The list [of Obama's legislative accomplishments], in fact, is staggering: major, not to say sweeping, new laws on health care, banking and finance, food safety, child nutrition, credit cards, pay equity, home mortgages, student loans, tobacco use and sale, home mortgages — not to mention $1.7 trillion in tax cuts and spending in the name of economic “stimulus.”

Taken together — and at least in theory — these measures amount to the most aggressive expansion of federal regulatory authority in a generation. It is no wonder the Chamber of Commerce spent $100 million and turned itself into a Rovian attack machine.

Even so, the party’s progressives aren’t particularly impressed by much of the new legislation. The Krugmanites — columnist Paul Krugman deserves to be their namesake — argue, and often with good cause, that the new laws are timid compromises with the powerful industries they are supposed to reform.

Does anyone think that big banks — having been saved by bailouts — have now become earnest stewards of the public good? How about insurance companies? Health-care conglomerates? Mortgage lenders?

Howard Fineman, Huffington Post

Obama is a corporatis­t, plain and simple. He is selling the middle and working classes down the river, and all under the guise of upholding Democratic ideals — what a farce! After caving on healthcare and gifting the medical insurers and Big Pharma with 32 million new, government subsidized patients, he moved to financial “reform” and strived to keep the banks alive and thriving, with their casino still wide open for business.

Then the President ends the first half of his term with a “compromis­e” that includes no “compromis­e.” It’s the lesson he learned from the teaser rates of the illegitima­te mortgage originator­s. You hook people by making them offers they can’t refuse — it’ll completely obscure their perception that all you’ve done is inflate the bubble a bit more. “Compromis­e” is when somebody gives — not when both sides get what they want.

The Obama tax deal is an abominatio­n, and any politician who voted for it is either corporatis­t or a crack dealer. This deal is nothing but a hit in the arm, a fix, and the high will end shortly and leave the nation much worse than it was. But it doesn’t really matter — not to the corporatis­ts. This entire fiasco is just another chapter in the Great American Ponzi Scheme — the one where the rich take their loot before the pyramid collapses, before the next calamity.

The sad truth is that America is suffering from over-concentration of wealth, and the Obama “deal” will only feed that fire. American productivi­ty climbed steadily for decades, but the gains have all been accumulate­d at the very top. The peak income for the bottom 90% of Americans occurred in 1973, when they averaged $33,000 in inflation adjusted dollars. Since then, the per-hour output of the average worker has increased by 50%. If that increase was shared proportion­ately by everyone from the workers to the CEOs, the average worker would be making 35% more now — the average household income would be increased by $20,000.

But that’s not the way it’s worked out. The deal has been broken. The top income people have taken a disproport­ionate share, like CEOs who now make 500 times what the average employee takes in — where it was only 25 times more in the 70s. Add to that the incessant shipping of jobs overseas to increase profits, often to the tax advantage of the traitorous company, and all the while, the government withholds tariffs under free trade. Who gets hurt? The American worker.

Of course, the multinatio­nals still enjoy the American consumer market and all the protection­s of American society. They even enjoy privatized earnings and socialized losses, Add to that the increasing­ly regressive tax structures that have helped to concentrat­e more financial wealth in the top 1% than the bottom 95%, and top it off with a burgeoning debt that could topple the dollar from being the reserve currency, and you’ve got a giant pyramid scheme that’ll likely be coming down soon.

President Obama has done NOTHING to help this situation, and by signing his tax deal into law, has actually forced the further descent of the American middle class. The bottom line is either raise taxes or drasticall­y cut services — what direction did the Obama “deal” take us? Obama and the Republicans will be coming for the spending cuts very soon, because now that we’ve given another tax cut to the only segment of the population capable of paying, there is no alternative. So tuck your Social Security away and batten the hatches — this is going to get ugly.

Article first published as Tax “Deal or No Deal” Ordeal on Technorati.

The details of President Obama’s tax “deal” were announced on Monday, and five days later Democrats are still strengthening their opposition. Viewed by many as a blackmail payment to Republicans who have held hostage any legislation to help hurting Americans until tax cuts for the top 2% were extended, Democrats from coast to coast are angry and active.

Opposition in the House is being led by Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) who, with Rep Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) help, has managed to coalesce the Democratic Caucus and intends to block the President’s proposal from reaching the floor. Meanwhile, the torch in the Senate is presently being carried by Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who stood up today and independently filibustered against the bill for more than 8 hours. 

Analysis of the bill reveals that not only will huge income tax benefits be extended to the top 2%, but an even more expensive estate tax gift will be given to the top one-tenth of 1%. In exchange, unemployment benefits that have historically always been granted when unemployment is above 7.2% will be extended, the bottom 98% of Americans will get the tax cuts the Republicans have held hostage, certain income tax credits will be extended, and there will be a one-year 2% rate reduction for Social Security withholding.

Overall, Obama’s back-room deal is sweet indeed for the wealthy and sweeter still the more wealthy one is. It does also give tax relief for the middle class, but according to Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) it will actually increase taxes on individuals making less than $20,000 or household making less than $40,000.

