Jobs Bill Passed

Great news! What a lengthy process to get even the "no brainer" stuff passed these days. Crossing my fingers for immigration reform and climate change in the near future. I'm hopeful that even if the GOP "wins big" they might be able to do the right thing for America after the elections when reckless division and rhetoric are not needed. Hope is a dangerous thing sometimes. The best scenario would be keeping the Dem's in the big majority but that will be a tough mountain to climb, even if the GOP clearly has no agenda and clearly wants to take us backwards. Voters don't always vote with their brains.This fear and division that the GOP is so good at could actually work, I'm afraid.

Brandon-I realize growth has been much slower than predicted, the recession was worse than originally thought, and the jobs/mortage picture is still gloomy, but Democrats actually had many ideas to address the economy but this thing call a fillibuster prevented almost every good bill from seeing the light of day. Even a  small business bill recently failed (yes, small business-the area the GOP always talks about saving!) even though it was fullly paid for! The energy bill proprosed would have saved us $19 billion. Hey, GOP, can we say reducing the deficit? So if the economy is sluggish or the deficit is stubbornly high, we can blame the GOP (and Ben Nelson) for their lack of cooperation. And don't tell me that was not by design. People are hurting and the GOP chose to save their party over saving the American people from pain and hardship. Please name me 3 (THREE) good ideas on the economy-or anything-that Republicans are pushing or could bring to the table and help our country get back on track? Oh, keeping those tax cuts for the rich? Well, those will balloon the deficit. I thought increasing the deficit was unaccpetable, even in the case of extending jobless benefits? I've heard talk of them wanted to "tweak" Social Security or privatize it. Hmm-that should go over well with seniors. So if they "win big" it will be solely because the Dem's lost on the PR front and Republicans won in the fear and smear arena. This article (which is hardly friendly to the Dem's or Obama) from The Economist emphasizes the lack of ideas from the GOP. And that's who you want to be in charge? God help us - NOTHING will get done! I'm not saying you are wrong. Yes, the GOP could very well be in the driver seat again soon. But that brings me to voting without your brain: how in the world could we want that when we know the results and what Bush's policies (the ones still embraced by the right) would do to our country?

The Republicans at the moment are less a party than an ongoing civil war (with, from a centrist point of view, the wrong side usually winning). There is a dwindling band of moderate Republicans who understand that they have to work with the Democrats in the interests of America. There is the old intolerant, gun-toting, immigrant-bashing, mainly southern right which sees any form of co-operation as treachery, even blasphemy. And muddying the whole picture is the tea-party movement, a tax revolt whose activists (some clever, some dotty, all angry) seem to loathe Bush-era free-spending Republicans as much as they hate Democrats. Egged on by a hysterical blogosphere and the ravings of Fox News blowhards, the Republican Party has turned upon itself (see article).

Optimists say this is no more than the vigorous debate that defines the American primary system. They rightly point out that American conservatism has always been a broad church and the battle is not all one way. This week California’s Republicans chose two relatively moderate former chief executives, Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina, to run for governor and the Senate. But both had to dive to the right to win, which will not help them in November. And in neighbouring Nevada the Republicans chose a tea-partier so extreme that she may yet allow Harry Reid, the unloved Democratic Senate leader, to hang on to his seat. Many of the battles are indeed nastier than normal: witness the squabble in Florida, where the popular governor, Charlie Crist, has left the party; Senator Lindsey Graham walking away from climate-change legislation for fear of vile personal attacks; and even John McCain, who has battled with the southern-fried crazies in his party for decades, joining the chorus against Mexican “illegals” to keep his seat.

As for ideas, the Republicans seem to be reducing themselves into exactly what the Democrats say they are: the nasty party of No. They may well lambast Mr Obama for expanding the federal deficit; but it is less impressive when they are unable to suggest alternatives. Paul Ryan, a bright young congressman from Wisconsin, has a plan to restore the budget to balance; it has sunk without a trace. During the row over health care, the right demanded smaller deficits but refused to countenance any cuts in medical spending on the elderly. Cutting back military spending is denounced as surrender to the enemy. Tax rises of any kind (even allowing the unaffordable Bush tax cuts to expire as scheduled) are evil.

This lack of coherence extends beyond the deficit. Do Republicans favour state bail-outs for banks or not? If they are against them, as they protest, why are they doing everything they can to sabotage a financial-reform bill that will make them less likely? Is the party of “drill, baby, drill” in favour of tighter regulation of oil companies or not? If not, why is it berating Mr Obama for events a mile beneath the ocean? Many of America’s most prominent business leaders are privately as disappointed by the right as they are by the statist Mr Obama.

This is a more slanted article from Huffington Post but points out the hypocrisy in GOP ideas about reducing the deficit. How can anyone explain this other than to say they care more about helping the rich than reducing the deficit (as one could also say Dem's care more about helping the poor than the deficit.) On moral ground, the Democrats win, but clearly we need some moderate solutions in which both sides compromise and come together. Is that even possible?

