Hey, GOP, where should taxes be set at?

After watching Grover Norquist again say that no taxes should go up, I wanted to ask him a question. But since I can't ask him, I'll ask the GOP: Where should taxes be?

I understand that no one wants to see their taxes rise, but what is the floor for taxes? Right now, although historic norms for federal taxes raised are 19% of the GDP, we are running at just under 16%, and have been since the Bush tax cuts took effect. Since you say that taxes should never be raised, is this the bottom for you, or should they be lower? Either way, what programs do you believe should be cut? Should education be slashed? Should older people not have health care, therefore dying at an early age, or going to Emergency Rooms, increasing the overall health cost? Should poor people with children not get help with feeding their children, making it harder for those children to get ahead through education, ensuring a never-ending impoverished class of people? Should we stop research and development? Stop public broadcasting on TV and the radio? Cut all this out and you still run over a trillion dollar a year deficit. That's right, the math doesn't add up.

So, GOP, where should taxes be set at? And if you want to balance the budget, where else do you cut?

Tea Party making Boehner abridge his power just a step.

When Speaker of the House John Boehner gave up and quit talking with the President on the fiscal cliff, he did much more than that. In many ways, Speaker Boehner said that he and the House of Representatives can't negotiate a compromise. In saying that, why would anyone now ask him to sit in a room and try to negotiate a way out of this problem?

President Obama has gotten the Speaker, House minority leader Pelosi, Senate Leader Reid, and Senate minority leader McConnell to agree to come to the White House tomorrow to talk about the upcoming fiscal cliff. But what can Speaker Boehner say in that meeting? "Remember last week when I threw out my hands and said I was out of the loop, that it was up to the President and the Senate to make a deal? Well, I really didn't mean that, and here's what I think we should do." What do you think would happen? Say something like that at any meeting, and you'd be laughed out of the room. And although decorum will ensure that laughter won't ring through the room, I'd love to be a fly in that wall.

After last week's House vote on the Boehner's plan B was squashed by the Tea Party, they did more than just stop a vote from being taken. They made sure that Speaker Boehner's powers were abridged, and in at least during the fiscal cliff talks, made the Speaker completely useless. And I wonder, since the Tea Party believes in as little government as possible, if they haven't taken a step toward making the government so dysfunctional that people won't want it in their lives anymore. If so, they took a step to their own aim: Government so small it can be drowned in a bathtub.         

What is an entitlement?

Now that Christmas  is over, it's good to see that serious people are getting back to the job of trying to fix the mess this country is in. And as I noticed Speaker Boehner has decided that he doesn't need to be there, I started thinking of one of the central tenets of the GOP: Cut entitlements. But this got me thinking: What is an entitlement?

In its basic form , an entitlement is something that you get for doing nothing. If a person pays into the government for something through taxes, is anything in return an entitlement? A person pays into social security every time they are paid with a paycheck. So, how can what you get back form this be an entitlement? The government can run a surplus or a deficit on these funds, but that's not an entitlement. In the same way, medicare is run the same way, although less money goes to fund medicare. No retirement pay can be entitlement, either. This is simply money not given to a person while working and put away for when they meet a requirement to receive the money.

So what are actual entitlements? In one respect, a tax break is an entitlement, both corporate and personal tax breaks. A person or company pays nothing in to receive the money, or to not pay taxes on the money. So yes, in my thinking, that means deductions of children, research and development, charitable contributions, and other deductions are entitlements.

So GOP, do you really want to cut entitlements? Well, tell me what you think an entitlement is, and I'll see what I think about it. But really, I doubt an entitlement to you is an entitlement to me. So GOP, what's an entitlement to you?      

Question for NRA: We waited 3 days for this?

