Friday, April 29, 2011
"Side Show" Donald
Reid Will Hold Votes To Expose Republicans
Since the House Republicans voted overwhelmingly to pass the Ryan Budget Plan, they have found that their constituents back home are not happy about that vote. In the last couple of weeks many of these House Republicans have been holding town hall meetings, and the people attending those have not been kind to the House Republicans. Even much of their Republican base is opposed to the abolishment of Medicare -- and a significant majority of Americans don't want to see new tax cuts for the rich or corporations.
It's beginning to look like the House Republicans have given the Democrats a couple of great issues to campaign on -- and to beat their Republican opponents over the head with. So Reid, whose is definitely against the Ryan Budget Plan, has decided to give Senate Republicans the opportunity to join their House comrades as the butt of citizens' anger. He is going to schedule a vote on the Ryan Budget Plan, and then dare Senate Republicans to vote for it (with the sure knowledge that vote would be used against them in the next election).
This may be the smartest thing Reid has done since becoming majority leader. It definitely puts the Senate Republicans between a rock and a hard place. They must either vote against their own party's budget plan (and risk the ire of teabaggers) or vote for it (and risk angering the general public) -- neither of which are good choices for these Republicans. It wouldn't surprise me if several Republicans found some other place to be when this vote is held -- especially moderates like Snowe (Maine) and Brown (Massachusetts) who must run for re-election in 2012 in states not known as "red states".
And further proving Reid may actually now have a backbone is the fact that he wants to double-down on the pressure on Republican senators. It has become obvious recently that a clear majority of Americans are not happy with Big Oil receiving billions in subsidies that are no longer needed, since these companies are making record profits (yesterday Exxon announced it had $10.7 billion in net profit for the first quarter of the year and Shell said their first quarter net profit was $6.9 billion).
So Reid also wants to schedule a vote on abolishing the government subsidies for Big Oil. This is another vote the Republican senators won't want to have. If they vote to abolish the subsidies they will anger their corporate donors, and if they vote to continue the subsidies they may be hurting their own chances for re-election. Finally, Reid and the Democrats are playing the same kind of political hardball the Republicans have been playing. And it could pay huge dividends in the 2012 election.
Over in the House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is also asking for a vote of abolishing the oil company subsidies, but Speaker Boehner is having none of it. His Republican underlings are having enough trouble trying to defend their vote to abolish Medicare and give corporations a tax cut (Ryan Budget Plan), and he doesn't want to saddle them with another vote the American voters won't be happy about. Besides, they get too many campaign dollars from Big Oil to vote against them on this.
It looks like the Republicans have gone too far in trying to give more to their corporate masters and cut government programs they never liked. The "mandate" they claimed to have has now turned into a lot of anger directed right at them. If they were smart, they would admit they made a mistake and apologize to the voters. But Republicans have never been good at either admitting mistakes or apologizing. With a little luck, Democrats may be able to ride this citizen anger through the 2012 election.
Birtherism And The Polls
Of course, it does bring up the question of just how many of these die-hard racists there really are. Survey USA decided to find out. After the president's birth certificate (pictured above) was released, they conducted a survey of 1,500 American adults (with both cell phones and land-lines). It turns out that 71% of the population has no doubt that the president was born in Hawaii, while 10% believe the birth certificate is a forgery (17% of teabaggers & 18% of Republicans) and 18% still have doubts (40% of teabaggers and 33% of Republicans). Here are the numbers:
* 63% say Obama was definitely born in the United States.
* 19% say Obama was probably born in the United States.
* 11% say Obama was probably born in another country.
* 6% say Obama was definitely born in another country.
* 11% say Obama was probably born in another country.
* 6% say Obama was definitely born in another country.
* 57% say they knew all along that the President was born in the USA.
* 14% say they had doubts, but now are satisfied that the President was born in the USA.
* 18% say they still have doubts about where the President was born (including 40% of Tea Party, 33% of Republicans, 27% of Conservatives.)
* 10% say they are sure the document released 04/27/11 is a forgery (including 17% of Tea Party , 18% of Republicans, 16% of Conservatives).
* 14% say they had doubts, but now are satisfied that the President was born in the USA.
* 18% say they still have doubts about where the President was born (including 40% of Tea Party, 33% of Republicans, 27% of Conservatives.)
