Did Barbara Boxer do any homework before her senatorial debate with Carly Fiorina on Wednesday? Boxer did hold her own and responded fairly well to most of Fiorina’s truth stretching assertions. But when her opponent is running on her record as a business leader, and that record earned her a place as one of the “20 Worst CEOs of all time,” the door was wide open for Boxer to clearly show what an abysmal leader Fiorina was.

Senator Boxer did take every opportunity to point out Fiorina’s woeful record on jobs, the one where she actually shipped 30,000 overseas. She even mentioned Fiorina’s very personal contribution to the American vernacular, coining the term “right-shoring,” a euphemism for firing Americans in order to send their jobs to a foreign land. Of course, Fiorina was laser focused on the “shoring” part but never really got it “right,” since as also pointed out by Boxer — Hewlett Packard lost more than 50% of its stock price under Fiorina’s control.

But Boxer missed the opportunity to elucidate how well aligned Ms. Fiorina is with the conservative extreme. She has spoken at Tea Party rallies and stated that she agrees with their views. She’s even a member of the tax-cuts-pay-for-themselves voodoo contingent of the Republican Party. 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.” Never mind that even conservative economists no longer support such nonsense.

For whatever reason, Boxer also failed to support her own record for voting in favor of the Stimulus, and allowed Fiorina’s statement that it had, “manifestly failed,” to stand. Without doubt one of the easiest assertions to refute, being that the Stimulus has been a huge success by every objective measure, nevertheless Fiorina’s fact-free spin went unchallenged.

Part of the problem was the format for the debate. It allowed for response and rebuttal but provided no means for redress of erroneous claims made during a rebuttal. Fiorina used this to her advantage by using rebuttal time to introduce new points when she had no real argument for the topic at hand.

Fiorina was allowed to characterize her support of the extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy as good for the middle class. Boxer would have been well served to illuminate the fact that it’s Democrats who have drawn the line in the sand and support the extension for all but the top 2%. Fiorina used a similar tactic when speaking about the estate tax. Of course, she referenced it as the “death tax,” and drew alarm to the 55% rate. But where she really left the truth behind was in associating the tax with the 88,000 family farms in California. Boxer should have made sure that the facts of the matter were voiced, that the experts all agree that there’s not been a single “family farm” hit by the estate tax. She should also have added that the Democratic plan to deal with the expiring cut would lower the top rate to 45% and only apply to estates over $7 million, which would apply to .25 percent of estates.

Boxer also allowed Fiorina to demonize federal employees by associating the increase in their number with the loss of jobs in California. It would have been nice if Boxer had mentioned that the increase is almost entirely related to temporary census positions, which hit its 564,000 job high in May. Although Boxer did take advantage of the opening to hammer on Fiorina’s offshoring record one more time: she introduced Fiorina’s characterization of the recent aid bill to save teacher’s jobs as a “disgrace,” and added that Fiorina was likely opposed because, “we paid for it by stopping some tax breaks for companies who ship jobs overseas.”

Another well delivered blow by Boxer occurred in her rebuttal to Fiorina’s response to a question regarding the apparent conflict between her accepting a $21 million severance package and yet taking a strong position that teacher jobs should be tied to performance. Fiorina attempted to dodge the question by offering several statistics regarding HP’s growth under her tenure, failing to mention that the growth was the result of a failed merger. But Boxer responded with a body blow, stating that, “I think we are entitled to our opinion but we’re not entitled to our own facts. The facts are there was a $21 million severance check, and my understanding is that it was taken after my opponent was fired.”

But Fiorina scored points on Boxer’s legislative record. Citing the fact that only 4 bills bearing Boxer’s name have been signed into law, she asserted that Boxer was an ineffective legislator. Boxer did rebut by stating that the objective is not to get your name on legislation, and offered Senator Russ Feingold as an example, stating that the campaign finance legislation commonly known as McCain-Feingold does not bear his name. She didn’t mention that Feingold too only passed 4 bills during his tenure, or that the reason his name was missing was that it was the House version that was signed into law. The fact is that Boxer has a well-deserved reputation for carrying liberal causes as well as for working across the aisle. She needs to build a case that she can recite in a succinct manner.

As Boxer stated, Fiorina is the candidate of Big-Oil and Big-Coal. She danced around the topic of global warming, offering possibly the evening’s most twisted stretch of double-talk. According to Fiorina, the solution to global warming, “lies not with a single state taking action on its own, but rather with global action.” So, evidently there’s really no reason for any entity to take a first step until we get everyone in line to make a change. Sounds like a good capitalist position — after all we can’t address the environment and be competitive with polluters like China at the same time.

In the end, it was likely more Fiorina’s exposing herself as a died-in-the-wool capitalist Republican that will sway more votes toward Boxer than anything else. It’s difficult to understand how a politician could think it advantageous to use China as an example of how to create jobs. But of course, it’s all a part of her one-trick-pony approach to all thing economic: cut taxes and regulations and all will be well — it’s the same prescription offered by all of her Republican cronies — a race to the bottom for American workers and the environment be damned.

In the nineteen months that President Obama has been in office, there’s no action that he’s taken, no policy that he’s supported that’s received more undeserved criticism than the federal stimulus. Consistently maligned by conservatives, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), which passed the Congress with no Republican votes in the house and only 3 in the Senate, has significantly eased the impact of the Great Recession and continues to do so, while at the same time laying the foundation for a true 21^st Century America.

Intended to create jobs and promote investment and consumer spending during the recession, it’s difficult to reconcile Republican objections to the ARRA, better known as the Stimulus. After all, they had all supported the TARP bailout, which sent the better part of a trillion dollars to the nation’s richest banks. But the Republicans stood in unity against a stimulus directed at helping middle and working class Americans. Some say that the opposition was purely political, just one of many attempts to block actions that might help the economy and improve the standing of the Democratic leadership.

That may well be the case, as there have certainly been a record number of obstructionist actions taken by Senate Republicans since Obama took office. But whether or not the Republican disregard for common Americans is behind their original opposition, it seems clearly to be reflected in their conspicuous attempts to discredit the positive impact the Stimulus has had.

