Article first published as GOP vs. Dems; No Compromise Equals No Solutions on Technorati.

Politics can be very complicated, or at the very least confusing. Case in point: what is it about the Republican pronouncement of “NO COMPROMISE” that President Obama and the congressional Democrats don’t understand?

Did they miss it when John Boehner, the presumptive Speaker of the new Republican controlled House, announced that, “This is not a time for compromise?”  Perhaps they misunderstood high-ranking Republican House member, Mike Pense of Indiana, when he said, “Look, the time to go along and get along is over,” even though he reemphasized, stating, “If I haven’t been clear enough yet, let me say again: No compromise.”

Is it possible that the President took Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s statement that, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president” as some sort of conservative jest?

It’s hard to tell what the President hears when congressional Republicans throw down the gauntlet and demand that he move in their direction. But, in response to the wave of emboldened Republicans taking intransigent positions against any sort of compromise, President Obama told the nation, “I believe there’s room for us to compromise and get it done together.”

The saying goes, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” Fool me over and over again, and maybe the people who believe I’m actually being fooled are the ones being hoodwinked. Is President Obama really so foolish as to believe that the Republicans will engage in open, good-faith negotiations, or is he merely a performer in a stage show written and produced to convince the American people that somebody in Washington wants the status quo to change?

When the President spoke in Cleveland in September, he came out swinging. He artfully painted the Republicans as the champions of the very wealthy and articulated a plan for the extension of the Bush tax cuts that drew a line in the sand, defining $250,000 of taxable income as the divide between the middle-class and upper-crust. It was the perfect issue for the closing weeks of campaign 2010, but cowardly Democrats backed away in fear that the Republicans would paint them as tax-and-spend liberals.

Well, not only did the Democratic retreat fail to impress any independents, but it also ensured that there would be no resurgence of enthusiasm within progressive ranks. In fact, the real story of Election 2010 wasn’t the great turnout of Republican supporters, but rather that blacks and young voters stayed home. If even half of those who poured out to the polls in 2008 had been moved to vote, the election results would have been much different.

But whatever the case, the 2010 election is over, the Democrats got their collective butts kicked, and the Republicans have already started Campaign 2012. Republican leaders now insist that the election was a refutation of President Obama’s policies and promise a Republican led Congress that will focus on jobs and the deficit.

Americans rightfully rejoice that the promised focus is exactly where it should be, but in what has become the united chorus of one-trick-pony conservatives, the legislative remedy being offered is the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. In fact, fed by their new found sense of power, Republicans have become more intractable regarding any compromise on the wealthfare benefits and now insist that the extensions for the rich be made permanent.

Prior to the election, Republicans seemed amenable to a potential decoupling of the cuts along the lines suggested by President Obama. The notion was that cuts for the top 2% might be extended for a limited time period while those for the bottom 98% were made permanent. But according to House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, there will be no such compromise. In a recent interview, Cantor told Greta Van Susteren of Fox News that the election gave the GOP a mandate to hold fast and accept only an extension of all cuts.

Just how the Republican leadership can reconcile their position on the tax cuts with their promise to focus on either jobs or the deficit is the subject of some serious snake oil peddling.

According to Cantor, it’s all about clearing up that “uncertainty“ the Republicans keep talking about: “We’ve got to put certainty back into the game and get these tax rates to stay the same.” But of course this is complete nonsense, since whichever way the cuts are decided, once the decision is made, the uncertainty is removed.

To the man, each of the Republican leaders has also associated the cuts for the top 2% with small business, claiming that 50% of small business revenue will be affected. Sadly, the small businesses they’re referring to are large hedge funds, law offices, and billion dollar companies like Bechtel and Koch Industries. These are the clients of the Republican Party, not the 98% of all small businesses that make less than $250K.

The sad truth is that no respectable economist believes that cutting taxes for the rich will do anything to create jobs. That horse just doesn’t run anymore — not since the results of 8 years of the Bush presidency where such cuts were a mainstay were tabulated and found to be severely lacking. The worst job creation record since the 1940s and the first decline of median household income of any cycle since 1967 are not sound arguments for repeating the policy.

And where the tax-cuts-create-jobs argument is no more than a con-job, even that bar is too high when discussing the impact on the deficit. Virtually all reputable economists agree that tax cuts are the worst form of economic stimulus, and cuts for the rich the worst of all. The Republicans are essentially without even a distorted con to explain away the $700 billion cost of the tax cuts for the top 2% over the next 10 years.

The cuts the Republicans are fighting for won’t create jobs but will add significantly to the deficit. These “fiscal conservatives” espouse fiscal responsibility and feign help for small business and middle-class America but willingly sacrifice both for the wellbeing of their corporate overlords. And the Democrats respond by offering compromise.

Just what part of slam dunk, hanging curve, lob-ball pitch do the Democrats not understand?

The Democrats need to go back on November 15 and work to pass the extension of the Bush tax cuts for those making under $250K during the lame duck session. It’ll be interesting to watch the Republicans argue why the very rich need the cuts and explain to the American people why increasing the deficit for those who don’t need the money makes sense. Their argument promises to be a mind-numbing spectacle of double-talk and diversion.

