What Is Fueling Possible Government Shut Down?

OK, so it looks like the federal government is going to shut down Tuesday because of the inability for Congress and the President to agree on passing legislation to keep the federal government operational and the related linkage by Republicans of de-funding the healthcare reform act passed in 2010.

But what is fueling this development?

Is it a principled argument by Republicans for reducing the deficit? Hardly. Republicans are the least credible party on that issue. Remember the 1980s and the 2000s? Right. Is it really a desire to kill the healthcare reform act? Maybe, but that I think is a tactic for the bigger reason.

No, I think the answer for the impasse is: Republican electoral politics.

Sure, the Rs want to embarrass, stymie and obstruct Obama as much as possible to weaken him. It's been quite clear since 2008 that they will oppose anything he wants or decides no matter what. But that's not what I'm talking about. After all, Obama cannot be elected again.

Who can?

Congressmen and women.

Right now, the Republicans own the majority in the House of Representatives. That party also has a small but highly active and influential core of true right wing believers. Teach creation in schools, no gun laws whatsoever, anti-abortion in all instances, anti-gay rights, no taxes (literally) and on and on. These are the things the group hold dear and focus their zealotry.

You may have heard of this group. They're called "The Tea Party," and they are strong enough, dedicated enough and organized and mobilized enough to target and defeat Republicans who do not toe their extreme line. This is particularly true in mid-term elections when popular turnout is lower - elections such as what are coming up in 2014.

Think about it. The current Rs in the House are all up for re-election in 2014. They know the Tea Party has the ability to target them next year by running negative ads, fielding a challenger and turning out in droves come election day. So, they do NOT want to be seen as "weak" against Obama or "caving" on any of the hard core believer issues. Rather, they are compelled to orchestrate a very public act of defiance. They literally fear for their seats, and that's enough to puff out their chests and hold the economy hostage by refusing to deal with the President or the Senate.

And they've picked the elimination of the healthcare reform law passed in 2010 as an issue to go to battle with..to make dang sure the Tea Party is paying attention.

To be clear, the Republicans in the House have made a strategic decision that they'd rather crash the economy through government shut down than risk losing their seats next year by dealing with the Democrats to move forward on economic issues.

In the end, the Republican Party is captive to the Tea Party and therefore the US government and our economy are too.

Its a short term play by the Rs, but I think either a government shut down or a defunded Obamacare law will cost the Republicans a longer term price by alienating even more people and limiting their long term electoral potential.

Reactions to State of the Union and Response

A few reactions to the State of the Union address and the Republican response...

It was very informative to see the distinct Republican contingent sitting in stony silence when Obama talked about how Osama Bin Laden had been killed and when he spoke in favor of eliminating tax incentives for companies to offshore jobs to other countries.

The rest of the chamber was applauding, and I have to believe most Americans also are in favor of such radical notions of killing Bin Laden and eliminating tax breaks for companies to ship jobs overseas.

So, the Republicans sitting there by contrast in silence spoke volumes about their values. Think on that for a minute.

Then, in the Republican rebuttal they trundled out the supposed rational moderate of their party (notice he is not running for President, however) who proceeded to unpack the same old hypocritical, conservative BS where all of a sudden they are concerned about debt and "big government." People, while both parties are certainly owned by big business and certainly we all agree that huge debt is not good, the Republican Party presided over the crashing of our economy.

Quite literally, during their control of the House, Senate and Presidency, their prescription for the economy - low taxes for the rich and corporations, doubling down on oil as our energy source, and deregulation of most sectors - is the exact reason we're in our situation now. The Republicans are not credible....not. Dress it up as a "respectable" moderate all you want, but that guy is saying the same thing that Newt, Romney, Paul and Santorum are.

What they are credible on is the ability to take what they are guilty of and projecting it on their opponents. So, through them we get Obama as the debt creator, Obama the job killer, Obama the class warrior, Obama the creator of big government. Sure, Obama should have more balls, but these things are not true. But hey...just say it in your "rebuttal" and it starts being taken as truth.

In closing, I will repeat my questions...