Most recently, while unveiling first looks at the Republican plan for the future, House Minority Leader, John Boehner said that the Stimulus, “has gotten us nowhere.” Oddly enough, he made that statement after the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report on the stimulus had been released. The CBO analysis concurred with the majority view on nonpartisan economists and found that the stimulus had raised the GDP by 1.7% to 4.5% and increased the number of people employed by 1.4 to 3.3 million. The report also concluded that the number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) jobs had been raised by between 2 million and 4.8 million. The truth is that the facts don’t support the conservative spin, so the Republicans don’t offer any facts, just sound bites like John Boehner’s fallacious claim.

Few and far between are any economists who would even marginally agree with Congressman Boehner. There may be debate over the extent of the impact, but no reputable person would even attempt to argue that the Stimulus has “has gotten us nowhere.”  Mark Zandi, former economic advisor to John McCain, took issue with Boehner’s falsehood and stated that, “Without the stimulus spending, instead of a 9.5 percent unemployment rate, we’d have an 11.5 percent unemployment rate.” But of course, when people are still struggling in a stalled economy, it’s exceedingly difficult to sell the fact that it would have been so much worse.

Caring more about partisan politics than the health of the American economy or the wellbeing of the American people, Republicans have chosen to ignore the facts and rail on about how ineffective the Stimulus has been. The trouble is that, since they have no credible argument with which to discredit the macroeconomic effects of the program, such as the number of jobs created, they’ve been forced to try to put the spotlight on “waste.”

Reports of “wasteful projects” started the moment spending targets began to be identified. But the Republican spin machine hit a crescendo in early August when Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) released their report highlighting 100 projects they deem to be wasteful. Headlining their list is a $308 million contract the senators identify as being with oil giant BP. Of course, their report fails to mention that the money was actually given to Hydrogen Energy California, a BP subsidiary, in September 2009 — long before the oil spill. The report is also conveniently silent on the fact that the award actually went to a 50/50 joint venture, so BP isn’t even the primary awardee, and also that only $175 million of the total came from stimulus funds, while the private sector invested seven times as much money in the project as did government.

This is not to suggest that the Stimulus is without waste; any program with thousands of discrete expenditures totaling over $800 billion is going to incur some spending that could be considered wasteful. But does this justify raking through the contracts in an attempt to find anything and everything that can possibly be labeled waste? Does it justify using half-truths to cast expenditures in an illegitimate light?

The report tags the $71,623 awarded to Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center as funding a study on, “Monkeys Getting High for Science.” The truth is that monkeys are being used, but the study is actually directed at research regarding cocaine addiction and relapse in humans. Along similar lines is the report’s characterization of $554,763 spent to replace windows at a Mount St. Helens visitor’s center as wasteful — because the facility “was closed in 2007.” Terrible, huh? . . . unless you consider that the Forest Service is performing the renovations in order to repurpose the center, so that they can, “protect the original investment and ensure continued good use of taxpayer dollars.” 

These are but a few examples of the distortions contained in the McCain/Coburn report. But whether or not you agree with Senator McCain that, “all of them are waste,” you still have to question his use of spin and what it says about his motives. This is especially true when, at the end of the day, even if you accept their entire list as “wasteful,” the $1.7 billion total is less than one-quarter of one percent of the total stimulus. This money is obviously nothing to sneeze at, but .002 waste is pretty damn good by any objective measure. The Pentagon, which David M. Walker, President of the conservative Peter G. Peterson Foundation and former comptroller general of the U.S., identified as a system, “so fundamentally flawed that billions of dollars in waste is virtually guaranteed every year,” would have to completely reinvent itself to even approach such efficiency. Yet do you hear any Republican cries to cut defense?

The honest truth is that the ARRA could have been handled better. It does include some waste and should probably have been more focused on very specific job-creating investments. But to say that the stimulus, “has manifestly failed,” as Republican candidate for Senate, Carly Fiorina did during last night’s senatorial debate, is to take spin and wind it up to the level of outright falsehood.

The ARRA, originally estimated to cost $787 billion but recently revised at $814 billion, was essentially divided into thirds, with one part each allocated for tax relief, entitlements, and contracts/grants. The tax relief component, with $223 billion spent out of the $288 billion allocated, provided tax cuts for 95% of Americans and also included $51 billion in tax relief for business. Entitlements, funded at $224 billion with only $143 billion spent thus far, consisted mostly of aid to states in the form of $86.8 billion for Medicaid, $53.6 billion to help local school districts and prevent further layoffs, and $82.2 billion to assist low income workers, the elderly, and the unemployed.

While little of the expenditures in these categories went directly to create new jobs, the money did save thousands of people from joining the ranks of the unemployed. It also ensured that those most adversely affected by the recession received relief. And it accomplished these ends while also putting the majority of the funds where they would be immediate spent and returned into the economy. This factor ensured sustainment of consumer spending, which amounts to 70% of the economy, and created the largest stimulating effect possible.

The final portion of the Stimulus, that marked for contracts, grants and loans, is really the forward facing job creation engine of the program. The original intent of this spending was to identify “shovel-ready” projects where the money could be put to immediate use. But far too few projects of that kind were found, so at present only $139 billion of the $275 billion allocated has been spent. But even so, exciting progress has been made, and if people can remove their partisan lenses for just a moment, they will see that this program is building the foundation for a better government, a stronger America, and a brighter future for all Americans.

Recipients of funding through the direct investment part of the Stimulus had reported a total of nearly 750,000 jobs funded by the program through the end of this past June. But these jobs are really just the beginning. The program has made over 215,000 awards, but because of the time requirements to ramp up production, less than 40% of the award money has been disbursed. The real promise of these investments is still in the future, and it will come in the form new jobs, new industries and a transformation of government and certain sectors of American business.

