Rachel Maddow reported today on a breaking story - well, Fox News thought it was a breaking story, and her report says everything there is to say about the current state of our country, Fox News, and those who actually watch Fox News because they expect to be informed instead of watching it for the same reason I do: To get a good laugh.

Rachel's report on this earth shattering news - as broken by Fox - was on...could it have been the economy?

No.

A war?

No.

The payroll tax?

No.

None of the above. Rather, this awesome bit of Fox reporting concerned...the White House Christmas card sent by President Obama.

Yep, earth shattering news about a Christmas card - a no doubt satanical Christmas card, as you'll see if you go here, Rachel's video site. On the left you'll see various 'clip' pictures so use the scroll bar and go down to the clip shot that looks 'Christmassy' and is entitled, "Sarah Palin judges". Then sit back and enjoy. I'll be here when you're done.



Okay, you're done, right? Watched it, did you? And how did you feel?

Me, I was torn between laughter and shame - a strange combination by anyone's standards; unless you've found yourself taking that important final exam - naked.

Both Fox and Sarah Palin have provided me with much laughter in the last 2 years+ but at the same time: shame. The fact that Palin could command even a tenth of the attention she's garnered after her failing bid at a vice-presidency under McCain, is both staggering and shameful... And that Fox could lead any other news cast is equally both. But that's another story and another post.

No, this post is about anyone finding the White House Christmas card in ANY way offensive; let alone proof that President Obama isn't American/Christian/Human, blah-blah-blah, yeah, yeah, heard it all before. Hell, I'm surprised Fox News and the current crop of Republicans haven't tried to claim President Obama is an alien - as in from another planet since they have tried to claim that he's a human alien. *rolls eyes*

But damn it, doesn't everyone realize what fools we're making of ourselves? How the rest of the world is finding all this fodder for their laughter? How it drags America down?



Mrs. Palin, a woman who needs to take a lesson from the show "Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader" (the lesson being that she isn't), felt the card (shown below in case you got lazy and didn't watch the video *g*) was odd and wondered why a dog appeared instead of illustrating American values like 'family, faith and freedom'.

And as usual, Mrs. Palin (I refuse to use her ex-title since she was never in office long enough to earn it) showed her ignorance by implying that previous Presidents (read: REPUBLICAN) had given the nation stirring cards reaffirming our CHRISTIAN faith, our love of FAMILY and our desire for FREEDOM.

So does that mean some of those past cards had the baby Jesus waving an American flag from his crib in the manger while flanked by his unwed Jewish mother and soon-to-be Jewish step-father, not to mention those three kings - from God knows where - because technically the bible doesn't say how many magi came, or even how they came, only that three gifts were bestowed upon the child - who, by the way, was about two by then - and there was no manger in sight because Matthew is quite clear about them walking into a house - so for all we know, the men could have been a mix of Jews and Arabs, which would have made for a very interesting White House Christmas Card and one I'd have loved seeing...but Fox would have had a cow... Wait, I'd have loved seeing that too....


But in reality, no Presidential Christmas cards have ever been as religious as Fox seem to believe or want. In fact, many weren't Christmas-themed at all or even seasonal; a fact that's been illustrated on many a news program since Fox made such a ridiculous ruckus about our current President's card - one they never made over, say, a Republican President's card. Like the ones below?

These two are from Democrats, in case you failed to notice. Jacqueline Kennedy loved the Red Room, hence the 'painting' that adorned one their cards.

Now that I think about it, Clinton was going a risky route with the card above, what with the Christmas tree, not to mention all the other trappings of a traditional Christmas set-up (including stockings hung by the fireplace with care....) and he was an...ahem...Democrat.  


What gets me is that apparently Fox doesn't realize that America is made up of millions of people, not all of whom are Christian, let alone who celebrate Christmas. They've evidently forgotten (on purpose, perhaps?) we're a country of many faiths, like Hebrew, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism, to name a few. They also seem to forget that many Americans have no religion at all, and that's why we're called the "Melting Pot". 

In spite of Fox and their narrow view, America is a colorful country where family can't be defined or legalized, a land where we have the right to our religious beliefs - which means we also have the right to NO religious beliefs, and we come in every shape, size, and color. We fall in love with opposite genders from our own - and the same genders as our own. And yes, we're all still Americans. Equal Americans.


The Christmas card that comes from the White House should, in my humble opinion, represent the spirit of the season, a spirit that can be shared by people of all faiths - or none; namely the spirit of peace, caring, love and generosity. And I think this year's White House Christmas card does just that - and without hitting anyone over the head with the faith as practiced by our President (No, Fox News, it isn't voodooism *rolls eyes*) or Christmas as a whole. Rather, it's a gentle picture to warm the soul (although, a kitten playing with a roll of ribbon would have been nice too - and I know my own cat, Abby, would gladly have posed), while invoking the feeling of the season.


Of course, I assume that the holiday cards sent out by Fox News this year filled the void they felt Obama left with his card. You know, a card brimming with Christianity, Jesus, faith, sacrifice, doing unto others, abiding love, a cozy tree with gifts beneath its decorated boughs....


Or not:

I love the fact that Fox News sees viewers as...sheep. Duh.

Yep, Christ-like, that's Fox News.  And yes, those are the real cards sent out this year by Fox Business (on the right) and Fox News (on the left).

Since this post could be considered somewhat 'seasonal', I refuse to go into the whole voting on the Payroll Tax now. Far too depressing to know that an entire country will pay thanks to a bunch of idiots who didn't bother to investigate those they voted for in 2010 - but I do wonder what Christmas will be like in 2012 - and will anyone complain about next year's card?

In the meantime: MERRY CHRISTMAS, HAPPY CHANUKAH, HAPPY WINTER SOLSTICE and starting on Monday, the 26th, HAPPY KWANZAA!  

Oh, and HAPPY NEW YEAR TOO!

The "Game" of Politics

The run for the Republican Presidential Nomination has been one hell of a ride and it's far from over (unfortunately) but ride or not, everyone knows the GOP has only one goal: Find someone - apparently anyone - they believe can beat President Obama; something originally thought to be an easy task thanks to an economy in the tank and a high unemployment rate (because everyone knows that any president who goes into an election with high unemployment is going to be turned in for a new guy).

Unfortunately for the Republicans, their list of viable candidates was full of men and women who really only wanted to line their pockets, set up a future - and present - that ensured speaking engagements and book deals, and who really never believed they'd win the nomination. Well, okay, they probably got caught in their own temporary spotlight, but deep down, it was the greed driving them. The list also contained very few candidates who actually knew anything about this country and its history *rolls eyes at all the history gaffes since this whole thing started*, let alone foreign policy or Economics, which admittedly, is a kind of important for a President, you know? Hell, most of these guys and gals barely know their own state information let alone anything about the whole country. Most 'candidates', including the guy who's destined to be the nominee, turned out to be flip-floppers who changed their position on the issues every time they sniffed a change in the wind - or changed their underwear.

And in spite of a strong Republican base that was fast changing its mind about their 'representatives'; in spite of cries from the masses for "JOBS, JOBS, JOBS!", the candidates continue to concentrate on issues important only to a small, fringe element that's somehow taken over their party - issues the majority of Republicans have ranked so low on their "Important to me and mine" list as to be invisible. Unfortunately, the fringe element is backed by big money (and three men) so the Republicans (some of whom were real and true politicians - once upon a time) who threw their hats into the ring were forced to tow the new - and unwanted - line, which resulted in some of the so-called candidates having their 'hats' handed back to them - and some none too nicely, either. But since the title of this post is "The Game of Politics", I find that yes, I'm dying to know which reality game show have our intrepid 'candidates' been watching?

Which game are they playing?

OR

Well, whichever game it is, the fact remains that no matter what they try to do; no matter who steps up to the plate next to enjoy their five minutes (or two weeks) in the sun - the Republican Party will see Mitt Romney carrying the last torch blazing as he races first to the final pit stop:  Tampa Bay, Florida.