After waiting 3 days for the NRA to give America its plan to stop the violence and attempt to murders like what happened in Newtown last Friday, the NRA gave a statement today saying their idea to stop the violence is: Have armed guards at every school. In other words, let's stop the violence by having more guns at schools.
So, the NRA doesn't think that limiting clips would help? The NRA doesn't think background checks help and should be included in all gun sales? The NRA believes that those on the terrorists hot lists and can't fly should be able to get a gun? The NRA doesn't believe that all court records should be computerized  so that legally incompetent people can be barred from gun ownership? You said today that the only thing that will stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun. Don't you think that making gun ownership for bad people harder is a worthwhile goal for a society?
NRA, you said Tuesday that you would wait until Friday to make a statement. Some people thought that you  might change your stance, while others were sure you would just spew out the same BS that you always do. So NRA, we waited 3 days for this same BS you always spout?      

GOP tries to prove Mayan prophecy just a day off

Late Thursday night, the Tea Party basically told the American people and the world to go jump in a lake (Oh, I could really say my thoughts if this wasn't a G-Rated column) when they rebuked Speaker Boehner and refused to vote for a tax increase for families making more than 1 million dollars. Yes, the GOP refused to raise the taxes on just 41,000 families. Wasn't that enough for the GOP? No, they wanted taxes to go up on zero families, not one. So what has that got to do with the Mayan prophecy?

As it is generally known, the Mayan calendar ends on December 21, 2012. Well, if the GOP takes the country over the cliff, then the stock market will drop sharply. Cuts in the budget for next year is expected to raise unemployment rates by 1 to 3% for the year or two in the United States. But that's not where it stops. The credit rating for America would go down, causing another downgrade in the country's credit rating. This would make it more expensive for us to borrow money, but as the world is tied to our ability to borrow money, we would also be making it harder on other countries to borrow money. Which would increase the austerity push in all countries, especially in southern Europe. So this would also increase their unemployment rate. And with unemployment running in some counties at 20 to 30 %, how do you think they will react to this? Yes, with protests and possible riots. Do I need to keep going on and tell you what would happen after that?

Many years ago, the Mayan calendar ended with the year and date December 21, 2012. On their calendar, there is no date after this. After this day, nothing is certain. Today, on December 20, 2012, the GOP tried to prove, that basically, the Mayan prophecy is off by just a day.        

NRA promises to speak on Friday-- and then goes on the attack

There was a thought in some corners that maybe the NRA was finally willing to talk about new gun laws when they sent out a statement yesterday that said they would wait until Friday to make a statement, and were willing to talk about ways to stop massacres like Newtown in the future. But last night, it was shown that the NRA will never see any reason to limit guns when they went on the attack last night
.
While the NRA said they would wait until Friday to give their ideas on Newtown, NRA News, an internet-based arm of the NRA, last night went on the air and said that any laws limiting gun ownership was unacceptable to the NRA. They again gave their stock answer to the problem: More guns would have limited the damage done by the massacre. Then on the radio last night, an NRA statesman (Or someone speaking for the NRA) said that actions taken by people like Senator Feinstein showed that President Obama was indeed planning on taking people's guns away in the President's second term. Exactly how is limiting rounds in the clips, 100% background checks for all gun sales, and stopping the manufacture of military hardware for civilian use going into people's homes and taking their gun away? Is there any bill in the President's first term that limited gun use? No! As a matter of fact, the one gun law he did sign expanded gun rights, allowing guns in [places like national parks and on Amtrak.) Has there been a rash of train robberies I hadn't heard of prior to this bill being signed?)

The NRA said they'd wait until Friday to make a statement on the massacre in Newtown, but they turned right around and went on the attack last night. But with their refusal to listen to ideas, their stubbornness in  just repeating their stock answer, and their lying about the President, the NRA showed their complete lack of respect for a majority of the American people.      

