U.S. House Republicans: The New Entitlement Class

Tags

2012, 2012 Presidential Election, 2013, A.C.A., ACA, affordable care act, barack obama, Boehner, compromise, compromises, congress, debt, debt ceiling, debt ceiling debate, deficit, democrat, democrats, DNC, George Stephanopoulos, government shutdown, Harry Reid, hostage, hostage situation, hostages, house, mitt romney, obama, obamacare, partial government shutdown, politics, president obama, Reoublicans, republican, RNC, romney, senate, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader Reid, Senator Cruz, Senator Ted Cruz, Speaker Boehner, Speaker John Boehner, Stephanopoulos, Tea Party, Ted Cruz, U.S. House, U.S. Senate, US House, US Senate

Just about a year ago, the familiar refrain leading up to the 2012 US Presidential Election boiled down to the basic tenet of American conservatism vs. progressivism: how much should the government take care of its people? More specifically, how “big” should the national government be, and what should be its role in the everyday lives of the country’s citizens? One of the major themes of the Republican National Convention was “We Built That”, an ethic encompassing the idea of personal empowerment–that individuals and businesses are capable of quite a lot on their own. It rejected the idea that “no man is an island”, insisting that hard work and determination are the only necessary ingredients for sustained success in the United States. A parallel theme of the parasitic “entitlement class” also took shape. Although every Republican would love to forget Mitt Romney’s “47%” comment, it’s instructive. It underscored and perpetuated the belief of millions of people that a large portion of American society is comprised of freeloaders. The “builders” work hard to make this country great, and the “moochers” suck it dry without contributing anything of value.

These themes are straight out of the RNC play book. Many Republican strategists still hold these beliefs. They argue that “smaller government” benefits us all. Who needs regulations? Let Wall Street run rampant. Dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency! Those nice corporations–after all, they’re “people”, just like you and me–would never overpollute the air water.

Well, those same leaders who have so strongly espoused the “builder” mentality have become the destroyers. In a purely self-indulgent, crybaby way, they held the entire country hostage. Make no mistake. This is not hyperbole, and it’s not a partisan view. Because a few select Congresspeople (mostly self-professed Tea Party Republicans) decided they hated President Obama, or the Affordable Care Act, or any accomplishment President Obama stood for, SO much, they decided to convince the rest of their caucus in the House to tie any budget bill to the defunding of the law they so lovingly call “Obamacare”. What the hell is this? They knew the president would not dismantle his “signature achievement”. They knew that the new fiscal year began on the same day that Americans could start registering for exchanges on the new healthcare plan. So why not put two and two together? They voted 45 times to repeal the ACA! The Democratic-led Senate turned it down or didn’t even bring it up for a vote all of these times because if you feed the trolls, they just bother you more. President Obama would not sign a bill “gutting” the ACA. The Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of the law. President Obama won reelection, campaigning on the passage of the ACA. Public opinion polls consistently state that Americans feel favorably about the new healthcare law. If all of this weren’t enough, anecdotal evidence from people whose lives were saved due to provisions in the new law speak much more convincingly than those who don’t want to pay for it or who decide it’s government overreach.

I’m not going to get into an in depth discussion of the Affordable Care Act here, but the backbone of the legislation–the individual mandate–is a long-promoted REPUBLICAN idea. It is based on the principle of individual responsibility. Republicans hate moochers, remember? Progressives aren’t thrilled with the idea that the system is nowhere near a single payer (national healthcare) system, and there are quite a few issues with it; however, a minority of people can’t just do whatever they want to get rid of a law they don’t like because they “think it’s a bad law”. Too bad.

Those Tea Party Republicans in the House–who are mostly ideological people from small towns who have never held office before, and have no idea how the government works–were buoyed by more visible people such as fellow Senate newcomer and all-around attention whore Ted Cruz.
They pushed the country into a partial government shutdown. (I’m going to include a post on a government shutdown primer since not everyone knows what the shutdown entails.)

