Now, everything will be all right!

Now everything will be all right.

Finally, the country, the state, nearly all governmental bodies will make everything okay again. The Republicans and their Tea Party mates are in control of state legislatures, the US House of Representatives, an increasing minority in the US Senate and they will fix everything. Hallelujah!!! What idiot voters put the Democrats in charge in the first place? Didn't they know that the Democrats were secret socialists, communists, anti-Americans? Fortunately the idiot voters that put them in control came to their senses and voted in real Americans. You know real Americans don't you? Those are the ones that uphold the Constitution of the United States. They support the first amendment and allow for freedom of religion. Of course, we can't allow all religions. That would enable "bad", "terrorist loving", "evil" religions into our freedom loving USA and we can't have that! Once that happens, "those" religions might want to build a religious building to hide their anti-American intentions. We can't have "those" people spreading their hate in our freedom loving country.

The real Americans love the second amendment too. After all, had real Americans not bought up all the ammunition in stores across the country after President Obama was sworn in, we'd have what we have now, the government taking away our guns and prohibiting our ammo purchases. Okay it hasn't started yet, but every real American knows that is what the Democrats are really after...eliminating all guns for citizens. By the way one state starting January 1, 2011 has a new law that allows the open carry of guns into bars, so long as the wearer doesn't appear drunk. Another win for the second amendment freedoms.

We certainly don't want to get like Mexico where it is hard to buy a gun. In fact, most of the murders in Mexico along the Mexican border with the USA are done by guns made in the USA and bought here in the USA. Thank goodness we still have the right to buy as many guns as we want and can sell them to whomever we want.

While I don't have time to list all the freedoms in the Constitution one by one, know that the new political might of Republicans/Tea Partyers, will fix everything. If only we could get many years of Republican rule, along with a Republican president, this country would be flying high on prosperity, full employment, great housing market, high stock market and this would once again be the land of milk and honey.

Oh, except for the period between 2001 and 2007 when the US did have a Republican president and Republican majorities in the both the US House of Representatives and the US Senate. Didn't spending decline? Weren't deficits eliminated? Wasn't there a booming stock market? Housing market? Full employment? Peace? Wasn't everyone happy?

Reality check.

While Republicans and Tea Partyers call for smaller government and less spending, what happened when the country was in Republican control? Spending increased. Yes, the spending was approved by both parties. War was declared on the attackers of 9/11. Yes, both parties approved going into Afghanistan. War was declared on a country that had not attacked the US. Yes, both parties approved going into Iraq. The stock market fell. The housing bubble was built up to the breaking point. Unemployment increased. Terror alerts abounded. In fact, the country was tired enough of the direction of the country that the Democrats were voted

(by idiot voters?) into majorities in both the US House of Representatives and the US Senate in 2006 (taking office in January, 2007). By 2008 the course of the US train had seriously derailed. The housing bubble burst. The economy was in a shambles. Unemployment skyrocketed--really skyrocketed with 600,000 to 700,000 Americans losing their job EVERY MONTH!!!

Sometimes when people look at the short term, they lose sight of the long term. So, we heard, "Why hasn't Obama done more?" Why isn't unemployment back at pre-recession levels? Obama is turning American into a socialist/communist state. The government wants to dictate to us everything about our lives.

Let's see what the next two years bring. Will Republicans/Tea Partyers bring fiscal responsibility to Washington? Let's see. Will they bring about smaller government? Let's see. Will they rein in the deficits and lower the national debt? Let's see. Already some of these new members are talking about not increasing the maximum the USA can borrow, known as the debt ceiling (the national debt). Will capping our debt ceiling stop deficit spending which causes it? Or, should they just cut the spending they criticize and not need to raise the debt ceiling? Not raising the debt ceiling and then creating a crisis in the US's credit worthiness to other nations, will cause untold harm and chaos. In their effort to show they mean business about how Washington operate, will these new members be so foolish as to go to that showdown? Let's see.

Guts? Nerve? Daring? Fortitude? Backbone?

Sometimes you just have to take a stand and fight back.