But in spite of the dire state of the economy, the immensity of the deficit and the plight of the middle class, Democratic opposition is not unanimous. Such Democratic stalwarts as Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania have come out supporting approval of the proposal. And today, former President, Bill Clinton signed on to the list. To the person, these respected Democratic leaders assert that this is the best deal the democrats can get.

Sadly, it seems that President Obama, Governor Rendell, President Clinton and other Democrats who share their position are all completely missing the point. The situation we have in America right now is the result of decades of precisely the type of thinking these leaders espouse. It’s essentially business as usual deal making, and it gets us exactly NOWHERE. It’s the type of thinking that continues to build the bow wave that will soon wash across America again and take with it all but the wealthy who can weather the storm.

The fact of the matter is that the wellbeing of the majority of Americans has become so marginalized in the past 35 years that a huge portion of the populace now feels completely disenfranchised. The problem is so significant that less than 60% of registered voters typically bother to show up at the polls. But rather than address the core problem of voter participation, the process that President Obama and others in his best-we-can-get camp are pushing is focused on trying to sway the 19% of independents who form the center of this bare majority.

Enter the pendulum: this is the electoral system that created our present problem; the independents vote first one way and then the other — kick out the bums, become unsatisfied with the results, bring back the other bums — it’s a perpetual misery machine that pulses but never changes. It’s a closed system, and as stated by Einstein, it is therefore incapable of effecting real change.

If real change is what we want, then we must look outside of this closed system. We can no longer tolerate practices that serve only to maintain equilibrium, yet this is exactly what concentration on the 19% independent vote does. What’s needed is the introduction of new factors, the most significant of which should be an expanded electorate — a focus on tapping into that HUGE 40% or more of registered voters who stay home.

The Tea Party is evidence of the power of this phenomenon, albeit in a counterproductive direction. Allowed to continue, their discontent and belief that government is the enemy will form a vicious spiral that will only gain momentum. The President’s tax deal does nothing to alter this path. It is sadly a reinforcing mechanism that will help to sustain the descent.

What’s remarkable is that President Obama’s campaign of 2008 was the antithesis of the Tea Party movement. It too proved the power of expanding the electorate (62% turnout) and could have formed the roots of a peaceful revolution — a virtuous spiral. But alas it was not reinforced and was instead allowed to wither on the vine. Once elected, the President surrounded himself with status quo insiders and instead of being a force for real change became just another instrument of the establishment. He dedicated himself to doing what he had learned in Chicago politics — make deals. And in so doing, he failed in the most critical aspect of leading change; he failed to keep his supporters excited.

The President’s tax deal is a perpetuation of the system that’s responsible for the mess we’re in today. It offers temporary relief for structural problems and serves to exacerbate the issue of massive concentration of wealth — the very dynamic that brought us to economic collapse and a jobless recovery. The President’s deal does nothing to actually change the system, while potentially opening the door to further chipping away of our social safety net. It is at best a short term bandage that splits the proceeds evenly between the two sides, but where one side consists of 98% of all Americans and the other side is a minuscule elite minority.

Those on the left who advocate this deal are supporting the continued demise of the American middle class. Giving them the benefit of the doubt with regard to motive, they’re doing this because they believe that this is the best deal we can get. That belief is bred in the acceptance of 55% voter turnout and born of the notion that change must be sought by swinging that 19% independent vote. This is simple and utter defeatist nonsense.

The last thing we need moving forward are any more “deals.” What America needs is to excite the sleeping masses. Those who want to maintain the status quo fight diligently to break voter’s spirits and have them believe they can’t make any difference. Those who desire a better America need to break the trend. They need to motivate and inform the disenfranchised mass of voters who no longer participate. They need to give people a reason to get involved — and that will never result from making more back-room deals — it will only happen when the forces for change stand and differentiate themselves from the powers of resistance. 

Article first published as Indictment of the American People on Technorati.

The 2010 midterm election is more an indictment on the American people than the politicians of either party.

The Democrats spent the last 22 months trying to save our nation from the ravages of Republican rule. They made mistakes along the way, but everything they did was a move toward helping and protecting average Americans. Meanwhile, instead of helping to create jobs and restore the economy, the Republicans did everything possible to force extended suffering for their political advantage — tragically, the American people have rewarded them for their treachery.

Way to go America!

For the record, President Obama and the 111^th Congress inherited the worst American economic collapse since the Great Depression. The average American household had lost a quarter of their wealth, $13 trillion in all. The Dow would close at a low of 6,547, with stocks overall dropping from a high of $22 trillion to $9 trillion. Job loss was at 3 million for 2008, and the economy was still shedding more at a rate of over 600,000 per month.

The first action the new Congress took was to stop the hemorrhaging with the federal Stimulus. Split between $228 billion in tax cuts for 95% of Americans, $224 billion in funding to help the unemployed and prop up Medicaid, and $275 billion for direct investment in job creating infrastructure, energy and technology projects, the legislation passed the House without a single Republican vote.