This has grave consequences for the country. True “patriots” would never do such a thing, and especially for purposes of bald self-interest. And in many cases, the term “self-interest” is completely apropos since some conservative Congress members are very worried about primaries in their gerrymandered districts posed by even more ultra-conservative candidates put up by ridiculously wealthy donors whose money (“speech”) can be spent nearly unfettered thanks to our lovely Supreme Court, whose justices, as we know, are ALWAYS looking out for the best interests of the people.

The government shutdown, now in it’s 11th day, shouldn’t have happened at all. We’re getting closer and closer to the date at which the national debt ceiling must be raised. As has been repeated constantly, paying off the debt is paying for costs already incurred. The county had to pay for money it already spent. Deciding to default (as some Republicans would like to do) is irresponsible at best, and ridiculous and disastrous at worst. The United States has never defaulted on its debt in its history, and the majority opinion on doing so is that this could very possibly equal a worldwide economic recession or depression, plus countless other terrible ramifications.

Republicans who claim that it’s now time to examine the dangerous path of ballooning deficit and the exploding debt (here’s looking at you, John Boehner), really have audacity. If they were so concerned about the economy, they wouldn’t have set in motion a government shutdown that has cost the country billions if dollars, and put nearly a million directly out of work. They wouldn’t play a game of brinkmanship with the possibility of default if the president and Democrats don’t agree to their ridiculous demands of significantly cutting entitlement programs.

Senate Democrats have already agreed to a compromise with House Republicans to pass a budget with spending at the levels House Republicans wanted (continuing the sequester), and “Speaker” Boehner reneged on his deal with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Boehner admitted this to George Stephanopoulos. Democrats already compromised with Republicans! “Piecemeal” legislative efforts by the Republicans or blaming Democrats and the president in front of National Parks and monuments for their closures as PR stunts are not “compromises” by the Republicans.

This is their fault. And they wanted it this way.

The once-proud “builders” are happy to set the fire, and to stand there and watch it burn.

Members of Congress continue to receive paychecks even as “nonessential” government workers do not, and the city of Washington, D.C. goes unfunded. Worse yet, members of Congress receive the gold standard in healthcare plans, and to date, no Congress member has turned this down. The people can pay for their perks, but not get paid or receive healthcare at an even slightly diminished cost?

I’m pretty sure that’s called mooching. What entitles the select few to receive benefits when others work hard? What ENTITLES them? Many of them aren’t even working for their constituents!

And conservatives say they hate an entitlement class…

Advertisements

Dangerous Excess Against the XX

Tags

abortion, abstinence, affordable care act, american economy, Ann Coulter, ann romney, biden, congress, conservative, contraception, democratic, democrats, domestic violence, economy, education, equal pay, equal rights, female, females, feminisim, freedom, girls, glenn grothman, government aid, governor walker, grothman, health care, healthcare, house, immigrants, immigration, interest group, joe biden, labor, legislation, lgbt, liberal, mitt romney, money, mothers, native american, obama, paul ryan, paul ryan budget, phyllis schlafly, politics, president obama, progressive, republican, republicans, rights, romney, ryan budget, salary, scott walker, senate, single mothers, unions, united states, vawa, vice president biden, violence, violence against women act, walker, war on women, wisconsin, women, women's rights, work, xx, xx chromosome

With all of the recent “War on Women” rhetoric, I’d like to sound off on this subject.  “Polls show Obama ahead with women by 19 points”.  “Romney is trailing with female voters”.  “Women have historically voted more for Democrats”.  “The real way to appeal to female voters is…”  Stop.  Women are human beings.  Depersonalizing the existence of more than half of the population is a sure way to alienate a group so seemingly important to politicians.  You’d think their strategists would realize this.

I’m not part of a monolithic voting bloc, and I’m not an interest group.  President Obama made this very “not an interest group” point at his recent summit on American women and girls.  Sure, he was pandering, but at least he actually has such a summit.  This was not the first time the summit convened.  It is not merely an election year tactic. 

