Filibusters and Obstructionists

For months, we have heard many Republicans tell us one reason they judge President Obama's first term in office as a failure is that he did virtually nothing his first two years despite having a Democratic majority in both Houses of Congress to work with:  he could have gotten any bill he wanted passed into law, they claim.  I finally took the time to look into this claim, and, surprise, this claim, like so many others, is shot full of holes, to the point of being an outright lie.  

I'm not going to repeat the explanation, because I found an excellent one that I couldn't improve on:  The Myth of the Filibuster  I highly recommend this article, with one caveat:  it might make you sick to see how twisted the Republicans have had to go perpetuate this lie.  

Next question, has there been any significant increase in the use of the filibuster by the minority party since President Obama took office?  The answer is below, in an excellent chart, which can be seen in this link:  History of the Filibuster

For me, as always, one doesn't have to run from the facts if truth if true progress is the goal.  In fact, true progress and success cannot be had without using the truth.  Of course there is almost always room for interpretation.  That must be based, however, on real facts, and not those manipulated to one degree or another to support one's pre-set notions.  

By the way, I have to correct something I've repeated several times, that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell stated the Republican's number one goal was to make sure President Obama was a one-term president.  He did say this, but not at the beginning of Obama's first time, as I believed, but on the eve of the midterm elections, half way through Obama's first term  Some people, too, claim Senator McConnell was quoted out of context.  I've read the interview answers around the main one, and I don't see that it changes the intent of his comments, but you might, so here is a good place to read for yourself:  Senator Mitch McConnell's famous quote

Obama Returns, So Does GW Bush

I finally came down this morning from 'walking on air' over the return of the real President Barack Obama.  What a powerful debate performance, despite what William Bennett says (more on that later).  

Very interestingly, George W. Bush also returned, in the shape of Mitt Rmoney!  He was specifically asked how he was different from Bush, and he gave several examples of how he was different.  The trouble was, as usual, all of his examples were incorrect:  Bush had proposed and supported the same issues as Rmoney noted!  In one of the many, many Obama highlights of the debate, Obama pointed out how Rmoney was exactly like, or even worse than, Bush, especially on social issues. 

Rachel Maddow noted tonight that the next debate will be focused on foreign policy, an area that both Rmoney and Ryan have zero experience.  Worse, she pointed out that 17 of the 24 foreign policy advisors to the Rmoney-Ryan campaign are from the Bush camp!  Then, she showed a video clip from an appearance Paul Ryan made today, with Condoleezza Rice! What?!  Are you beginning to see a trend here?!

Obama provided highlight after highlight after highlight last night, just had a fantastic event.  It was a little long, but otherwise, it was AWESOME!  Kudos to moderator Candy Crowley, too.

William Bennett, on the other had, had a different view of how well Obama did.  
"President Obama entered the second presidential debate needing to make up serious ground after his first debate performance. He turned around the narrative from the first debate -- that he was listless and lethargic and on the defensive -- but showing up is one thing, winning is another. Obama needed a convincing win Tuesday night, and he did not get it."  Really?  Did you see the same debate the rest of the country saw, Bill?  (emphasis mine)

He continued his fantasy review:  "Tuesday night Romney delivered again and proved his performance was consistent and legitimate. He has established himself as a legitimate alternative to the president."  Consistent, yes, continuing to lie, but far from legitimate.  

Remember Paul Ryan's campaign event today:  "In what may be one of the more important political moments of the debate, Romney was asked how he would be different from George W. Bush. Romney effectively distanced himself from Bush on policy specifics, noting he would control deficit spending and champion small business, not just big business. It was an important moment to convince many undecided voters that he is not Bush 2.0."  What?!

Un-freaking-believable.  Obama knocked it out of the park, all night long, period.  

Social Darwinism, Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney

Robert Reich, one of my favorite political commentators, has written a piece for the Huffington Post that is worth reading.  His last paragraphs are:

"Not until the twentieth century did America reject social Darwinism. We created a large middle class that became the engine of our economy and our democracy. We built safety nets to catch Americans who fell downward, often through no fault of their own.

We designed regulations to protect against the inevitable excesses of free-market greed. We taxed the rich and invested in public goods -- public schools, public universities, public transportation, public parks, public health -- that made us all better off.

In short, we rejected the notion that each of us is on our own in a competitive contest for survival.