Sorry guys, but that's the way it is. Mr. Flip-Flop himself will be the nominee at the convention.

"But what about the rest of our contestants, Bob?"

"Well, Jeff and Phil, our contestants will take home MILLIONS of tax-free dollars thanks to their Super-pacs (both transparent and non-transparent - look it up), not to mention book deals to keep their ghost writers happy for years!"

*wild applause*


"Herman? Yeah, we're talking about you. And Newt? Yep, you too. Oh, and Mrs. Palin? Hell yeah. Did you think we really fell for that bus crap? Er...wait. A whole bunch of folks did. *gulp* And what about 'The Trumpster'? A big WHOOPING yes!"


In conclusion, if we needed more proof that this country needs a complete overhaul of its campaign laws? Yeah, the current Republican race for the nomination provides more than enough, thank you very much.

This is what you call "Small Government"????

One of the basic differences between our two primary parties; the Democrats and the Republicans, is how the Federal government should run. Republicans believe strongly in the sovereignty of the States and that the Federal Government should allow the states the right to decide just about everything for themselves, thus their call for a 'smaller' government. Democrats then obviously believe the opposite, meaning they believe that at least some issues are beyond State rights (like Civil Rights, voting rights for women, Roe v. Wade, to name a few examples) and the Federal government has to step in for the good of the nation; as in the "United" States" - meaning that all states are supposed to be united by our Constitution and follow it and any amendments, etc. This is undoubtedly a simplified explanation of one of the main differences, but you get the idea.

So. Would you be surprised to discover that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives is trying to pass a new law regarding gun control? Probably not. But would you be surprised to discover that the law in question, HR 822 (I think that's the number) will actually TREAD on several state rights? Yep. The Grand Old Party, who try to protect state rights with their dying breaths are about to pass a law that will overrule several state laws regarding: Concealed weapon permits.


You see, the House would like folks who have concealed weapon permits to be allowed to cross state lines without worrying whether the state they're entering even permits concealed weapons. So, if this law passes, a state like, oh, say, Massachusetts, whose gun laws are very strict, would end up having no recourse should someone enter their state with a concealed weapon - an action that individual could not currently do.


Now what could be the problem with such a law, besides the fact that it would trample over the sovereignty of several states? Well, it doesn't take much imagination to figure out the answer, does it? Many states have very strict gun laws, while others - not so much. Some states already have their agreements with surrounding states regarding concealed weapons crossing borders - meaning they're okay with it. But other states - don't - and aren't okay with it. 

Democrats are fighting this new law - using amendments like one that would allow states to "opt-out" of the it, should it ever pass, meaning their laws on concealed weapons would stand and no one could cross into their state with a CW. But I suspect their fight is for naught - but then, so is the law - since it won't go beyond the Senate; which means the House is once again spending time on ridiculous bills and laws instead of focusing on what the American public wants, namely jobs. And yes, our Congress and our President can create the needed jobs, via infrastructure, for starters, but no, job plans have been routinely struck down by the House while in the Senate, they've been blocked by filibusters, etc. Meanwhile, the House is busy with abortion laws that go nowhere and reaffirming mottos that need no reaffirming, etc.  And of course, in the Senate, Republicans are continuing to say NO to everything by filibustering right and left. And even though Democrats have the majority, it doesn't count (thanks to rules that have been changed in the past and need undoing, btw).  Good going, Congress! And good going, Republicans in the House who apparently feel that Big Government is good and State rights non-existent when they're trying to pass something that supports their wants and needs.

Feel free to go to the government site where bills from both the House and Senate are listed and discover what your elected officials are doing about them, for them, and to them. It's a real eye opener. Oh, and don't forget to check who initiated the bills, too.

And in case you missed the point of this post - let me spell it out:

There is NO such thing as SMALL government. EACH party has their own agendas and, when in control at the Federal level, will push those agendas even if they step on State rights and fly in the face of our Constitution. And never has that been more obvious than now.

Is a Flat Tax the answer? And how smart can our candidates be?

I used to believe in a flat tax, thought it was the answer to everything until a buddy reminded me of classes taken in college, namely economic classes. Unfortunately, I kind of forgot about them and found myself carried away by all the politicians (yeah, Republicans) and their "It's So Easy Flat Tax" and "9-9-9" plans. Fortunately, I woke up, thanks to this last Friday and the Bill Maher show (don't stop reading even if you hate him, okay? LOL!). He happened to have, as a guest, one of my favorite comedians, Bill Engvall. Now yes, I know he's a rootin' tootin', gun-toting, hunting and fishing Republican from Texas - and I'm a bleeding heart liberal from California - but he's the kind of Republican I think is still open-minded and I could have a really good conversation with, you know? Anyway, it was Bill E. who said something that forced me to remember my Economics classes. He said that he was looking for a Presidential candidate who was a "businessman". Bill Maher immediately conntradicted him by saying something like, "No, our government isn't a business and, in fact, its job is to do what businesses can't and won't!"

I nodded emphatically in agreement with Maher but mentally - and okay - verbally chastised him (yes I talk to my television, don't you?) for not adding, "...so we don't need a businessman as our President, we need an ECONOMIST!"

And that's when I remembered why a flat tax doesn't - and can't - work unless you're truly running a communistic government (and I mean Communistic in the good way, not the way it was converted by Russia. Remember, a primary definition of communism is, as quoted from Webster's:

"A system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed....")

Now, if you apply a kind of warped theory similar to above, in other words,  if we were all totally equal in jobs, wages, income, etc. a flat tax would certainly work, but we're not, by any means, equal in those areas. 

For instance:

Let's say we adopt Rick Perry's flat income tax of 20% across the board - here's what it would look like (I'm not accounting for SS deductions, SSD, State tax or any other deductions from a person's gross income, mostly because the Republican party wants to do away with those programs by privatizing them, thus no deductions. I'm not accounting for any state tax either because many states don't have one):

So - a single woman earning $26,000 a year would pay 20% of her gross income - or $5,200 a year. This would leave her with a net income of $20,800 to live off of. I think we can all agree that losing $5200 a year is a huge amount for someone making only $26,000, right? In many states, this single woman just moved to the poverty level with that net income!

BTW: in 2011, and not counting any deductions she's currently entitled to, she'd be in the 15% bracket.


Okay, now let's apply this same flat tax to a family of four who are also bringing in $26,000 a year. They'd also pay out the $5,200 to the government, thus leaving them with the same $20,800 - except that $20,800 now has to support FOUR people - and that can't be done. They'd actually drop below the poverty level in most - hell, probably all - states!

BTW: in 2011, and not counting any deductions the family is currently entitled to, they'd be in the 15% bracket as well.


Now let's take the pay of the average CEO of a major corporation which, according to Psychology Today, "...was paid $15 million in 2005." (Yes, we know it's more today, but we'll go with $15 million for this demo)

Okay, so based on that, let's apply the flat tax of 20%:
He'd pay three million in taxes, leaving him with twelve million - which is far from anyone's poverty level - even millionaires!

BTW: today, he, and anyone making over $350,000, would pay 35% - thanks to Bush, who lowered the rate from 39% (and which Obama is trying to get back up)

Now, do you really think the above flat 20% tax is fair or equitable? Can you see why our tax system is a graduated system and NOT a flat tax?

The loss of three million dollars to a man/woman/family making fifteen million is nothing compared to the family of four who loses five thousand-two hundred dollars from their meager twenty-six thousand a year! Both the family and the single woman would find themselves at or below poverty level for 2011 according to Wikipedia:
 
"The poverty level was set at $22,350 (total yearly income) for a family of four."