• Who do you think will be the first and primary beneficiaries of a Republican presidency and Congressional control? Will it be the mother or father in a poor to middle class family who finally gets a job because somehow the magic of tax cuts for the rich unleashes a new wave of new jobs? 
• Will it be the elderly who will suddenly benefit from lower housing and drug costs because of the "unseen hand of the market" forces prices down following more deregulation? 
• Or, will it be the Wall Street bankers, energy companies and the upper class who suddenly get new tax breaks and less regulation on their businesses? 

I think we all know the answer. And we know this because WE JUST LIVED THROUGH IT over the past 10 years.

Why Would You Say This?

If you are an elected politician, especially a brand new first timer, why do you say the following as did the newly elected Republican governor of Alabama...

"Anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I'm telling you, you're not my brother and you're not my sister, and I want to be your brother."

• Is it because you feel morally superior to others?
• Is it because you assume that 99% of the people listening agree with you anyway?
• Is it because you want to convert your state's residents to your religion above all other causes?
• Are you sending a message that non Christians will not be treated the same under your administration?
• Do you feel that your beliefs outweigh the law?

Or is it because you are a first class moron with monumental religious superiority complex?

Tell you what, replace the words "has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior" with "who is a Jew" or "who is black" or "who is a Democrat" or "who is female" or "who is more than 65 years old" and I think you'll get the picture of how monumentally stupid and blinded this guy is.

In any case, this is the corrosive and divisive side of religion rearing its head in a scary way. The governor of one of the states has very publicly said that he does not view all citizens the same way based on his religious beliefs. That there is a religious condition to be met in his eyes before you can be seen as worthy.

That's quite a message if you live in that state and you're not the same religion as him. Are you going to be targeted for special treatment by state agencies? Are you going to have the same protection under the law? Are you going to have access to the same state services as others? Will I have to convert to another religion just to get what I need? To vote?

Here's something else to think about. What's scarier? The governor saying what he did or large number of people nodding their head in agreement?

Here is a little reminder for both the new governor and those agreeing with him...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Recognize that? See that first part? Yes, it's the FIRST AMMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION that, among other things, explicitly forbids government establishment of religon.


Seems to me that Mr. Governor is pretty far down the path of violating this.

What If You Threw A Super Majority And No One Showed Up?

I've been pondering the U.S. Senate seat win by Republican Scott Brown earlier this week. His victory means that Senate Democrats no longer have a filibuster proof, talk-to-the-hand "super majority" in that legislative body. This has, as I'm sure you've seen, caused quite a stir in the media about what this will mean for Obama's agenda and Congress generally.

I've been asking myself - what's surprising about this development? And, what does it mean?

To me, it's not surprising that the people of Massachusetts would elect a Republican - even to Kennedy's old seat. Despite the perception of it being a "liberal" state, the populous there has certainly elected Republican governors (remember Mitt Romney?) and Senators before.

No, that's not unusual.

And, it's not surprising that Brown seemed to get a cushy ride by the media desperate for an "upset" storyline to help them cover "a controversy." No, seen that before too.

What's surprising - and a growing concern to me - is how this win by Brown seems to reveal a backlash against Democratic party governance. The Ds are in the rare position of having the citizenry of the nation in 2008 vote them a large majority in the House, a super majority of 60 seats in the Senate and, oh by the way, the Presidency. These advantages were bestowed on them on the notion they would bring change to the nation in sore need of it after eight long years of rule by the other side. And, what have the Democats done with that? Not much. Here we are one year in and no legislation has been passed on healthcare reform, significant financial market reform, investment in job creation, substantial change in foreign policy, a new energy policy or other meaningful "change we can believe in."

And speaking of that phrase, I'm becoming a bit disappointed in President Obama. I know he was handed a horrible economy and overall situation courtesy of the Bush team, but given the set up in Congress, I'm not seeing the leadership I thought we'd have out of him. Certainly, he's a far better alternative than McCain would have been, but still. Call me impatient, but what do you think LBJ or FDR would do (and did) with Congressional majorities in their first year in office? Or, how about W (OK...Cheney) or Reagan with the Rs running Congress? Action. Good or bad, like it or not - action. That's what would happen.

So, seriously, I have to ask another question, "What if you threw a super majority and nobody showed up?"