Stimulus investments are focused in five critical areas: 1) to seed research and development, 2) to modernize transportation, 3) to jump start alternative energy, 4) to promote ground-breaking medical advancement, and 5) to establish a platform to enhance private sector infrastructure. Together, these areas represent a game plan for, not only moving our nation away from dependence on environmentally damaging foreign oil, but also for creating a new energy economy, building American capacity for the future and infusing existing industries with new technology.

One exciting example of how the Stimulus is paving the way to a prosperous green economy is the investment in advanced battery technology. Advanced batteries are critical to the deployment of alternative energy technologies from electric cars to smart grid-storage. Prior to the Stimulus, the U.S. produced only 2% of the world’s advanced batteries. But stimulus funding will create 30 new factories thereby increasing the U.S. share of battery production to 20% by 2012 and to 40% by 2015. Most of the associated projects are being seeded through grant money, like that awarded to A123 Systems of Watertown, Mass., who will be building two U.S. based factories with stimulus money. A123 is already a big player in the market, with 5 factories in China, but the Stimulus is moving them home. According to company CEO, Bart Riley, “Without government, there’s no way we would’ve done this in the U.S.” It should be noted that A123 held an IPO to raise the private capital that’s required to match public funding on all grant projects.

Carving a foothold for America in the growing market for advanced batteries is but one example of the Stimulus taking our nation where it needs to go. Funding has also been awarded to finance three of the world’s first electric-car plants, and because those cars will need charging, the Stimulus will also increase battery-charging stations by 3,200%. Other energy related projects include, $3.4 billion for clean coal, loan guarantees to facilitate the first new nuclear power plants in 30 years, and investment in wind and solar, including building the nation’s largest photovoltaic plant in Florida and the world’s two largest solar-thermal plants in Arizona and California. All together, $90 billion has been allocated to fund alternative energy infrastructure and efficiency — a fact that may provide a little more insight into Republican objections — since the Oil and Gas industry represents the only “Strongly Republican” lobby in Washington, sending 73% of their contributions to the right.

One signature project, also in the energy space but designed to address the nation’s woeful record on energy efficiency is the Weatherization Assistance Program. Most Americans know that the U.S. is the planet’s number one energy customer, actually consuming more than 20% of world supply. But much less widespread is the knowledge that over 57% of what’s consumed is actually wasted. With a goal to weatherize 600,000 homes, the weatherization program will begin to address this issue. The program has already completed 200,000 homes and continues to move forward at a rate of 25,000 homes per month and has created more than 13,000 jobs.

Energy is without doubt the center focus of stimulus spending, as it rightfully should be. Our nation’s ever-increasing dependence on foreign fossil fuels is amongst our most serious concerns in terms of national security, economic wellbeing, and environmental health. Energy independence should be a national priority, but the transition is extremely expensive, so market forces work against change and instead serve to preserve the status quo. The writing has been on the wall for more than 30 years, yet industry has moved forward at glacial pace. The sad truth being that it’s more profitable to continue to push fossil fuels. This is precisely the type of situation that demands government intervention — when the good of the nation is at conflict with the profit motive of business. The Stimulus is meeting this need and is on track to meet its goal of doubling alternative energy by 2012.

Rounding out other stimulus highlights are investment in transportation, healthcare, and infrastructure. One notable public transportation component is an $8 billion contribution for high-speed rail projects across the nation, including $2.3 billion for the system to connect the San Francisco Bay Area and Orange County. There’s also a $27.5 billion slice working to fund highway and bridge projects across the country. On the healthcare front is $20 billion to move health records into the digital age, an endeavor that constitutes real healthcare reform and promises to deliver both improved care and lowered costs. Other infrastructure investments include $7.2 billion to extend broadband access, much into rural areas, and also $11 billion for electrical grid improvements. The focus on a smart-grid is essential for maximizing energy efficiency, and both the broadband and grid improvements will lay the groundwork for trillions of dollars in future utility investments.

And not only is the Stimulus transforming America, but also the federal government. Unlike the Defense Department tradition of doling out contracts without bids, the Stimulus launched the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) to ensure fierce competition for grant money. Modeled after DARPA, the Pentagon agency that gave us the Internet and GPS, ARPA-E recruited a host of outside experts to evaluate grant applications and winnow the 3,700 received down to the 37 awarded in the first round. Several of these grants will fund research that would otherwise be too expensive for profit-minded businesses, and if successful, the upside is absolutely immense. The intent is to create new industries, to solve longstanding problems, to reinvent the economy — these investments have the potential to create millions of jobs.

Anyone who really believes in America owes it to themselves to look deeper into the success and potential of the Stimulus. They should visit Recovery.gov and get more information. They should understand that this is the most transparent program ever instituted by the federal government, that all program details are readily available online, that program administration provides a 24-hour response to all state and local government queries, and that the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board was established to prevent fraud and waste. The Board gives citizens the ability to help police projects with several means to report suspicious activity, and has already helped to block some 260 projects for skate parks, picnic tables and highway beautification.

It’s difficult to understand the mindset that would hold the Stimulus program in a negative light. Detractors want to discredit the program with trumped up examples of waste. Deficit hawks want to derail progress by convincing the people we can’t afford the investment, when in truth they simply want to maintain the status quo. They know that our nation recovered easily from a debt that was 122% of GDP after World War 2, and that we currently sit at only 94%. But they also know that it was higher taxes on the most wealthy that funded the recovery and paved the way to a flourishing economy and a strong middle class. And this they will fight with every lie and distortion they cab muster.

The stimulus is exactly the prescription for America’s prosperous transition into the 21^st Century. Where better to spend American tax dollars than on the core needs and functions of our society, on our infrastructure, on healthcare, on education, on creating industries to fight energy dependence and create American exports? Are we better served with spending trillions on foreign wars, on maintaining a military presence to defend Europe and Japan? Perhaps the money should go to bigger bonuses on Wall Street or higher pay for CEOs? The answers are clear. The stimulus investments are our future. They are the path back to prosperity, to jobs, to the strengthening of the American middle class. The Stimulus program represents the way a government of the People, by the People, and for the People should act. 