BTW: Wikipedia also posts a table showing the poverty threshold (which is not the same as the poverty level or the number of those who are considered 'poor') in the US:

United States Department of Health and Human Services 

(HHS) figures for poverty in 2011^[3]

Persons in Family Unit	48 Contiguous States and D.C.	Alaska	Hawaii
1	$10,890	$13,600	$12,544
2	$14,710	$18,380	$16,930
3	$18,530	$23,160	$21,320
4	$22,350	$27,940	$25,710
5	$26,170	$32,720	$30,100
6	$29,990	$37,500	$34,490
7	$33,810	$42,280	$38,880
8	$37,630	$47,060	$43,270
Each additional person adds	$3,820	$4,780	$4,390

Pretty clear why we can't have a flat tax, isn't it? Clear why Cain's 9-9-9 plan is even worse and less equitable then Perry's. Not to mention, both candidates have already backed off the 'no deductions', which makes a flat tax totally ridiculous since if you have a flat tax and deductions, then the tax is no longer flat for all.

Oh, and can you imagine what would happen to charities and tithing for Churches? Think how they depend on charitable contributions based on the fact that said contributions are DEDUCTIBLE! Sure, we'd love to think the rich would still make those contributions, but fact is - most wouldn't. They make them for a specific reason - to get MORE money back, so they're certainly not making those contributions for altruistic reasons!  (Oddly enough, the poor would still make their charitable contributions since they don't itemize anyway and can't deduct them!)

This is why we need an Economist in the Oval Office - not to mention within the Senate and House of Representatives. And it's why you need to do more than watch Fox News, CNN or MSNBC. It's why you need to RESEARCH candidates and their qualifications. For instance, did you know that 92% of Herman Cain supporters think that the National Restaurant Association is an organization like the PTA??? They have NO idea it's a LOBBY for restaurant owners - one dedicated to the removal of  organizations that oversee the cleanliness of restaurants, the food they purchase, and that make their life more difficult and cut their ability to make a higher profit! 92% do NOT know this because they haven't bothered to LEARN.

Which brings us to the other part of this post: How smart can our candidates be and still get elected? And again, I have Bill Engvall to thank for asking this question. On Friday, he stated that he was thinking of voting for Herman Cain because the man talked in a way Bill could understand. Cain represented, for Engvall, 'everyman'  - or one who speaks plainly with no political mumbo jumbo.

Trouble is - that 'plain speak' is based on nothing substantial. There's no knowledge behind it and that's true for Perry and other candidates as well. They do NOT know American politics, history, foreign affairs, economics, etc.

Does anyone remember Adlai Stevenson? (If not, read up on him). This man lost not once, not twice, but three times in his bid for President of the United States (he won the Democratic nomination twice but lost the race to Dwight D Eisenhower, then ran in the Democratic primary against Kennedy and lost that). So why do I bring him up? Because historians will tell you that Stevenson lost due to the fact that he was ... yep, SMART.

In fact, he was too smart, too eloquent, too much of an intellectual and thus, actually scared most Americans. I find that idea abhorrent; that anyone would refuse to vote for someone because he was too intellectual - when in reality, that's what we need in our President! I also find it abhorrent that we'd support a man who is the opposite, whether deliberately so or because he/she really isn't smart enough to be President.

In my history classes, I came to truly appreciate Adlai Stevenson - in fact, he's responsible for my choosing to become a Democrat versus following our family into Republican-land. I still remember this quote, which actually made me cry because it said what I'd always felt: 

"I think that one of our most important tasks is to convince others that there's nothing to fear in difference; that difference, in fact, is one of the healthiest and most invigorating of human characteristics without which life would become meaningless. Here lies the power of the liberal way: not in making the whole world Unitarian [Universalist], but in helping ourselves and others to see some of the possibilities inherent in viewpoints other than one's own; in encouraging the free interchange of ideas; in welcoming fresh approaches to the problems of life; in urging the fullest, most vigorous use of critical self-examination."

Could anything be more true or needed - especially today? More worthy of our attention and belief? I don't think so - not in a country where one group is trying so hard to segregate us; to steal our ability to vote; to take rights instead of protecting them.

Most historians believe Eisenhower won against Stevenson because Ike was not only a war hero, but a "Plain speaking man", a man 'of the people'. Even his name, "Ike" was easier to deal with than "Adlai" -  but again, I believe that kind of thinking sells all of America short. Are we really that dumb that we need an Ike or a Herman or a Rick because they're obviously 'one of us' where a Barak or even a "Mitt" isn't? Are we so stupid that we NEED plain talk that says nothing but reveals a total lack of understanding of our nations needs? Do you really think that being asked about who the President of Uzbekistan (if you're running for President) is a 'gotcha' question? And if so, do you really believe that these are the words of a man who should be President based on his response to such a question: (actual transcript of Cain and Christian interviewer)

Sympathetic Interviewer: "Are you ready for the ‘gotcha’ questions that are coming from the media and others on foreign policy? Like, who’s the president of Uzbekistan?"


CAIN: "I’m ready for the ‘gotcha’ questions and they’re already starting to come. And when they ask me who is the president of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan I’m going to say, you know, I don’t know. Do you know?"

I know how I'd answer Cain:

"No, Mr. Cain, I don't - but then - I'm not running for the highest office of the land and you are."

Get smart, America. This is your future and the future of your children and your children's children - and it's no time to be short-sighted or to adopt a policy of 'every man, woman and child for themselves' - because that's not who we are. Nor are we a 'small government' - the kind that's so small, it  takes rights away from workers, literally makes it impossible for a large percentage of the 'state' or country to vote, takes contraception away from everyone, and defines for everyone what a marriage is and isn't or who we can or can not marry. That's not small government, folks, that's the most intrusive government possible.

New type of parking garage for the average homeowner!

Right up front, let me say I have nothing against the rich - in fact, I want to be rich, I want to wallow in rich *G*. But if I were rich, I know I'd expect to pay taxes accordingly, would want to pay them. In fact, when I dream of winning the lottery, I dream of winning more than I need so that I can pay them and still have just enough left for my needs, like a butler (rather than looking for ways to avoid paying those taxes so I could have several naked male butlers *g* ).

But even as I dream of being rich, I've begun to realize there's a kind of wealth we can't even imagine, the kind that has caused revolutions across the globe throughout history. I'm also beginning to see that this kind of wealth isn't rare - like we're led to believe, and it isn't foreign; isn't 'somewhere else' - it's right here, and it's all over the place. Which is why I'm now REALLY having a hard time accepting the Republicans refusal to allow the Bush tax cuts for those making $250,000 and above to end - in spite of the fact that it's been proven that giving the rich these kind of breaks does NOT bring jobs or create jobs.

So, tax cuts for the rich don't create jobs but they do accomplish something. Oh, and this next part isn't meant to engender any dislike of the rich (remember, I want to be rich), but it is designed to show the disparity that exists between the middle class and even the 'average' rich; to illustrate that anyone who can do what is seen in this video is probably NOT paying their fair share of taxes, okay? And again, I'm all for working hard, making it big, saving big, but at the same time, paying my fair share. You earn it, you enjoy it, but you don't hide it, you don't get loopholes that keep a portion of it from the government, okay? So let's look at what the tax cuts can do:

BTW? This family lives just six miles from me. Six miles. It's not in some exotic location or well-known wealthy city or country, it's not a celebrity or athlete - it's just a family who lives in San Juan Capistrano, a city where 64% are white and 60% are Hispanic (don't you love cities and their info? Gosh, they have a population breakdown that equals over 100%!!!) It's also interesting that during the Bush years, the median household income of SJC rose from $62,000 to $88,000 but that the estimated per capita income remained approximately the same: $40,000 (which is $10,000 under the average).

Funny, I still remember Fox News being unable to decide from one news day to another whether $50,000 was rich or poor because when they reported the average income of teachers as being $50,000, it was almost decadently rich, but when reporting on the average Tea Party citizen, it was, "How do they make it on only $50,000 a year?!?!?!?"