The very same Republicans who had voted in favor of spending $700 billion to bailout Wall Street bankers just three months prior, suddenly became budget conscious and adopted intransigent positions against spending to help average Americans. Republican leaders, including John Boehner and Eric Cantor, rallied to the aid of Wall Street but dug in their heels and fought against helping Main Street.

In retrospect, it’s obvious that the writing was already on the wall the moment that President Obama took office. The initial action of a Republican minority to oppose the Stimulus grew into unrelenting opposition to any form of legislation that would help the American people, impede the unfettered profiteering of Wall Street, or slow the offshoring of jobs.

While the Democrats continued striving to keep the average American’s nose above water, the Republicans did everything they could to make sure they kept choking.

Democrats attempted to address the issue of more than 45 million Americans without healthcare insurance. And instead of working to ensure that any legislation was effective, instead of embracing reform to deal with skyrocketing costs, the Republicans blocked all attempts without compromise. They fought to maintain the profits of healthcare insurers and Big Pharma and instead of helping to govern, seized the opportunity for political advantage with fear-mongering sound bites about the “government takeover” of medical services, death panels and the coming of Armageddon. All incidentally complete lies!

The Democrats later attempted to pass Wall Street reform to prevent a future round of too-big-to-fail collapse and bailout. The Republican response was to meet with the Wall Street bankers and plan their strategic opposition. The bill passed the House, again without a single Republican vote, but it was in diluted form in order to gain any minority support in the Senate.

For 22 months, the Republicans fought every action taken to create jobs. They opposed legislation to address the rising costs of education. They attempted to block Democratic efforts to close tax loopholes and stop the bleeding of jobs overseas. They fought against repairing our infrastructure, against small business aid, against unemployment insurance, against saving the jobs of teachers, nurses and firefighters. They argued against the President’s attempts to hold BP responsible for destroying the ecosystem of the Gulf and blocked efforts to increase their liability limits. They battled against climate legislation, clashed on the issue of gays in the military, and resisted all attempts to require disclosure of campaign funding sources They even opposed legislation to lend aid to 9/11 first responders and stood against extending the Bush tax cuts unless the extension included the richest 2%.

The bottom line is that the Republicans did everything they could, from gross distortion to outright lying, from uncompromising rhetoric to unprecedented filibuster to stop any form of legislation that might improve the lot of average Americans. Their aim was to make things as bad as they possibly could for the American people in order to leverage their misery for political gain — and they were rewarded for it.

Manipulated to feed the source of their exploitation, the American electorate deserves an indictment for societal insanity. But there’s no sense in convening a jury, because all evidence points to the conclusion that the defendant is already brain dead. This is a sad day for America.

Article first published as A.D.D. America on Technorati.

How short is the memory of the American People? How ephemeral is their focus and attention?

Do you remember where you were when Kennedy was shot? How about when the Iran hostage crisis occurred? The opening of the Berlin Wall? If you’re of voting age, there’s no doubt you remember the events of September 11, 2001.

It’s equally certain that you remember the bank collapse of 2008 and the Great Recession that followed. Americans seem to have vault-safe memory of those events that are etched into our collective consciousness, but somehow when it comes to remembering the facts leading up to those events, that steel vault is all too often turned into a plastic sieve.

The 2010 midterm election will happen tomorrow, and virtually all polls indicate that the American people will return control of at least one chamber of the Congress to the Republican Party. Much of this is anti-incumbent hostility stemming from a bad economy, but that’s certainly not the whole story. The most recent Gallup poll on the question of whether voters believe the country would be better off with Democratic or Republican control of the Congress shows a clear plurality, 45% compared to 23%, backing the Republicans.

Those people who dig beneath the hyperbole and spin, those who actually check facts are likely to shake their heads in bewildered disbelief at the writing now on the wall. They may still be in denial, as so many in Washington still appear to be, or they may have resigned themselves to the expected outcome of the election. But regardless of their reaction, knowledgeable voters must all be stupefied at the amazing capacity of the American people to be manipulated and used by those willing to play on their fears and ignorance.

President Obama is fond of using the “drove the economy into a ditch” metaphor to describe the Republican-created mess that he inherited. He asserts that they “can’t have the keys back, because [they] don’t know how to drive.” The Republicans naturally respond that the President needs to stand on his record and stop trying to blame his predecessor.

Well, there is a problem with President Obama’s metaphor, and there’s also a practical sensibility to the Republican response. The President is patently wrong about the Republicans driving us into a ditch — it was a freaking canyon — it was the economic Mariana Trench. And it makes perfect sense that those responsible for the collapse, the feed-the-rich Republicans would be vehemently opposed to assigning any blame where it was due.

The truth of the matter is that the American public has been ripped off by the nation’s corporate elite and had their return to prosperity held hostage by the corporate lackeys commonly known as the Republican Party. And now, in order to punish the innocent and avoid holding accountable the thieves who helped pillage the wealth of the American middle-class, the electorate is going to put the greed-drunk drivers back behind the wheel.

Hurray for the American way!