A nation of hatred

While most of America was still mourning Sunday and Monday, there was an entire group of people that were spewing out hate for all to hear. First Sunday, there was the article by Tea Party Nation head Judson Phillips and Tea Party Nation member Timothy Birdnow that stated that teachers were leaders in the problems of the country, calling them evil. They stated children need to be home schooled since teachers weren't to be trusted. Obviously, they don't care about hard-working teachers, and disregarded heroic actions taken by teachers during that Connecticut massacre. Then they attacked President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, calling them out for actions taken during Fat and Furious, and refusing to call them by their title. They did this to show their complete disdain for the two men. Of course, it didn't matter to them that their facts in Fast and Furious is totally wrong.
Then, when President Obama went on TV Sunday night on all channels, cutting into the Sunday Night Football Game on NBC, twitter was ablaze with people who called the President every name in the book. It was reported that thousands of people used the "N" word to voice their disapproval, while some, if not most, said that either he had no right to break into the broadcast, had stolen the election, or was from Kenya.
Then on Monday, while the NRA was still mum, the farther right-leaning Gun Owners of America got on TV and stated their views on guns. Larry Pratt, who I believe heads the group, stated that there should be no gun control laws so that people could use their guns to overthrow their government. While Mr. Pratt stated that no one action could spur people to overthrow their government, but that if people feel that the government is acting against them, then they had the right to overthrow the government. I guess simple democracy doesn't matter to that group.  
America, for the most part, is a country full of caring, loving, forgiving, and compromising people. But within its borders, there is a large group of people that believe in none of that. They have their own radio shows they listen to, their their own TV shows to watch, and even their own news channel. They have become, simply, a nation of hatred.    

NRA knows its position is weak, if not untenable.

I've said for a long time that the weaker a position is, or someone thinks their position is weak, the harder it is foe someone to defend it. So when someone is quiet about their position when they are being questioned about it, you can be fairly sure that they believe their position is untenable. This proved correct in 2010 with the Affordable Health Care, as Democrats didn't believe they could win on the facts, ran away from the bill. This was proved again in the 2012 election, as the GOP ran away from candidates who spouted the party line, knowing it wasn't what American wanted. And now the NRA is clamming up, sending no representatives from their organization to the Sunday shows to voice their opinion on actions to attempt to cut down on massacres like last Friday. This shows they know their position is unacceptable to a majority of the American people. A couple of elected officials with strong ties to the NRA tried to explain that one more gun in the right hands would have stopped the carnage. This is the NRA answer after all such tragedies, and it rang just as hollow over the weekend as it had in the past. And that's why NRA officials themselves didn't go on the shows. They know their position is weak at best, and very probably completely untenable to the American people.

Can we talk about guns NOW?

The killings today at the Connecticut elementary school is truly a national tragedy. But not because, while it is just the latest incident in this country of mass shootings, it was done at an elementary school. No, what makes it a national tragedy is that after all the other killings, we never had a debate over the gun laws in this country. The NRA has so corrupted the political process that even after the senseless killings in Arizona, and Colorado, and Virginia Tech, that Congress couldn't even debate gun issues like re-enacting the assault weapons ban, limiting rounds in a clip, and the ease of evading background checks when buying a gun.

I spent 20 years in the military, so I am no all-guns-are-bad liberal. There are very good reasons for owning a gun, including hunting, target shooting, and self-defense. But after every incident of these mass killings, people always say that we need to mourn, and it isn't the right time to talk about gun laws. But, after 20 children were killed today at their school, is the NRA still saying that new gun laws are off-limits, that we can't figure out a way to try to stop these senseless killings?

There were over 2 dozen people killed at an elementary school today. Can we have a debate on guns NOW?

GOP's 2 plans-Ruin America in January and Ruin America later

With the news that Speaker Boehner's plan to get stop America from going off the fiscal cliff is to lock in all the Bush-tax cut rates, including the top 2%, it has become apparent that the GOP has two plans for America. There is one GOP group, considered reckless and truly conservative by some, whose plan is to give nothing to the President, refuse to compromise at all, and let the country go off the fiscal cliff. This would ensure that the economy loses what little steam it has, and would start the country down another recession. Then there is another GOP group, a group most consider well-thinking and moderate, who think that Boehner should give into the President on the tax question. But their plan is simply to refuse to raise the debt ceiling in February or March, ruining the country's credit rating and defaulting on the country's debts  This would start the country down a path toward another depression.