The amazing thing about this whole 'tax breaks create jobs' thing makes no sense when you look at our history. For instance, the unemployment rate from 1997 to 2001 was, on average, 4.5%. Already very low, meaning plenty of jobs and plenty of workers. Then, in 2001, the tax cuts went into effect and from 2001 through 2008, unemployment started rising (with the exception of the housing boom in 2006/2007)! In 2002, it jumped from 4.7% to 5.8, then in 2003, to 6%. From then on, we stayed in the mid-to-upper 5% until, miraculously, we put a Democrat into office and WHAM, the unemployment rate jumped from 5.8% to 9%!

So did Obama do some secret 'black' thing to cause this? Put the whammy on businesses? I mean, do we really believe ONE man caused such a jump? Or could it be that constant drip of water (read: tax breaks), year after year, eroded more and more jobs as more and more workers got better wages and benefits, so businesses sent their work outside of the US? Could it be that it coincides with this country's end of manufacturing? Besides, Obama had his chance to stop the tax breaks for those making over $250,000, to close tax loopholes, didn't he? But instead, he compromised (I'll trade you the tax breaks if you guys will extend unemployment benefits - yes, Obama was naive) and let them remain, but hey, those tax breaks create jobs, remember? So who needs to extend unemployment? Right? RIGHT? 

Except...why hasn't it? According to the Republican Party, giving the rich these breaks creates jobs, so unemployment should be well on its way back down to 4% again, right? RIGHT?

Alas, the employment statistics remain the same as when Obama took office:

The Labor force (those who had jobs, are qualified for work, etc) :153,500 average,
The Work force (those actually with jobs): 138,500 average
The unemployed: 14,000 average.

Now you need to connect the dots, okay? 

Oh, and if you want to see the rest of the "Million Dollar Rooms", just check this out and you may feel jealous, but I bet you'll also get a bit sick....

The Iowa Straw Poll & a few questions for you!

Straw poll. Perfect wording, if you ask me. But at least the Ames, Iowa Straw Poll left me laughing (finally, something in today's politics to give me a good chuckle) at both the candidates and the news media, who took the poll as if it were Election Night *rolls eyes*.

First up on my laugh-o-meter is Tim Pawlenty. Here's a man who said that if he finished in the top five, he'd consider that a win and remain in the fight, so when he came in third, what did he do? Yep, he gave up. But then, he was smart enough to realize that if the winner could so easily buy the Straw Poll, what chance did he have in the real world? *snerk* Of course, someone in his campaign should have pointed out something very important, but you'll have to read further down to find out what.

Then there was Cain who pulled the opposite of Pawlenty. He said he needed to be in the top three to keep going and yet, when he came in fifth - decided that was exactly where he wanted to be all along. *jaw drops*

Oh, and of course, we can't leave out the winner, now can we? Yep, Michele Bachman won (covertly points upwards at new, temporary blog banner).

Or did she? 

I mean, really, does paying for the attendees voting tickets and then handing them out actually count as winning? And when, after spending $180,000 for 6000 of those all-important voting tickets, she only got
4, 283 votes, doesn't that mean she really lost? Or as Stephen Colbert accurately pointed out, "She got 80% of the votes she paid for!" Yeah, that's a real win, all right. It's a winning illustration of how you buy an election, that's what it is.

Hey, and what about the man who came in second (and a VERY close second at that), Ron Paul? He seems to have disappeared as far as the news media is concerned. They're not even mentioning his amazing finish - and he didn't pay anyone to vote for him, which in my book, means he really came in first. But then, in spite of being a heavy duty Tea Party member, he doesn't follow the party line all the way. He's actually honest and dares to go against things like the wars - which is a big NO-NO in the Tea Party and the Republican Party. So he becomes the invisible man. It will be interesting to see how he fares later on down the line.

Okay, now the questions for anyone who wants to answer.

Question #1. How can we create jobs if we have a Congress that says NO to everything?

Question #2. Why, after 8 years of the rich taking advantage of the Bush Tax Cuts and creating NO new jobs as promised by the Republicans, are we still believing that leaving the rich alone (meaning repealing the tax cuts and closing the loopholes) will result in more jobs? Obama allowed the tax cuts to remain, and yet, where are the JOBS? Did he prove his point by allowing them to continue? Did he prove that they would NOT create jobs? Well, where are they? I'm saying yes, he proved a point, but everyone seems to be missing it, so again, I ask: 

WHERE ARE THE JOBS?

We've left the rich alone, left them with their huge profits, their incentives, their bonuses, and still no jobs!

Question #3. But why SHOULD the businesses bring jobs back to America when leaving them overseas means no unions, no benefits, lower wages, and NO regulations forcing them to work safely, produce safely, and protect the environment?

Oh, wait...the Republicans are doing their best to remove all those speed bumps, aren't they? They're working on disbanding all the unions; the EPA (number one on Michele Bachman's hit list), and any regulations that force businesses to work safely and protect workers and the environment. So does this mean that eventually the businesses will come back and the jobs will go to us? Sure, and why the hell not? There'd be no more shackles, regulations, or fair wages. No more need to treat the workers fairly or being forced to hire fairly, like, you know, minorities? And before you nod in approval at that, remember, women are minorities and in a white, male, Christian world, there's absolutely no approval of women in power. Nope, they belong at home, remember? 

Ahhhh, true heaven on Earth.

4. Did you ever hear the saying that you have to "spend to save"?

Yes? No?

There's actually a good reason for that phrase and, right now, Congress is ignoring it and refusing to allow any spending except on WAR. Check Economics 101 and you learn that spending is one of the best ways to get a country out of a recession or depression (can we say Roosevelt?). You have to spend in order to create jobs. You have to create programs to BUILD things, necessary things, to provide jobs. You have to offer other kinds of incentives to companies to get them to hire. Some of which Obama is trying now - but guess what? Congress is saying NO - they're even saying no to something they've always wanted: payroll tax cuts!!! And Congress will continue to say no until Obama is out of office. Which brings me to the next question:

Question #5. Is this a hostage situation in the truest sense of the word? Think about it. We're being held hostage unlike anything we've ever seen. Congress has an approval rating lower than the President's, lower than ever in recorded history, because they just keep saying NO - so are they holding us all hostage until we vote Obama out and the right (pun intended) person in? Question #5A: Are we strong enough to hold out? To call them out?

And now, the final question:

6. Rick Perry. Does this guy scare you? Or do you love him? And why to both? Me, I think he's the most dangerous man to come along in a long time. And I see a future of Perry/Bachman on a Republican Ticket. At which time, I move to Canada. Or pray the Mayan prediction about 2012 is accurate.

I'm now running for President

as a write-in vote. Yep. I am. The Speak Out party may not get off the ground in time, but I can still be a write-in candidate!

And while we're on the subject, I have to admit, I think I've been fooled by Lawrence O'Donnell. I swear, I don't know if he's in on the Colbert Super Pac experiment, or not. *taps chin*

To catch you up on this, Stephen Colbert, of the Colbert Report, started his own Super Pac to prove how dangerous they are (in his own humorous way, of course) and it's bloody brilliant and, of course, the majority of folks I know get it. But as I said, for the first time, Lawrence O'Donnell has me fooled. I don't know if his Rewrites (he's now done two on Colbert and his SuperPac) are tongue-in-cheek or if he's serious and doesn't get it? His expressions give nothing away and I'm totally stumped even though he's a brilliant man and normally I'd assume he's 'in on it'.

Quick lesson if needed: A PAC is actually a "Political Action Committee" whose job is to raise money to help get a candidate elected; a system that always had strict rules. But in 2010 (duh) the idea behind the PACS was hijacked and we now have something called a Super PAC,  or "independent-expenditure only committees" which can raise unlimited funds from corporations, unions and other groups (which weren't permitted for simple PACS) as well as individuals. These were made possible thanks to the right-wing Supreme Court which voted (in an extremely controversial decision) to create a 'Citizens United' rule that allows corporations (like The Colbert Report's parent company, Viacom) to donate unlimited amounts of cash to Super PACs...whereas under regular PAC rules they'd be forbidden to donate (because airtime is considered a donation). 

