With the economy in tatters, citizens and politicians alike are becoming increasingly concerned about federal deficits and the resulting debt. As recent as last week, apprehension over the deficit was cited by Republicans as the reason to deny the extension of unemployment benefits. Regardless of the fact that real unemployment still sets at 16.5%, and although the denial of the extension would severely impact those affected, the subsistence income for 2.5 million Americans was simply unaffordable. But Republican principles are complex, and where certain federal programs, like assistance for the unemployed or stimulus to create jobs must be sacrificed in deference to the deficit, other expenditures are the exception.

In a clear showing of priorities, Congress sent a message to the American public yesterday when the House approved a $60 billion war-funding bill. The bill was considered under a suspension of the rules, so it required a two-thirds vote. But even though the $10 billion in state aid to help prevent teacher layoffs was stripped, 148 Democrats joined the 160 Republicans voting in favor, and the opposition fell 30 votes short.

This latest event is sure to leave voters who are actually paying attention to wonder just how important the deficit really is. After all, the deficit is the excess of spending over revenue, yet in spite of the loss in federal revenue, Republicans unanimously support the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the upper 2%. And now we know that, when it comes to war spending, disregard for the deficit is evidently a rare bipartisan position. This all begs the question of what the criteria actually are for identifying the significance to be placed on the deficit.

Opinions abound when it comes to explaining the discrepancies apparent in the precedence of issues. Republicans contend that the tax cuts will actually pay for themselves. Of course, they do so in conflict with the near unanimous opinion of economists. They also posit that, so long as the cuts are given to the wealthy, they will create jobs — this too flying in the face of expert opinion and all empirical evidence.

But where the Democrats appear to be more versed and committed to common sense when it comes to tax cuts, the majority somehow seems to find funding of the wars to be compelling. This may present a bit of a dichotomy to many anti-war Democrats, but even many representatives who oppose the war find it difficult to vote against appropriations, feeling that, regardless of a person’s position on the wars, we must support the troops.

This position is understandable, even seemingly admirable, but is it really valid?

The Department of Defense budget for 2010 is $685 billion. Add to this the portions of defense spending carried under other departments: nuclear weapons, under the Department of Energy, counter terrorism, under the FBI, International Affairs, Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, parts of NASA, and interest on the debt incurred from past wars — and overall defense spending is somewhere around $1 trillion per year. Of this number, the total cost for military personnel is $154 billion.

A closer look at the actual situation in Afghanistan reveals that only $19 billion of the appropriation was slated for “operations,” the bucket that covers the actual costs to deploy military personnel. Recent Pentagon estimates set that price tag at $875,000 per troop. And while military salaries have seen appreciable raises in recent years, it’s obvious that this money is not going to pay the salaries of deployed American military.

In actuality, the costs are just a part of the federal government’s funding of the Military Industrial Complex (MIC). A significant portion of the war funds will obviously be used to pay for support services contractors, the costs for which exceeded investments in equipment for the first time in 2007. In fact, where contractors numbered 1 for each 100 personnel on the battlefield during Desert Storm in 1991, they routinely now account for 50% or more and recently accounted for as much as 39% of the cost.

The fact is that the MIC is about big money, and as such has significant power in Washington. Escalated under President Obama, the MIC now consumes approximately 52% of federal tax revenues. There is obviously no bigger industry draw on the federal budget. And defense contractors get what they want from our Congress.

Military spending is actually a bit of a third-rail in American politics. It provides thousands of jobs and billions in profits for defense contractors, and as a result gains support from workers and corporate profiteers alike. But make no mistake about it, while the deficit is being used to squash investment in infrastructure, energy, education and other job creating programs, it being ignored as we continue to increase spending on defense.

The top seven defense contractors are certainly not hurting for the recession. L-3 Communications Holdings Inc., a contractor providing airborne and network communications recently reported an 11% increase in profits for the first quarter. Northrop Grumman, the nation’s third largest defense contractor, reported their profits up by 21%. General Dynamics, Raytheon, and Lockheed Martin all are all experiencing similar gains.

So, this much we know: the deficit is a grave concern when spending is in support of those most adversely affected by the recession, but it’s merely an inconvenience when it comes to funding the military industrial complex or providing tax relief for the wealthy. It’s sad to state, but given the anecdotal evidence, an impartial observer might conclude that the degree of concern for the deficit depends less on any real fiscal sensibility and more on who the deficit spending will actually benefit.

Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont and DNC chairman, wrote an op-ed piece on Monday where he decried conservative publicity tactics and urged Democrats to stand up for their convictions. Dean cited several recent ploys where “the Fox News Network [had] failed to report the full story or relevant facts.” With regard to instances like the new Black Panthers, Van Jones and the entire Shirley Sherrod fiasco, Dean suggests that, Fox indulged “in race baiting in order to exploit people’s fears and crank up the fringe of their audience.” But Dean’s message isn’t about the evil of these practices; it’s about the appropriate response by Democrats.

According to Dean, Democrats “are not tough enough.” Dean’s prescription for resurgence by the Democrats is to “stand up for what we believe in and stop trying to make deals with people who cannot be trusted to make deals for the good of our country.” Republicans have clearly defined themselves and taken a stand as the party of big business. If the Democrats are to avoid a one-sided loss in November, they’ll be well served to follow Dean’s advice and leave compromise at the altar of progress.

Those who think that supporting incremental change somehow moves the issues forward are sadly mistaken. All that the spirit of compromise does is move the center further to the right. Those Democrats who support this approach are responsible for the pathetic reality we now have where what the Republicans themselves would have passed 30 years ago is now celebrated as a Democratic victory.

