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.

Rally for sanity??!! Keep fear alive??!! I'll be there!! How about you?

If you missed it, there are competing rallies being held in Washington DC on October 30th. One is the Rally For Sanity being promoted by Jon Stewart on his comedy channel show, The Daily Show. It has also been spoken of on news shows on CNN and Fox News(?) and he had an appearance on Oprah (wow) talking about the rally. Stephen Colbert is sponsoring the Keep Fear Alive rally on the same date at the same place. Some people think that this is just a spoof (how often do you get to use the word "spoof"?), but these are actual rallies.

Now, some people are thinking "so what?", a couple of comedians are trying to promote themselves and their television shows. But, there is an interesting take on this that makes sense. Jon Stewart for all his wit and comedic talent makes a valid point saying that there are 15-20% of the people being heard because they shout the loudest, say the craziest things, get the media's attention and show up in our living rooms on the news, even if their pronouncements are a bit insane. There is another 80-85% of the public that is sane, but don't do the things to get on the news. They are the people that are trying to get by in a bad economy, provide for their families and themselves, don't really have time for politics, and fighting back against the crazies, and just exist while the chaos as portrayed on the news is portrayed as "most" Americans. And,mostly, they don't have a vehicle for displaying their saneness. This rally is that vehicle. Get on board. If you are tired of the wackos in the front of the news getting all the attention, if you feel that the news media has not displayed your set of opinions, if you dislike the negative, sometimes racist, sometimes xenophobic, sometimes homophobic, sometimes anti-freedom of religion, all the time shouting of the dissident conservative right, your chance to, not shout back, but to protest politely back, is this rally. Let me encourage, no, strongly urge that you make it to this event. This is that important.

Stewart kiddingly said that you should think about this as Woodstock, but without the nudity and drugs and instead rational discourse. This could be the event of your lifetime or your generation. You want to be there. It will be a happening, or just a mild get-together amongst polite, well meaning people that are wondering why in the hell they came. I think it will be an event not to be missed.

I will be there.

At first, I thought what a silly thing to do. Then, upon further review, I thought, I don't like the news media portraying all Americans as angry with all politicians, with being upset with all taxes, as conservatives, and far right conservatives, who speak for all Americans. THEY DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME!!. That being said, who does speak for me? Well, me. I want to lend my support for saneness, for rationalness (possible new word), for not turning this country into one that decides what is to happen by mob rule. Yes, these people may not be a mob and they will turn out and vote, as will I. They may be more impassioned and will vote no matter what, and relatively sane folks may not be that invested in the upcoming election, but they should. The loud minority only wins where the larger, dare I say it, "silent majority" stays silent. Because after this rally, there is an election and if you can't get to the rally, you must get to the polls. You must vote! You must help defeat extremism in political thought. What is extremism? Listen. It is out there. Smaller government. Really? How? How would smaller government handle the oil spill? Leave it to the states? The first thing Republican governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal said following the oil spill and for days afterwards was "Where is the federal government?" Obama isn't doing enough. Would smaller government stop the egg contamination problem? Or was it lack of government that brought about the wide-spread problem with half a billion eggs recalled. Extremism? Lower taxes! At a time when Republicans are screaming about a run-away deficit, we should bring in less money and increase the deficit and the national debt even more? Get government out of my life? Repeal the new health care law? Didn't you know about Obama being born in Kenya? Didn't you know that Obama is a Muslim? Didn't you see the change towards socialism? Don't you see............?

WHOA!

Are we that short-sighted as an electorate? Are we that unknowledgeable (another new word) about what is going on? One in five Americans in a poll believe that Obama is a Muslim. (truth alert--he isn't. He is a Christian) How can 20% of Americans believe something that is totally untrue? It happens all the time and people believe what they want to believe even the untruth. (new word?)

Want an example? The USA went into Iraq because of their involvement in the attack on the USA on 9/11. (circa 2003, pre-invasion of Iraq, 69% of Americans in a poll said the attack was justified because of that) Truth? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam Hussein had no connection with Osama Bin Laden. Iraq had no WMD's. That takes care of all the initial reasons for invading Iraq. We are now at 4,424 US deaths in Iraq. What do you believe today?