The talk after the State of the Union Address was almost completely down party lines, or in other words, business as usual. But a couple things really seem to stand out, and none of it was good for the GOP. But then the House went and did nothing, topping it all.
First, it was the fact that while 31 guests were there to highlight gun violence and the need for gun control. How many came as guests of the GOP? Absolutely none. They were all guests of Democrats, and their poster person was Gabby Giffords. Who was the GOP poster person? None other than Ted Nugent, who was in the chamber as a guest of a Texas GOP Representative. This one-time rock star has said that he wants President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and both female senators from California to suck on the business end of his assault rifle. I'm not sure which is worse, the fact that he was there, or the fact that some GOP representative thinks it's acceptable to ask a person who's threatened the President's life to be there. Then there was the dueling GOP Tea Party responses, neither of which was actually a response. They were both written before the speech was given. But then, I find out that no matter how bad their rhetoric is, their actions, or lack of them, really take the cake. For while they were railing against the sequestration, which is due to take effect in 15 days, the House will take 10 days off. That's right, the House of Representatives aren't due back until less than a week before the action that the GOP says is all President Obama's fault can't even be discussed until late next week. Couldn't change your work schedule when you changed the due date on the sequestration? You complain about people getting $9 an hour as a wage, and you go on vacation right before a crisis you made is schedule to come up? Yes GOP, you made it! You happily signed the bill, which was the only way that President Obama could get you to raise the debt ceiling and not have the country default on its bills in 2011.
There are many things about the way Washington runs that are ironic, some that are quite bizarre, and quite a few things that are funny. But for a true joke, all you have to do is look at how the House of Representatives does business. You'll laugh so hard it will actually make you cry.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
My reaction to SOTU speech and GOP response
During the State of the Union (SOTU) speech, I was taken aback by the simple refusal of most of the GOP to acknowledge to think that 99% of President Obama's ideas aren't even worth considering. It started with seeing Vice-President Biden wearing a green remember Sandy Hook lapel pin (for lack of a better term) while House Speaker Boehner wasn't wearing one. What's the matter, Speaker, shouldn't we remember the children and teachers killed? And I thought that seeing Representative Ryan wearing a No-Labels moderate GOP button was truly a joke. This is the author of a budget that gets rid of social programs like Head Start and Meals On Wheels while slashing all domestic programs by at least 40% while keeping tax loopholes for big businesses and the top 1%. This would happen while the Defense Department not only doesn't get any cuts, but gets more money. This is a moderate GOP member? Actually, from the reactions of most of the GOP during the speech, he may very well be.
While President Obama Obama spoke of his ideas for a better America, most GOP members just sat on their hands. Now on things like global warming and cap and trade, I can understand their questions. I don't agree with them, but I do understand them. And even on things like the minimum wage being high enough to keep a family out of poverty and pre-school for all children, I can see where there can be debates on how to achieve the goal. But on items like investing in education, manufacturing, and infrastructure, immigration reform and a streamlined path for citizenship, passing the The Violence Against Women Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act, a call for stronger families, and a voting commission to make voting easier and faster kept many of the GOP from clapping. Even President Obama's call for putting country before party, which many stood and applauded, couldn't get Speaker Boehner to rise. While Speaker Boehner did stand when President Obama called for votes on gun control acts, he was the very first person seen to sit back down while the President was still naming places where gun violence has struck recently. Aren't any of these ideas worth backing for the GOP? Only getting troops out of Afghanistan was largely popular on both side of the aisle. It was a one hour speech, and it seemed on TV that for most GOP members, it seemed to last days.
Then Senator Rubio gave the GOP response to the President's speech. And at no time did he make any sense to me. While he railed against government, he admitted that he got his education through government grants. He railed against medicare costs while telling how he would never hurt his mother, who uses medicare. But for those in the future, what cuts would he think would be acceptable? Then, he simply lied about the reason for the 2008 financial collapse and the subsequent recession and the cuts in some hourly workers due to The Affordable Care Act. Then he said that less government would help the country get to a simple 4% growth. Simple? Very few times in the history has growth been 4% or more, and these were boom times. A growth of 2 and 1/2 to 3% is thought by most economists to be robust and generally sustainable. And a Balanced Budget Amendment? Would you explain how this helps grow jobs? Oh, so you give no details, but complain that the President didn't in his speech?