Voters need to wake up! So long as they support this dynamic, the line will keep moving to the right. And so long as it moves right, the Republicans will retain power. What’s needed is for the Democrats to truly differentiate themselves — that’s the only way the line will ever be moved left again. Democrats need to fight on principle, EVEN WHEN THEY WILL LIKELY LOSE! This is how a platform is defined, how Democrats can communicate who they are and what they stand for.

The American middle class wasn’t created through compromise; it is being destroyed through it. Obama is compiling a great legislation record, but a brief look at the history will show that Jimmy Carter was responsible for a significant body of legislation too, yet he created the climate where Reaganomics was able to take root. By contrast, FDR took a bold stand and created the middle class.

The climate of our time begs for a little more FDR and a little less Jimmy Carter. FDR has no problem taking a stand as evidenced by the words he shared on election eve 1936:

“We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace–business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.”

It’s time the Democrats help take government back from “organized money.” And until and unless they take a real stand, they’ll just remain a bunch of Republican supporters who are helping to move all legislation to the right.

Long a bastion for Democratic voters, the Bay Area will carry the torch into the November election, hoping to put a democrat in the governor’s office and prevent Barbara Boxer’s Senate seat from falling into Republican hands. Carly Fiorina is threatening to give Boxer a serious challenge, but a video released on Sunday may help to tilt the scale.

The short video on YouTube, created by Brave New Films, shows Fiorina singing praises for the Tea Party and stating that she agrees with their views. Of course this shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone, but in a state where 45% of registered voters who identify with a party are Democrats, and even the Republicans voters tend to be more moderate, strong Tea Party ties may not be advantageous.

A Rasmussen poll from July 14 shows Boxer maintaining a small lead at 49% support compared to Fiorina’s 42%. But a 7% lead does not a victory make, especially in a midterm election where conservatives are more motivated and likely to visit the polls. Barbara Boxer is counting on Democratic strongholds, like Contra Costa County where Democrats are a majority at 50.21% and nearly outnumber Republicans 2 to 1.

As evidenced by Fiorina’s support of the Tea Party, her politics are far from finding resonance with normal California attitudes. But these are not normal times, and Fiorina’s banter touting her business acumen and ability to balance budgets may fit well in the present economic climate. California is broke and struggling, and with unemployment currently at 12.3%, unsuspecting voters just might be swayed by Fiorina’s surface credentials.

But the surface is really all Carly Fiorina has. Even without looking at her Tea Party ties or her anti-abortion stance, a closer look at her business resume should leave any voter questioning both her abilities and her character. Fiorina acknowledges that jobs are a major issue for California, but when it comes to job creation, how much trust should voters place in a person who laid off over 30,000 workers and sent a massive number of jobs to China while heading HP?

Actually, the entire notion that Fiorina is a business professional who’s savvy and capable is suspect, to say the least. True, she was the CEO of HP, but during her tenure, not only was she the champion of hacking jobs, but she also presided over a 52% drop in stock price. In fact, Ms. Fiorina’s leadership record at HP was so abysmal that she was chosen as a member of the Conde Nast Portfolio magazine’s “20 Worst CEOs of all time.”

On the 20 Worst list, Fiorina joined the likes of Dick Fuld of Lehman Bros, Jimmy Cayne of Bear Stearns, and Martin Sullivan of AIG, all of whom showed their abilities and character while driving the country to the brink of economic collapse. Other of Fiorina’s notable “20 Worst” alumnus include Ken Lay of Enron and Bernie Ebbers of WorldCom. The folk at Portfolio had this to say about Fiorina: “a consummate self-promoter, Fiorina was busy pontificating on the lecture circuit and posing for magazine covers while her company floundered. She paid herself handsome bonuses and perks while laying off thousands of employees to cut costs. The merger Fiorina orchestrated with Compaq in 2002 was widely seen as a failure. She was ousted in 2005.” Of course, Fiorina did receive a $40 million golden parachute to leave HP — a slightly better deal than that given the thousands of employees whose jobs she cut.

Fiorina really is a garden variety one-trick pony, typical of her conservative brethren. Regardless of the issue, she offers but one tack — cut. In business that meant jobs, which she so eloquently referred to as “right-shoring.” But in government, she’s already pulled out the conservative playbook; we can create jobs and restore vibrancy to the economy, all we have to do is hack spending and cut taxes.

And the really good news is that Fiorina agrees with other Republicans who recently informed us that we don’t need to pay for tax cuts. Yes sir, the deficit reins supreme, so spending must be offset, but Fiorina subscribes fully to the Republican gospel concerning the budget magic of tax cuts. Falling in behind Senators, Mitch McConnell and John Kyl, Fiorina stated in a CBS interview that, “you don’t need to pay for tax cuts. They pay for themselves, if they are targeted, because they create jobs.” Of course, such myths have been soundly disproven and all empirical evidence is to the contrary, but what the heck — this is politics!

The plain truth is that Carly Fiorina was a terrible CEO and would make an even worse Senator. She cares not about jobs, at least not American jobs, as evidenced in a 2004 speech defending HP’s practice of off-shoring, where she told the crowd, “there is no job that is America’s God-given right anymore.” Which is true, but is it the ideology voters should value in an elected official?

In the end, voters will have to judge whether or not Fiorina is right for California, but when you add up her position to repeal healthcare, her denial that climate change is a serious national issue, her sitting out 15 of the last 23 elections, including the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, and her position on abortion — and then couple them with her elitist attitude on jobs and her belief in voodoo tax cuts, it seems that Carly Fiorina is better suited to serving time in a mental institution than in the United States Senate.