They also allowed direct attacks on candidates, which weren't permitted prior to 2010. And of course, unlike the original PACS, the Super Pacs don't have to disclose their donors or how they use them. Duh.

Colbert had to go before the FEC to request his Super Pac status and maybe even hoped they'd turn him down, but knew they wouldn't as they'd already okay'd such Super Pacs as Karl Rove's American Crossroads, Mike Huckabee's Super Pac and Sarah Palin's, among other Fox News employees who then used the station to push their PACs and solicit contributions. If the FEC had turned him down, it would have meant the others would be in big trouble, but naturally, the FEC wouldn't, so now he's using it to illustrate everything's that's wrong with Super Pacs while having fun with the 'ads' he's paying for, including the three ads scheduled to run in Iowa now, during the State Fair/straw poll and debates. And yes, two primary stations actually ran the ads, but the ABC affliate in Iowa refused!

Anyway, here's the first Rewrite on O'Donnell's show and then here's the 2nd, so view them and let me know if I'm crazy. I think O'Donnell is on it, but damn it, I just can't tell. I swear, sometimes, O'Donnell can drive me crazy! LOL!

If you want to view the whole Super Pac process, you can find all the videos either on YouTube or at Colbert's site, btw.

Oh, yeah, Colbert's also interested in just what Sarah Palin, who hasn't declared herself as a presidential candidate, will use HER Super Pac money, the same Super Pac she advertises on Fox News to solicit money. Maybe to pay for her "vacation", perhaps? Living expenses? Will she throw the money (that's left after her 'vacation') toward one of the final candidates for President among the Republicans? Or maybe just siphon it off into her hubby's business? Since she doesn't have to disclose anything - well, gee, aren't Super Pacs fun?

Hey, you know, if I'm running for President as a write-in candidate, I could really use a Super Pac. Anyone interested in starting one for me? Abby would, but not even the Supreme Court will allow a cat do to it.

Yep, I need a Super Pac. Badly. The Aly for President Write-In Super Pac.

*nods*

Remember the movie, American President?

Yeah, the one with Michael Douglas, Martin Sheen, Annette Benning and Michael J Fox? Yeah, that one. Somehow that movie seems to resound with me now as I look at our current political situation.

Whether you voted for Obama or not, support/ed him or not, the fact is, something's wrong. President Obama is not the man we fell for, not the man we voted for, not the man we thought he was. And I'm not sure why. We could come up with reasons until we're numb, but will we ever know the truth? Doubtful. An old friend emailed me and she's decided everyone on the right are...right. That's he's neither a Republican nor a Democrat - but someone who's job it is to ruin America. She's starting to 'feel' a conspiracy.

I definitely won't go that far. *G* But I can't deny he's NOT the man I voted for. He wasted his first two years for reasons we can't fathom and now he's simply failing to show any leadership qualities at all.

So where does "American President" fit in here?

Well, first, there's a line in the movie as said by Michael J. Fox, that for me, explains exactly what's happening right now:

"People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand."

That pretty much says it all. President Obama is simply not giving us a leader we can follow, but his opposition? Oh yeah. Tons, even if most of us 'liberal's' consider the opposition to be a group of nutcases. But let's face it, when only the nuts are talking, when they're the only voices heard, they begin to sound sane. And if the nuts don't convince you, well, there are some very reasonable sounding Tea Party folks out there, like Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, or Rand Paul. Or even someone leaning so far to the right he's almost touching the ground; Rick Perry. All are talking at every opportunity - while our President simply repeats the same lame words over and over and over again. Words he's already turned upside down and deserted.

In the movie, there was another speech, this one given by Michael Douglas, who played the President. It came at the end of the movie and, with a few changes and updates, could easily be used right now to remind us all of what's at stake, what's been happening, and what a Democracy (or should I say, a Republic) really is. So yeah, I kind of tweaked it to fit 2011.

PS: If you'd like to read (or view) the original, you can go here, but meanwhile, here's the tweaked version:

"For the last several months, many Americans have jumped on the "Birther" bandwagon in order to discredit our President, not to mention comparing our President to evil, in league with our enemies and without character. For the most part, our President remained silent, unwilling to engage in their attacks on him, but he's been President for over two years and yes, he finally stepped up to the plate and fought back at a dinner where he roasted one of the loudest birthers, Donald Trump, with elegant humor. So yes, it could be said, without hesitation that being President of this country is entirely about character and Obama has had a few shining moments illustrating his.

Right now, we're filled to the brim with 'characters' - most of whom don't possess one iota of 'character' - but they're sure good with words. They've learned that if you say something enough times, and loud enough - it becomes fact - especially when no one else is arguing louder. So yes, the 'birther' issue is still alive and well - which proves better than anything could, that America isn't easy.

America is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Then let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil while he takes center stage and advocates at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours." You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can not just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your living rooms and our children's classrooms and then, then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free.

Our President has known his opposition for years and so he's been operating under the assumption that they were reasonable and that bi-partisanship can work because history has shown this to be true. But when 2010 rolled in, he was faced with politicians belonging to a splinter group who'd decided that there was only one word Obama would hear from them: "No".

Still, it's possible he believed the moderates would prevail - but unfortunately, he was and is, wrong. So maybe he believes that the Tea Party, being such a small caucus, couldn't possibly have the numbers or power to sway the good Republicans from the right path to bringing this country back on balance, or that they siimply didn't get it. Again: wrong. They do get it and they're using it.

America has serious problems to solve and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, the Tea Party - as it's morphed into now - isn't the least bit interested in solving it. They're interested in two things, and two things only: making you afraid of it, and telling you who's to blame for it.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections.

You gather a group of middle age, middle class, middle income voters who remember with longing an easier time, and you talk to them about family, and American values and character, and then you tell them their President isn't an American. You continually ignore the proof, and then you wave photos of him with black rock stars, as if that's a bad thing, and you scream about patriotism, about being a good American (meaning WHITE) and you tell them this man, this non-American black man, is to blame for their lot in life. And then you go on television and call him the devil.
President Barack Hussein Obama has done nothing wrong except, perhaps, spent too much time trying to keep his job and not enough time doing his job, thus he's failed to find a way to fight the Tea Party. But there's still time. Time to stand up to his promises to protect the unions, public school teachers, improve our Health plan, stop the loopholes that allow the wealthy to avoid paying their fair share, end the Bush Tax Cuts once and for all and lobby for the safety of our natural resources.

We've got serious problems, and we need serious people and something drastic has to change because the Tea Party's fifteen minutes are up."

And if you need another reference - try The West Wing - a certain episode where the Republicans tried to hold up the budget - remember that one? Season 5, episode 8, called, appropriately enough, "Shutdown". So does life imitate art, or art imitate life? Did too many Republicans watch the West Wing and get their ideas? :) And too bad Obama didn't? Because in the episode, Bartlett lets the government shut down - and wins. Because sometimes life is about winning and who knows better than politicians that it's true?

Helpful group aids Wisconsin in the upcoming Recall elections *snerk*

Americans for Prosperity was once again unveiled as one tricky group last night. AFP, one of the most recognized Tea Party groups, has a history so convoluted as to be nearly impossible to follow. See, originally, there was Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE) but then they kind of broke up into two groups: FreedomWorks and, of course, Americans for Prosperity, which was funded by the infamous Koch Brothers (together, their wealth places them as the third richest people in the world). Of course, CSE was also a Koch funded/founded Tea Party organization.

And in case you forgot, the AFP is also the foundation famous for their "No Climate Change Pledge", a pledge that demands government officials promise to oppose any climate change legislation that would result in a net increase in government revenue.

