cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and abolish Obamacare. Then make massive cuts to every social program that actually helps ordinary and needy Americans. The Democrats will never agree to that.

There is no real agreement, and I wouldn't advise holding your breath until there is one. There is nothing but feel-good talk. Don't expect any real plan before the next election.

Pelosi And Schumer Issue Joint Statement On Barr Summary

Donald Trump is claiming the dubious Barr summary of Robert Mueller's report gives him a complete and total exoneration. That is ludicrous. I will not believe that until the entire Mueller Report is released.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer also have their doubts.

Here is the joint statement they released on Barr's summary:

“Attorney General Barr’s letter raises as many questions as it answers.  The fact that Special Counsel Mueller’s report does not exonerate the president on a charge as serious as obstruction of justice demonstrates how urgent it is that the full report and underlying documentation be made public without any further delay.  Given Mr. Barr’s public record of bias against the Special Counsel’s inquiry, he is not a neutral observer and is not in a position to make objective determinations about the report.

“And most obviously, for the president to say he is completely exonerated directly contradicts the words of Mr. Mueller and is not to be taken with any degree of credibility.

“Congress requires the full report and the underlying documents so that the Committees can proceed with their independent work, including oversight and legislating to address any issues the Mueller report may raise.  The American people have a right to know.”

Pelosi's Job Approval Is Highest Of Political Leaders

This poll is not going to make Donald Trump happy. While his job approval rating has dropped after the government shutdown fiasco, Speaker Nancy Pelosi's job approval has risen. In fact, her job approval is the highest of any of the political leaders in Washington -- Pelosi (42%), Trump (37%), Schumer (31%), McConnell (24%), and McCarthy (21%).

Speaker Pelosi is also the only one of these leaders that does not have a negative net approval rating (figured by subtracting disapproval from approval). While she has a net approval rating of 0, Trump's is negative 16, Schumer's is negative 11, McCarthy's is negative 10, and McConnell's is negative 21.

I think the public is happy that finally there is someone with the intelligence, power, and political know-how to stand up to Trump.

The chart above uses information in a new Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between January 27th and 29th of a national sample of 1,500 adults, with a 3.2 point margin of error.

Democrats Have Much Better Net Favorable Rating

The chart above uses information in the new Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between January 12th and 15th of a national sample of 1,500 adults, with a 3 point margin of error.

It shows the net favorability rating of the two parties and their leaders. Net favorability is determined by subtracting unfavorable percentage from the favorable percentage.

Both parties and all their leaders are in negative numbers (meaning more view them unfavorably than favorably), but Democrats are viewed more favorably than Republicans. The Democratic Party has a negative 3 net favorability, while the Republican Party has a negative 26.

The same is true of their leaders. Pelosi and Schumer both have a negative 12. McCarthy has a negative 10, but that is because twice as many people don't know enough about him to rate him than know about Pelosi. The two most unfavorable are McConnell (negative 26) and Trump (negative 17).

And McConnell, Trump, and the Republican Party are not doing themselves any good by maintaining the government shutdown.

Trump Attacks Pelosi/Schumer On TV - And Loses (Bigly)

Donald Trump tried to pull a fast one on Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. After inviting them to the White House to discuss the budget, he turned a photo-op into a debate on his border wall. He thought he could pressure Pelosi and Schumer on national TV into giving him what he wanted (funding for the wall). He was convinced he could out debate them. HE WAS WRONG!

Schumer goaded Trump into losing his cool and taking complete credit for any government shutdown.

Pelosi tried to be the voice of reason. But after Trump refused, she told him to his face that he was not telling the truth. She demonstrated exactly why she scares Republicans, and why she is the perfect choice to be the next Speaker of the House of Representatives.

And Democrats loved watching their congressional leaders school Trump. Here are a sample of the memes be traded among Democrats on Facebook:

Biden, McCain, & Schumer Respond To Trump's Appeasement

Is Chuck Schumer The Right Choice For Minority Leader ?

Democrats in the House picked up a few seats on November 8th, but they are still substantially outnumbered in that body. There is little they can do to stop the Republican agenda -- no matter how horrendous it becomes.