So, the GOP has two plans for America. One of the plans, which is considered reckless, is to refuse to compromise with the President and it starts the country down the path to another recession. The other plan, which is seen as moderate, gives the President a small victory now but refuses to pay bills starting later in the year, starting the country down a path to a depression. Great ideas, GOP: Ruin the country in January, or ruin the country later in the year.      

Michigan becomes a Right-To-Work state?

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder is getting ready to sign a bill that would make Michigan a right-to-work state, and liberals are fighting to try to block it. Why? Well, there are 3 very good reasons. First, this was something that not only did Gov. Snyder not campaign on this, he actually campaigned against Michigan becoming a right-to-work state. Secondly, the state GOP has added appropriations to the bill. Why would they do that? Because spending bills can't be voted on by the people. So that means that if the bill passes, the people would have no right to overturn it. But thirdly, and the biggest reason why they are fighting it, is that it is simply bad for the workers in Michigan. The Bureau of Labor Statistics found that workers in right-to-work states make 9.4% less than workers in collective bargaining states. Think this goes back in lower consumer prices in those states? Of course not, and so while labor costs are low, prices are very close to  even. There are regional differences, of course. But generally, this means labor costs are low, the selling price is the same, which means the company's profits go up.
There are many reason for the workers in Michigan to fight the right-to-work law working its way through the Michigan legislature. But the fact that it is a bad bill for the people of Michigan is the best reason of all.

McConnell's misstep shows GOP inflexibility

Much is being made of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's objection to the bill that he himself had asked a vote to be taken on. This in effect meant that he filibustered the bill he had asked for, meaning no vote could be taken on a bill he had asked to be voted on. And while this is laughable, it just highlights the major problem with GOP today.

Politics is the art of cajoling people into agreeing with you, but even more it is the art of compromise. It is the majority party finding positions that the minority can accept. And the minority has to agree with that after they get the best deal they can, and that since most of the country disagrees with them, the other side will get the most in any bill. If the bills are unpopular, or take the country down a road that hurts the country, then the majority will lose their advantage, and the minority will be the majority. This is why the two sides must agree on common ground and pass that bill, to show the country that while both sides have some different ideas, they can move forward for the betterment of the country.

But when one side become inflexible, refuses to accept the views of the other side, or even refuses to debate with the other side, then one of three things can happen. The majority can refuse to talk to the minority and pass bills unilaterally. When this happens, any bill that a large part of the country finds questionable can be used against them, and they are in trouble. Second, the minority can refuse to debate and allow the majority to run the country. But if the bills that are passed are acceptable to the country, they look irrelevant, and they are in trouble. But in the third case, the minority can refuse to debate and refuse to allow bills to get passed unless they completely agree with them. The majority will look lost and helpless, the minority will look obstinate, and it is the country that is in trouble. Sound familiar?

The filibuster by the Senate Minority Leader of a bill he had requested a vote on has to be one of the strangest things that's ever happened in Washington. But in reality, McConnell's misstep simply showed exactly how inflexible the GOP has become.        

Senator takes his ball and goes home.

So South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint has decided that the Senate isn't the best place for his talents, and has resigned to head Heritage House, a conservative think tank. He believes that his new position will allow him to guide a new, young group of like-minded hard right-wing politicians. In this, he may actually be right. As a Senator, Jim DeMint doesn't have a signature bill that he was able to pass, and his best skill was fund-raising for right-wing politicians running for Senate, like Rand Paul and Todd Akin. So in fact, Senator DeMint has basically admitted that he hasn't been able to change the way the Senate works, or acts, or to get the kind of bills that he believes the country needs passed. And he believes that he can have a bigger voice at the Heritage House, which of course he will. But doesn't this remind remind everyone of a time when they young and some kid decides that he/she doesn't like the way thing are going and leaves, taking their ball so no one can play the game any more. And normally, it was the fact that the kid just didn't get the result they wanted. A GOP politician acting like a petulant child? Now there's something that only right-wing radio personalities can do better.      