Criticism has rained down on President Obama for giving the Republicans what they want. Obama has explained that compromise gives each side something they want and something that they have to give up that they don't want. This was the tax cut compromise. Obama said that he did not want to play politics with the lives of people that need help now, especially the 2,000,000 that are currently unemployed and need their unemployment benefits to exist. But Republicans were willing to play chicken and the President blinked first. Could a stand alone unemployment benefit bill have passed? Would Republicans vote no to such a bill? The answer to that is "yes". And then the political game would be on. Republicans could claim that the benefits were not paid for and that it perpetuated laziness and a welfare state. Democrats could claim that the Republicans were heartless and only seemed to worry about programs costs and how it would be paid for when it is not a program they favored. The tax cuts for the wealthy certainly aren't paid for. The tax cuts for the wealthy add billions of dollars to the deficit and consequently the national debt. Why don't those have to be paid for?

Obama said that not agreeing to the tax cut plan would raise taxes on the middle class. This would have a negative impact on the spending power of both the unemployed and the middle class and therefore a big impact on the economy and the recovery effort. But this would decrease the take home pay of working Americans only slightly and would raise billions of dollars from the wealthy as their tax cut would expire too. This would bring in billions to the US Treasury and therefore curtail the amount of the deficit and consequently the national debt.

What to do? What to do?

Many Democrats feel that Obama gave up too much. The wealthy gain big time with the tax cut for them. The middle class would pay higher taxes, but not to the point of making major changes to their life style. The biggest stumbling block is the unemployed. So was the deal for those 2,000,000? If you are one of them, you see that your lifeline is extended for a while and that is a great thing. So, what is the best thing for the US regardless of politics?

In the short term, the tax deal helps a lot of people and is a good thing. In the long run, maybe not. If US revenue increases, the deficit can be cut. Combine that with a supposed end to earmarks (supposed), and a major change in deficit spending could take place--a good thing. In reality the tax rates would just go back to what they were during the Clinton administration. You might remember those times. We weren't involved in any war, the unemployment rate was at record lows, and (gasp!) we actually ran a surplus instead of a deficit. IF Democrats could have found the nerve to stop the tax deal, could they have put the Republicans on the spot repeatedly by forcing votes that the Republicans said they would block without the tax cut for the wealthy? What would happen if every day a vote was defeated or blocked by Republicans on any issue that would be perceived as helpful to the US in the long run? Would the Republicans have the fortitude to continue and continue to block everything?

We won't know now, will we?

LET'S GO FORWARD BACKWARDS

Running on campaigns that promised job creation, at least two Republican governors elect have decided that the way to do that is to reject jobs that were created by Democrats. Both governors in Ohio and Wisconsin have rejected the high speed rail money that has already been awarded to their states. Let's examine Wisconsin's governor elect Scott Walker who campaigned on the promise that he would stop all progress on development of a high speed train between Milwaukee and Madison. This would eventually link up with existing train service between Milwaukee and Chicago and would also provide the basis for high speed trains continuing on to Minneapolis-St Paul. Sure enough, as he won election, he got outgoing Governor, Jim Doyle, to stop any additional work on the high speed train project. Governor Doyle not only supported the project, but had previously gotten a train manufacturer, Talgo Inc, to locate in Milwaukee and they had hired employees and were actively building train cars!

Walker originally wanted to divert the $810,000,000 that Wisconsin had been awarded to road building, but found out that this money was approved by Congress for high speed trains only. The US Transportation department indicated that if Wisconsin (and Ohio) did not want their share of this money, that it would be distributed to other states that did. And, other states immediately indicated that they wanted the money from these two states, totaling $1,200,000,000.

Walker said that the state would be on the hook for maintenance costs and he did not want to burden Wisconsin taxpayers with that extra cost, which he put at $7.5 million a year. That ignored the fact that the federal government currently picks up 90% of the maintenance costs on the existing service between Milwaukee and Chicago which would leave Wisconsin responsible for only $750,000. Now since it was reported that nearly 5,000 jobs would be created in building new tracks and upgrading existing tracks over several years and that there would be about 100+ permanent jobs running trains, stations, and other railroad duties, doesn't that mean that "I'll create jobs" Scott Walker is immediately losing jobs? Plus, some communities saw that a new train station and/or new train service in their towns would mean new development around that new traffic that would mean possibly new businesses locating near this new transportation, in the form of offices, restaurants, and shops. Then we have Talgo Inc. who just this morning announced that they would leave Wisconsin for a more train friendly state and take their 100-200 jobs with them. Illinois, which is planning to build a high speed train line between Chicago and St Louis, is interested in the company moving to their state. Wouldn't all these jobs have people paying taxes to Wisconsin? Isn't it possible that revenue would offset the $750,000 cost of maintenance for the state? Walker has said that he is going to create 250,000 new jobs in Wisconsin. Since he is starting at a minus 5000, he'll need to create 255,00 jobs to reach his goal. After going backwards, maybe we can start going forward. Hopefully Scott Walker knows the right direction.