Yeah, God forbid we should penalize corporations who are destroying our climate by fining them and putting that money back into the revenue column of the government's budget. We wouldn't want to actually balance the budget or lower the deficit, now would we? (Side note: As of 2010, hundreds of lawmakers and potential candidates - especially those that ran in the 2010 primaries and of course, primarily Republicans (no surprise there), have signed the pledge). Folks like Michele Bachmann was one of those who signed (but then, she is the Tea Party Caucus leader in the House), along with John Carter of Texas, Doug Lamborn of Colorado, Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia, Phil Gingrey of Georgia, Tom Price of Georgia and Tim Walberg of Michigan. Surprised? Didn't think so.

So what selfless act has AFP committed now? Well, as stated in my subject line, they decided to be very helpful in the upcoming Wisconsin Recall elections by mailing out absentee ballots/Instructions to Democratic districts, but unfortunately, the ballots had not one, but TWO pieces of misinformation!

oh dear.

Now I could explain those small, insignificant bits of incorrect information, but I'll let Stephen Colbert do it for me - he does it so much better, plus has an actual ballot. But it's shocking, I tell you. Shocking.

Surprising? Not so much.

Go here to Stephen explain the totally altruistic actions of the AFP. It's hilarious - and scary.

Yep, we were sold down the river yesterday by our President and even the hard-line Democrats like Nancy Pelosi. A debt ceiling bill was passed, but it's meaningless. Our President gave up his chance for re-election (because we will find someone else to run from the Democratic Party - there must be someone? *looks over at Hilary* And speaking of Hilary? There's no earthly way she'd have allowed this to happen. She'd have headed them off at the pass back in 2010 or sooner and none of this manufactured drama would have occurred. We were given the proverbial shaft and than, this morning, the President gave us platitudes and pretended there was a chance that any kind of bi-partisanship cooperation was still possible.

He was just taken prisoner and he thinks the victors will now...cooperate?

Sorry, President Obama, but in this case, the inmates are definitely running the asylum and you've been rendered powerless and pumped full of Thorazine. But at least, for the next year and a half, you don't have to do anything but enjoy the White House and continue to have your 'doctors' tell you "No," to everything for which you may ask.

So time to look for a new candidate for 2012, someone to run against the Tea Party and WIN - because the truly sad thing is: President Obama has managed to bring slavery back to the US - and he, along with the American people, are the slaves.

It's time to be scared....

I just read this article from the National Journal (yes, it used to be a 'dreaded' left leaning paper, but now basically covers Washington with a jaundiced and mostly non-partisan eye - as you'll note when you go to their site) which simply states the obvious truth: Neither side can budge in any direction that will truly help the middle class. You can read more about this over at my blog.

Obama's sticking point isn't Medicare, SS, or SSD - it's not even repealing the Bush tax cuts - all of which are sticking points for most of us as we watch this ridiculous battle of back-room politics. Obama's real sticking point is the date by which they're allowed to raise the ceiling on the debt. The Republicans were pushing for 6 months (that would be the old guard, you know, the GOP we used to know?) but Boehner's being overruled (duh) by the young guard (that would be the Tea Party some people only think they know) because they want only a 3 month extension on any raising of the ceiling. And Obama's date? If you think for a minute, you'll get it...got it? Yeah, 2013 as in AFTER the elections, at which time he hopes to win back the House and retain the Senate (BTW: I've got news for you, President Obama, if you sell us down the river, no one anyone expects will end up in the White House come 2012)

The article lays it out very plainly, showing the highlights of both parties respective plans regarding the debt. It also states, quite obviously, that yes, the House will pass a bill that the Tea Party gives its stamp of approval on, which will be considerably tougher than Boehner's, but the Senate won't pass it - if they vote at all on it - they could just let it sit there. On the flip side, the Senate (in the form of Reid and President Obama) will come up with their version of a plan, which will be filibustered in the Senate and thus die as sure a death as the Tea Party's plan. So where does that leave us come August 2nd (a date as arbitrary as the debt ceiling itself)?

Only God knows and apparently, he's only talking to Michelle Bachman (sorry, couldn't resist that).

One thing that seems certain, and that's the fact that Obama seems unwilling to use the 14th Amendment to raise the ceiling himself - or shall we say he's been advised by his lawyers not to, even though Clinton has showed him the way, via the Section 4, which reads:

"Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."

So how does that help the President avoid the 'death of all plans at the hands of each Party'? Well, the 'debt' referred to is those monies incurred for, "...payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."
(PS: isn't it odd that the real purpose of the 14th Amendment is about citizenship, slaves and nationalization? Anyway, take time to read it and don't worry, this link came off the Senate website)

Now, to me, based on the above, is that the only part of the debt that can't be questioned (or raised) would be those incurred in suppressing an insurrection or rebellion (can we say Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, and so on?) but all other debts appear open for the President to raise. So what about the last part, where the US nor any State can assume or pay any debt or obligation that was incurred as a result of an insurrection or rebellion against the US, that those shall be held illegal and void? Could it be argued that the Tea Party, in their refusal to pass any legislation of our current President are actually revolting? Could this be considered an insurrection by the Tea Party? And if so, does that not also give the President an out? But would it be wise to use it? Would that not finally and irrevocably tear both parties apart more than even the Republican Party is already split? And if he uses the first half, it seems that since the Military Defense budget, which takes up the majority of our debt would be left alone - which would not sit nicely with the Republicans or the military.

BTW: Info on the debt can be found here and, once on the page, go to "Detailed Functional Tables FY10" and click on the links that say "XLS" - you do need Excel to view the budget for 2010 - then go through the budget and try to decide what you'd cut, what items don't have enough money budgeted, then look at the difference between "Discretionary" items and the "Mandatory" items before deciding if you'd switch any of them! It's very interesting and again, imho, part of our responsibility to know something about it!

Maybe you'd like a peek into our taxes and how they're broken down? Check it out under the cut.




Corporate taxes make up only 9% of our revenue while our personal income taxes provide 42%. What we pay into Social Security, etc, equals 40%, but here's the thing: Even the Tea Party says that SS, etc. account for 20% of our spending (along with the Defense Budget, but no one can really pin that budgetary number down, surprise-surprise - but I'm betting it's way more than 20%!).

These are the things we Americans should know - should discover for ourselves and ensure that where we go, is legit. For instance, when I first started trying to find the budget, Google sent me to a sight that said it was the "governmentspending.com" site which sounded damn official. Until I got there and, in spite of the American flag with partial wording implying the site was part of the government sites, alas, no. The clue that it was fake happened to be a link on the left that said, "Tea Party Briefing" and of course, the fact that the first thing on the page was an analysis of the Federal budget for 2012 and Paul Ryan's budget!!! So yeah, make sure you're neither on a right wing site or a left. ALL major government sites (like the WH, Senate, House) have similar banners (blue with a particular logo) and the US Gov site has it's own logo as seen below:







As you can see, they're hard to mistake, but if you don't know what to look for, it's easy to be pulled into the wrong site. :(




You've been asked,

by no less than the President himself, to call and write our legislature regarding the Debt issue, so what more do you need?

To call the White House, here's the comment number: 202-456-1111

To call The House of Representatives, use this number: (202) 224-3121

It's too late to call today since the hours are 8am-5pm EST, but you can call tomorrow and today, you can still send your comment via this page at the White House website and/or this page to contact your representative in the House of Representatives. It's a simple process to find out who to write (pull down menus for states and/or add your zip code) to. Make sure you contact John Boehner (as I did yesterday) to encourage him to stand up in the name of HONOR, to stop acting like Pinocchio to Eric Cantor's version of J. Worthington Foulfellow and Paul Ryan's Gideon in order to DO THE RIGHT THING, career be damned. Boehner's first allegiance is to this country; to his constituents - NOT to a faction of his party that isn't even legitimate, although they're trying hard to become legit - to, in fact - take over the Party.         

Anyway, I've now written the President twice, phoned once (will phone again tomorrow), and yes, I've called John Boehner and emailed him and will continue to do so - and my message to John?