The only real negative about the Stimulus is that President Obama listened to Tim Geithner and Larry Summers instead of Christina Romer. Had he taken her sage advice, the Stimulus would have been $1.4 trillion, and America would be that much closer to emerging from this greed-spawned recession into a bright and green future.

Article first published as President Obama and His Frankenstein Monster on Technorati.

Associated Press released an article yesterday entitled Some states suing feds also claim health subsidies. The story tells of seven states, amongst the 20 now filing suit to overturn President Obama’s healthcare legislation, that have also filed to receive subsidies from the program. Many would conclude that it’s hypocritical to take money from a program that you’re fighting to end, but while a valid opposition argument is hard to imagine, it’s equally difficult to assign full blame on the deceit of these states.

It is the duty of every state to best serve the needs of its citizens, so if there is funding available through the program, it would be irresponsible for a state to not seek the subsidy. In a similar manner, if the presumption is made that the suits being taken against the purchase requirement are motivated from a desire to serve the people, then that action too must be considered appropriate. So, if these two assertions are true, wherein does the hypocrisy originate?

Of course, purported motives could be a sham; certain state officials may actually engage in litigation for purely political purposes, but that’s unlikely to be a universal rule. So, does this mean that there is no hypocrisy in the cases where the motives are honestly associated with the good of the citizenry? Perhaps not — but such cases beg the question of how an action can simultaneously be so duplicitous and yet pure.

One possible conclusion is that the duplicity is inherent in the object — that the healthcare legislation itself contains the hypocrisy. It was sold as a progressive solution to address inequities in the American healthcare system. It was also touted as reform, yet resulted only in expansion of the system that was already in place by adding government subsidies and mandatory purchase requirements. Whether or not anyone chooses to accept this as hypocrisy, the act of pushing legislation under some pretense, like reform, but really providing nothing of the sort, must be considered duplicitous.

I’ll not even offer an opinion regarding the legality of requiring everyone to purchase healthcare insurance, but I will suggest that it stretches the interpretation of regulating interstate commerce — the constitutional basis upon which the law has been justified. It would seem that the medical insurance industry could be regulated without making mandatory the purchase of medical insurance. And it’s true that the very premise that people can be required to purchase something without the ability to opt out is unique to this case in all of American government.

What occurs to me is that President Obama may have had pure motives when he set out to address healthcare, but in the end he created a Frankensteinian system. There was really only one legitimate method of creating a hybrid public/private system that could provide healthcare to those who would otherwise not have it — that was through the establishment of a “public option.” The public option would have addressed the issue of reform by establishing both a source for coverage of the uninsured and also competition within the industry. President Obama created this Frankenstein monster when he caved and allowed the medical insurers and Big Pharma to write the legislation which guaranteed then 32 million new patients and did nothing to reduce costs.

Sadly, the state suits protesting the healthcare law are perhaps the least significant consequence of the President’s creation. The real horror is that his hybrid abomination is truly a Frankenstein monster and as such is destined to contribute to his ruin. When the President should have been focused squarely on the economy and Wall Street reform, he was instead off in his Dr. Frankenstein laboratory making deals with the health services lobby. He then used up all of his political capital to pass healthcare legislation, with which neither the left nor right are happy.

Roll the calendar forward, and new financial legislation was passed but was weak and diluted, the economy is still in the dumper, unemployment refuses to subside, and healthcare costs are higher than ever. Had President Obama forgone healthcare and been more focused on the economy, would we be in better shape now? It’s hard to tell, but one thing is certain — there wouldn’t be this Frankenstein monster lurking about, and the Democrats would likely be in much better shape for November.

President Obama spoke briefly from the Rose Garden this morning about the economy. He acknowledged that the recovery is still fragile, but offered assurances that his team was, “hard at work on additional measures.” He offered few details, but pulled no punches in blasting GOP leaders for their obstruction of relief for small business. “I ask Senate Republicans to drop the blockade,” the President urged, referring to the persistent GOP filibuster of a small business aid bill that’s been stalled in the Senate since shortly after the House passed similar legislation this past March.

The small business aid bill, last blocked from going to the Senate floor at the end of July, includes $12 billion in tax relief and also creates a $30 billion fund intended to facilitate lending to small businesses. The tax breaks, designed to stimulate growth, include deductions for capital equipment investment and credits for new hires. With the large banks still withholding any funding for small business, the loan fund is designed to allow community and regional banks, those with assets under $10 billion, to fill the void. Small businesses need money to expand, and according to Bob Coleman, publisher of the Coleman Report, which provides information on small-business lending, many businesses are postponing expansion while they wait on the outcome of this bill.

Republicans in the Senate have spoken out against the bill, likening it to the TARP, which they all supported, but which has since fallen into disrepute. They label the bill as more Democrat spending, even though it’s fully paid for. Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell explained that the Republicans had already been given 3 amendments to the bill, but that “three amendments is not enough.” Democrats countered that the border security provision offered by Republicans had nothing to do with small business, and that they would not allow the Republican maneuver to add a permanent extension to the Bush tax cuts. Republicans also complained about the $1.5 billion in aid to farmers contained in the bill, so Democrats removed the provision, but were still not able to sway any Republican support.

In his speech today, President Obama stated of the bill that, “there’s no reason to block it besides pure partisan politics.” Dean Baker, of the Center for Economic and Policy Research seems to be in agreement. Speaking in July, he characterized the standoff like this, “The Democrats want to hand money out to small banks and win some support among traditionally Republican backers, while the Republicans don’t want the Democrats to have any achievements to show when they campaign.” Even the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who typically sides with Republicans, is fully in favor of the legislation.

So, how is it that the Party who purports to be a champion of small business, comes to resist, so adamantly, a bill designed to help that very segment? This is the same party that bases their defense of extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich on the detriment their expiration would have on small business, yet they won’t support this fully funded stimulus. Conservative voters should take heed, because this is just another piece, amongst a vast body of evidence that indicates where Republican loyalties are tied.