What would that mean? Among the answers you might find are: a squandered opportunity, gains by the opposition (starting with what we saw this week) as the public gets fed up...and ultimately, inaction and a government and nation in stasis at the exact moment it should be changing. All of that seems to me to be the case now. It seems to be increasingly clear that if Obama and the Ds aren't going to get it done with all the advantages they have - even with 59 seats instead of 60 in the Senate - it isn't going to happen. Not with the parties and mindsets we have in DC now.

Why? There are probably any number of reasons. I don't claim to be an expert or know them all. But, one that seems so obvious to me...that explains why a party that talks change, runs on it, even wins big time on the premise that it will deliver it, but then does nothing to effect it...is that big business, finance, pharma and key special interests have locked up the Democrats just as they have the Republicans. That influence means action to better society generally is outweighed by action (or, more aptly inaction) that beneifts business and special interests.

Going slow or even turning the clock backwards suits the nature of most Republicans as they are mostly conservatives after all. That's their bread and butter. Conversely, most Democrats and/or liberals are supposedly "progressive," and seek to change things. This seems to have come to a trickle so their version of inaction sticks out like a sore thumb - or, perhaps, rings like an alarm bell.

Look, despite the biggest financial and jobs crisis since the Great Depression having been brought upon us by the religion of "free markets" and deregulation championed by conservatives, there has been no meaningful counterbalance to that crisis in my mind. Sure, banks and car makers were bailed out with tax dollars, but unemployment is still high and hindering recovery, and the middle class still shrinking. (I did see that Goldman Sachs recorded big revenue last quarter and is giving out bonuses that are 47% higher than last year, however.) And, despite healthcare costs skyrocketing and threatening the financial and actual well being of millions of Americans, we don't have a meaningful change in our system yet. We're still in Iraq, we're still lagging the modern world in education. I could go on, but I think you get it.

No, the super majority party thrown by the electorate in 2008 has been ill attended and therefore I fear the opportunities have been missed. 2010 election campaigns are upon us and that also does not bode well for action this year. Expect an ticked off public to elect more Republican such as we witnessed this week by Brown. But, on the other hand...what's the difference if that comes to pass given the inaction happening anyway?

In the end, I am prepared to be impressed. I am prepared to take back what I've said above. I am prepared to give credit where credit is due. I want action. I want to see us change. I want to write a blog post in January 2011 saying, "Boy, I really had it wrong back there in 2010. My bad...glad to see healthcare reform, job creation, a lower deficit, financial market reform, etc."

But, as of Jan. 22, 2010, count me as increasingly dubious that happening.

Hey, at least the goverment is hard at work to pass legislation to limit the volume of TV commercials. That may be what I need to settle for as change I can believe in.

Admiring the Conservative Approach

In my last couple posts on political topics, I've definitely called out what I feel are some shortcomings of the conservative position to healthcare reform - if not politics generally.

However, I want to give conservatives and Republicans their due. While currently in the political minority, there is much to be admired about their approach to getting things done. Whether its planned out in advance, organic in nature or some of both - it doesn't matter. They kick ass. By comparison, your average liberal or Democrat is lazy, unmotivated and full of long-winded messages that are lost on listeners the moment they start.

So, with no irony or malice here are four things I like about the conservative and Republican approach:

Passion

Oh yes, conservatives are passionate. When one of them is debating an issue, there is no f-ing doubt they believe what they're saying and think the opposition is plain wrong. This conviction is seen not just in elected officials, but indeed everyday people such as those attending the recent town halls on healthcare reform. Passion translates as credibility - even if the facts don't back up what's being said.

By comparison, liberals and Democrats try the "explain" things and "reason" things out with "facts" or "data." If there's one thing I've learned in my years doing PR work it is this: emotion trumps facts EVERY TIME. Actually, emotion takes fact out behind the woodshed and completely kicks its ass. Always. So, guess who wins most arguments?

Organized

I'm not sure how it gets done, but Republicans and conservatives seem so much more organized than their liberal and Democratic adversaries. They're at all the right places at all the right times with all the right talk points and all the right props and numbers of people to make an impact. Boom, there you go. Organization brings a political message and perspective to bear right when and where it's needed - in person, online, on the phones, over e-mail. This is a major advantage over liberals who seem to think, again, that facts, reason and logic mean certainly that people must agree with them so they don't do much. How lame is that?