"What the hell is going on out there!" -Lombardi

MAJOR CLARIFICATION

The big tax compromise.

Here is what happened, in clear terms. President Obama was faced with having tax rates for those making under $250,000 go up along with the rates for those making more (much more) as the tax cuts put in place temporarily by President Bush were due to expire December 31, 2010. At the same time, tax breaks put in by Obama for college tuition and small businesses were set to expire as well. At the same time unemployment benefits for about 2,000,000 unemployed Americans were set to end December 1st, 2010. Obama wanted to keep the tax cut for less than $250,000 earners and eliminate the tax cut for wealthy Americans (over $250,000). He wanted to extend unemployment benefits as for most those 2 million people that was the only income they had. That was what was keeping food on their table and a place to live. Republicans in the House and Senate insisted on keeping the tax cuts for everyone (meaning the rich, since everyone agreed to keep them for the middle class). The Republicans said that basically this was a must if anything was going to pass. Obama gave up 2 years of tax cuts for the wealthy to get the other things he wanted. That was the compromise. Many Obama supporters and many Democrats felt that Obama caved. This is not true. He got what he could under the circumstances. He could have fought with the Republicans and played chicken to see who would blink first, but that could take months and would mean the 2 million needing immediate help would not get it while the politicians played. He was not willing to do that. So, the rich get theirs (which is a lot) and Obama saved a lot of people who probably don't even know it and who probably voted Republican.

So what is the big deal about the wealthy getting a tax break?

One estimate is that with the tax cuts being extended to include wealthy folks, is that they will reap a $46,000 tax savings for each one million dollars of income. If you make $10, 000, 000, you can multiply that by 10 for about a half million dollars of extra money due to this tax break supplied by Republicans. Estimates also put this at a total of $60,000,000,000 that the US Treasury will not have coming in. These are the same Republicans that said that they could not in good conscious extend unemployment benefits since the Democrats did not figure out how to pay for that extension. They did not seem to worry about where the money would come from to pay for the tax cut for the wealthy.

What is the impact on the economy by these moves?

The people getting the unemployment benefits will spend that money immediately, putting that money into the economy immediately. The rich, it was pointed out by a Republican, will have the money to buy a nice, new car. (if they want a new one) or to invest in securities that could be eventually lent out to someone wanting to buy a house. The first of these grows the economy from the ground up. The second, seems to be along the lines of trickle down economics.

Why would the Republicans want to reward the rich? The Republican party blew away the records for bringing in donations for their candidates. The largest amount came in the form of unidentified contributors to third party organizations that sprang up overnight and did not have to follow any reporting rules as to who gave or how much they gave to these groups. You saw these groups this past election season pushing attack ads. They got life as the Supreme Court ruled this past summer that campaign finance laws set up to regulate these groups were illegal.

The best government money can buy.

November 2, 2010, did you vote today?

Today is the federal election day, November 2, 2010, the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. Did you vote? Are you still going out to vote? Are you just going to let everyone else decide? No one ever impacted an election by sitting it out. Can't choose between the candidates? Go to someone you trust and ask them who to vote for. Read the endorsements of your local newspaper. Read about the candidates on-line. "I don't like either of the candidates. One is an idiot and the other is a moron." Okay. But either the idiot or the moron is going to be elected anyway. Choose whomever you think will do the least harm. Sitting out allows other idiots and morons to decide the future for you. "Government doesn't really affect me anyway." What a way to hide. Of course government at all its different levels affects everyone. "Nothing ever changes, just different crooks in charge." That is the fault of all of us and of citizens who don't take part at all.

This election is not going to please at least half of the voters and nearly all of the non-voters. If you are a non-voter and have a complaint, just shut up. If you are a voter and have a complaint, file it. Get it on record with your elected officials, write a letter to the newspaper, post comments online, work for the candidates you want to see have a shot at running things even more next time.

VOTE TODAY!!!

Thanks.