"STOP LISTENING TO THE TEA PARTY - THEY'RE NOT EVEN A RECOGNIZED ENTITY AND YET THEY'RE CONTROLLING REPUBLICANS WITH THE USE OF FEAR - AND IT'S TIME TO STOP THEM - BY TELLING YOUR REPRESENTATIVES THAT YOUR VOTE CAN'T BE BOUGHT BY THE WEALTHY FEW BEHIND THE MAJORITY OF THE TEA PARTY!"

And my message to the President? 

"GIVE UP THE BELIEF THAT A BI-PARTISAN GOVERNMENT IS STILL POSSIBLE! THEY'VE TOLD YOU IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS THAT THE HOUSE WILL 'JUST SAY NO' TO EVERYTHING YOU PUT ON THE TABLE AS LONG AS YOU'RE PRESIDENT."

The good news is that according to the news, many folks are, indeed, doing as President Obama asked; writing and phoning. BUT, the majority are asking all of them to compromise in order to end this. That is not something I can support because the Republicans, as led by the new Tea Party junior Congressmen and some senior Congressmen, consider total capitulation as the only compromise they'll accept. Complete, total surrender by Obama and the Democratic Party. And the scary part? Obama has already offered an olive branch of a compromise that includes cuts in the Big Three: Social Security, Medicare/Medical and Social Security Disability. If he's willing to cut our benefits in spite of the one, singular message America has been sending...
 

"DON'T TOUCH OUR SOCIAL SECURITY/MEDICARE!"

...then he's obviously willing to accept just about anything when the tires finally hit the road, which means I'm beginning to doubt that he'll hold firm on his refusal to keep from taxing the wealthy - in other words, repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy - which is one of the primary items on which the Republicans refuse to budge.

When the Republicans use the broad - and scary - term, "Obama wants to raise taxes!" they're not referring to OUR taxes (which, btw, are the lowest in ages and should be raised) but the Bush Tax Cuts for their rich supporters (meaning people earning a quarter of a million dollars a year!).

And speaking of John Boehner (again) - do you think he recently walked out on the President because HE wanted to? Not hardly. Boehner is fighting for his career; knows Cantor is just waiting to step into his position as Speaker. And that's looking all too possible since even though Obama did put the Big Three on the table, he also included the elimination of certain tax breaks for the rich and the closing of corporate tax loopholes. If Boehner were to accept? Oh, yeah, his job would be toast.

If he doesn't toe the Tea Party line, Eric Cantor will take over as House Speaker - hell, he's practically drooling now because one more misstep and John is out on his ass. And his seat in the House? Well, the next time he's up for re-election, he'll lose because the Tea Party will see to it. Which, btw, is where YOU come in.

If you live in Ohio (even if you don't live in his 8th District), you can call and write and tell him that if he settles this like a man of honor and trustworthiness, you WILL vote for him no matter what the Tea Party says! And btw: If you don't believe Boehner is misusing the phrase about Obama wanting to raise taxes, thus scaring us all to death, just take a look at his page and you'll see a changing headline by the video section withone of those headlines having been copied and pasted here: 

 

Boehner on Debt Limit: White House Insisted on Raising Taxes, Moved Goalposts

There's your proof. We all know President Obama is NOT insisting on "Raising Taxes", which, as stated in the above manner, leads Americans to believe he wants to raise taxes on all of us, and thus qualifies as the scare statement of all scare statements since the ridiculous "Death Panels" that surrounded the false rhetoric around the Health Care Reform Bill. In reality, don't we really know Obama simply means dealing with the Bush Tax Cuts - and even going further in ending the free ride the wealthy - the really wealthy - are currently enjoying? Of course we do. But the wealthy, like David Koch (of the Koch Brothers who ranked 18th on Forbes Billionaires List but if you combined their individual wealth - $22billion apiece, they'd rank FOURTH) who founded the Tea Party organization called,  Americans for Prosperity (AFP), well, it's those men who are soundly against the repeal of the Bush Tax Cuts or any other taxes on the rich or of the closing of any loopholes for the rich. And these guys control men like Eric Cantor and thus threaten good Republicans everywhere.

You can disbelieve it, call me a liberal and by implication, that I'm simply repeating leftist lies, but all of this can easily be researched, as I did. AFP outspent the Democratic Governors Association by more than three to one in the 2010 primaries and elections - a fact that scares the hell out of me. The goal of the Tea Party is to take over the Republican Party, completely, and it's not one that currently is being stopped. And do they care if we go into default? If the nothing happens by August 2nd? Of course not. In fact, it might even be their real goal. These are some of the richest men in the WORLD and they're protected; have taken the steps to ensure that protection. In fact, they may even prosper should we go into default!

And I'm not alone in believing this. I happen to read alter.net and stumbled upon an article by Adele M. Stan, the Washington Bureau Chief for Alter.net who wrote that we're tempted, "...when assessing the showdown over the debt ceiling that is bringing the United States to the brink of defaulting on its debt, to view the confrontation in terms of Republicans vs. Democrats, liberals vs. conservatives, Obama vs. Boehner." But, "What we're really witnessing, though, is a ruthless power-grab by the architects of the Tea Party movement for control of the Republican Party. And if they have to destroy House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, to do it, they will. Heck, if they have to destroy the United States in order to grab the levers of GOP machinery, they will, content in the knowledge that, as elites, they will have first pick of the spoils."

It was weird to read what I'd been thinking!

So the real question for the rest of us is: How much - and how far - is Obama willing to go in this game of Chicken? Two cars are bearing down on each other and the fact is, the Tea Party, if they're as strong as I believe them to be, won't budge, so, based on Obama's past performance, and his almost overwhelming need to make it appear that our government is still willing to work on a bi-partisan level, he'll give in. And that will mean what to us, the Average American? What will he give up to avoid the collision?

* Repealing the Bush Tax cuts for the rich - down the tubes, along with other taxes for the wealthy like
* Further raising taxes on other areas pertaining to the top percent of wage earners
* Cuts in Medicare (which also probably means added costs for Medicare recipients)
* Cuts in SS and SSD (which will also mean added costs for both and more difficulty in attaining both)
And more that I can't even begin to mention here.

And the funniest (in the saddest of ways) is that Republicans are now trying to compare themselves - and this debt battle - to what we, the average Americans, go through every day. They're actually stating on every right wing news show available that we Americans can balance our budgets, so why can't the government?

Hello? Do you Republicans have ANY idea of what's going on out in Main Street, USA? If you want to compare us to you, then try this: WE'RE UP TO OUR EYEBALLS IN DEBT TOO! The majority of Americans live paycheck to paycheck and the differences between white households and minorities have grown further and further apart, more than I can remember. That means if the middle-class white family is barely making it - guess what's happening to the minority family next door? And none of us can buy houses now, can we? And saving for college? A horror film for families.



In addition, the Republicans are trying two other tactics to get YOU on their side. Tactic #1: They're saying, "If the American family can balance their budgets, why can't we?" Hello? Where do you Congresspeople live? We're not balancing our budgets, we're in DEBT too and drowning. We live from paycheck to paycheck! And what about Tactic #2? It goes like this:  Fox News has decided that there are NO poor people in America! Don't believe me? Well, here's actual proof as Stuart Varney and his guest show us how 'the poor' aren't.



And by the way? The Heritage Foundation is, of course, a right wing foundation that is actually considered one of the most powerful lobbyist think tanks in Washington - and would you be surprised to discover how many times it's partnered with - yeah, the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal?. Duh. In fact, together, they publish the annual Index of Economic Freedom, which measures a country's freedom in terms of property rights and freedom from government regulation (and in case you don't know what that means, try freedom from such agencies as the EPA, the FDA, the FAA, and so on and so on - in other words, the agencies that protect us by regulating big business to ensure they don't do things that will cost them less and thus exponentially harm us). The factors used to calculate the Index score are corruption in government (I doubt they count the conservative party), barriers to International Trade (you know, like those pesky tariffs, regulations etc), income tax (specifically on the rich, duh), corporate tax rates (those are a no-no to the Heritage Foundation), government expenditures (read: Entitlement programs like, oh, say...MEDICARE), rule of law (btw: for a good read, try to make heads or tails of "Rule of Law" when you research it and then decide if Heritage falls for it or against it *G*) and so on and so on. Yadda yadda. Deficiencies in the above, meaning that a government *does* have agencies to protect the consumers, or does tax the rich or try to close loopholes, etc., actually lower the score on Heritage's Index.