President Obama did mention a few other examples of efforts being pursued by his administration. He emphasized that they were still fighting for the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the middle class. Although he gave no indication of how they might achieve that without also extending the cuts for the rich. They are incapable without GOP support, and thus far, Senate Republicans remain firm in their resolve to force an across the board extension, that adds $678 billion to the deficit from relief for the rich, or nothing at all.

The President stated that further tax cuts to encourage businesses to create jobs in the U.S. were being considered. He also listed initiatives being pursued, such as, “rebuilding more infrastructure for the future” and “redoubling our investment in clean energy and research and development.” But he gave no details on these items, nor did he even mention the current stimulus, which is actively moving these initiatives forward. The stimulus which is so often maligned by conservatives, but credited by economists for avoiding 2 addition percentage points of unemployment and adding millions of jobs, is also providing a critical service in moving our nation into a clean, alternative energy future and building infrastructure in the areas of public transportation and a smart grid.

Much to the disappointment of many progressives, the President’s speech failed to clearly identify the severity of our current economic problems or the details of the administrations plan to address them. With both consumers and businesses tucking their money away, there’s little hope that things will change without further stimulus, but in an election year where the deficit hawks are out hunting for prey, Democrats appear to lack the resolve to promote such a bold action. The alternative is obviously a very slow recovery in which the middle class foots the lion’s share of the bill — and minus the public wherewithal to understand that the deficit has merely been presented to conveniently block further corrective action, we appear to be doomed to stew in this status quo.

Article first published as I Think I’ll Vote Republican — NOT! on Technorati.

On this, the eve of Glen Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally in Washington, I think it a good time to reflect on what it means to be a conservative in 21^st Century America. Beck has scheduled his rally on the anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “March on Washington.” According to Beck, the purpose of the rally is to celebrate “upstanding citizens who embody our nation’s founding principles of integrity, truth and honor.” Such patriotism, such vision, a staunch supporter of the Republican Party, Beck is at the core of contemporary conservatism.

So, what is it that defines today’s conservative? What is the Republican plan for the future of America?

John Boehner shared the Republican vision for America earlier this week. And fortunately for conservative voters, the Republican platform is far more simple than that of their Democratic counterparts. Republicans don’t spend all that wasted time worrying about equity and ethics and all that stupid liberal stuff. Heck, when your objective is limited to maximizing the profits of big-business and minimizing the tax burden of the top 2%, all that fairness stuff just gets in the way.

Oddly enough, the new Republican Party looks an awful lot like the party of George Bush. So drastic is the likeness, that topping their list of priorities is the extension of the Bush tax cuts — for even the very rich, permanently. They even espouse the same disproven Bush tenet that tax cuts pay for themselves. So, although economists contend that the $678 billion price tag to extend the cuts for the top 2% will directly impact the deficit for which the Republicans feign concern — not to worry — we just need to cut spending.

Ah, but where to cut? Not defense! Oh no, the Military Industrial Complex is the heart and soul of conservative America — not to disparage the fossil fuel industry or the gun lobby. But, with defense costing over $1 trillion and representing more than 25% of the budget, where better to slice? Wait a minute . . . what would George Bush do? That’s it — Social Security can be privatized! Never mind that it’s solvent through 2037 and that with minor tweaking it can provide a vital safety net well into the next century; it’s a huge pool of money just begging to be exploited.

But, what about jobs? The problem is that Americans still expect far too much in compensation for their labor. But is it government’s responsibility to get people back to work? Unemployment is actually a good thing, for business, so long as you don’t have to pay benefits. There are really few things better for corporate profits than an abundant supply of labor so desperate for work that pay-scale and fringes no longer matter. So, the solution is self-evident: oppose any government funding of benefits, rail against government investment in infrastructure or energy or anything else that might tip the balance of economic power, and for God’s sake make sure nothing stops the flow of jobs overseas.

So, less taxes, fewer entitlements, an eager workforce, it’s music to the ears of contemporary conservatism. And the final ingredient to restore the Bush recipe for a prosperous upper crust — more deregulation. Just keep those oil wells pumping, those insiders trading, that gas flowing, and blessed will be the fruit of the offshoring multinational. The heck with the environment. What’s a little oil spill here and a little flaming water there? Businesses have to compete on a global scale, and worrying about the environment just isn’t good for profits. Besides, if you’re already exploiting the people, who gives a care about the planet?

Does any of this sound at all familiar? It should, because it’s Bushonomics 101. Today’s Republican Party promises a full return to the very practices that produced the most meager job growth since the 1940s, resulted in the first decline in median household income of any cycle since 1967, set modern records for the concentration of wealth at the very top, crashed the economy, brought us the Massey mine disaster, filled the Gulf with oil, and divided our nation.

The only real difference between the Bush Republicans and the Boehner, McConnell, Palin, Beck contingent is that where the Bushies confined their fear mongering to terrorists and certain foreign enemies, the 2010 Republicans have turned their sites inward. American citizen or not, if you’re Islamic or Mexican, Black, gay or liberal — you are an “Other,” and that makes you the problem . . . or rather the solution, because wealthy or not, the Republicans still need votes, and with a platform that only benefits 2% of the population, distraction is everything.

The man who wants to be Speaker of the House, John Boehner, spoke out against Democratic leadership earlier this week. A string of cheap attacks and tired one-liners, Boehner’s diatribe was pure substance-free political posturing. He called for President Obama to fire his economic team, extend tax cuts for the wealthy and to put the brakes on spending. Lacking any shame, the congressman actually had the temerity to suggest the nation needs a “fresh start,” with “people willing to accept responsibility” in charge — as if he or any of his big-business Republican cronies have accepted one iota of blame for crashing the economy and killing millions of jobs, or for doing everything within their power to stall recovery. 

The would-be Speaker, obviously intent upon leveraging public concern over jobs, used every opportunity to label the administration’s programs as “job-killing.”  Weaving the term into every topic, “job-killing tax hikes,” “job-killing regulations,” “job-killing agenda,” Boehner evoked the reaper 12 times in all. Condemning the recent $26 billion stimulus bill, Boehner stated that it, “funnels money to state governments in order to protect government jobs.” Of course, he was referring to 161,000 teacher jobs, as well as 158,000 jobs for police, firefighters and healthcare workers. But those jobs weren’t worth saving to John Boehner. He continued his criticism with, “Even worse, the bill is funded by a new tax hike that makes it more expensive to create jobs in the United States and less expensive to create jobs overseas,” which would be alarming — if it were true, which it’s not. His “job-killing tax hike” was actually the closing of a loophole that encouraged corporations to ship jobs overseas. 