If only the American people would recall the events that brought us to this point. If only they remembered that George Bush inherited a $236 billion budget surplus that he turned into the $1.2 trillion deficit he passed to President Obama. If only the sting of the 3 million jobs that were lost in President Bush’s last year in office was still clear in their minds, or if they were still mindful that the economy was hemorrhaging nearly 600 thousand jobs per month when Obama took office.

Would we be in the same situation for election 2010 if American voters would call to mind the fact that 65% of the Bush tax cuts went to the top quintile and 50% if his 2001 cuts went to the top 1%. What if they remembered that the price tag for the cuts to the top 1% in 2008 alone was $79.5 billion? How about if the average American even understood that 37% of the much maligned Stimulus, $288 billion, was in the form of tax cuts that went to 94% of the working families in America?

Would it make any difference if the people were aware that, as bleak as things have been, more private sector jobs have been created in 2010 than under the entire 8-year term of George Bush? How about if they grasped the fact that the Republican policies that wrote the economic book for the past decade and tested the effectiveness of growing the economy and creating jobs by cutting taxes, has been proven to be an abysmal failure? If they knew that the first decade of this century produced ZERO net job growth, while no other decade going back to the 1940s produced less than 20%

Americans should be casting their votes with full awareness that Bush and his Republican colleagues had the worst job creation record since 1945, established the policies that gave America its first decline of median household income since 1967, while simultaneously giving the top 1% it’s highest share of after-tax income since 1979, and concentrating more wealth in the top 1% than in the bottom 90% combined.

But the truth of the matter is that, while Republican policies have nearly destroyed America for all but the very rich, a manipulated electorate has allowed itself to fall prey to the incessant Republican barrage of distorted facts and fear mongering. The American people are suffering from severe Attention Deficit Disorder and have sadly forgotten who was driving when our economy went off the cliff.

President Obama has certainly made some mistakes since he took office. In retrospect, the biggest amongst them was probably to underestimate the gullibility of the American people — perhaps he should have played the Republican game of politics over people — he could have omitted the Stimulus and allowed the Great Recession to take its full toll.

But that’s not what real leaders do. No, they set about the hard work of recovery, and when you’re in an 8 million job hole, that takes some time. It’s too bad the American people can’t stay focused long enough to ensure it happens.

The midterm election is now about a week away, and being a political junkie, I’ve of course got my ducks in a row. While you may still want to take this with a grain of salt, I have read all of the 9 propositions on the California ballot and carefully considered the arguments both for and against each. I’ve also had many people ask me how I was going to vote on specific issues, so this then is my first installment on an answer.

Proposition 19: The legalization of marijuana under California law.

This is a big 10-4. Marijuana should never have been illegal in the first place. It’s sad to see that Senator Feinstein is behind the Argument Against Prop-19. She and Laura Dean-Mooney of MADD are in opposition for the same unsupportable reason. They claim that the legislation will lead to bus drivers and the like being stoned on the job. They even assert that jobs could be lost and schools could lose federal money, all because employers will not be able stop employees from being high at work.

Of course, this is all complete nonsense. There is really no change in the present situation, except that employers would no longer be able to terminate employment based solely on the fact that an employee had tested positive for marijuana, which can remain in a person’s system for as much as 30 days. The new legislation expresses the strict prohibition on impairment while driving or partaking of other potentially dangerous activities and also stipulates that employers have the right to address impairment of job performance.

Those opposing the reform on the grounds stated are simply attempting to create a legitimate sounding argument to support their underlying position against legalization.

For those not hampered by emotional belief systems on the matter, the facts are clear. Marijuana is a drug that’s far less dangerous than alcohol and should be regulated and controlled instead of criminalized. This proposition will put an end to the massive number of Californians arrested for marijuana each year — 61,000 in 2008, and it will free law enforcement officers to focus where they’re really needed — working on violent crimes.

Legalization will reduce law enforcement costs and help address prison overcrowding. It will remove the black market and strike a blow on the cartels while also removing the profit motive on American streets. Legalization will, in short, cut crime. This is the primary reason that police organizations throughout the state support Prop-19.

And as if this were not enough, the legalization of marijuana will establish a new revenue source for our cash-strapped state. The Board of Equalization estimates that tax revenues will start out at around $1.4 billion, and that’s on top of the cost savings.

Incidentally, the other popularly surfaced argument against legalization is the “Gateway Theory.” While not specifically mentioned by those opposing Prop-19, it should be understood that study after study has refuted any statistically significant linkage between marijuana use and the abuse of more dangerous drugs. In fact, there’s a much stronger correlation to alcohol use, and even where direct correlation was evidenced, the studies found other more significant links.

Proposition 20: Redistricting of congressional districts.

The question here is really a case of not only who do you trust to configure California’s congressional districts, but whether or not you feel that you should have some recourse if you disagree with the districts they define.

Under current law, there is a 14-member redistricting commission that will define districts for the state legislature, but their authority does not extend to congressional districts, which are presently under the purview of the state legislature. Prop-20 will expand the authority of the Citizens Redistricting Commission to include congressional redistricting.