* 10% say they are sure the document released 04/27/11 is a forgery (including 17% of Tea Party , 18% of Republicans, 16% of Conservatives).
* Both 27% who have seen the certificate and 27% who have not seen the certificate say the matter is still an open item for debate.
* 64% of those who have seen the certificate say the matter is now a closed incident.
* 49% of those who have not seen the certificate say the matter is now a closed incident.
* 64% of those who have seen the certificate say the matter is now a closed incident.
* 49% of those who have not seen the certificate say the matter is now a closed incident.
* When all Americans are asked whether Obama will be re-elected in 2012, 33% say he will be re-elected, 49% say he won't be.
* When just responses from those who have seen the certificate are considered, 41% say he will be re-elected, 44% say he won't be.
* When just responses from those who have seen the certificate are considered, 41% say he will be re-elected, 44% say he won't be.
* 26% of Americans say they will vote for Obama in 2012 no matter who else is on the ballot.
* 34% of Americans say they will vote against Obama in 2012 no matter who else is on the ballot.
* 35% say they need to know who else is on the ballot.
* 34% of Americans say they will vote against Obama in 2012 no matter who else is on the ballot.
* 35% say they need to know who else is on the ballot.
* 9% of Americans consider themselves to be part of the "Birther" movement.
* 34% of Americans are not following news stories about the birth certificate.
* 34% of Americans are not following news stories about the birth certificate.
Donald Trump...............19%
Mitt Romney...............17%
Mike Huckabee...............15%
Sarah Palin...............9%
Newt Gingrich...............9%
Ron Paul...............8%
Tim Pawlenty...............5%
Mitch Daniels...............3%
Some other candidate...............5%
Undecided...............11%
This is quite different from this same survey when it was taken in January 2011. Back then it showed:
Mitt Romney...............24%
Sarah Palin...............19%
Mike Huckabee...............17%
Newt Gingrich...............11%
Of course it is still very early and no candidate has yet been able to separate himself/herself from the pack. But it is interesting that Trump's newfound popularity seems to have come mainly at the expense of Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin. Both have dropped precipitously in this poll since January.
But while Trump's birtherism has played well among the Republicans (especially the teabaggers), it has not done his TV show any good at all. Some have said he is just playing at being a candidate so boost the viewership of his TV show (The Apprentice). If that is true, then it has been an abysmal failure. He has lost at least 2 million viewers in the last couple of weeks (when he became very public with his birther views). How can that be? Well, it turns out that the TV show was more popular among liberals than conservatives. And his birther view (racism) is not selling well to the TV show demographic.
I doubt it will happen, but I would love to see the Republicans nominate Donald Trump or Sarah Palin (or even Michele Bachmann). It would not only make for a fun campaign, but would be the best present Democrats could get.
Texas Republicans And Their Gun Bills
For a while it looked like they would pass a law allowing adults to carry concealed weapons on college campuses (even though most college presidents and officials lobbied hard against that bill). But a parliamentary procedure has kept that bill from coming to the floor of the senate for a vote. A bill cannot come to the floor unless at least 22 senators vote to allow it to come up for a vote, and the bill's sponsor (Sen. Jeff Wentworth of San Antonio) was only able to corral about 20 votes.
It looked like that bill might be dead, but NRA-type Republicans are nothing if not persistent. Wentworth found a bill that he thought could get to the senate floor (a bill to allow colleges more flexibility in funding rules) and tried to take his own bill onto it as an amendment. An amendment only needs 16 votes and he could easily get that many.
But he didn't talk to the bill's author, Sen. Judith Zaffirini of Laredo -- a Democrat who is opposed to Wentworth's gun bill. Sen. Zaffirini has withdrawn her bill and says she will kill it before she allows it to go to the floor carrying the college gun amendment. So it looks like Wentworth's second (and sneakiest) attempt to get his gun bill passed has also failed.
This doesn't necessarily mean he won't finally get the bill passed, but it's going to be a lot more difficult now that it has been stopped for a second time. After all, this session of the legislature has a lot of important bills they still haven't passed and time is starting to run out. They still need to finish redistricting, and they need to pass a budget (that makes up for an impending $27 billion deficit).