 

Most voters don't look at these issues as close as you do Kelly.

But you do, Brandon, and yet you still care more about saving the GOP than this country.  The GOP wants to repeal the financial reform that just passed for heavens sake. They may as well take out a bill board ad that reads: "we care more about big business and the rich than helping the middle class." They don't even hide it anymore! Barton speaks for the entire party when he apologizes to BP (most of them are just smart enough to keep that empathy quiet!)  You are much smarter than that yet you would happily give back the keys to the guys who have had more than their share of DWI's, traffic violations, and even fatal accidents if you ask me. I wish I could see them ever working with Obama but I only see more obstruction in the future. Is that what you want? The health care bill was filled with GOP ideas and not one voted for it. The financial reg. bill was watered down for the Republicans but only yielded a handful of votes. The GOP helped craft a small business bill and fillibustered their own bill? This sickens me. How can you be ok with these tactics? Oh, and where are those 3 ideas from the GOP you support?

OK-if you can't give me 3 positive economic (or other) plans you support from the GOP, please give me 3 pieces of evidence that shows ANYTHING "Pelosi's Congress" or "Reid's Senate" has passed that resembles anything far-left or liberal. All legislation since Obama took office is either moderate or conservative. Period. It's the only way to avoid a fillibuster. No wonder Progressives are so darn disappointed. Pelosi may have a liberal philosophy but she sure has been willing to compromise on MANY issues-even abortion-to make sure legislation passes, which is her bottom line. And I'm sure it pains her to do so. I give her credit for allowing certain legislation to survive-passing in watered down form-even though her liberal principles are compromised. She sees the big picture and is very good at making sure she has enough votes for passage. Reid is in the same boat. Yes fillibusters are partly to blame, but I must say it is often the "Blue Dog" Democrats standing in the way of anything close to a liberal agenda. That's one thing I admire about the Democrats (even though it frustrates me that many Blue Dogs refused to support a public option and were not "strong armed" into it, for example.). They allow diversity in their caucus. There are Conservative Democrats, Liberal Democrats and many in between, which is why most legislation is very moderate, even with a Democratic-led Congress and Democratic President. I think it is YOU who are buying into the notion that bills being passed are liberal in any way, shape or form. For example, we know now a liberal version of the stimulus (suggested by people like Krugman)would have been much bigger (and likely more effective) but it was not even on the table, so they settled for the moderate stimulus which was just not enough given the severity of the recession. We know that a liberal health care bill would have had a public option. Medicare for all-a liberal's dream-was not even allowed to be discussed. Perhaps if we had examined that-which is supported by most Americans-health care reform would have been more "understandable" and popular. But-no-they watered down "liberal" reform and basically recycled the old GOP plan for health care reform (do you need me to find the link of Dole offering his ideas when Hillary was pushing her plan? Or Romney endorsing mandates?) I'm not complaining-the health care legislation was still comprehensive and historic and never would have even been debated if McCain was President, thus ignoring the huge cost increases every year and adding to the deficit (don't forget health care reform reduces the deficit and adds many years of life onto Medicare.) Luckily a few of us do our homework and realize the GOP was for health care reform in it's current state before they were pushing for repeal. And do you really think Financial Reform could ever be a bad thing for consumers? I think you are the one drinking the kool-aid.

So it comes down to 2 choices for me:

1. Voting for a party, while far from perfect, who is willing to move us in the right direction, even with baby steps, and willing to compromise on things like immigration reform and climate change legislation which could both help reduce the deficit. A party who is willing to let tax cuts expire for the rich to help reduce our deficit.

or

2. A party that is very happy with the status quo, pretending they will repeal health care reform and financial reform when they know that's unrealisitc and harmful to most Americans, refuse to compromise, love just saying no to ANYTHING Obama proposes (even if they helped craft it) or it will help reduce the deficit. A party that pretends they want to reduce the deficit but want to KEEP tax cuts for the rich even though most experts say it will explode the deficit. Oh, and a party who are obsessed with dividing the nation, clinging to racist themes, and putting gasoline on anti-immigrant or anti-Muslim sentiment. 

I know which party I will vote for.

Texas Grandmother-I strongly advise you to hook up with a local "Coffee Party" group. One of their big agenda items is fair elections and controlling the influence of lobby money. Personally, if lobbyist influence was not a afactor, I'm quite sure we would have had a public option in the HCR bill and I doubt we'd see Rep. Barton apologizing to BP! Money talks in D.C., that's for sure, and the middle class suffer as a result. I am actively involved with a Buffalo chapter Coffee Party and find the movement to be gaining momentum. They are having a big Coffee Party Convention in Louisville, KY in September. Unfortunately, I have a wedding to attend that week-end or I'd be there in a heartbeat.

COFFEE PARTY MISSION STATEMENT