NRA shows its stupidity

The day after the funeral of Jovan Belcher, the NRA (National Rifle Association) decided that they couldn't stay quiet any more. So today, NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre couldn't help but put his two cents worth in on the senseless killing of Kasandra Perkins, and in doing so showing his complete stupidity.

Mr. LaPierre was quoted as saying that the problem wasn't the fact that Belcher had a gun, but that Kasandra Perkins didn't have one. SAY WHAT? It was known through tweets that Belcher had 8 guns. Living together, does he really believe that she didn't know this? Doesn't he think that if she wanted to get one of the guns, she could have?

The real problem was that once, again, a gun that I would bet was bought to protect people in the residence was used in the killing of someone who lived at the residence. But this isn't the first time, or even a minority incident, of a gun being used to kill a person when it was bought to protect them. There were 8 guns that could be used by someone in that house. Does any sane person really believe that a ninth gun was needed, or that another gun would have averted this tragedy?        

America needs serious thoughts, and GOP takes flights of fancy

With less than 4 weeks before America goes over the fiscal cliff and less than 3 weeks before Congress adjourns until next year, this would seem like a good time for people to get a firm grasp of facts and take action. But whether it's the man on the street, political operatives, or the elected officials in Washington, the GOP seems to continue to live in the their own bubble world.

When it comes to the every day GOP man on the street, Fox News will be glad to know that they are still getting their news from them, and not the real world. 49% of the people that identify themselves as members of the GOP believe that ACORN, a Democrat party-based voter registration group, stole the election. This despite the fact that ACORN has been out of existence for the last 3 years. Meanwhile, 50% believe that that it was voter fraud that cause Romney to lose the election. So the fact that Romney lost by over 3 million votes most be lost on them. And 25% believe that their state should secede for the United States, and another 19% believe that their state should look into it, or aren't sure.

For GOP political types, there's good old Grover Norquist that takes the cake when it comes to tooting his own horn and misstating the truth. While on Meet The Press, Grover decided, after twisting the meaning of several laws to suit his purpose, finished his part on the show saying that if taxes are raised or President Obama takes the country over the cliff (No mention of Boehner or the GOP's part in that), that there would be a Tea Party II that will make Tea Party I look like a, well, a tea party, with rallies and marching in the street. Now there's some reality for everyone.

Then there's the actual elected officials in Washington. First it was Senator Ron Paul that said that secession is a deep American tradition. Oh really? Did it work in 1860? Then 38 GOP Senators voted against a treaty that would use the American Disabilities Act as a guide for the UN. Needing a 2/3 vote for, this didn't pass. Why done these Senators vote this way? Because to them, the UN has no right to tell the US what rules we should follow. The fact that it would have given the UN no right to make a law in this country, or change any law in this country made no difference to them.

In this time of uncertainty, America needs people who can make serious rational decision. Too bad the GOP has decided to continue to live in their bubble, and to have thoughts of flights of fancy.                

Another fiscal cliff offer that's laughable

After calling President Obama's offer on how to stop going over the fiscal cliff laughable, Speaker of the House Boehner trotted out his offer and, in a show of realism, offered the same package that he had turned down in 2011. So how is this realism? Well, maybe it's not realism, but 20-20 hindsight. Speaker Boehner seems to have realized that the best deal the Tea Party was ever going to get is one they turned down in the middle of last year. But there was an election between then and now, and the Tea Party ideas got voted down. The GOP/Tea Party lost the presidential election, lost seats in the Senate and the House, and although  they kept control of the House, Democrats won more votes nationally than the GOP did. So after all that, they offer a plan that they themselves rejected but now want the President to sign. Now, that's what I call a laughable offer.