Action-oriented

This might be part of being organized, but conservatives and Republicans seem more willing to get off their ass and do something - march, protest, write, call, attend precinct meetings. Whatever. They're willing to do it in more numbers than liberals or Democrats. Actions speak louder than words. Enough said.

On-Message

This one I am sure is not organic. Rather, I'm pretty sure that there is a way that the "talk points" on different issues are rolled out systematically to conservative operatives and talking heads - and then by extension the general public. None the less, it's admirable.

Quick, what's the Republican take on healthcare reform? It's socialized medicine where the government will be in control of your care - including deciding when you live or die. You know it because you've heard it a million times. OK quick, what's the Democrats message on reform? Uhh, well, uhh, care costs too much and not enough people have access so we need to...zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

I think you get the point.

And what is the big upshot of being passionate, organized, on-message and action oriented? You get to win most debates and have more influence on how things get done. My opinion is that healthcare reform will be significantly watered down if not derailed completely by this approach. You know that I think this will mean bad things for the country, especially for the very people protesting against reform, but in any case my bet is that we'll see the very admirable approach of conservatives pay off for them.

And for those out there who might say, "yeah, if Republicans are so great at this how come they lost the '08 election?" I would say this...they lost because they had a very flawed incumbent (Bush), weak candidates (McCain, Palin), and a bad economy courtesy of their running of the government. All the organization and passion could not overcome that when put up against a more compelling and - at least for the election time frame - on-message candidate. Frankly, I'd rather my party be passionate, organized, action-oriented and on-message and take my lumps every once and a while than have to rely on a "super candidate" (Bill Clinton, Obama) and a bad economy just to squeak out an election win every now and again.

But Anyway...Thoughts on Healthcare Reform

I've been seeing on the news this week how some of the town hall meetings that members of Congress are having about healthcare reform are being disrupted by loud, obnoxious and pissed off citizens. Interestingly it seems that through some sort of cosmic fate that this is only happening where Democratic members of Congress are holding meetings.

But anyway.

Since most of these meetings are being held during the daytime, I'm seeing via media coverage that a lot of older people an others not at work seem to be filling up these meetings.

But anyway.

There's been debate on whether these rabble-rousers are part of a coordinated effort by the Republican Party to gin up some fake "astro-turf" (as in fake grass roots) protest against health care reform so as to kill it on behalf of the big business health insurance and pharma companies that are so important to the Republican campaign coffers.

But anyway.

Yes, but anyway...lets pause for a moment on this. Lets assume that the people causing all the ruckus are not the unwitting pawns of the right wing. No. Lets give them their due and assume that they are, in fact, simple middle class citizens and the retired concerned that reforming the healthcare system is a scary proposition that they don't want to see happen. Lets take their word on that.

My assertion is, if this is all true, that these people are gravely misguided and offer a look at what's wrong with the USA and not some sort of rebellion to be admired.

Lets analyze a few aspects of this for a minute:

Fighting for what's hurting them the most. It's funny (as in tragic) how people are so ready to defend the very system that is killing them. In some cases actually killing them. In the same way that people are duped into voting for conservative politicians espousing "family values" only to have them - once elected - ignore that and bend over backwards for the big business that are outsourcing jobs, enabling huge tax cuts for the rich and getting us into wars that kill mostly poor kids...people who could REALLY benefit for healthcare reform are willing to line up against it in the name of vague notions of "America" or "freedom." Lets be straight here. The free market is strangling our healthcare system. It is the reason we're in such dire straights with healthcare, not the answer to our problems. For indeed, the primary motivation of our healthcare system is spectacular and short term (quarterly) profit and it is not providing insurance, access and care. You can see where that has got us. Like those HMOs? Until incentives for profit are aligned with providing access to care and actual care (or eliminating those incentives) nothing will change.

So I ask, why do people defend the very thing that's bringing us all down?

"I want my country back!" This is one line chanted by the crowds. Yeah, get your country back from what? What do you not have now that you had six months ago? The only thing that's changed is that there's a different president from a different party and that same party controls Congress. Is that what those people are talking about? Upset that McCain/Palin and the Republican party took a beating in 2008? OK, well, fine. But, that's not a reason to abdicate your senses. Or, is the notion here that people want to go back to the good old days of W? Or maybe an earlier time than that? Is that what these people want back? Good old boys running things? That worked out pretty well for most of us. The whole "I want my country back" rings quite hollow to me and is a give-away that many of these protesters are disconnected from reality at best.