Today, after watching the State of the Union speech and the GOP response again, I again found the President's speech well thought out, with excellent ideas to make the country better, and with a rousing, moving finish. The GOP response was simply a call to get rid of government. Is this their alternate idea to Democratic ideas? If so, they didn't need a Tea Party response. Senator Rubio gave the country the Tea Party response, and I think it flopped badly.
While President Obama Obama spoke of his ideas for a better America, most GOP members just sat on their hands. Now on things like global warming and cap and trade, I can understand their questions. I don't agree with them, but I do understand them. And even on things like the minimum wage being high enough to keep a family out of poverty and pre-school for all children, I can see where there can be debates on how to achieve the goal. But on items like investing in education, manufacturing, and infrastructure, immigration reform and a streamlined path for citizenship, passing the The Violence Against Women Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act, a call for stronger families, and a voting commission to make voting easier and faster kept many of the GOP from clapping. Even President Obama's call for putting country before party, which many stood and applauded, couldn't get Speaker Boehner to rise. While Speaker Boehner did stand when President Obama called for votes on gun control acts, he was the very first person seen to sit back down while the President was still naming places where gun violence has struck recently. Aren't any of these ideas worth backing for the GOP? Only getting troops out of Afghanistan was largely popular on both side of the aisle. It was a one hour speech, and it seemed on TV that for most GOP members, it seemed to last days.
Then Senator Rubio gave the GOP response to the President's speech. And at no time did he make any sense to me. While he railed against government, he admitted that he got his education through government grants. He railed against medicare costs while telling how he would never hurt his mother, who uses medicare. But for those in the future, what cuts would he think would be acceptable? Then, he simply lied about the reason for the 2008 financial collapse and the subsequent recession and the cuts in some hourly workers due to The Affordable Care Act. Then he said that less government would help the country get to a simple 4% growth. Simple? Very few times in the history has growth been 4% or more, and these were boom times. A growth of 2 and 1/2 to 3% is thought by most economists to be robust and generally sustainable. And a Balanced Budget Amendment? Would you explain how this helps grow jobs? Oh, so you give no details, but complain that the President didn't in his speech?
Today, after watching the State of the Union speech and the GOP response again, I again found the President's speech well thought out, with excellent ideas to make the country better, and with a rousing, moving finish. The GOP response was simply a call to get rid of government. Is this their alternate idea to Democratic ideas? If so, they didn't need a Tea Party response. Senator Rubio gave the country the Tea Party response, and I think it flopped badly.
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Tea Party smiling on the inside
Today's announcement by the Postal Service of the discontinuing of Saturday service was met with sadness by many in rural areas and by some businesses and apathy by a majority of people in large urban areas (What ad flyer that isn't delivered on Saturday will simply be at the mail box on Monday), but with complete inner glee in one place: The Tea Party.
The entire premise of the Tea Party is that the government doesn't work and isn't needed. It doesn't matter if taxes are lower than they've been since the 1920s, and revenue is 4 percentage points lower than normal. To them, since no government is needed, taxes are way too high. Now, this view is one that is held by very few people. But for the Tea Party, this just means that they need to get others to agree with em. How? Their favorite tactic is to slash the funds, and defund if possible, any government program that works and is liked by Americans. Americans like Medicare and Social Security, so to them, let's slash the funds, block grant it to the states, and allow it to die there. People love the Postal Service, and it's protected by its inclusion to the Constitution, so what is the Tea Party to do? Well, they start by forcing it to fund future retirement funds, which no other business does. This forces the Postal Service to cut hours, creating longer lines, which people in cities dislike. Then the Postal Service is forced to cut Saturday service to save more money, upsetting people in rural areas, many who need 6 day Postal Services, and others that at least appreciate it. All this causes many people to like the Postal Service less. None of this bothers the Tea Party at all. In fact, they are glad to see people react this way.
Today's announcement by the Postal Service that they were stopping Saturday service upset many people, but not the Tea Party. They were smiling on the inside. Some of them were smiling on the outside, too.
The entire premise of the Tea Party is that the government doesn't work and isn't needed. It doesn't matter if taxes are lower than they've been since the 1920s, and revenue is 4 percentage points lower than normal. To them, since no government is needed, taxes are way too high. Now, this view is one that is held by very few people. But for the Tea Party, this just means that they need to get others to agree with em. How? Their favorite tactic is to slash the funds, and defund if possible, any government program that works and is liked by Americans. Americans like Medicare and Social Security, so to them, let's slash the funds, block grant it to the states, and allow it to die there. People love the Postal Service, and it's protected by its inclusion to the Constitution, so what is the Tea Party to do? Well, they start by forcing it to fund future retirement funds, which no other business does. This forces the Postal Service to cut hours, creating longer lines, which people in cities dislike. Then the Postal Service is forced to cut Saturday service to save more money, upsetting people in rural areas, many who need 6 day Postal Services, and others that at least appreciate it. All this causes many people to like the Postal Service less. None of this bothers the Tea Party at all. In fact, they are glad to see people react this way.