Those in favor of the proposition assert that the legislature can’t be trusted to serve anyone’s interest but their own and therefore an independent authority is needed. Those opposed claim that the redistricting commission is a waste of taxpayer money — that it creates a new bureaucracy, and that most importantly — taxpayers will have no recourse to hold the commission responsible for its actions.

It is interesting to know that the entire Yes on Prop-20 campaign has been funded by Charles Munger, Jr., son of Wall Street billionaire Charles Munger.

In the end, although proponents are undoubtedly right that the politicians will carve out the districts in their best interest, and that such action typically results in more incumbents being reelected, there’s really nothing to prove that an independent commission will net any better results. Incumbents win because they typically get more campaign financing and the electorate votes for them.

There are far more effective measures that can be put in place to address the incumbent issue than a redistricting bureaucracy that answers to nobody. If we’re serious about effective change and holding politicians accountable, we should instead move for public campaign finance, preferential voting and term limits. And in the meantime, if you don’t like what the legislature does with redistricting, you can vote them out. A NO vote seems in order for Prop-20.

Proposition 21: The $18 annual vehicle fee to help fund state parks.

This initiative is simple. It adds an $18 fee to the vehicle registration for all non-commercial vehicles, except trailers and trailer coaches, and the proceeds are earmarked to go to state parks and wildlife programs. In return, all subject vehicles are allowed access to state parks without further charges.

Proponents of the proposition argue that state parks are in peril from poor maintenance and many are in danger of closing. Opponents claim that the initiative is a “cynical budget shell game that could still leave our parks dilapidated.”

Of course, even in their argument, the opposition admits that the parks need the funding. Their game is to color the initiative in the worst possible light, labeling it the “Car Tax.” These people are none other than the same folk who oppose any taxation, regardless of the intent. And their claim that the parks could remain dilapidated completely ignores the fact that 85% of the proceeds are dedicated to the operation and maintenance of our state parks.

Those who don’t understand or appreciate the process through which a society of free people fund the services that are important to them will never support taxes or fees of any sort. These people don’t seem to understand that the state economy has suffered and that parks are already closing and are in serious need of maintenance as a result.

The real question here is whether or not you believe that the preservation of the California state parks is worth $18 per year. And if you ever visit them, the real cost is closer to zero. Sometimes people just need to stand up and say, “Yes, I’m willing to pay for that.” Oddly, it’s usually those who can afford it least who are willing to make the sacrifice, and those with deep pockets who complain about every penny they pay.

If you care about the state parks, vote YES. It’s a small amount to pay.

And if you’re interested, stay tuned each day this week for further installments of my 2 cents on the California election.

Article first published as Can Republican Obstructionism be Morally Justified? on Technorati.

In 2008, our nation experienced the most devastating blow to the economy in nearly 80 years. When President Obama took office, the country was hemorrhaging nearly 600,000 jobs per month, and instead of helping address the crisis, the Republicans in the Congress united to obstruct any and all actions taken by Democrats. This complete refusal of an entire party to participate in the process of government is without precedent. Is there really any moral justification for self-serving obstructionism?

The only action taken by the Congress that enjoyed widespread Republican support was the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), which was initiated under President Bush and served mostly to save the Wall Street banks and protect the profits of the very wealthy. But once Obama took the helm, regardless of the fact that unemployment was already at 7.6% and climbing, the Republicans, to the person, decided that their chances for reelection and a return to power were better served by blocking or at least stalling any legislation to promote economic recovery.

The Stimulus was the first major effort of the Congress to help middle and working class Americans. With 3.6 million jobs already lost in the recession, the Democrats were quick to assemble some form of relief. The legislation could certainly have been better formed, but instead of offering thoughtful amendment, instead of participating in the process of government they were elected to serve, the Republicans sat on the sidelines and used the media to launch every form of unsubstantiated ridicule and criticism they could muster. Even to this date, and in spite of the widespread acknowledgment of positive impact by economists, Republicans still attack the stimulus without substance.

But this was just the beginning. On and on the story went, with Republicans in both chambers working against anything that might prove beneficial to the average American. With 47 million people not covered with health insurance, the Republicans fought healthcare reform, and arguably prevented a system that could have reduced costs from being implemented. With the financial system that created the collapse of the economy still intact, Republicans fought against legislation to plug the holes and prevent a similar crash from occurring in the future.

Republicans in Congress fought against job aid to the states. They blocked lifting of the cap on liability for BP’s Gulf oil disaster. They obstructed the closing of loopholes to prevent further offshoring of American jobs; they filibustered small business stimulus; they’ve even set records for the blocking of presidential appointments. There really is no doubt that the Republican agenda, as set by the Party leader when President Obama was elected, Rush Limbaugh, is to do everything in their power to ensure that the President fails — no matter what the cost to average Americans.

Without a filibuster, House Republicans have been unable to obstruct at the level of their party brethren in the Senate. As a result of this discrepancy, the current Congress has passed 420 pieces of legislation through the House of Representatives that are presently stalled in a Senate where the Republican minority filibusters anything and everything, just because it can.