But choosing Ryan, Romney has raised for the nation the starkest of choices: Do we want to return to that earlier time, or are we willing and able to move forward -- toward a democracy and an economy that works for us all?"

I strongly believe that our welfare system needs a major overhaul.  I believe it doesn't help people in the long run as much as it should our could.  It allows 10 million children to go to bed hungry every night in our country. Cutting funding is the opposite of what is needed though.  What should happen is a thorough review and solutions developed to truly help people lift themselves and their children out of poverty, and push them along toward personal fulfillment of their potential, guaranteeing equal access to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," something I don't believe is true today.  One only has to look at public schools to see the great disparity in education.  

He also writes:  'But there's reason to believe Romney also agrees with Ryan's social Darwinism. Romney accuses President Obama of creating an "entitlement society" and thinks government shouldn't help distressed homeowners but instead let the market "hit the bottom." '  The government should not help distressed homeowners:  I could not disagree more.  I am all for accountability, personal as well as corporate and government.  That's why, although homeowners are not without blame in the housing crisis, the majority of the blame lies with corporations for painting way too rosy a picture and government for not protecting us against that picture.  It took a team effort to create the ridiculous housing bubble, and so the blame should be spread throughout that team, and not just on the backs of manipulated citizens who were told and believed an ARM and inflated household income was a ticket to home ownership.   

The scariest part of Dr. Reich's piece, though, is this:  Some believe Romney chose Ryan solely in order to drum up enthusiasm on the right. Since most Americans have already made up their minds about whom they'll vote for, and the polls show Americans highly polarized -- with an almost equal number supporting Romney as Obama -- the winner will be determined by how many on either side take the trouble to vote. So in picking Ryan, Romney is motivating his rightwing base to get to the polls, and pull everyone else they can along with them.  I can see this happening.  We need to get out and vote, and make sure all our liberal friends and relatives and strangers do so, too!

Who Benefits from the Federal 'Safety Net?' Better Question, Who Doesn't?!

Read this excellent article from the New York Times, and have your eyes opened.  I know I did:

Ki Gulbranson owns a logo apparel shop, deals in jewelry on the side and referees youth soccer games. He makes about $39,000 a year and wants you to know that he does not need any help from the federal government.

Multimedia

Enlarge This Image

Enlarge This Image

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

• Read All Comments (1377) »

He says that too many Americans lean on taxpayers rather than living within their means. He supports politicians who promise to cut government spending. In 2010, he printed T-shirts for the Tea Party campaign of a neighbor, Chip Cravaack, who ousted this region’s long-serving Democratic congressman.

Yet this year, as in each of the past three years, Mr. Gulbranson, 57, is counting on a payment of several thousand dollars from the federal government, a subsidy for working families called the earned-income tax credit. He has signed up his three school-age children to eat free breakfast and lunch at federal expense. And Medicare paid for his mother, 88, to have hip surgery twice.

Who really benefits from the federal government 'safety net?'

Kicking the Little Guy While He is Down

According to an article in the San Diego Union-Tribune on January 15, 2012, Congress did  it again, and did it without getting the front page headlines this story deserves, and that's just as big a shame.
 
Washington Post Reporter Kenneth Harney's article has the headline "Congress Is Making Owning Home More Expensive."  First, let me say that I am a very strong believer that home ownership is a very good thing, for individuals, for families, and for society.  Pride of ownership is much stronger than for renters.  Pride of ownership produces stronger ties to the community.  It means a property is better maintained, and so improves the entire neighborhood.

Mr. Harney's article begins, "Though its demise drew little attention because of the partisan year-end brawl over the payroll tax cut extension in Congress, a key mortgage financing benefit disappeared at the end of December: The ability of large numbers of homebuyers and owners to write off the premiums they pay for mortgage insurance.

The loss of that tax deduction — plus mandatory new fees imposed by Congress on all new conventional and FHA loans — could ratchet up the costs of homeownership this year."

His article continues:  "The expiration of mortgage insurance deductibility will hit... virtually all new mortgages closed this year where the down payment is less than 20 percent. Though industry experts do not have precise numbers, their estimates range into the millions of existing owners and new purchasers potentially touched by the deductibility termination. Borrowers using guaranteed veterans and rural housing loans, where down payments can drop to zero, also are affected.

David Stevens, who served as FHA commissioner and is now chief executive of the Mortgage Bankers Association, says the loss of deductibility of mortgage insurance “hits a segment (of consumers) — middle-income and first-time buyers— where affordability is especially important.”