The claim that "this is socialism." Bibles in hand, protesters say that the proposed healthcare reform is socialism and soon people in government will be passing judgement on who lives or dies. First off, the USA has is such a conservative country that it has no conception of what socialism is. Literally, one guy said, "Get the government out of my Medicare." Really? As Bill Maher said, that's like driving across the country to protest highways.

In reality, some of the most successful and rock solid programs in our nation's history are "socialism" by the definitions being bandied around these days. You like a little thing called the US Army? How about your local fire department, police force or public trauma center? Oh, and how about those roads you drive on to go to Starbucks and to see your family? You think having some money coming your way after you retire or get laid off is good? And how about the healthcare your grandmother gets from Medicare? What if all these things were private and to get the services you had to subscribe to a private company to get them...if you could afford to?

All of the services I've named above, and many more, are by definition "socialized" programs in the good old U.S.A. that we all benefit from. Most the rest of the civilized world has long ago figured out that healthcare is one of the things that we all benefit from having too...and yes, many have socialized that to some degree or the other. Want to know what most of the 36 countries rated with better healthcare systems than we have in common? Most have a socialized component of their system and guaranteed coverage.

Finally, you want to wave around your Bible as some sort of protest to socialism? Jesus Christ. No literally, Jesus Christ. He was, by the modern definition of it, a socialist. Read the frickin' book.

A broken system will yield sharp objects. In the end, protesting against healthcare reform for whatever reason is the ultimate folly because the current system is broke to the degree that it is not good for anyone. Sure, there is more than one way to reform healthcare, but any way you slice it...if reform fails now and status quo holds serve, the problem will not go away. And the problem is so intertwined with the rest of the economy that letting it rot further is not the answer. Nope. It's only gonna get worse if not tackled now. Think about this: when that Baby Boom Generation really starts to hit in there and sucks up healthcare dollars and services, the shit's really gonna hit the fan. You think that mob is not gonna be waving Bibles and signs? I don't. I think they'll be wielding more potent instruments.

I think you can see that, taking the town hall disrupters at their word, my assertion is that they are misguided and way off base. I'd bet you a beer (a decent one too) that 100% of protesters this week actually benefit from a socialized service and that the majority either know someone or themselves directly benefit from Medicare or Medicaid. Ignorance breeds bad decisions and I think that's what we're seeing here.

But anyway, I'm sure Twitter, John and Kate (plus their eight) and Paula Abdul will solve all these problems. What am I all worked up for?

Happy First Birthday To The Western Front Blog!

Ladies and gentlemen, The Western Front blog has just turned one year old.

Yep, one year of trying to entertain, share and have a good time online. I started the blog last April for a few reasons. Among them, I've spent the better part of 40 years soaking up information and experiences...helping form a lot of opinions and, hopefully, some useful knowledge to pass on. With that in mind, I just figured it's time to start putting something back out there instead of mostly just absorbing it.

Another reason was that in my job I am increasingly using online social media to communicate, and I figured that diving into blogging would help me better understand that world.

In any case, based on my experience so far, I'm going to keep going.

To celebrate this first anniversary, I've put together a "best of" set of articles from the 117 posts to The Western Front blog over the last 12 months. I've grouped these into the categories of Music, Politics, Travel/Food, Photography, Opinion/Observations and Movies. I hope you enjoy reading or re-visiting some of these posts...

MUSIC

• Bad Economy = Better Music?
• Glasvegas Concert Review
• 2008 Concert Reviews
• Five Albums You Should Get
• Three Songs You Should Check Out
• Creating A "Genesis-Neutral World"

POLITICS

• How I Know Obama's Plan Will Work
• Tea-Baggers: Hypocrites, Rubes or Both?
• Who Is To Blame For the Current Crisis?
• What You Can't See in Shanghai Is What You Can See at Wal-Mart and on Wall Street
• McCain Dusts Off "Socialist" Charge
• May the Best Perception Win
• Goodbye to the Worst U.S. President Ever

