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.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell joined an array of Republican lawmakers who feel we should examine whether to rescind all or part of the 14th amendment to the Constitution to prevent some children born in the U.S. from being granted U.S. citizenship. The pro-life, pro-family Republicans are now pro-neonatal detention and deportation. It isn’t enough to drive out the people not born here, now they want to drive out the ones that were.

Actually, I agree with Senator McConnell. We absolutely should hold hearings as soon as possible to discuss whether we should amend the U.S. Constitution to make newborns deportable. We need a high-level national discussion in both Houses of Congress on the issue of whether to station federal ICE agents in every maternity ward and delivery room right between the OB-GYN and the expectant father.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez, Congressman

Great, so Rep. Gutierrez is already fear mongering up a storm with scenarios of Gestapo enforcers stomping around in maternity wards. I can’t help but wonder how liberals separate this type of fear based campaigning from the Sarah Palin death panels. Both contrive wildly extreme possibilities in order to discredit legitimate concerns, and neither attempts in any way to identify a solution.

I’m sorry, but I find it poetic that the one amendment to our Constitution that was enacted without rightful ratification and is also unconstitutional in its inclusion of ex post facto law, should now be the subject of such debate. The 14^th Amendment obviously did the right thing in providing citizenship to blacks and guaranteeing due process and equal protection, but the way in which it was enacted was an abomination. And now, the Party that illegitimately enacted the amendment wants to review and possibly rescind it. Now that’s poetic!

Personally, I‘d like to see the amendment changed, but that certainly doesn’t mean that I would support any retroactive application. The truth seems evident that the enacting Congress didn’t address the potential for abuse from illegal immigrants having children in order to obtain citizenship. That’s the just the way it is.

People like me, who believe that the abuse warrants a change, have but one form of recourse — amend the Constitution. That’s the way we do it in the United States. To do otherwise is to subvert the very spirit of our democracy.

I for one would welcome a national conversation on this topic. I’d like to hear the reasoning of people who believe that a child born of parents in the United States illegally should be granted citizenship. Is there an ethical argument? Is it simply a position of practicality? I’m sorry, but to me it wreaks of defending the rights of litigation for the guy who climbs on somebody’s house to burglarize them and falls through their skylight and gets injured.

I know, I know — there’s a child involved. But what I don’t understand is why there’s not more outcry against parents who would use their child this way. Break the law and hide behind a child . . .  now that sounds unethical to me.

Whatever side people are on, wouldn’t it be great if we could all just state our piece and work together toward a solution? It would be quite remarkable, but we’ll never get there so long as every issue is met with all the fear-mongering hyperbole currently waged by conservatives and liberals alike. How about instead, we stop the posturing, listen to one another and open a dialog?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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