Anyway, it's certainly natural that they wouldn't believe there are any real poor people or that only TWO percent of America's children go hungry every night. *rolls eyes* And you can't possibly be poor if you own a coffee maker or a fridge. *rolls eyes again*

So are the Republicans that far out of the loop - or are they simply lying? Using words, once again, to fool the gullible Americans? And aren't you insulted to know they think we're this stupid???

If the Republicans actually admitted how bad things are for us, that we're in debt too and can't fix it, then they'd have to deal with the current situation and actually DO SOMETHING - like vote, as they have too many times to count before, to raise the debt ceiling which is a totally arbitrary number to begin with! And btw, it's the government's failure in the last 10 years to control banking procedures, housing procedures, etc., that contributed to our own debts (along with our own irresponsibility and stupidity - just like our government). And if they continue to refuse to deal with the very wealthy and the loopholes that keep them at the lowest rate of tax rate (if they pay any taxes at all) in history, then the horizon looks dim indeed.

Hopefully you're aware that the House did vote through Boehner's "Cut-Cap-Balance Plan" (which, thank GOD, the senate shot down and which is why he's in trouble again), but are you aware of what was in it? You can read the whole thing here but below are some important items directly from the Plan:

‘‘SEC. 317. CERTAIN DIRECT SPENDING LIMITS.
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—It shall not be in order in the House of Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report that includes any provision that would cause total direct spending, except as excluded in subsection (b), to exceed the limits specified in subsection (c).

‘‘(b) EXEMPT FROM DIRECT SPENDING LIMITS.—
Direct spending for the following functions is exempt from the limits specified in subsection (c):

‘‘(1) Social Security, function 650.

‘‘(2) Medicare, function 570.

‘‘(3) Veterans Benefits and Services, function 700.

‘‘(4) Net Interest, function 900.

‘‘(c) LIMITS ON OTHER DIRECT SPENDING.—The total combined outlays for all direct spending not exempted in subsection (b) for fiscal year 2012 shall not exceed $680,730,000,000.’’.

Now, maybe you're left wondering what subsection (c) actually says so you can understand the phrase, *"It shall not be in order in the House of Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report that includes any provision that would cause total direct spending, except as excluded in subsection (b), to exceed the limits specified in subsection (c)."

*Er...human translation required? Okay: The House and Senate can't consider any bill, joint resolution etc. that would cause any spending on anything that wasn't excluded in subsection (c). Or, in other words, they can spend money on the stuff in subsection (c) but everything else is excluded. So here's subsection (c):

‘‘(c) ADJUSTMENTS.—After the reporting of a bill or joint resolution relating to the global war on terrorism described in subsection (d), or the offering of an amendment thereto or the submission of a conference report thereon—

‘‘(1) the chair of the House or Senate Committee on the Budget may adjust the discretionary spending limits provided in this section for purposes of congressional enforcement, the budgetary aggregates in the concurrent resolution on the budget most recently adopted by the Senate and the House of Representatives, and allocations pursuant to section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 23 1974, by the amount of new budget authority in that measure for that purpose and the outlays flowing there from; and

‘‘(2) following any adjustment under paragraph (1), the House or Senate Committee on Appropriations may report appropriately revised sub-allocations pursuant to section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to carry out this subsection.

‘‘(d) GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM.—If a bill or joint resolution is reported making appropriations for fiscal year 2012 that provides funding for the global war on terrorism, the allowable adjustments provided for in subsection (c) for fiscal year 2012 shall not exceed $126,544,000,000 in budget authority and the outlays flowing there from.

So again, to translate for us mere humans - they can spend money on war and terrorism, but not on:

‘‘(1) Social Security, function 650.

‘‘(2) Medicare, function 570.

‘‘(3) Veterans Benefits and Services, function 700.

‘‘(4) Net Interest, function 900.

And that's just part of the ridiculous Cut-Cap-Balance Plan delivered by the all-mighty and wonderful Tea Party of the House. *rolls eyes* And believe it or not - this plan is now considered TOO soft and the Tea Party wants Boehner to go back to the drawing board and come up with an even harder law. *rolls eyes again*

Right now, I'm scared to death. Obama is refusing to use his powers to raise the debt ceiling, to pay the bills, and that leads me to believe he's going to ultimately give in. So what will that mean to those of us on Medicare, SS and SSD?

For one, I suspect our premium will go up quite a bit in January, 2012, but the actual amount paid to us may go down or, at the very least, stay the same - again, for the 2nd year in a row - even though expenses are going up and up and up. I also suspect other changes will be made to Medicare, with less coverage being the result. Just the threat of all of this resulted in some major changes in Medicare and Medicare Advantage for 2011 from 2010. For instance, Mental Health co-pays went up in many plans, and the amount of $ available for eye exams/lenses/frames went down (for me, it went down by $60!). Many MA plans offer a set amount of free transportation and, in 2011, the trips were cut in half in many plans, mine included - and the same will probably happen again. But do I believe those in the higher income brackets will suffer equally? No way. Besides, they can afford the really GREAT MA plans anyway, and I doubt that they'll pay more for those benefits. :( And if you don't understand what I mean by better MA plans, let me explain.

The higher cost of the plan, the better the health advantages offered to the patients. I'm with MD Care and I pay no premium, no co-pays and tier one drugs are free. BUT, the number of physicians and specialists available are so small that in my case, I can't even see a dermatologist regarding the skin cancer because my plan doesn't have one! Of Primary Care physicians, I've got a choice of three! That's it. Three. And two of those have restrictions and aren't even permitted to treat anyone *alone*!!! In my entire plan, the number of specialists added up to something like ... 12.

And SNF (Skilled Nursing Facilities)? OMG. I checked the ones I'd be eligible for and NOT ONE had a rating above 2 on a scale of 1-5 stars and there were only two in my area and both had either 1 star or 2 out of 5!!! So last night, I spent time looking up other plans after finding several SNF's with ratings of 4 and 5 stars and I wanted to find what plan I'd need to join to get these AND more specialists - but those available with the good SNF's were plans that would cost a fortune:

$50 monthly premiums, $15-$25 co-pays, hospital stays with co-pays no matter how many days you're in, drugs starting at $10 and going up from there (and I take 7 medications daily), mental health co-pays = $50 per visit, and specialists? There were so many pages, I couldn't count them all (and yes, there were dermatologists galore). And Primary Care physicians galore as well.

And speaking of Medicare - has anyone noticed the sudden onslaught of stories about "Medicare Fraud" hitting our news stations? Coincidence? Not hardly. After all, Medicare and SS are prime targets of the Tea Party, so is it a surprise that these stories are cropping up now, while our government is in the middle of a financial debate that could, conceivably, ruin this nation? It's only a surprise if you live in Never-Never Land.

Oh, and what about those who will need SSD come 2012? I suspect the number of NO's will go up higher than now, even with lawyers helping. And so many have no idea what that will mean to the disabled or how long they'll go on while waiting, with no income and thus forced to use their retirement, eventually forced to sell their home, all the while fighting to be accepted on SSD, which already can take a year! But come 2012? I can't even imagine how much longer. After all, it's easier to say no than to actually investigate where reforms are needed (and investigations take MONEY). So instead, it will just be made tougher, all around.


We're in deep shit, so all this was to say: CALL tomorrow and keep on calling and write and/or email/comment NOW, today, and keep CALLING/emailing/commenting until this is settled in a way that saves our programs, keeps the US solvent, taxes those who need to be taxed, and follows Honor, Honesty and Trustworthiness.