The best game in town

The National Football League is down to the final four teams. Excitement abounds, especially if you are in one of the remaining cities or are a fan of one of the finalists. The news/sports media are all agog over match-ups, history, speculations, and personal stories concerning these teams. Some of the newspapers I've seen start their sports sections on the front page and sports pages' first page scream headlines. There will be more about the players, coaches, fans, and pundits written this week and in the following two weeks leading up to the Super Bowl that fans will read than what they might normally read about politicians, government, and political races. While this is a great diversion from the seriousness/silliness of politics, government still impacts us all with decisions that are being made now. In Wisconsin, new governor, Scott Walker's first piece of legislation (AB1-assembly bill number one) is to place caps on how much money companies can be held liable for in lawsuits against them. This is being proposed as a job creation bill. While there are many provisions to this bill, basically, it would limit the amount of money someone could win against a company that did them wrong. A cap of $750,000 would apply to some lawsuits that claim "for loss of companionship, mental distress and pain and suffering". So, sorry we killed your spouse in a mistake that was ours, but if you sue, we are covered.

If a survey were done to ask people if they knew who Aaron Rodgers or Ben Roethisberger or Joe Biden or John Boehner were, I'm guessing that Boehner finishes last, Biden next to last and you'd get a good conversation about the other two. This is not to say that the football games are not important. I will be hunkered down and watching both games on Sunday. But, I will also know about what our politicians are doing as well. Actually, they both are the best games in town.

Enjoy both.

This is too easy.

This is too easy.

Politicians are easy game anyway, but this is too easy. The Republicans on their first day of control of the US House of Representatives are tackling the major problems of the USA. One of their first orders of business is to read aloud the entire United States Constitution. That begs the question, "Haven't they ever read it before?" or "Don't they know what is in it?" Sure there are lots of new House members, but did they really get elected without knowing what is in the Constitution? Now at least one did not get elected once they expressed their lack of knowledge of the contents of the Constitution. The Tea Party/Republican candidate for senate in Delaware asked at a forum in front of law students about where in the Constitution that it indicated that there was separation of church and state. That question brought laughs from the audience. She fell far short of being elected.

So, the new leadership in the House of Representatives felt that this reading of the Constitution was the most important business item. This precedes their proposed agenda of creating jobs, reducing the size of the federal government, and reducing the deficit/national debt. Their second order of business is to vote on repealing the just passed health care law. This is going to be done, even though they know that passing this bill in the House of Representatives will go nowhere. The Senate would have to pass it as well and then the President would have to sign it. None of those things will happen. So, why is voting on a bill that has no chance of becoming law so important that it precedes their proposed agenda of creating jobs, reducing the size of the federal government, and reducing the deficit/national debt? Both of these more important agenda items are for one thing and one thing only--to symbolically score political points. They can then turn to their conservative base and say that they tried to undo the health care law and that they support the Constitution as written and read. It's a good thing that we have all the time in the world to fix the unemployment crisis, reduce the size of the federal government, and reduce spending to cut the deficit/national debt that we can engage in partisan grandstanding. But that is okay. These are the same folks that were in office when the national debt doubled under the Bush administration. Don't you remember new Speaker of the House, John Boehner, standing up to President Bush when the national debt increased during his administration? Boehner was in the House during those years when the Republicans controlled the House and the Senate. Boehner voted for the tax rebate that President Bush pushed for in his first year in office that reduced the amount of money coming into the US Treasury and led to a deficit and greater national debt in Bush's first year in office. You don't remember Boehner and the Republicans doing that do you? That's because deficit spending and increasing the national debt are only bad when the other guys are in office. Boehner and the Republican majority and Republican President didn't worry about fiscal responsibility when they were the ones minding the money.

Picking on the Republicans for their first two agenda items is too easy. Comedians will use this as it is too easy to ridicule their first two actions on the House floor. They will score points with those that blindly applaud the Constitution reading as being what America is all about. This is not what America is all about. America is/should be about doing what is right for the American people and today that is getting down to the business of solving the unemployment problem first. Reading the Constitution will create no jobs.

"Do as I say, not as I do" is a often used phrase. The new wave of new government representatives should get on with it. Do. Quit with the posturing. Do! Make a difference in the lives of Americans. Do! This is only a new wave of changers of Washington's business as usual attitude if they act. Do! Their is a lot of talk about what the electors' message was on November 4th, 2010, I don't think it was all about jobs, or all about repealing health care laws, or about wars, or about immigration, or about .........fill in the blank. It was about Washington working. Do!

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.