Yes, I’m voting for President Barack Obama.  I’m sincerely hoping he gets reelected—not because I think of myself as a female voter, and women’s issues are at the top of the list for me.  Quite the contrary.  I wouldn’t have even been thinking about so called “women’s issues” very much had it not been for the recent onslaught against women’s rights.  I’m talking beyond issues of birth control, which, itself, is an unbelievably backward thing to even be bringing up this campaign cycle.  I’m talking about things such as fair pay for women, protection of health benefits, a sense of self worth and privacy, dignity, and pride in oneself.

President Obama is taking advantage of the current political climate in which a great deal of Republicans have been toxic to women.  I’m aware that he hopes to score political points, but I’m not terribly cynical as I accept the fact that such political point scoring on his part might be necessary in order to get reelected.  If he’s talking about actual accomplishments—concrete steps toward advancing and protecting the rights of women—I’m ok with the president reminding the public, and garnering the recognition.

The president has lauded the fact that the first bill he signed into law after being elected was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.  When I heard about this initially, at the beginning of Obama’s first term, I was extremely surprised that such an act was not already in place.  The president’s signing of this bill, the contents of which protect a woman seeking retribution for unfair pay even after her employer has paid her less than her male colleagues for years, is a big deal.  Contrast this with the recent undoing of Wisconsin’s fair pay law by Governor Walk All Over Workers (Governor Walker).  Walker has a history of abusing his power and fervently attacking workers and unions in the short time he has been governor.  Now that he is set to be recalled, he has kicked into overdrive, much like the especially active 111^th Congress in late 2010 during the “lame duck” session.  The “quiet” action he took on women’s pay is one of several bills the governor has recently passed in such a fashion.  The New York Daily News elaborates: “The wage bill was one of several items Walker, a controversial union-defying GOPer, signed off on this month.  Other pieces of legislation included barring abortion coverage through health insurance exchanges, mandating doctors to consult privately with women seeking abortions, and requiring sex ed teachers to stress abstinence.”

Add to this the recent comments by  Wisconsin State Senator Glenn Grothman, claiming that women don’t need to be paid equally to men and that more money was more important to a man because his ego is very important and he might want to be the breadwinner.  In a recent article, The newspaper explains, “Under the old law, employees who win discrimination lawsuits can collect between $50,000 and $300,000 in compensatory and punitive damages.  The GOP bill bars anyone from collecting such funds in employment discrimination suits.

Democrats argue the bill negatively affects women who suffer discrimination in the workplace.

According to the recent Shriver Report, women are the primary or co-breadwinners in two-thirds of American families — but continue to make 23 cents less than men for every dollar earned.”

The entire article can be found here: http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-04-11/news/31326804_1_wage-gap-wage-bill-discrimination

Grothman thinks “workplace bias” is bullshit.  Not only is this terribly ignorant and out of step with modernity; it is unbelievably offensive.

Speaking of the shockingly offensive, the Violence Against Women Act is up for a reauthorization vote in Congress.  This should be a no-brainer.  It should not be a partisan vote, and it hasn’t been a partisan vote in the past.  It is worth noting that Vice President Biden is responsible for the original Violence Against Women Act.  This particular piece of legislation is facing significant opposition for the first time.  Whether this is some subtle way of trying to score points against the president’s reelection bid (because it is Biden’s legislation) at the expense of women or for some other nefarious reason, it is a disgusting display of disregard for their fellow human beings.  The Violence Against Women Act protects women in particularly vulnerable positions, and for a party that claims to be so chivalrous and value “the fairer sex”, you’d think Republicans would do all that’s in their power to reauthorize such a bill.      

 According to an article in The Huffington Post,  “Since the Violence Against Women Act was first enacted in 1994, reporting of domestic violence has increased by as much as 51 percent.  The legislation was aimed at improving the response to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking.  Yet according to national statistics, more than three women are, on average, murdered by their husbands or boyfriends every day.” 