What Boehner did reveal of the Republican plan for creating jobs appeared to be vintage Bush. It’s the same old recipe that drove the nation off a cliff the last time around — more tax cuts for the rich and less regulation. Conveniently ignoring the fact that President Obama wants to extend the Bush cuts for everyone making under $250,000, Boehner told the crowd that, “Raising taxes on families and small businesses during a recession is a recipe for disaster — both for our economy and for the deficit. Period. End of story.” He’s right, so if he truly believes what he says, he should stop fighting for cuts for the top 2% and join the Democrats in providing relief to everyone else — including all but 2-3% of small businesses. 

Boehner is truly a master at the art of double-talk. He claims to advocate for small business, stating that expiring the cuts for the top 2% would, “affect half of small business income.” But he fails to mention that the “half” he wants to protect are “small business” only in terms of the number of employees. Boehner’s half makes 50% of the money, but consists of the wealthiest hedge funds, law firms and lobbying outlets, and comprise no more than 3% of the actual small businesses. 

Amongst the newly formed ranks of Republican deficit hawks, Boehner also called upon President Obama to, “submit to Congress for its immediate consideration an aggressive spending reduction package.”  Of course, being a good Republican, Boehner did specify that the freeze should only be for non-defense spending.  But that’s just the tip of his forked tongue. Avoiding the disproven claim that tax cuts pay for themselves, Boehner is left with no explanation for his logical inconsistency in demanding spending cuts to fight the deficit, yet supporting $678 billion in millionaire tax cuts to choke revenue. 

One lie after another, Boehner’s critique of the Obama Administration was as fact-free as his economic plan for the future. But possibly his most egregious distortion was regarding the stimulus. A critic from the beginning, according to Boehner, the program, “has gotten us nowhere.” Sadly, many voters will believe this whopper, even though it has absolutely no basis in reality. 

Perhaps Boehner had not yet read the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report on the stimulus. The CBO analysis found that the stimulus had raised the GDP by 1.7% to 4.5% and increased the number of people employed by 1.4 to 3.3 million. In response to Boehner’s fallacious claim, Mark Zandi, former economic advisor to John McCain, took issue and stated that, “Without the stimulus spending, instead of a 9.5 percent unemployment rate, we’d have an 11.5 percent unemployment rate.” 

But, the facts regarding jobs and unemployment really only scratch the surface. The real impact of the stimulus is still in process. It is creating jobs in the present, but it promises to create far more in the future. The program is investing in research and infrastructure, providing seed money to jump start alternative energy, modernize transportation, fund ground-breaking medical advancements and enhance technologies such as broadband and smart grids. And in so doing, the program is also transforming the way government works. 

Ever the champion of the status quo, it’s easy to see why John Boehner doesn’t appreciate the progress funded by the stimulus. When Boehner says it, “has gotten us nowhere,” what he means is that it has prevented the huge drop in wages his corporate cronies so desperately desire, and that it’s also paving the road away from dependence on fossil fuels. A green America with well-paid Americans working in new industries is Boehner’s worst nightmare. He and his Republican brethren are just fine with things the way they are. 

In Boehner’s own words, “It’s time to put grown-ups in charge,” and since it’s obvious that the congressman never even learned the most basic rules of adulthood, like telling the truth and practicing what you preach, he must not be referring to himself. So, let’s all hope he gets his way and voters make the intelligent choice in November —  they put the grown-ups in charge and vote Democrat.

Article first published as Americans Need Jobs on Technorati.

We’re in a heap of hurt here people. Unemployment is stuck at 9.5%, and real unemployment, which includes those who have stopped looking for work, is still at 16.5%. This means we have nearly 30 million Americans competing at a ratio of 5-to-1 for what jobs are presently available. A continued jobless recovery with the possibility of a double-dip recession — what’s the average American to do?

People can help improve the situation by voicing their opposition to the anti-job policies promoted by certain factions in the federal government. The current focus on the deficit would be one such item. The last thing we need now is to further reduce the purchasing power of average Americans by trying to cut deficits at the expense of the middle and working classes. We successfully climbed our way out of a 122% deficit after World War 2; we’ll climb out of today’s 94% deficit too. The screech of the deficit hawks is really nothing but a wrong-minded attempt to draw attention from where it belongs — on job creation.

Concerned citizens can also make a difference by ignoring the fear mongers and voicing support for programs designed to help average Americans and create jobs. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) is one such program. Though it’s taken a beating from conservative trash talkers, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) the program has created between 2 million and 4 million full-time-equivalent (FTE) jobs, helped raise the GDP, and served to restrain further increases in unemployment. The only real problem with the stimulus is that it was too small.

If citizens really want to make progress, they need to compliment the above with a full court press on the Obama economic team. The trillions poured into Wall Street must at this point be considered a bad investment. The money cycle is still stalled, with small business and average Americans frozen out, while the banks that were saved are enjoying free money from the Fed and still partaking of the gambling practices that crashed the economy. Wall Street greed is the closest thing there is to a direct cause of these dire economic times — you can’t remove 8 million jobs from the economy and just keep on truckin’. The Obama team can, at the very least, increase the price of money to force these thieves to lend again. Obama can also appoint an advocate of the middle class to chair the newly created CFPB.

The last major part of the job picture is the impact of globalization. Unlike other areas where the American people must exert their will through political pressure, including their votes, The People can actually intervene directly in the trade imbalance. They can do so by buying American, which in general terms means shopping somewhere besides Wal-Mart. The nation’s largest retailer identifies more than 70% of its products as originating in China, and most of the rest from its other 47 foreign sources. Wal-Mart is the largest importer of goods from China and a direct contributor to the estimated 1.8 million jobs American jobs lost as a result.