This is a win-win for the Democrats — any compromise is just once again playing into Republican hands and allowing them to set the agenda and color the conversation. The Democrats need to accept the fact that the Republicans who would not negotiate in good faith while in the minority are certainly not going to do so now. They need to figure out that the Republican campaign for 2012 has already begun and launch their counteroffensive. If they’re not willing to do so, they might as well just start packing their bags 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 Obama Takes a $50 Billion Infrastructure Punch at the GOP on Technorati.

Speaking at a Labor Day rally in Wisconsin yesterday, President Obama announced a new $50 billion infrastructure spending plan. Of the new initiative, the President told the crowd of union workers that, “This will not only create jobs immediately, but will make our economy run better over the long haul.” He also warned that, “If we are going to get anything done, Republican cooperation, which has been all but non-existent recently, will be necessary.” Can it be that the President actually believes he can get Republican support? The pragmatic answer would have to be, not unless he’s lost his mind. So, assuming that President Obama is still in control of his mental faculties, why present this new initiative?

The obvious answer is “politics.” The President’s speech was not confined to the new infrastructure spending plan. He also used the opportunity to fire a salvo at the Republicans in Congress and set the stage for the Democratic argument for the final two months of campaign 2010. Not only did the President contrast the need for Republican support against their consistent record of obstructionism, but he also made the case that should the Republicans be returned to power, they will attempt to revive the very same agenda that created the crisis in the first place.

“They’re betting that between now and November, you’ll come down with amnesia,” said the President. “They think you’re going to forget what their agenda did to this country,” he continued. He’s right, of course, but then the odds appear to be firmly in the Republican’s favor, and their bet anything but a long shot. The people have already forgotten — haven’t they? Why else would they support the Republicans?

It’s good that President Obama is finally taking some initiative to help frame the debate, but he’s come to the party so late that most people have already made up their minds. Where was the President while the Republicans thoroughly polluted the well with their fact-free propaganda? The best that can be hoped for at this juncture is that a newly invigorated debate that contrasts Democratic substance with nauseating Republican hypocrisy will motivate Democrats to get out and vote. But with little else left in their bag of tactics, this is likely a good choice, although as stark as the contrast may be, one must question whether or not anyone’s still listening.

Democrats have been too silent for too long, allowing Republicans to spin some whoppers into commonly accepted truisms. Distorted perceptions are so keenly ingrained at this point that the Obama administration doesn’t even want to associate their infrastructure initiative with the word “stimulus” — this in spite of the fact that, according to all objective measures, the Stimulus has been extremely effective. It’s created as many as 3.3 million jobs and added as much as 4.5% to the GDP, yet President Obama continues to avoid singing its praise, thereby opening his flank to further GOP sniping. But regardless, the non-stimulus infrastructure initiative should provide an excellent opportunity for Democrats to bring core party differences to the forefront.

No sooner had the President announced the infrastructure plan when congressional Republicans started their predictable rhetoric. Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell was quick to color the proposed bill as having “more than $50 billion in new tax hikes.” Of course, he was referring to the fact that the infrastructure spending that would rebuild or restore 150,000 miles of roads, add 4,000 miles of railway, target improvements to the U.S. air traffic control system and create an “Infrastructure Bank” to coordinate funding and planning of projects would all be fully funded, without impact on the deficit, by ending various tax breaks for oil and gas companies. Like the Democrat’s plan to fund aid for teachers and firefighters by ending tax loopholes that encouraged corporations to ship jobs overseas, McConnell and his cronies are against anything that might reduce corporate profits.

Never wanting to be left out, the man who wants to be Speaker of the House, John Boehner, was also quick in his criticism of the plan. “As the American people, facing near double-digit unemployment, mark Labor Day by asking, where are the jobs, the White House has chosen to double-down on more of the same failed ‘stimulus’ spending,” said Boehner in a prepared statement. Long a champion of the wealthy, Boehner failed to mention how his ongoing commitment to self-interest has consistently driven his obstruction of anything and everything that could help jobs. Yet, the man who called the healthcare legislation “Armageddon,” who feigns concern over the deficit yet supports tax cuts for the rich, who supports small business but fights against small business aid, who ignores every statistic on the Stimulus and paints public employees as “special interests,” wants everyone to believe that he has a plan to, “create jobs by eliminating the job-killing uncertainty that is hampering our small businesses.”

The fact of the matter is that Congressman Boehner is the creator-in-chief of the “job-killing uncertainty” he so often calls to mind. He and his Senate counterpart, Mitch McConnell are stuffed so deep into the pockets of Big-Business that they’ve lost sight of their moral compasses. Together, they are the wingmen of a Republican party whose plan to create jobs consists of a “Roadmap for America’s Future” that promises to cut into Social Security and Medicare in order to fund more tax cuts for the rich. Just how a tax cut that would provide 117% of its relief to the top 1%, while increasing taxes on the bottom 95%, will help create jobs has yet to be explained. But this is just SOP for the GOP — the fiction and friction party.

Obama started a new conversation yesterday. He took off the kid gloves and put on the boxing gloves. He fired a few combinations, mixed it up with some body blows, and showed the Republicans for whom they truly are. The Republicans responded with some blind flailing and cover up. Round 1 goes to Obama, but the fight has just begun. Fortunately for Democrats, if called on the facts, the Republican’s defense is wafer thin. If the President continues to press, he will easily reveal their complete lack of substance. Let’s hope that President Obama fights to the finish. America needs a champion for all Americans.

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.