Today's announcement by the Postal Service that they were stopping Saturday service upset many people, but not the Tea Party. They were smiling on the inside. Some of them were smiling on the outside, too.
Drone strike program needs oversight.
As a retired military man who spent 20 years in the Air Force, I have no problem with drone strikes. The way I see it, a drone strike simply takes the pilot out of harm's way. But what do I have trouble with is the complete lack of oversight. Well, that's not true, either. Let me explain.
I have been in several briefings where I was one of several people sitting around a table as some Colonel or General came into the room and gave us a target to hit. Yes, figure out a way to get a plane or several planes into enemy airspace and to bomb the target, destroying it. Now, this isn't quite the same thing, but it's not the difference between apples and oranges either. No one ever asked us to ensure no collateral damage was done. But we never targeted an individual, either. Or at least I was never in a group that did target just an individuals. It was the our job to figure out the best way to get rid of a target, making it unable to be used against us, with as little death to innocents or our own people as possible. Then, our recommendations were given to our supervisors, who gave them to their supervisors. So there were always layers of people above us who ensured that we did our very best to ensure that happens. And I have no doubt that this is still happening. So, in a way, there is still oversight.
But war has changed in the nearly 20 years since I got out of the military. Do we, the American people, know where all the drone strikes are being done now? No, but 20 years ago, 70 years ago, and 95 years ago, did we know what city and block was being attacked as it happened? Of course not. But we knew what was general happening and why. We still know why, but do we know what? Really, that's the question. If we don't know, does anybody in the Congress? If not, someone needs to know. And they need to ensure that all appropriate actions are being taken to ensure the right targets were being hit, and with as little unnecessary collateral damage. But even if this being done in the military, I trust no military command, or administration, to always make the right call on the target.
I have no problem with drone strikes. But drone strikes, like any military action, with no oversight will over time be abused. That's why any secret military plan, that is one with no oversight, is a bad idea, one just waiting for mistakes to be made, and innocent and needless lives lost. That's why the drone strike program needs to be generally brought into the light and have at minimum Congressional oversight if it is going to continue. And yes, it does need to continue.
I have been in several briefings where I was one of several people sitting around a table as some Colonel or General came into the room and gave us a target to hit. Yes, figure out a way to get a plane or several planes into enemy airspace and to bomb the target, destroying it. Now, this isn't quite the same thing, but it's not the difference between apples and oranges either. No one ever asked us to ensure no collateral damage was done. But we never targeted an individual, either. Or at least I was never in a group that did target just an individuals. It was the our job to figure out the best way to get rid of a target, making it unable to be used against us, with as little death to innocents or our own people as possible. Then, our recommendations were given to our supervisors, who gave them to their supervisors. So there were always layers of people above us who ensured that we did our very best to ensure that happens. And I have no doubt that this is still happening. So, in a way, there is still oversight.
But war has changed in the nearly 20 years since I got out of the military. Do we, the American people, know where all the drone strikes are being done now? No, but 20 years ago, 70 years ago, and 95 years ago, did we know what city and block was being attacked as it happened? Of course not. But we knew what was general happening and why. We still know why, but do we know what? Really, that's the question. If we don't know, does anybody in the Congress? If not, someone needs to know. And they need to ensure that all appropriate actions are being taken to ensure the right targets were being hit, and with as little unnecessary collateral damage. But even if this being done in the military, I trust no military command, or administration, to always make the right call on the target.
I have no problem with drone strikes. But drone strikes, like any military action, with no oversight will over time be abused. That's why any secret military plan, that is one with no oversight, is a bad idea, one just waiting for mistakes to be made, and innocent and needless lives lost. That's why the drone strike program needs to be generally brought into the light and have at minimum Congressional oversight if it is going to continue. And yes, it does need to continue.
Monday, February 4, 2013
Think money doesn't make a difference in America's laws?