The Senate filibuster, which was insightfully omitted from the Constitution by the Founding Fathers for exactly the reasons of obstruction we now see being played out, has only existed in its present form since 1917.  But after decades of sparing use, the last two Republican minorities have made the filibuster much more prevalent in the Senate than the vote. The last Republican minority set the all-time record for filibusters at 139, but the present crop wasted no time in trying to keep up. Those 420 blocked bills are the result of 118 filibusters through the middle of September.

Over the course of going on two years of a Democratic Presidency and Congress, the Republicans have found nothing that they could support as a party. They have been the categorical “Party of No,” and have not joined the majority in passing a single piece of major legislation to address the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression. Things are so bad that the Republican minority even recently blocked defense spending.

The only thing that Republicans have joined together to support since Bush’s TARP is the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. But of course, even this support only materialized in opposition to the Democratic position to extend the cuts for only the middle class.

Republican voters need to ask themselves whether or not they really want to support a party that will fight to protect the rich, that will even promote the falsehood that tax cuts for the rich benefit anyone but the rich. They need to ask themselves if they really want to support a party that will deliberately obstruct the very process of government they are sworn to protect. And most importantly, they need to ask themselves if they can support the utterly immoral tactic taken by Republicans to sit idly by and allow Americans to suffer so that they could improve their chances of regaining political power.

Article first published as The Republicans Rail and The Democrats Tuck Tail on Technorati.

The Republicans are winning again. Motivated by hate, fear and ignorance, Americans are flocking to bring back into power the party of plight for all but the wealthy.

Yesterday, the Republicans revealed their new “Pledge,” with John Boehner stating that “We’re not going to be any different than we’ve been.” They’re actually promising a return to the policies that created the Great Recession and people are still applauding instead of throwing rotten fruit at them.

Thinking people need to be concerned. The political landscape in America is no longer about principles and policies; it’s about the creation and recycling of talking points that trigger emotional responses. The Republicans have truly mastered the “art” of political theatre. Their satirical mockery of democratic government would be funny if it weren’t such a tragedy, if it didn’t hurt so many for the benefit of so few.

Americans should be mad as hell about our broken government. But getting mad at Republicans for distortion, hyperbole and lies is like getting mad at a bird for crapping on your windshield; it’s just what they do. You might as well shake your fist at the wind.

But the Democrats are another story. While the Republicans were sharing their “Pledge to [Rape] America,” yesterday, Senate Majority Leader, Harry, the Cowering Wimp, Reid was announcing that there would be no vote on extending the Bush tax cuts to the middle class until after the election. Yep, the Democrats are once again rallying behind their track-proven strategy of tuck-and-cover. Once again, they’re rolling up in the fetal position and hoping for the best.

Bravo!

For those Democrats who believe President Obama hasn’t gone far enough, a brief pause to consider the team he’s had in the Senate might be in order. If Michael Jordan were to take the court with four high-schoolers, they’re not going to threaten even the worst NBA five. The fact that Obama was able to get anything through a Senate that was effectively controlled by the minority is actually quite remarkable.

Like the old adage says, “you can lead a horse to water . . .” The President came out swinging in Cleveland. He gave the Democrats the line in the sand they needed to define themselves. He took on the Republicans for their continual pretence of support for small business, their feigned concern about jobs, and their hypocrisy regarding the deficit. But while the Republicans were out power posturing yesterday, the Democrats were showing what cowards they truly are; they decided to turn and hide.

Democratic voters should be incensed, and their rage should be squarely directed at all the gutless Democrats who continue to allow the Republican bullies to rule the congressional schoolyard. In statements yesterday, they voiced their concerns that the Republicans would spin Democratic support of tax cuts for the middle class in a negative light — as if not voting on them will prevent the attacks.

The conclusion is inescapable: the Democrats never learned that the way you beat bullies is to stand up to them. Republicans aren’t going to win the election in November because they had the better policies — because they have none. They’re not even going to win because they have the better talking points. They’re going to win because no matter how egregious their distortions of the truth, no matter how hate-filled their rant, no matter how fictional their arguments — they’re the only ones talking.

Democratic policies support 98% of the population. They uphold the right ideals and have all of the facts, both theoretic and historical on their side, yet they’re losing. Perhaps someday they’ll come to understand that when people are fed a daily diet of fact-free propaganda, unless the opposition is refuting the claims with the same strength of conviction, the people are going to swallow.

Until that day, the Republicans will continue to keep their followers seeing red, and Democratic voters will be left feeling blue.

To argue that the dysfunction of the federal government is purely a Republican issue would be naïve. Long unable to move forward on Democratic legislation, the new Congressional majority of 2009 was quick to let loose and take advantage of a Democratic executive branch.