Of course, a change in shopping habits alone will not remedy the situation. One key reason that China now enjoys such a trade advantage is the manipulation of the value of their currency. Estimated to be undervalued by approximately 40%, it’s impossible for American manufacturers to compete. Couple their artificial currency valuation with trade agreements that essentially allow them to pilfer the intellectual property of competitors, and the picture really starts to form. Add to this, their total disregard for the environment and regulations to protect it, and it becomes crystal clear that the deck is stacked. China enjoyed a $28.7 billion trade surplus in July — the U.S. accounted for $26 billion of that. These issues must be addressed by the federal government.

If Americans are ever again to enjoy anything resembling full employment and decent wages, The People must push the government to do the right thing. Businesses will do what serves business, and as in the case of Wal-Mart, what’s good for business isn’t always good for the American people. Fortunately, government is charged with serving the needs of The People — we just need to join together and remind them of that.

President Obama spoke to the people of America on Saturday. With the campaign season for the fall election heating up, his message was focused on the insidious effects of the Supreme Court’s decision on the Citizens United case. The President cited the recent “flood of attack ads, run by shadowy groups with harmless sounding names.” He contended that the people deserve to know who’s behind these campaign ads, and argued that the Disclose Act, which is being blocked by Senate Republicans, is an effective device to accomplish that end.

Legislation that’s directed at greater disclosure by donors, the Disclose Act would require, “special interest group officials to physically appear at the end of campaign ads they sponsor, acknowledging their campaign contributions.” It would also prevent foreign run entities from interfering in our election process, undoing another detrimental side effect of Citizens United. The bill was already passed by the House, with 2 Republicans voting in favor, along with all but 30 Democrats. But the legislation has been stalled since it reached the Senate.

Falling into the prevalent pattern of Senate dysfunction, the Disclose Act is just another bill to find itself the victim of Republican obstruction. Needing one more vote to gain cloture and avoid filibuster, Americans will not gain knowledge of the people behind the campaign ads unless Democrats can get at least one Republican to break ranks and put The People above the Party.

Asked for comment on the legislation, Mitch “Tax cuts pay for themselves” McConnell offered more nonsensical blather. According to McConnell, “The president says this bill is about transparency. It’s transparent all right. It’s a transparent effort to rig the fall elections.” So, in the Senate Minority Leader’s own words, informing voters of who’s paying for campaign attack ads somehow amounts to rigging the election.

I’m sure that Senator McConnell had no intent of supporting the President’s position, but based on his own comments, it’s hard to refute what President Obama had to say regarding Republican opposition to the bill, “This can only mean that the leaders of the other party want to keep the public in the dark.” The President added that, “They don’t want you to know which interests are paying for the ads. The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.”

The November election will be laced with illegitimate attack ads of all sorts, and those ads will come from both sides. This has long been the case, and now the problem has been magnified by the Citizens United decision. The Disclose Act is essential legislation that can’t prevent the ads, but can at least inform the voters who’s behind them. It’s like truth in advertising 101, and the Republicans want no part of it. That fact alone should call their position into question.

Concerned voters need to speak out and make sure their representatives understand that We the People want to know. Voters want transparency. Big-Money has already hijacked the American government, and the Supreme Court, through Citizens United, has given them yet another avenue to exert their will. Corporations are not people, and in the long term, our nation needs reform to undo the damage of this decision. Such reform is already underway in the form of a constitutional amendment carrying 74 cosponsors in the House. People can also voice their support at Free Speech for People.

Like campaign finance reform, the Disclose Act should have nothing to do with partisan differences. The fact that it is being debated along party lines should be sufficient cause to make people stand up and take notice. Citizens United was anti-democracy at its very worst. To fight against its reform is un-American.

There are 537 elected officials representing all Americans in our federal government. So, disregarding the inequalities that result from congressional district sizing and the 2-per-state allocation of Senate seats, this means that each elected official represents, on average, around 575,000 Americans. This number alone should raise an eyebrow or two, in that it begs the question of adequate representation, but while the ratio does further dilute the voice of the average person, its impact pales when compared to the effects of a government sold to the highest bidder.

Washington, long ago, lost any semblance of legitimate representation of The People. Being one voice in a half-million may seem weak, but the reality is that the average person’s voice is far smaller than that. Both the Presidency and the Congress of 21^st Century America have been purchased, and unless you have tens of thousands of dollars to contribute to election campaigns, you really have no voice at all.

Elections are costly. Contributions for the 2008 federal campaign totaled $5.3 billion. The average winner of a House seat spent $1.4 million while the average Senate seat went for $8.5 million. Sure, there are many small donors; in fact, about half of the 2008 money came from donations of under $200. Unfortunately, that means the other half came from larger donations, with $1.9 billion coming from donations over $2,300, and $974 million in large donations — over $10,000.

It’s these large donations that do more than merely help support a candidate; they are the currency of government. The average Joe, who donates $10 or $25 to their favorite candidate, expects nothing specific in return, but such is not the case for the Goldman Sachs of the world. As expected, in the shadow of the housing/banking crash, the 2008 election was largely financed by big banks, insurance companies and real estate. The largest contributor to the 2008 election, this sector donated $477 million. And companies like Goldman, who topped bank spenders at more then $7 million, and JPMorgan and Citigroup, who each coughed up over $5 million, don’t spend money unless it improves profits.

The fact that no financial reform legislation was passed, for more than two years after Bear Stearns crashed and started the collapse of the economy, is prima facie evidence of the power of campaign capital. It’s no coincidence that the top donor for Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), the chair of the Senate’s committee for banking and housing, is the securities and banking sector — the very people he’s charged to oversee. The nearly $5 million investment the sector made in contributions, over the 2008 and 2010 cycles, to Dodd and the ranking committee Republican, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), not only helped stall legislation for years, but it paid for the diluted excuse for “reform” that was finally passed.