At a time when the Federal Reserve is warning that there can be no broad economic improvement until housing recovers, it may strike you as odd public policy to raise costs for homebuyers and refinancers in order to fund unrelated, temporary tax relief. But that’s not the way they saw it on Capitol Hill in the rush to holiday recess."

What makes me crazy is that the mortgage deduction laws definitely do need fixing, but this is the wrong fix.  A law that promotes home ownership should not include any deductions for a second home!  A law that promotes home ownership should not include recreational vehicles!  A law designed to promote home ownership should not allow interest deductions on homes valued at up to $1,000,000!  And yet, current law allows all of those deductions.  To me, these are all no-brainer facts.  While I don't have hard figures, some research strongly supports my contention that changing the law to reflect these three simple facts would save billions and billions of dollars, and all without harming the premise of the law one cent!  

You can't convince me that this Congress doesn't know what they are doing, that my premise escapes them.  Only logical conclusion:  they don't care!  

Great Recession Recovery Not Getting Usual Gov't Help

Below is an interesting article on how the government is not doing what it normally does in a recession recovery.  I am not educated enough to know exactly what it means, but it sure doesn't look positive.  The crushing federal debt has to be a major factor in why the government isn't adding jobs to help the recovery along.  Being always interested in numbers, and being unemployed going on 11 months, the longest by far in my career, the thought of another two years of recovery is disturbing.  Being north of 55 years of age doesn't help either.

 Usually a job engine, localities slow US economy

By PAUL WISEMAN, AP Economics Writer  3:26 a.m., June 6, 2011

WASHINGTON — In a healthy economic recovery, states and localities start hiring, expand services and help fuel the nation's growth. Then there's the 2011 recovery.
The U.S. economy is moving ahead, however fitfully. Yet state and local governments are still stuck in recession. Short of cash, they cut 30,000 jobs in May, the seventh straight month they've shed workers. Rather than add to U.S. economic growth, they're subtracting from it.
And ordinary Americans are feeling it - from reduced services to fewer teachers, police officers and firefighters.

The Great Recession officially ended two years ago this month. By the same point during previous recoveries, state and local governments were engines of growth: In the two years after the 1990-91 recession ended, for example, they'd added 430,000 jobs. At the same point after the 2001 recession ended, they had added 249,000.

This time is different. More than 467,000 state and local government jobs have vanished since the recession officially ended in June 2009, including 188,000 in schools.

Few see the pain subsiding soon. Mark Vitner, senior economist at Wells Fargo Securities, expects state and local governments to slash 20,000 to 30,000 jobs a month through the middle of 2012.
Joel Naroff of Naroff Economic Advisors notes that when states cut spending to balance their budgets, as required annually, a ripple effect multiplies the damage: Companies that do business with states and localities suffer. These companies, in turn, scale back their own hiring.
"There's a whole slew of private companies that have to cut back when they don't get the (government) contracts they had been getting," Naroff said. "You can't balance a budget and say everything's going to be beautiful."
Moody's Analytics estimates that each job in state and local government supports an additional 1.3 jobs elsewhere in the economy.......

The Great Recession of 2007-2009, the longest and deepest downturn since the 1930s, dried up state and local tax revenue. It also escalated demands for social programs like Medicaid and unemployment benefits and "ate through their rainy-day funds," notes Michael Gapen, senior U.S. economist at Barclays Capital.
For a while, federal stimulus spending cushioned the blow to state and local finances. But that money is running out. And it probably won't be replenished. The federal government is preparing to cut its own spending to shrink huge budget deficits.......

But 29 states say they'll still spend less in the 2012 fiscal year than in 2008. And local governments are still waiting for a recovery in tax revenue. They rely heavily on property tax revenue, which continues to sink with the collapse in home prices in many areas.
"The state revenues are coming back, but the local revenues probably haven't seen the worst of it," says Christopher Hoene, director of research at the National League of Cities. "We still have another year to go for sure."

Honesty and Ethics Ratings of Professions, 2008-2010

Here is an interesting chart from the Gallup Poll showing the public's perception of honesty and ethics by profession, and changes over three recent years.  It's worth nothing that Members of Congress are near the bottom, with car salespeople, both with very low ratings, even less than advertising practitioners, and in fact about half off what the people think of lawyers!  How can we have so very little trust in the people we elect?