The only hope Democrats have to rein in the excesses of the Republican Congress lies in the Senate, where Democrats have enough members to effectively use the filibuster to kill the worst Republican efforts. But doing so will require tough and dedicated leadership.

On Wednesday, Senate Democrats chose Chuck Schomer of New York to be their Minority Leader in the new Congress.

I have questioned Schumer's leadership in the past, and I still have serious doubts that he is the right man for the job. On the plus side, he is fairly progressive on most issues. On the negative side, he can be a die-hard right-winger when it comes to Israel. I remember his abandoning of President Obama and the Democratic Party on the Iran Treaty. He faltered when his party and president needed him.

I don't know why Schumer abandoned his party to side with Republicans on that issue. I suspect he simply lacked the political courage to stand up for peace and party principles, and that bothers me. With the Senate as our only hope to rein in Republican excesses, we need a tough and strong Minority Leader that will stand with his party and show leadership. Can Schumer be counted on when the going gets tough (as it surely will)?

I have my doubts, but I hope I'm wrong because we need him to be a real leader.

(NOTE -- The photo above of Senator Schumer is from nbcnews.com.)

Senate GOP Stages Some Silly Political Theater

(Cartoon image is by Tom Toles in The Washington Post.)

Last Thursday, Senate Democrats defeated a cloture motion (which would have brought the anit Iran Agreement bill to the Senate floor) on a 58 to 42 vote (with 60 votes being needed). Yesterday, the GOP again held the same vote -- and again it was defeated (this time on a 56 to 42 vote).

This was nothing more than some ridiculous GOP political theater. They knew full well that no Democratic votes had changed, and they would lose again -- but they didn't care. They were just trying to make some political hay out of the issue. They knew that the lies that they have been spreading about the agreement have scared a lot of Americans -- and they want to keep the issue alive in hopes of stealing some votes away from Democrats in the next election.

And as I watched the floor debate before the vote, I noticed that the Republicans are still offering no sensible alternative to the agreement. The best they could come up with was to continue the sanctions and make President Obama go back and negotiate a better deal. Neither of those things is going to happen -- even if they could somehow kill the agreement.

The sanctions (except for those of the U.S.) are gone. The U.N. has already voted to remove the sanctions, and no other country is willing to re-impose them -- not Russia, China, or our Western allies. Those countries feel the deal is a good one. And none of them are willing to go back to the negotiating table just because U.S. Republicans want to play political games.

The only real alternative to the Iran Agreement is to have no agreement at all -- giving Iran free rein to do whatever it wants to do, including building of a nuclear bomb. And the only way to stop them from doing that would be to go to war with them. In other words, the Senate Republicans voted for a new war.

Fortunately, that's not going to happen. The two senate votes, and the threatened veto by the president, insures that. The Republicans will probably continue to play their political games on this issue -- but the agreement will go into effect -- and that's a good thing for this country and the world.

---------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE -- Senator Chuck Schumer (D-New York) once again voted with the Republicans to kill the agreement. That's sad, considering he is supposed to be the favorite to be the next Senate Democratic Leader (after the retirement of Harry Reid). That should NOT happen. Schumer has abandoned the president, his party, and the American people. He simply can no longer be trusted to lead Senate Democrats.

President Won't Have To Use A Veto To Protect Iran Deal

(This caricature of President Obama is by DonkeyHotey.)

It had been thought that President Obama would have to use his veto power to protect the Iran Agreement -- and we've know for several days now that opponents to the agreement don't have enough votes to override his veto. But now it looks like a veto won't be necessary. Senate Democrats have protected the president by refusing to allow a vote to kill the agreement in the Senate.

Congress had agreed that they should have 60 days to debate and then vote to kill the agreement -- and if they did not, then it would go into effect. Those 60 days are nearly up, and it doesn't look like the Senate will be able to vote to kill the agreement. Republicans tried to override a filibuster and bring it to the floor with a cloture motion, but they didn't have the 60 votes necessary to get it done. The vote was 58 to 42, and the motion failed.

Harry Reid (Minority Leader) and Dick Durbin (Minority Whip) are to be commended for their untiring effort to round up the 42 votes to prevent the odious (and dangerous) Republican bill from coming to the floor of the Senate. Sadly, four Democrats abandoned their president, their party, and their common sense -- and voted with the Republicans. They are Charles Schumer (New York), Ben Cardin (Maryland), Joe Manchin (West Virginia), and Robert Melendez (New Jersey).