The ARRA was the first significant legislation to wear the stamp of a Congress controlled by Democrats. Although it has been successful, in spite of Republican spin, one has to wonder how effective it might have been if more keenly honed to address directly the specific issue of job creation. It’s true that it included $288 billion in tax relief that cut the tax bills of 95% of Americans, and that it also sent $224 billion to aid the states and pin up Medicaid and unemployment insurance. But the $275 billion that went to direct investment was not, like the other portions, intended to sustain current spending and break the fall. It was allocated for the express purpose of creating jobs.

It is within this direct investment component of the stimulus that the Democrats established their most resounding successes, but unfortunately it also exhibits their most disappointing failures. There’s little room for legitimate complaint about the $90 billion allocated for clean energy or the $20 billion that will fund the digitizing of medical records. Both of these programs will pay dividends to American taxpayers far into the future. But the vast sum of grant money distributed into the black hole of government gives cause for concern and lends substance to the Republican argument that Democrats are all about bigger government.

Though the data is not coded to ease such extraction, a brief analysis of the information provided for download at http://www.recovery.gov/ reveals some interesting facts. The data representing all allocations through the end of June includes 347,915 awards of contracts, grants and loans, totaling $237 billion. Interestingly, a query of the data looking for “recipients” with a name that includes “school” or “education” finds 59,916 awards totaling $47 billion. Similarly, a search of “college” or “university” nets 26,047 awards for nearly $17 billion. Looking for funding that went to cities, a query of “city of” returns 16,364 award and another $17 billion; counties apparently received on the order of $12 billion, state departments of transportation around $19 billion, and other state departments and housing authorities close to $20 billion more.

All told, on the order of $131 billion appears to have gone to government organizations. This is not to say that none of this funding found its way into the private sector, or that thousands of private sector jobs were not created. Many of these government agencies, from school districts to transportation departments, maintain a practice of subcontracting to industry vendors. But once the money is fed into the bureaucratic machine, suspicion arises, and rightfully so. Such practice is viewed as more SNAFU (Situation Normal All Fouled Up) because accountability and transparency are severely obscured. The result is that both the motivation and effectiveness of the investments is appropriately called into question.

Fortunately for Republicans, not long after the Stimulus, the Democrats lost their filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. From that point on, steadfast Republican obstruction has reigned supreme over timid Democratic initiative. As stated above, the Republicans, without doubt, deserve their share of the blame in this, but if not for the Democrat’s extreme lack of intestinal fortitude, much more meaningful legislation could have been passed. From healthcare to finance reform, the Democrats have allowed themselves to be bullied, never once requiring the filibustering Republicans to actually stand up and control the floor of the Senate. Instead, each time they compromised and produced diluted legislation of questionable worth.

In the end, the most well defined accomplishment of our near completely dysfunctional Congress is a starkly polarized populace. Americans on both sides of the debate blame the other. The Tea Party blindly carries the banner of smaller government and continues to grow in its numbers, railing against an ineffective government but upholding positions that only promise to make it more so. When will we learn?

Government is not the enemy, but the sorry excuse in Washington sure is. The solutions are before us, but the path we’ve chosen, through two political parties that fight harder for control than for the wellbeing of the nation is leading us to destruction. The American people need to wake up, to refuse to listen to anymore political rhetoric and to start asking more intelligent questions. America doesn’t need smaller government, nor does it need larger — it needs effective government, and it needs it now.

Americans complain about the federal government’s failure to restore the economy, and they largely place the blame on the Democrats because they are in power. But while the Democrats have their share of culpability, the Republicans have earned their title as the “Party of No.”

Ironically, the party whose members claim unwavering dedication to the original spirit of the Constitution has relied upon a parliamentary maneuver that was not part of the Framers plan and used it to obstruct the process of government. The filibuster, which did not exist at all until 1837 and did not require a super-majority to break before 1917, has become a prominent feature of the obstructionist Republican minority.

The filibuster was used sparingly up until 1970. Between 1919 and 1960 there had been only 27 filings of cloture (motion to end a filibuster). But in recent times it has grown in popularity, with the Republican minority of the past two congresses setting all-time records. Prior to the 110^th Congress (2007-08), the Democratic minority had held the record with 68 filings in 2005-06. The last two Republican minorities eclipsed that total by stopping the wheels of government 139 times in 2007-08 and already 118 times in the current Congress.

This is obstructionism, plain and simple. Our democracy is based on political deliberation and debate that culminates in a vote, and the Republicans have strived to stop this process from occurring. They have essentially fought to block anything and everything the Democrats have proposed and offered nothing in the way of alternatives. So egregious is their barricade of democracy that they have no defense against charges of deliberate sabotage at the expense of American citizens.

The Republicans blocked healthcare, and they stood in opposition to Wall Street reform. They opposed job aid to the states, and they fought against extending unemployment benefits. They filibustered small business stimulus and attempted to stop the closing of loopholes to disrupt the offshoring of jobs. The Republicans have even repeatedly resorted to filibustering President Obama’s appointments, adding greatly to their excessive number of holds, which have led to fewer than half of the President’s judicial appointments being confirmed. The inescapable truth is that the party that wants people to believe that government is ineffective has done everything within their power to make it so.