Terrible, right?  Strengthening protections for women through a reauthorization of this bill should be a bipartisan effort, right?  Wrong.  The article goes on to say “Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and a few conservative organizations, object not to the act as a whole, but to new protections for LGBT individuals, undocumented immigrants who are victims of domestic abuse and the authority of Native American tribes to prosecute crimes.”

For those interested in reading the entire article, it can be found here.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/16/violence-against-women-act-reauthorization-senate-vote_n_1429327.html

I could go on and on about Mitt Romney’s record on saying that poor women must have the “dignity of work”—meaning work outside the home—if they are to qualify for state aid, which is understandable, but less understandable when he and every other Republican, it seems, have  advocated cutting childcare and education programs like Head Start.  Most women do not have the luxury of raising children without working outside the home (unlike his wife, who has the “hardest job there is”, apparently), especially single mothers, and for the poorest women, outside work is increasingly difficult if they do not receive adequate government aid.  The much-celebrated Paul Ryan budget plan deals a disproportionately heavy blow to women as well.

From frighteningly restrictive abortion laws (such as the recent law that says that life begins two weeks after a woman’s period), women’s basic rights to their own bodies and their ability to make decisions are being trampled in the name of some warped, overbearing ideology.  President Obama’s Affordable Care Act is not aimed specifically toward women, but in many ways it advances women’s rights.  Nothing in this bill, not even the apparently terrifying contraception language, is as overarching as many recently proposed (and passed) bills limiting women’s rights.

While I do not want to be defined by my gender, I feel a duty to inform those who share it a bit about what is happening in America.  Every individual is free to vote for whomever she or he wants to, but I don’t understand how any woman who isn’t Ann Coulter or Phyllis Schlafly could ever—in good conscience—vote for a Republican this cycle.  If someone finds me a Republican who bucks this trend, I would be very happy.

Slimy Newt, the Latest Flavor of the Week

Tags

2012, al gore, barack obama, bill clinton, cain, climate change, clinton, congress, dean, debate, democrat, donald trump, gingrich, global warming, herman cain, house, house of representatives, howard dean, huntsman, iowa, jon huntsman, media, mitt romney, nancy pelosi, nasa, newt gingrich, obama, pelosi, policy, politics, president, president obama, presidential debate, primaries, primary, republican, romney, speaker, speaker of the house, trump, white house

Newt Gingrich is the latest Republican presidential candidate to beat. Aside from the fact that he’s “not Mitt Romney”, I don’t understand what about him appeals to potential voters. He’s not particularly charismatic or charming—in fact, he’s downright condescending. He doesn’t have impeccable conservative credentials. He doesn’t even have catchy soundbites.

While I’m certainly not a Newt Gingrich fan, I don’t agree with the reasons why he’s being attacked. “Personal baggage” is how pundits have put his personal transgressions as well as what are seen as his media missteps. There is plenty to disagree with Gingrich on politically (whether you’re a prospective primary voter or you’re a progressive like me who’s taken an interest in the candidates because if Obama were to lose you’d want it to be someone who is at least potentially palatable as president). If, however, the focus is to be on Gingrich’s personality flaws, I’d like to focus on issues that should be of much greater importance to voters than Gingrich’s multiple marriages, the affair he had while his previous wife had cancer, his hypocrisy during the skewering of Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, or—worst of all in the eyes of conservative pundits—Gingrich’s “Al Gore sponsored” commercial about using alternative energy to power America because of the devastating effects of climate change with none other than that she-devil Nancy Pelosi (gasp).