While all four of those senators should be ashamed, Schemer's vote is the most egregious. He is being touted as the person most likely to replace Harry Reid as Senate Party Leader in January 2017 (since Reid is retiring after this term). I believe this vote should disqualify him from being elected to that important post. The post should go to a senator who is loyal to the party, the president, and is willing to do what is good for the country. With his vote, Schumer has shown he fails on all three criteria.

I believe Dick Durbin (Illinois) should be elected to be the next Senate Party Leader, and we should urge Democratic senators to vote for him in January of 2017. He has earned it -- both for his effort to round up the votes for the agreement, and for his many years of loyal service to the Democratic Party in the Senate.

(This photo of Senator Dick Durbin is from his Facebook page.)

Don't They Realize There Is No Reasonable Alternative ?

I continue to be amazed by the number of American politicians that are opposed to the Iran Agreement. Those who know about these kinds of things are in support of the agreement. They know it may not be perfect, but diplomatic agreements rarely are perfect -- and this one actually has a chance to work.

The U.N. Security Council voted 15 to 0 to accept the deal, and to remove the sanctions against Iran (and are not going to re-impose those sanctions just because the U.S. Congress doesn't like the deal). In addition, numerous nuclear security experts, over a hundred U.S ambassadors, three dozen high-ranking retired military officers support the agreement.

All of those people know that there is no acceptable alternative to the agreement. The only alternatives are to allow Iran to build a bomb, or to go to war with Iran to try and prevent that. The congressional Republicans also know that -- and that is why you don't hear them offering an alternative. They just keep repeating that it's a bad deal, but have no acceptable alternative to offer.

To be blunt, they are opposing the deal because the bulk of their base voters don't like the president -- and opposing anything the president does plays well with that base (even if there is no acceptable alternative to the president's action). In other words they are playing politics, and in doing that, they could well be making the world a much more dangerous place -- and leading this country into another war in the Middle East.

And sadly, a few Democrats are following the Republican lead, and playing politics with this dangerous issue. The most important one of these is Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer of New York. Instead of supporting the president and the agreement, he has announced that he will vote against the agreement. And like the Republicans he is emulating, he has offered no reasonable alternative to approving the agreement. He has to be smart enough to know he is playing a dangerous political game, but doesn't seem to care.

Making this even worse, Schumer is the favorite to become Majority (or Minority) Leader in the Senate in the next term (because Harry Reid is not running for re-election). I think this should disqualify him from that important leadership role in the Democratic Party. The Majority/Minority Leader post is one that needs to be occupied by a Democrat who is loyal to the president and his party -- not someone who can't be counted on to support the president, or someone who puts his own political well-being above the good of this country.

(This cartoon is by Dana Summers at Tribune Media Services.)

Schumer Is Not Qualified To Replace Reid As Dem Leader

The recent announcement by Senator Chuck Schumer (D-New York) that he will be voting against the Iran Agreement negotiated by President Obama is shocking to say the least. And even worse, just like the Republicans he is siding with, he offers no alternative to passing the agreement.

Does he really think that killing the agreement won't allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon even faster? Does he think Iran will return to the negotiating table if this agreement is killed? Does he think our allies (and other nations) will even consider re-instating the economic sanctions if Congress kills the agreement? If so, then he is a damn fool!

And we don't need a fool, or a Democrat disloyal to the president, as the leader of Senate Democrats. He has been touted as the odds-on favorite to replace Harry Reid as the party leader in the Senate when Reid retires (Reid is not running for re-election in 2016).

The Senate Democratic Leader (whether the Majority or Minority Leader) should be someone who is loyal to the president and the wishes of party members. This outrageous decision shows us that Schumer is not someone who can be trusted to do that. We don't need a party "leader" that puts the wishes of Benjamin Netanyahu over the policies of a Democratic president -- or that puts his own re-election chances above the values of the Democratic Party.

We need a loyal and firmly Democratic senator in that important position. Schumer has shown he cannot be trusted to be the party's leader in the Senate. I urge all those Democrats who have committed to vote to make Schumer the Democratic Party Leader in the Senate to withdraw those commitments, and look around for a better (and more loyal) Democrat for the position.