But while Wentworth's silly bill is having trouble in the Senate, an even dumber bill has just been voted out of a House committee. The Committee on Homeland Security and Public Safety has approved a bill that would allow Texans to openly carry handguns. The bill would simply remove the word "concealed" from the current concealed-carry law in Texas. That means anyone who has a license (which any idiot with a few dollars and no criminal record can get) can wear a gun on their hip (or even two).
And there are plenty of Texans who will start wearing a gun. They all picture themselves as "Rambo" (but really more closely resemble their relative pictured above). They seem to relish a return to the old days when people had shootouts on Main Street instead of relying on law enforcement for protection. About the only good thing this would do is that people can see who's carrying a gun from a distance, and go another direction. Of course the criminals would be forewarned also and probably just shoot first and then rob their dead bodies.
As I have said before on this blog, the Second Amendment does guarantee citizens the right to own firearms. But it doesn't give them the right to be stupid about it, and it doesn't give the legislature the right to create an even more dangerous situation than already exists. Both of these are dumb bills and should never be allowed to become law.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Public Moving Toward Pot Legalization
One Union Has Had Enough - Takes Action
The terrible recession that we're still in (regardless of what the pundits say) should put that notion to rest. Big business is making record-breaking profits, but none of it is being shared with working America. While profits climb to astronomical levels, workers wages are stagnant, and have been for the last thirty years or so (meaning that the buying power of the average worker has actually gone down while business profits have risen).
Too many people don't seem to realize that the working conditions they enjoy today (if they're lucky enough to have a job) are due almost exclusively to unions. All of the things listed above (and more) would not exist if it were not for the people in our past who fought to establish unions and give workers some rights. And none of that was a result of corporate generosity, but had to be fought for (and in too many cases died for).
Republicans have never liked unions. They have always been on the side of big business and have fought unions. And since the presidency of Ronald Reagan they have been very successful in chipping away at union rights and in weakening the union movement. This is a primary reason wages have been stagnant (because the weakened unions don't have the power anymore to force corporate America to be fair). And if corporate America doesn't have to be fair to workers, then no business does.
In the past, the Democrats have been those who fought to protect unions and American workers. They still pay a lot of lip service to protecting the workers, and even President Obama spoke of his support for unions and workers in the 2008 campaign. But sadly, little has been done by the Democrats (or the president) recently to make good on those promises. I'm not sure whether it's a lack of desire or ability (or just too many "blue dogs"), but Democrats have not protected unions.
One union has had enough of politicians (of both parties) who talk like they'll help working men and women, and then do nothing once they're elected. The Executive Board of the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) -- an AFL-CIO member union -- has decided to take some action. They have declared they will cut off donating any funds to federal candidates, parties, or the PACs created to support them.
I can't say I blame them. They have been donating a lot of money and they are getting nothing in return -- nothing except to be ignored after the elections are over. Then the Republicans get back to attacking unions and the Democrats let them do it. Here's some of what IAFF president Harold Schaitberger told the union's members about the board's decision:
Extreme right-wing conservative and so-called Tea Party politicians are coming after fire fighters, paramedics and all public workers with a vengeance across the United States. They are attempting to take away basic American rights like collective bargaining and your right to negotiate for a good quality of life for your families. They are working to eliminate your pensions and retirement security. They want to silence your voice by gagging you with legislation they call Paycheck Protection. They are taking away the long-held right of dues deductions from paychecks to try to weaken the finances of our union. They want to hurt all unions and drive down wages and benefits with Right-to-Work laws.
Not only are extremist Republicans trying to destroy us -- too few Democrats are standing up and fighting for us.
Over the past two years, politicians from both parties have failed to address our issues in Washington, DC. Now, anti-labor members of Congress and their allies are championing measures that would undermine pension security, tax employer-sponsored health benefits, force newly hired fire fighters into Social Security and attack federal fire fighters. And with no pro-fire fighter legislation likely to be advanced in the 112th Congress – it’s time to take a stand.
With the survival of our union and the ability to preserve and protect the rights, wages and benefits our members deserve in jeopardy in the states, we have re-evaluated how to get the best results for our political dollars.
With the full support of our union’s Executive Board, we are turning off the spigot to federal candidates and federal parties, party committees and the super PACs that are created to support them.
Historically, FIREPAC has made most of its contributions to federal candidates. But it’s time to send a clear message to all politicians at every level that the support of this IAFF is not automatic. It must be earned.