TRAVEL/FOOD

• The China Reports
• Party Time in Spain - April Fair
• Hot, Fresh NYC Restaurant Reviews

PHOTOGRAPHY

• A Link to My Flickr Photostream Sets
• The Seattle Times Runs One of My Photographs
• The Spookiest Picture We've Ever Seen
• Wine Pictures
• New Mexico Pictures
• Vietnam and Cambodia Pictures
• Educational Publisher to Use One of My Pictures

OPINION/OBSERVATIONS

• Of Football, Fans, the Flag and a Guy Named Tits
• It's Not A Sport If...
• Time for Pirate Radio Again?
• Is Pollution An Olympic Sport?
• There's An A-Hole In Every Crowd (Sometimes Two)
• 20 Things I Am Thankful For
• My Un-American Fourth of July
• The Passing of a Great Man
• Marc's 2008 Year In Review

MOVIES

• Get Milk
• Pre-Oscars Movie Reviews

Tea-Baggers: Hypocites, Rubes or Both?

Gatherings of like-minded anti-tax citizens earned wide media coverage this week as part of a conservative-sponsored "Tea-Bagging" day. The meetups were to protest the notion that Americans pay too much tax and that we should not be pleased by emergency government investment in certain sectors to help save key industries like banking, lending, auto manufacturing and real estate.

The tea reference alludes to the Boston Tea Party in which wealthy white aristocrats dressed up as Native Americans and went "tea-bagging." In the parlance of the times, this means they dumped bags of British tea into Boston Harbor in protest over the notion that American colonist should not be forced to pay a tax on tea by a government in which they had no representation. That, and, the tax in question was also part of the larger Tea Tax law that actually made British tea cheaper overall...cheaper than the previously low price Dutch tea that many in the Americas bought from smugglers. That had something to do with it too, but you don't hear much about that.

Anyway, the phrase "tea-bagging" that protesters initially used for their actions this week has a more modern sexual connotation. So, it's kinda funny for a bunch of conservatives to openly be participating in "tea-bagging." But, there's been plenty to chuckling over that already. So, lets set that aside.

Lets also set aside for the moment that overall, income tax rates are lower today than they were when Republicans ran things in the Regan era...and certainly lower than the Eisenhower or Nixon administrations.

Lets set aside the fact that one of the key contributing factors to the economic crisis our nation now faces is exactly the supply-side, deregulation/small government, deference to corporate America, tax cutting economic religion that conservatives so love to talk about.

And finally, lets set aside the fact that unlike Colonial tea partiers, today's Americans do elect their government representatives.

No, instead, to measure the credibility of these modern day tax protesters, lets do a little experiment. Lets look at the front page a newspaper from a city in a conservative area - one that has covered the tea-partyers festivities recently. Lets look at the Charleston Post & Courier from April 16.

From their featured story, you can see that there was quite a turnout in Charleston, SC to "protest" taxation overall and government investment to save or salvage key industries. OK, now, lets see how many other stories on that front page include or relate to services provided by public tax money. There are a lot actually, but here are just four:

• There's a story here about a student arrested for trying to stab his teacher. Do tax protesters like the fact that there were police who could intervene here and arrest the suspect? How about the fact that there was a school in the first place, not to mention roads for the teacher, students and police to get to and from the property?

• And oh, over here there's another story about a chili cook off to raise funds so a local middle school can afford computers for its classrooms. So....right. Don't tax me, but why is it that I have to throw a chili cook off to make sure my kid can learn some computer skills in school?

• And, here's one about the state senate having to cut $202 million from the budget - a move that will mean significantly cutting police, social services and environmental and economic development programs. And why? The governor won't accept Federal stimulus money.

• And, perhaps most telling, here is this story about a Charleston high school student who has filed a lawsuit in attempts to force the governor of South Carolina to accept $700 million in Federal stimulus funds to help keep government services, most importantly schools, up and running during the financial crisis. Parents are holding chili cook offs to raise money for computers in their kids' classrooms while the state government contemplates gutting major social services...and the governor is un-accepting of Federal funds to help in all of these areas because of some conservative small government belief that the Feds shouldn't be spending money on states' matters? Wow.