A quick word on the Pelosi/Gingrich commercial: Whether you personally like Nancy Pelosi or not, the reason both politicians were in the commercial was not accidental. At the time of the commercial (beginning in 2007), Pelosi was Speaker of the House. Gingrich was a former Speaker of the House. A not so subtle parallel was to be drawn. This commercial was supposed to be post-partisan. It was a step forward. Both Pelosi and Gingrich admitted that they may not agree on everything, but they agreed on renewable energy for the country they both served. How refreshing. Remember the days when members of Congress could actually agree on things and cross party lines? Yeah, I don’t really either. This commercial, however, was a glimmer of that long lost time. Now, after being dragged through the mud for appearing in a commercial with Herman Cain’s “Princess Nancy” about that liberal myth meant to bankrupt America by the hippie commies known as climate change (double gasp), Gingrich has back pedaled on his participation in the commercial and with the organization behind it.

What happened to principles? What happened to leadership? Taking allegedly unpopular positions because you know they would benefit the country and the world—as opposed to cow towing to the extremes of the party—is true leadership. This is the kind of thing I want to see, and it should be the kind of thing that Republicans want to see, as well. And since when did believing in science become a disqualifier for attaining the nation’s highest office? Jon Huntsman, who is a definite conservative on the traditional issues that matter to Republicans, has been labeled a moderate in no small part because of his open support for evolution and for his belief in anthropogenic climate change. Especially in an election where the true differences between Democrats and Republicans are supposed to be on the economic front, punishing a candidate—whether it be Huntsman or Gingrich—for supporting “Al Gore’s agenda” is ridiculous and shameful.

Newt is sleazy. He is an immense political opportunist. He is arrogant, self-serving, and snarky. In a word, he is not presidential. He wants Americans to look at his record. A standout point from said record was the way he conducted business while in the House of Representatives. Before ascending to the Speakership, he fed his popularity by giving passionate speeches to the chamber. These speeches were televised on C-Span, a method Gingrich purposely employed in an effort to use broadcast media to his advantage. These impassioned speeches seemed to defy opposition. So good was he that he captivated the esteemed room. The only problem was that he was being entirely disingenuous to both the audience and the other House members. Gingrich purposely gave long, secret, after-hours speeches to empty House chambers in the late 1980s. He did this so that his ideas would not be opposed, and he would come off seeming like some kind of invincible genius. This Karl Rove-esque trick is no longer allowed to occur in Congress. It was cheating. You can read about Gingrich’s sneaky tactic here: http://books.google.com/books?id=NmCL26aE00wC&pg=PA169&dq=%2Bgingrich+%2Bcspan+%2Bafterhours&hl=en&ei=NFTdTs3GBcf30gGV7pzSDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAQ

Watch Newt Gingrich in any debate and you will see how he responds to his fellow candidates. I had the special pleasure of seeing him debate Howard Dean at a George Washington University event a few months before he formally declared his candidacy. He oozes disregard and condescension. Republicans love to call Barack Obama an elitist. Newt Gingrich is the elitist archetype.

As if these aren’t turnoffs enough, Gingrich’s cozying up to Donald Trump is downright sickening. It’s shameless opportunism. Seeking out Trump’s endorsement and courting Trump on both his recent trip to Manhattan and lauding Trump’s debate makes Gingrich look desperate and low.

Gingrich’s smugness knows no bounds. His “look at me” ethic and his constant declarations of “I’m going to be the nominee” belie insecurity shrouded in arrogance.

One thing I like about Newt Gingrich is that he is the only candidate to come out publicly in support of NASA. It seemed like he would be for increasing funding to NASA, and at the most recent Republican debate in Iowa (Saturday, December 10, 2011), Gingrich responded to a Romney jab by saying that he remembered growing up during a time when children could dream about being astronauts. He declared that he was unapologetic about wanting to encourage science and math and promoting missions to the moon and Mars. He seemed stronger on this issue than Obama.

I’m not a one issue voter, though, and it’s times like these that I have to remind myself that Gingrich wants poor kids to work janitorial jobs in schools and doesn’t believe in financial aid payments for college. One can’t forget his stance on not taxing the “job creators” and his complete denigration of Palestinians (which is a whole other issue that I could spend hours writing).