Yet as counterproductive as this “just say no” tactic has been inside the Congress, the distortion and spin so prevalent in the media has been even more destructive. Witness the Stimulus: routinely portrayed as an abysmal failure by Republicans, non-partisan experts credit it with adding as much as 4.5% to the GDP and trimming 2 full percentage points from unemployment. In fact, as stated by economist Mark Zandi of Moody’s, it just happens that the month the NBER identified as the end of the recession was the month in which Stimulus spending was at it’s maximum.

Interestingly, it was also June of 2009 when former House Speaker, Newt Gingrich told the crowd at a Republican fundraising event that the Stimulus had “already failed.” His claim was obviously untrue, but when the objective is strictly confined to discrediting the opposing party, regardless of the costs to the American people, the rules of honesty and common decency have no bearing. From Sarah Palin to John Boehner, Mitch McConnell to John McCain, the Republicans have set aside any semblance of sincerity in order to mask their commitment to the wealthy and regain power on the backs of a struggling middle class.

Next: Broken Government — Democratic Inadequacy

Article first published as Thirty-one Cowardly Democrats on Technorati.

President Obama took the initiative earlier this month to use his bully pulpit and give the Democratic base a reason to get out and vote in November. He started the final weeks before the election out stumping and defining the differences between the parties. Democratic voters could feel the momentum start to build. But one week later, the cowardly lions on the left began their customary collapse, and with their tails between their legs decided to join ranks with the Republicans.

To his credit, the President first took the podium in Milwaukee on Labor Day and revealed his $50 billion infrastructure plan. Two days later he came out swinging in Cleveland and attacked the Republicans on everything from their obstructionism to their factitious support of small business. He focused much of his message on the $250,000 line drawn in the sand over the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts and set the stage for an 8-week fight over who really represents the middle class.

But obviously not up for the fight, on Wednesday, 31 Democrats broke ranks and signed a letter to Speaker Pelosi advocating for the extension of all of the Bush tax cuts, including those for the top 2%. The letter starts with “In recent weeks, we have heard from a diverse spectrum of economists, small business owners, and families who have voiced concerns that raising any taxes right now could negatively impact economic growth.” In other words — we don’t have the courage of our convictions and believe that we may lose votes if seen as supporting tax increases.

The single page letter goes on to attempt to justify the cowardice, stating that the upper tax brackets include only 2%-3% of tax payers, but that “they are responsible for 25% of national consumer spending.” It states further that 70% of our economy is driven by consumer spending, therefore “this is not the time to jeopardize further growth.” Of course ALL of these statements are true, but the conclusion is a non sequitur fallacy.

People in the group in question would be reporting $250,000 or more in taxable income. By definition they would already have the money to continue their 25% of consumer spending. They are obviously not the people being adversely affected by the economic collapse or they wouldn’t be reporting such high income. Contrary to what the letter implies, most economists agree that the money saved by this group would largely be set away in savings and have no impact on stimulating the economy. Besides, as the President has articulated, the rich would still be receiving the very same tax relief on the first $250,000 as everyone else.

The letter also offers up the same tired Republican distortion regarding the overlap of the top 2% and small business. Reciting statistics stating that “up to one-third of high-income taxpayers are small business owners,” these Republicrats assert that expiring the cuts for the rich will cost jobs and harm the recovery. Of course they know better than that. They know that only 2%-3% of real small businesses fall in to this category. They know that the “small businesses” in this group are actually the largest law firms, hedge funds, and other elitists that employ very few people. This is pure “I’m not a tax raiser” politicking.

Liberals need to seriously consider whether or not there’s anything on the planet more cowardly than a congressional Democrat. This entire maneuver is because they’re worried that the mean old Republicans might spin their support of tax cuts for only the middle class into perceived support for raising taxes, even if on the rich . . . poor Democrats. So, instead of saying, “Hell yes! We support relief for the middle class,” the Democrats are willing to bow down again. Football fans will recognize their strategy in the many NFL teams who go into a “prevent” defense in the fourth quarter to protect a lead, and ALWAYS wind up losing. Democrats play not to lose while the Republicans play to win.

Democrats need to learn that public opinion follows spin, so instead of letting the Republicans do the spinning, the damn Democrats need to get out there and tell the story. The only reason the Republicans get away with adhering to a strict loyalty to the upper 2% and still get elected is because the Democrats allow them to get away with a constant barrage of fact-free propaganda. Republicans by necessity use distortion, hyperbole and outright lies to obfuscate their true agenda, but the Democrats are too afraid to expose them, fearing that public opinion may not roll their way.

Now, even on an issue where the Democrats are obviously acting on behalf of 98% of the population (whether the people know it or not), these cowardly 31 are still too timid to push the agenda. What exactly do these mice stand for?

Fortunately, at this point, Speaker Pelosi is holding strong, and still has the support of the majority of Democrats in the house. At least Madam Speaker has some conviction and fortitude. It’s high time that the rest of the Democrats get behind the President and help define why people should vote for them. After all, if the people want to elect a Republican, why would they vote for one who’s a Democrat?