A sign of the times--no party

A SIGN OF THE TIMES, NO REPUBLICANS, NO DEMOCRATS, JUST CANDIDATES

Have you noticed? I can't find a political sign for any elected office that uses the words "Democrat" or "Republican". It is as if the political parties ceased to exist. Everyone is running on their own name only with no party affiliation. You use to see that "Vote for John Q. Public, Democrat" or "Joe Blow, Republican for Congress". Have you seen any party listed on anyone's yard sign? Political flyer or literature? TV ad? Nope. I've see "...a true conservative.", but no political party. It is not only not fashionable this year, it can be toxic. Some party will come out of these off year elections with a majority in Congress, they just won't ask you to vote for that party.

Voting is underway in many states that have early voting. Make your plans to vote, either on election day November 2nd or early, according to your state's laws. DO NOT cop out by saying "my vote doesn't count." or "I don't care for either candidate." or "I don't know about politics." or "I'm too busy." OR....... you get the idea. If only, once a person started voting they would have to continue or would want to continue. Where will all the voters that voted in 2008 be this year? "I voted for change and nothing has changed." "I voted for McCain and my candidate never wins." Get off your sorry rear ends and be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

Don't know who to vote for? Ask someone smart, someone you trust, someone who knows what is going on and take their recommendation. DO NOT throw your right to vote away!

Women fought for decades to get the right to vote. How many won't today?

Minorities fought, in many cases with their lives for the right to vote. How many won't today?

18-20 year olds finally go the right to vote during the Viet Nam war. How many won't today?

In many countries, people risk their lives to even show up at a voting location. We only have to go to a voting location near our homes. How many won't today?

GET OUT AND VOTE!!

"Don't vote! We'll be fine without" --Bob Roberts

If you've never seen the film "Bob Roberts" starring Tim Robbins, you won't recall this song that was part of the movie. It is a movie worth renting. Robbins plays a folk singing, senatorial candidate. One of the songs is "Don't vote" with the lyric--"We'll be fine without you" That is exactly what many politicians are hoping for this November 2nd. DON'T VOTE!! You see, the smaller the electorate (voters) the more likely that the fringe candidates and less popular candidates can win. Wait! If they are less popular, won't they lose? No. Follow this scenario: 100 CAN vote. If they had to vote and all 100 voted, candidate A would get 48, candidate B would get 44, 8 votes would go to the wide variety of fringe candidates that are on the ballot. (there are many) But all 100 who CAN vote, don't. The turnout is around 50%, so only 50 vote. But, candidate A's backers are unenthused, are apathetic, are too busy and in reality only 22 actually get out and vote for their candidate. Candidate B's supporters are enthused, active, and can't wait to vote.30 of them get out and vote. The remaining 8% also vote to some extent or another. B wins!! A's supporters who didn't vote wonder what happened. They weren't all that excited about the job A was doing and really were busy on election day and had to get their car in for servicing. Candidate B did a good job of reminding A's supporters that A hadn't kept all their promises and that everyone was disappointed in what was happening now. This message resonates. Even though A had done a pretty good job since being elected originally, A's backers felt let down and discouraged and apathetic. Why support A again? A hadn't done everything that they promised to get elected. Things are better but not perfect. I give up. I tried to help change things and nothing(?) changed. Why vote again?

After election day, B is the winner and the realization that oops, maybe they won't be such a good leader hits. The improvement of A will start to be reversed by B and his backers.

Who wants to have a large voter turnout? The answer should be everyone, but it is not. In some states several billboards have gone up stating that voter fraud is a crime and could result in jail. This is accompanied with a picture of someone looking regretful behind bars. Whenever voter fraud is investigated, it is found to be next to nothing. We should all work to prevent voter fraud, but these billboards have an intimidating effect that mostly affects poor and undereducated. Some voters in lower income neighborhoods have received postcards telling them that they are not eligible to vote. Who could possibly want to intimidate voters into possibly not voting?

If the news media decides to follow up and report on that, you can decide that question.

But this has nothing to do with me. I'm intelligent, not poor, and I am eligible to vote. Being eligible to vote and doing so are two far, far different things. Will you vote? Pick out your favorite candidate, or party, or position and go and vote. Can't get there on Nov. 2nd? Vote absentee ballot. Go to your city hall and vote now. Write and get an absentee ballot by mail. You still have time if you act now! You will be sent an absentee ballot by mail, fill it out, and mail it back. Away at college? Do this or you have the option in many states of being listed as a resident of the area you are in and can vote in the city of your college. Some states have no advance voter registration, like Wisconsin, and you can sign up the day of the election. Just bring ID and address verification, like a drivers license or utility bill of your current address.

DO SOMETHING!!!! GO VOTE!!!!

or

They'll be fine without you.