This is but one example of business-as-usual in Washington.  Healthcare legislation wrangled its way through Congress for most of 2009, while the Health industry was busy greasing the skids with $84 million in campaign donations. Their investment was not in vain. It actually produced excellent returns, netting 32 million new government sponsored patients and nothing in the way of real reform. Energy, Communication/Electronics, Trial Lawyers, they’re all present, and they’re all spending millions to make sure that any legislation that’s passed is favorable to their business profits. With government so clearly under the control of big-business, is it any wonder why the 61.7% voter turnout for the 2008 election was the high-water mark since 1968?

American voters feel increasingly frustrated with Washington politics, and there’s good reason for it. Regardless of which party people support, it’s becoming more evident with every passing year that the will of The People is being ignored, their voices unheard beneath the din of the corporate campaign hijacking.

Angry conservatives are already gathering under banners proclaiming, “Take our country back!” But the loss of voice in Washington politics isn’t a partisan issue. Campaign funding for the 2010 election, and the control that goes with it, is nearly split down the middle between Democrats and Republicans. There may be legitimate political differences being liberal and conservative voters, but neither is served when special interests have bought and paid for the federal government.

If indeed the country is ever to be taken back, Americans from left and right must join forces on this critical issue. Together, they can put an end to big-money control of Congress. It’s time voters stop falling for the blatant misdirection of party talking points and start demanding results. The American people can take back control of the nation, and the surest path to that end is through real campaign finance reform.

The sad truth is that while votes are the mechanism by which politicians are elected, it’s money that makes campaigns — and campaigns are the means through which votes are secured. Today’s system ensures that elected officials are beholding to the big-money donors who finance their election. The People are but pawns in this game of quid pro quo, and they will remain so until and unless they unite and change the system that allows this corruption to exist.

Like students left with the huge loan balances, the present system ensures that our elected officials are left with huge favor balances on their books. To think that politicians will bite the hand that feeds them and vote against the interests of their big-money benefactors is delusional at best. To take back the country, The People must take back the Congress, and to take back the Congress, the politicians must once again be beholding, not to influence peddling special interests, but to the people who elect them. One person, one vote must again reflect the control of the nation.

There’s only one way to make this happen, and that’s through public financing of elections. It’s already working in several states in the form of Clean Elections. And there’s a bipartisan bill in the House and also the Senate to bring similar reform to Washington. Public financing will require that candidates secure significant funding in small donations from their constituents before qualifying for public money. But once established as a viable candidate, public funding would be allocated in amounts sufficient to finance a competitive campaign.

The power of such a system is obvious. For a relatively small investment, American voters could actually ensure that elected officials would owe their loyalty to no one but the people who elected them. It would in essence break the favor bank.

But the benefits of public campaign financing don’t end with properly placed loyalties. The investment would also pay dividends in productivity, as it would mitigate the demand for fund raising by incumbents. In the present system, officials start focusing on the next election cycle as soon as they’re elected. Estimates place fund raising efforts for members of Congress at 20% to 40% of their time. With so much misuse of time, is it any wonder they get so little done? It’s like a business that pays its employees to look for another job two days out of every week.

Public campaign finance is not a silver bullet; it won’t by itself bring the federal government back under the control of The People, but without it — there is no hope of that happening. The removal of special interest influence on election campaigns is a critical first step for Americans to take back the country. Couple public financing with preferential voting, which would allow a significant increase in votes for third party candidates, add congressional term limits and weld shut the revolving lobbyist door, and America may once again return to a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

Survey results show the number of Americans who believe the President is a Muslim climbing by 7 percentage points, from 11% in March 2009 to a whopping 18%. That’s nearly 1-in-5 Americans. This increase was matched by an even larger decrease in those who believe him to be a Christian, which dropped from 48% to only 34%. Of note is the fact that the survey was completed in early August, before the President’s remarks on the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque,” so numbers are likely to tilt still further. 

Of course, it probably doesn’t require being stated, but the survey also showed that the change in opinion was much greater amongst his opponents. More than a third (34%) of the conservative Republicans polled now believe him to be a Muslim, up from only 18% in the prior poll. 

A separate poll, conducted earlier this week by Time magazine, shows the numbers have tilted still further since the President weighed in on the Cordoba House issue. The Time poll resulted in 24% of those interviewed stating that he was a Muslim, but did show fewer undecided, with 47% believing Obama to be a Christian. 

So, let’s see: does President Obama turn, face Mecca and kneel and pray 5 times each day? Does he attend a mosque? How about a church? Does he profess to be a Muslim? Has he ever? 

If President Obama is a Muslim, he has got to be the worst Muslim on the planet. Muslim’s believe that the Salah, their prayer, is obligatory. It’s to be done 5 times every day, on a strict schedule that divides the day into parts. It’s central to the faith and one of the Five Pillars. To neglect performing even a single prayer is a great sin — to disregard the entire practice would be certain damnation. 

True faith is found in a person’s heart, and the only way we have to know a person’s faith is by what they profess and the way they act. The Bible tells us that, “Each tree is recognized by its fruit.” Christ’s most famous sermon states that good people bring good things and bad people bad things, both from what is stored in their hearts. This is how we are to know a person’s true faith, because “Out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.” 

Whether you’re Christian, Muslim, or Jew, whether you believe in deity or not, this simple rule rings true. President Obama’s faith is evident in his words and actions. This is how we are to know him. It matters not the faith of his father, even though he was a “confirmed atheist.” And the fact that he attended elementary school in Jakarta, at the age of 8, is immaterial, whether or not the school was a madrassa, which it wasn’t. The President professes to be a Christian, and his actions are in concert with that declaration, therefore anyone without ulterior motives must accept it as so. 

If you believe in the Bible, or simply practice common sense, then it should be obvious that President Obama is not the person whose faith should be questioned. No, that distinction should be reserved for those who profess faith but spread lies, for those who would sacrifice the many for the sake of the few — for those who would discredit a good man for their own selfish gain. 

As a footnote, when I visited the Sultan Ahmed Mosque (the Blue Mosque) in the 1970s, I took off my shoes as well. Does that mean that I’m now a Muslim?