The reputation of our members and our profession in the political arena must not be taken for granted. Our support comes with consequences for those who are working to kill this union, and we will hold accountable those supposed friends who don’t stand up for us.
Now more than ever, as our adversaries speak and act with a concerted, focused message, we need our friends to respond with similar strength and leadership to beat back the multi-faceted, well-organized assaults the right has launched at us – funded by anti-labor extremists like the multi-billionaire Koch brothers. And while we are fighting for our very survival, our friends aren’t doing enough to fight back -- they don’t have our backs. . .
We know we have legislative fights, ballot measures and re-call elections that will require us to be on the offensive at the state and local level through this fall. I expect this strategic decision to focus our resources on state and local efforts, and the freezing of federal contributions, to last as long as the fights in the states remain at such a high level and until we see some real results and leadership from those in Washington, DC on our members’ behalf.
Sticking together and having each other’s backs is part of this great profession we call “the job.” It’s the core principle of our political work. And sticking to it is what will ensure that we ultimately prevail in the fights we face across America today.
Frankly, I think more unions should follow suit. It might wake up the Democrats and propel them into taking some action to help workers and protect unions. The weaker that unions get, the worse the job situation gets for all workers (whether in a union or not). It's time for the politicians to be shook up. American worker don't need lip service, they need action -- action that will strengthen unions, create good jobs, protect benefits, and stop job outsourcing (and make the corporations pay their fair share of taxes).
Wait Until The Teabaggers Hear This
But Trump is not without his warts, and at least some of them may wind up turning off many teabaggers (something Trump could not afford). Most people already know about his multiple marriages and bankruptcies, and if that was all there was, then maybe those could be forgiven. But there are a couple of other things that have now come to light, and these may not be so easy for teabaggers to overlook.
The first regards his clothing line -- the Donald J. Trump Signature Collection (a men's wear line). Trump has for a while now been bad-mouthing China. That wouldn't upset the teabaggers since they believe China holds far too much U.S. debt now anyway. But what they probably don't know is that Trump's line of men's clothing in made in -- that's right -- CHINA! While he has been talking down China he has also been outsourcing work to them. That's not only hypocritical, but costs this country jobs.
But the second thing may be even more inexcusable for the teabaggers. It seems that Trump has donated more than $1.3 million to politicians over the years, and more than 54% of that money has gone to Democrats. Here are some of the Democrats to whom he has made campaign donations:
Senator Harry Reid (Nevada)
Senator Ted Kennedy (Massachusetts)
Senator Charles Schumer (New York)
Governor Ed Rendell (Pennsylvania)
Mayor Rahm Emanuel (Chicago)
Senator Hillary Clinton (New York)
Senator John Kerry (Massachusetts)
Rep. Charles Rangel (New York)
Democratic Senate Campaign Committee
Trump defended these and other Democratic donations by saying he lived in a blue state and in that kind of state it was necessary for a businessman to support some Democrats. That excuse may fly for the local Democratic candidates, but it won't work for the many national Democrats he's supported -- some of them very recently. He gave Rahm Emanuel a large donation in his recent run for mayor of Chicago, and he donated to Harry Reid when Reid was opposed by a teabagger Republican (Sharron Angle).
Frankly, the list of Democrats he has donated to reads like a veritable who's who of hated by teabaggers Democrats. It should be interesting to see how the teabaggers take this news.
NOTE -- Donald Trump said he would release his tax returns if President Obama showed us his long-form birth certificate. The president has now gave the media copies of that birth certificate. Does anyone think Trump will keep his word and release his tax returns? I don't think so either.
Obama's (And The Democrats') Republican Policies
But that didn't happen. What we got instead was the continuation of some Republican policies and the revival of some others. Guantanamo is still open and the kangaroo military trials there are resuming. We are still engaged in both of Bush's ridiculous wars (and have now added a third one). Obama supports the same kind of "free trade" policies that Bush did, with no protection for American workers. And the subsidies for Big Oil, drilling in the Gulf, and job outsourcing all continue with no changes.
Even the bills that have been passed such as health care reform and Wall Street reform are nothing more than a retread of old 1990s Republican proposals -- as is the proposed cap-and-trade energy policy which is yet to be passed. I know I may have made some Democrats mad with those conclusions, but it is still the truth. And I'm not the only person who believes this. Here is some of what Ezra Klein had to say about current Democratic policies in the Washington Post:
President Obama, if you look closely at his positions, is a moderate Republican from the early 1990s. And the Republican Party he’s facing has abandoned many of its best ideas in its effort to oppose him.