Obama’s Complicity in the Legalization of Horse Slaughter for Human Consumption: Neigh, Nay, Nay

Tags

ban, bill, congress, consumption, democrat, disappointment, horse, horse meat, horses, house, humane society, inhumane, obama, obstructionist, politics, president, president obama, republican, senate, slaughter, spending, spending bill

Those who feel the Obama presidency has been a disappointment can all point to a specific moment or specific piece of legislation as thatdefining point that the larger than life candidate did not live up to their expectations when assuming office.  These issues range from Obama’s promise to close Guantanamo Bay (still open) to his promise to fight for comprehensive climate change regulation (an issue that atonce took the back burner, and now, even talk of energy from renewable resources is all but dead after the Solyndra scandal) to Obama not coming out more strongly for gay rights.  There are a myriad of other issues which Obama has compromised on. Watering down health care legislation and extending the Bush Era tax cuts, anyone?  But what about pulling an entire 180, a Mitt Romney if you will?  Political flip flopping is always a hot topic, but especially so in the year leading up to a national election.  Obama’s signing of a bill to allow horses to be slaughtered for human consumption in the United States—a law that will allow people to eat horsemeat–is one such example.  This decision by Obama (to enact legislation which is the absolute reverse of what he said in his campaign rhetoric) is my main Obama disappointment moment.  Through disappointment to disappointment I slugged it out with him, an unfailing advocate for a president I believed in.  I argued that compromise was necessary, that no one is perfect, that he was trying to stay above the fray and his attempts at bipartisanship were idealistic and naive, but their aim was commendable.  This “quiet signing” of the horse meat bill is, however, the nadir of Obama’s presidency to me.  No, I won’t take as much of a hardline stance on Obama’s ordering of the killing of Anwar Al Awlaki (the American citizen turned terrorist), but I will stand up for innocent animals who should be allowed to live in peace and not be exploited for profit and killed because of some people’s cruel desire to eat them.   Yes, this is an issue of ethics.

More information on the bill Obama signed can be found here: http://www.louisville.com/content/obama-administration-oks-horse-meat-americans-opinion-arena:

While I am certainly an advocate for preventing the slaughter of any animal, it is not only my fellow animal rights advocates who feel that horse slaughter is particularly inhumane.  Many who claim not to be vegans or vegetarians find the practice of killing horses for their meat abhorrent. Horses are intelligent, majestic, docile creatures who have been an integral part of the American landscape since before the first English colonists settled here.  Horses form special bonds with humans not unlike other domesticated pets.  Would you eat your dog or cat?  There is no necessity to kill horses.  No argument from scarcity can be made as food in the United States is abundant.  For those  who claim that many of today’s horses are neglected and that they are being slaughtered in other places with fewer regulations (like Canada and Mexico) today anyway, I ask why more isn’t being done to ensure the proper treatment of these horses?  The answer should not be to kill them for profit.  Must everything be exploited and destroyed?  The answer is no.  Slaughtering horses for human consumption is a cruel betrayal to these animals and enables a culture that thrives on suffering.

There have been several bills proposed in both the House and the Senate over the past few years that prevent the sale, distribution (and related actions), and slaughter for human consumption of horses and burros.  The most recent bill was proposed in September 2011 and the last action taken on this bill was in October 2011.  The bill can seen here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.2966:

The bill that was signed by President Obama on November 18 was not a bill that explicitly stated anything about horse consumption or horse slaughter in its title.  The language that lifts the ban on horse slaughter was included in a large, multi-piece spending bill The Huffington Post describes as “designed to keep the government afloat” through the end of the year.  Sneaky indeed.

It is encouraging that groups from The Humane Society to passionate citizens will fight the implications of the legislation, but I still feel betrayed by Obama.  It is bad enough that we are in a place where spending bills must be passed for a month at a time and that the president has not taken a harder line with obstructionist House Republicans, in particular, but this move is something I cannot overlook.