After listening to the children of Newtown sing America the Beautiful, it struck me how nearly everyone wants Congress to enact laws that will lessen the possibility of another massacre. But at least one group will do whatever they can, include lying to all of America, to ensure that no gun control laws will be enacted. And as much as it bothers me to say, I don't blame the NRA and any other groups for attempting to get their ideas of how the country should be run out to the people . Yes, I blame them for distorting the truth and lying. But in truth, both sides make their side look as good as possible. But what bothers me is the fact that now, any group can spend as much money as they desire and can raise. Think that doesn't make a difference in the laws being wrote?
Imagine if legislators knew that no matter how they voted, the other side could only spend as much money to get them voted out of office as they could spend defending their vote. Imagine for every ad on TV that the NRA could spend to unseat a legislator for voting for universal background checks, the legislator could spend the same amount to explain why he or she voted the way they did. Not any more money, but no less either. Think that wouldn't change the way some people would vote?
Right now, 89% of American want universal background checks, 78 % want a limit on the number of bullets allowed in a magazine, and 58% even think an assault weapon ban is a good idea. But every legislator knows that if they vote for any of these, the NRA will muster so much money against them in their next election that it will severely hamper their ability to be re-elected. Still think money doesn't make a difference in America's laws?
Imagine if legislators knew that no matter how they voted, the other side could only spend as much money to get them voted out of office as they could spend defending their vote. Imagine for every ad on TV that the NRA could spend to unseat a legislator for voting for universal background checks, the legislator could spend the same amount to explain why he or she voted the way they did. Not any more money, but no less either. Think that wouldn't change the way some people would vote?
Right now, 89% of American want universal background checks, 78 % want a limit on the number of bullets allowed in a magazine, and 58% even think an assault weapon ban is a good idea. But every legislator knows that if they vote for any of these, the NRA will muster so much money against them in their next election that it will severely hamper their ability to be re-elected. Still think money doesn't make a difference in America's laws?
Friday, February 1, 2013
What Democrats and Independent voters need to learn from the Tea Party.
Watching the fallout from the Scott Brown decision not to run for the Senate seat, it struck me that there is one thing that the Tea Party seems to know that the Democrats need to learn, and very quickly: Every election is important.
There isn't much I like about the Tea Party. I find their fiscal policies to be too austere, their tax policies too tilted toward rich-people, and their social policies way too religious. And the worst part about them is that they won't compromise. Not one inch on any policy. But they know the basic philosophy that every election is important. It was drove home when almost every political analyst, both on the left and on the right, said that since election this wasn't at the same time as a presidential election, Scott Walker had a tremendous chance of being elected. This in one of the bluest, most Democratic controlled states in the union. How could that be true? Simply, in off-cycle elections, the Tea Party knows that the election is important, and get out as many votes as they can. Now, the Democratic Party knows these are important elections, too. But their percentages of voters during these elections are much lower than the Tea Party. And most independent voters are simply don't see the point of voting. Now look at states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. These states are in no way red, but their State Assemblies, Senates, and Governors can pass almost any far-right agenda the Tea Party deems fit. Why? Because they were elected during off-cycle elections, and since 2010 was a census year, this has allowed the Tea Party to gerrymander their states. Think the Tea Party didn't realize how important the 2010 election would be?
The Tea Party knows that every election is an important time to get their philosophy in the door at local, state, and national elections. Unless Democrats and Independent voters learn that lesson and act, they will own politics in even more places than they do now. Is that what you want?
There isn't much I like about the Tea Party. I find their fiscal policies to be too austere, their tax policies too tilted toward rich-people, and their social policies way too religious. And the worst part about them is that they won't compromise. Not one inch on any policy. But they know the basic philosophy that every election is important. It was drove home when almost every political analyst, both on the left and on the right, said that since election this wasn't at the same time as a presidential election, Scott Walker had a tremendous chance of being elected. This in one of the bluest, most Democratic controlled states in the union. How could that be true? Simply, in off-cycle elections, the Tea Party knows that the election is important, and get out as many votes as they can. Now, the Democratic Party knows these are important elections, too. But their percentages of voters during these elections are much lower than the Tea Party. And most independent voters are simply don't see the point of voting. Now look at states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. These states are in no way red, but their State Assemblies, Senates, and Governors can pass almost any far-right agenda the Tea Party deems fit. Why? Because they were elected during off-cycle elections, and since 2010 was a census year, this has allowed the Tea Party to gerrymander their states. Think the Tea Party didn't realize how important the 2010 election would be?
The Tea Party knows that every election is an important time to get their philosophy in the door at local, state, and national elections. Unless Democrats and Independent voters learn that lesson and act, they will own politics in even more places than they do now. Is that what you want?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)