I know some of my progressive brothers and sisters want Senator Elizabeth Warren (D- Massachusetts) to be the party leader in the Senate -- but, as much as I love Senator Warren, I just don't see that happening. I would suggest someone like Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois). He has served a long time (earning the respect of his colleagues), thoroughly understands the Senate rules, is a good progressive, and has been loyal to the party and the president.

(NOTE -- The caricature of Chuck Schumer above is by DonkeyHotey.)

Be Patient - It's Far Too Early For Hillary To Announce Anything About 2016

(This caricature of Hillary Clinton is by DonkeyHotey.)

Last Saturday, in a speech before Iowa Democrats, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-New York) endorsed Hillary Clinton for the presidential election in 2016. He said, "Hillary's experience is unrivaled and her vision is unparalleled. . .I am urging Hillary Clinton to run for president and, when she does, she will have my full and unwavering support."

Schumer is not the first to do this. Last June, Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri) did the same thing, saying that coming out publicly in support of Clinton "was an important thing to do right now." And a couple of months ago, some supporters even established a super-PAC dedicated to helping Clinton become president.

For her part, Clinton has been gracious -- thanking those who want her to run, but saying it's too early and she has not made a decision about a possible run for president. And that's exactly what she should be doing right now (even if she has secretly already decided). It's still three years before the next presidential election -- far too early to announce even an intention to run for office.

Making an announcement at this early date would gain Clinton nothing. It would just hang a huge target on her back for the GOP to take shots at. I know they are already taking potshots at her, but saying bad things about her while she's just a private citizen just makes them look mean-spirited and petty. Once she declares as a candidate, the attacks will be viewed as politics (and even expected).

Clinton is just being smart. She doesn't need to make herself a candidate for at least another year and a half. I'm sure those already endorsing Hillary have the best of intentions, but they need to let her do this the right way. They may think they are helping, but they're not. She already has a huge lead among Democrats (and over all possible GOP opponents). Endorsing her at this early date won't improve her chances, but it might lend some credibility to the GOP attacks.

Her time will come (if she wants it). Be patient.

A Rational Way To Cut The Deficit

The Republicans have been talking a lot about the federal deficit and the need to cut it. It has become obvious that they are not really serious about budget-cutting, since they are just cutting programs they don't like, and which don't come close to equaling the deficit increases they have caused by their giveaways to the rich and corporations.

Democratic Senator Charles Schumer (pictured above) has decided to call the Republicans out and see if they truly want to do some budget-cutting. He has come up with a plan that would actually put a huge dent in the deficit. Here is what he is proposing:

* Institute a surtax on millionaires and billionaires. He said, "I noted with interest that in last weeks Wall Street Journal-NBC Poll, the most popular proposal to reduce the deficit -- out of 23 options surveyed -- was a surtax on millionaires and billionaires." While the Republicans don't want to admit it (since they spend a lot of effort funneling money to the rich), the American public would be in favor of more taxes on the rich. It turns out that the rich actually pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than either the working or middle classes.

* Crack down on tax dodging and income sheltering by large corporations. He said, "There is much we can do in the tax code to crack down on cheaters and vastly improve compliance. Any credible deficit plan should tackle the so-called 'tax gap' -- the gap between taxes owed and taxes paid -- which has gotten as high as over $300 billion a year this past decade." The fact is that while working and middle class Americans are paying taxes, many corporations like Exxon and Bank of America don't pay a single penny in American taxes. This needs to stop.

* Cut unneeded and wasteful subsidies given to industries each year by the federal government. Schumer said, "All these kinds of subsidies should be on the table, but the one that sticks out like a sore thumb is oil and gas because the entire rationale for it is gone. It was passed, I think, when the price of oil was $17 a barrel, we had low production, and now of course, the price of oil is $100 a barrel. The subsidy, in economic terms, doesn't mean anything other than to make some people wealthy who are already wealthy."

These are all excellent suggestions, and they would make a bigger dent in the budget deficit than anything that has been proposed by the Republicans. But we could go even further, and do it without cutting any of the social safety net needed by ordinary Americans in this recession. We could slash the defense budget. It is by far larger than any other segment of government spending from general funds (and is larger than the defense budget of all other countries put together).