You get my point? These people out protesting "too much taxation" in an era of relatively low taxation or "socialist government" in an crisis instigated by unfettered capitalism can only be doing so if they are purposefully trying to be hypocritical for short term political gain...or because they are, well, stupid. Yes, stupid rubes being used as pawns by wealthy conservatives who don't have any interest in their lives, but can gin them up on the notion that "the liberals" are jacking them around with taxes and "socialism." How else can you explain how reality so diametrically opposes the anti-tax rhetoric?

In either of these cases - the protest is fake. It's not real. If followed through upon it would mean more financial ruin for the very people holding up the signs and shouting out the slogans at rallies this week...but also spectacular wealth for a very, very few people and corporations.

Look, I don't like taxes just as much as the next person, and yes I know there are certain taxes that could be done away with that would make our lives a little better. No argument. But, I think many people - and certainly the media - is missing the boat here. These protests are manufactured events created to try and generate a perception that Americans are over taxed and don't want the government "interfering" with anything. The truth is, we're not over-taxed compared to our history or to the rest of the world today.

Another truth is that, just like the original "tea-baggers" of 1776, the rallies this week were orchestrated by a bunch of wealth aristocrats and business owners who don't want to pay taxes - and who don't like the way the government now is trying to bring back some sanity and equity to society.

Obama to Republicans This Week - "I won"

After a week on the road for work, I caught up with the big political news of the week Friday and this morning. 

After watching the new president's inaugural speech, I am taken by his call to "pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off and remake America." His call for our society to do big things, to put aside petty politics, leave behind clearly failed policies of the past and move forward with new ideas and in the spirit of fixing the problems we have was well received by me and, from what I gather, most Americans.

So great. Right guy, right message, time to move forward, do new things, get this country going again. There is a willing public seeking leadership, change and a return to better times. On top of that, Obama has a plan of action to start down this road that he's seeking to get passed into law.

All seems good, right?

Wrong. Despite all of the above, who do you think might impede progress? Who do you think would dig in, cry "foul," and reverse their previous stances simply to cause paralysis at the moment we need action? Yes, you guessed it...the Republican Party. 

Yep, like that creepy uninvited drunk loner guy at your party who is scaring off all the girls and talking like a braggart to the other guys about how cool he is and how he's gonna beat up someone tonight, the Republicans are single handedly orchestrating a national buzz kill of serious proportions. 

Sure, you may say to yourself that, hey, Obama is president and there is a Democratic Party majority in both houses of Congress so he should be able to do what he wants to. You'd be right, but you'd also be wrong.

Yes, both houses have Demo majorities and Obama is a Democrat. Yes, Obama and the Dems have a plan to get the country moving again. And sure, there's room to negotiate and change the plan to get all on board. However, in the Senate, the Republicans hold enough seats that they can filibuster and therefore defeat legislation Obama and the Democrats want.

And I learned this week that they are using the threat of using this minimal but significant amount of power to thwart Obama's plans...to the degree that Obama had to turn to Republicans this week amidst their false scare tactics of protest over "big government," "socialism," "more tax cuts," etc. to say to them, "Remember, I won." 

Hey, the Democrats are no great shakes. They're only a very little different that Republicans in my mind. But, Obama did win and damn it he should get his chance to enact new policies.

That is why I think this Republican maneuver so early in the Obama administration and contrary to the will of the citizenry is an ominous sign that the Republican Party will not take up Obama's call to meet these historic times as Americans rather than Ds and Rs and instead serve up their usual ration of partisan hate and obstruction of progress.

I mean, come on. All of a sudden, the party that presided over the biggest expansion in the size of government in U.S. history is deriding Obama's plans as "big government." Over night, the party responsible for turning our federal budget surplus of 2000 into the largest federal budget deficit in U.S. history is now saying Obama's plans will drive up deficits. Get the picture?  No credibility.

So, will the "creepy drunk guy at your party" (Republicans) succeed in alienating everyone at the party (our economy) - shutting it down for good? Or, will some of the level headed party goers (voters) shut him up or show him the door?

We shall see. The next month should be interesting in finding out the answers to those questions. 

Whose to blame for the current crisis?

With all the drama this week with the financial crisis and what to do about it, one prominent strain of conversation on TV and in DC is who to blame.

Everybody has their favorite culprit. Bush. De-regulation and those who championed it for years. Fat cats on Wall Street. Bankers. Lobbyists.