If you put aside the emergency measures required by the financial crisis, three major policy ideas have dominated American politics in recent years: a health-care plan that uses an individual mandate and tax subsidies to achieve near-universal coverage; a cap-and-trade plan that attempts to raise the prices of environmental pollutants to better account for their costs; and bringing tax rates up from their Bush-era lows as part of a bid to reduce the deficit. In each case, the position that Obama and the Democrats have staked out is the very position that moderate Republicans staked out in the early ’90s — and often, well into the 2000s.
Take health-care reform. The individual mandate was developed by a group of conservative economists in the early ’90s. Mark Pauly, an economist at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, was one of them. “We were concerned about the specter of single-payer insurance,” he told me recently. The conservative Heritage Foundation soon had an individual-mandate plan of its own, and when President Bill Clinton endorsed an employer mandate in his health-care proposal, both major Republican alternatives centered on an individual mandate. By 1995, more than 20 Senate Republicans — including Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Dick Lugar and a few others still in office — had sponsored one individual mandate bill or another.
The story on cap and trade — which conservatives now like to call “cap and tax” — is much the same. Back then, the concern was sulfur dioxide, the culprit behind acid rain. President George H.W. Bush wanted a solution that relied on the market rather than on government regulation. So in the Clean Air Act of 1990, he proposed a plan that would cap sulfur-dioxide emissions but let the market decide how to allocate the permits. That was “more compatible with economic growth than using only the command and control approaches of the past,” he said. The plan passed easily, with “aye” votes from Sen. Mitch McConnell and then-Rep. Newt Gingrich, among others. In fact, as recently as 2007, Gingrich said that “if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur . . . it’s something I would strongly support.”
As for the 1990 budget deal, Bush initially resisted tax increases, but eventually realized they were necessary to get the job done. “It is clear to me that both the size of the deficit problem and the need for a package that can be enacted require all of the following: entitlement and mandatory program reform, tax revenue increases, growth incentives, discretionary spending reductions, orderly reductions in defense expenditures, and budget process reform,” he said. That deal, incidentally, was roughly half tax increases and half spending cuts. Obama’s budget has far fewer tax increases. And compared with what would happen if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire in 2012, it actually includes a large tax cut.
The normal reason a party abandons its policy ideas is that those ideas fail in practice. But that’s not the case here. These initiatives were wildly successful. Gov. Mitt Romney passed an individual mandate in Massachusetts and drove its number of uninsured below 5 percent. The Clean Air Act of 1990 solved the sulfur-dioxide problem. The 1990 budget deal helped cut the deficit and set the stage for a remarkable run of growth.
Rather, it appears that as Democrats moved to the right to pick up Republican votes, Republicans moved to the right to oppose Democratic proposals.
It has become a sad truth that there is no longer a progressive party in the United States (although there are still a few progressives in the Democratic Party). We have a center-right party in the Democrats and a far-right party in the Republicans. That is why there is no public option for health insurance, no serious effort to stimulate job creation (while outsourcing continues unabated), no effective legislation to control global climate change and protect the environment, no reining in of Wall Street and corporate greed, no sensible energy policy, no real education policy (or adequate funding), and social programs (including Medicare and Social Security) are on the chopping block.
It's no wonder that the American people are disappointed and discouraged by the Democrats, because they don't offer much real change from the failed policies of the Republicans. Why then do the Republicans oppose everything proposed by Obama and the Democrats (since they are just revived Republican programs)? That's easy. The Republicans made a decision to oppose everything Obama tried to do. They believe that is their path to a return to power.
The sad fact is that Obama could adopt everything in the current Republican platform, and the Republicans would just move further to the right and vote to oppose it. They are truly the party of NO -- even voting no to their own policies. And even sadder is the fact that Obama, in an effort to be "bipartisan", has moved further to the right to please them.
I wish I could say that a big Democratic victory in 2012 would set things right, and we would see the Democrats pass some progressive legislation. But I don't really believe that. America, and both its parties have moved right of center -- and until the people wake up and demand change, the country is in for a hard time (and a continuing recession). That's just the way things are right now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)