A good start would be to stop the two endless wars we are currently engaging in -- which are wasting hundreds of billions of dollars each year while accomplishing nothing. Surely we have learned by now that we can't export democracy or solve another country's problems through military power -- a lesson we should have learned from Vietnam.

After that, we need to look at all the military programs to build new (and unneeded) weapons. The military has even admitted some of these are not necessary, but they are continued as pork projects for a congressman's district. And do we need all of our overseas bases? Probably not, especially since in this day and age we can move troops around the world at a moments notice.

The Republicans would not like any of the above programs because they hit at their favorite "sacred cows" -- the rich and the military. But they would meet with the approval of a majority of the American public. The Republican House would undoubtably kill any of the above-named efforts, but I say Democrats should force them to do it -- and then make them defend their actions in the next elections. It would expose the Republicans as not truly wanting to cut the deficit -- just programs that help ordinary Americans.

Schumer Is Only Liberal When It's Convenient

Israel has imposed and continued a blockade of supplies going to Gaza. They claim they are doing this to stop the infiltration of weapons into the Palestinian area, but that's just not true. If that's all they wanted to do they could check shipments into Gaza for weapons and let all shipments that don't contain weapons through. That's not what they are doing. They are also refusing to allow many food, medicines and building supplies into Gaza -- things that could not possibly be used as a weapon.

The truth is that this blockade is not for defensive purposes. The blockade is purely for political purposes. Israel is very unhappy that the Palestinians elected Hamas leaders to govern them (as was their right under democratic principles). Israel doesn't want to have to negotiate with Hamas, who will be much tougher in negotiations than some other Palestinians. That's one reason Israel has refused to return to the negotiating table. And it's the main reason for the blockade.

The blockade is an attempt to punish Gaza for electing leaders that Israel doesn't like and an attempt to starve them into submission (so they will do what Israel wants them to do). And although Israel denies it, the Palestinians are being starved (and denied basic medical care). The United Nations has declared this to be true and condemned Israel for it.

Sadly, one of the most famous liberals in the United States cannot see this. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-New York) seems to think that Israel cannot do any wrong, especially against the Palestinians. When it comes to Israel, Schumer (pictures) just tosses his liberal principles right out of the window. Listen to what Schumer told the Orthodox Union last Wednesday:

"The Palestinian people still don't believe in the Jewish state, in a two state solution. . .The boycott of Gaza to me has another purpose -- obviously the first purpose is to prevent Hamas from getting weapons by which they will use to hurt Israel -- but the second is actually to show the Palestinians that when there's some moderation and cooperation, they can have an economic advancement. . .And to me, since the Palestinians in Gaza elected Hamas, while certainly there should be humanitarian aid and people not starving to death, to strangle them economically until they see that's not the way to go makes sense."

There is so much wrong with that statement. First, it is just not true that the Palestinians do not believe in a two state solution. A recent independent poll shows that 74% of Palestinians (and 78% of Israelis) believe in a two state solution and are willing to live peacefully beside the state of Israel. Schumer is just repeating a very old lie to justify his own view (and that of the Israeli government). Nearly as many Palestinians want a two state solution as Israelis.

Second, although he says he doesn't want any food or medical supplies (humanitarian aid) to be denied, the fact that he supports the blockade as a way to "strangle them economically" shows that is not true. Schumer has to be well aware that the United Nations agency in charge of helping the Palestinians says the blockade has created a humanitarian crises in Gaza and "about 70% of Gazans live on less than $1 a day, 75% rely on food aid (which is inadequate), and 60% have no daily access to water." This is indefensible.

Third, it is simply wrong for a country to try and starve another country, region or province into political submission (or a group of people within the country). It is morally wrong to use food, medical aid and other critical supplies as political weapons. I believe Israel has the right to self-defense, but neither it (nor any other country) has the right to starve people into submitting to any political idea.

Schumer would not think this was OK for any other country to do. Why then does he deny his own liberal principles when it comes to Israel? If this is morally correct for Israel to do, why wouldn't it be morally correct for any other country? Schumer's liberal credentials seem to only be in effect when they are convenient, and that's just not good enough.