I think all those types are partially to blame. But, who gave them position and license to create this mess?

Yes, the American people. And that's primarily who is to blame.

We, the American people, have continually been conned by the false gods that conservatives put out there to entice us to vote for them. Family values. Rugged individualism. Ownership society. Compassionate conservatism. Get government off our backs. Read my lips. Who are you gonna trust? San Francisco. East coast elite. Supply side economics. Tax and spend liberals. Culture of life. There you go again. Government is the problem.

Sound familiar?

These are among the many short-hand "tag lines" conservatives from Reagan to W have used to dupe voters into giving them power. Problem is that once in power these so-called conservatives have not done anything to follow through on their promises except to deregulate many sectors of the economy to enrich their donors and cronies.

Well, that game just came to it's natural and predictable conclusion. Crisis. And we're all going to pay for it.

Congratulations America. You got what you deserve.

The good news is that you, American voter, can change things by voting smart in November. Think about what your issues are, what your problems are and what local and national candidates can really solve...and who has the credibility to do it.

Is it really that conservative talking to you about family values and fiscal restraint? That person who has presided over massive debt while doing nothing on  your values issue? Or, maybe it's the other candidate running in whatever race your looking at. 

Think. Reverse where this country is heading.

May the Best Perception Win

Another thought about what has shaped up over the past two weeks of political conventions is that it's now pretty clear what the dueling "positioning" efforts will be by McCain and Obama.

• McCain Campaign - Make it a battle of personalities and perceived character. Say that Obama puts other interests above country first, intimate that his is not patriotic and talk about how he is inexperienced compared to McCain. Go on the attack full time. Do not talk so much about your own policy ideas. Keep Palin away from the media.

• Obama Campaign - Make it a battle of ideas, judgement and the need for change in America. Offer new and specific ideas while tying McCain to George W. Bush and paint him as a guy who will simply continue the failed policies of the last eight years. Use the huge war chest to fight back each time challenged.
  

So, come November a majority of people will either think Obama is just not the right guy for the job or they'll decide they've had enough of conservative rule and vote for change. 

It seems obvious to me what the right choice is, but I said that four years ago and I was wrong. Also, being in the PR business, I can attest to the fact that emotional appeals and negative attacks almost always work when squared off against facts, logic and reason. 

So, I'm wary. 

McCain Dusts Off “Socialist” Charge

Yesterday, presidential candidate – and old man – John McCain rolled out that great Republican campaign chestnut...."my opponent is a socialist." McCain raised the issue with the nice little statement, "I don't know if Obama is a socialist," and then proceeded to talk about his opinion that Obama's voting record was "to the left" of liberal Senator Bernie Sanders.

Traditionally, this “boogie man” charge has been a tried and true scare tactic to push everyday Americans to vote against Democrats and, in doing so, voting against their own interests (better healthcare, more affordable education, more jobs, clean environment, etc.) in favor of Republican candidates who serve the interests of corporations and the wealthy. There’s a great book on this subject called What’s The Matter With Kansas? A short read, it’s worth checking out.

Ever since the Russian Revolution in 1917, conservatives and the wealthy in this country have recognized the treat of even a whiff of socialism represents to their established control over the economy and wealth. So, they have aggressively used “Red baiting” in campaigns through the decades. And really, it’s been quite successful. Only when the economy completely collapsed in 1929 and The Great Depression ensued did the public call the conservative bluff and vote into office leaders (Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Democratic Congress) willing to actually create programs for the common good (Social Security, Medicare, the SEC and FDIC are great examples), as well as public works projects to get the country back to work. At the time, FDR was indeed called a communist by conservatives for doing so. Thank goodness he persevered and was not assassinated like another high profile so-called “socialist” Democrat – Huey P. Long of Louisiana.

Ironically, once in office, Republicans are the ones who act as “socialists” by using the public’s collective revenue (your taxes) to deliver spectacular tax breaks, loopholes,, investments, subsidies and trade policy to authorize, aid and abet corporations and the wealthy in their goal of maximum private profit in the shortest period of time.

Given his advanced age, perhaps McCain is so old that the Red baiting worldview is the one he relates to best and, through instinct and default, goes to this Cold War campaign tactic.