Republicans – A Party that Refuses to Compromise

I want to make one more point on the Paul Ryan plan and Republicans in general.  Republicans have entered an age where they refuse to make any compromise whatsoever.  Unfortunately when a party takes this position it makes our system incredibly inefficient.  There is a reason laws have to go through Congress and the House and the White House.  It is to make it difficult for one person or party to have all the control.  The Constitution has set up a system where compromise is almost a necessity in order to pass laws.  Republicans have taken a strong stance against any form of compromise though, and then they get mad when liberals portray them as a do-nothing-Congress.

This issue does not cut both ways; Democrats have consistently been willing to compromise (maybe too willing).  The Affordable Care Act is a compromise between our current system and a single payer system.  Cap and trade is a compromise between the current regulation and a direct carbon tax. These compromises, although once supported by Republicans, are now universally viewed by the right as abominable and one step closer to socialism.

Also, there is no Grover Norquist of the left.  Grover Norquist has persuaded a majority of House Republicans to sign a pledge to never, ever, under any circumstance raise taxes.  That doesn’t exist on the left. The left has not signed a pledge taking an essential power of the government completely off the table.

Finally, concerning the Ryan budget, all he does is decrease taxes, cut programs that more liberal swaying people view as necessary, and increase defense spending. This is the epitome of a refusal to compromise. Taken another way, there is not one aspect of the Ryan plan liberals can jump on board with, this isn’t true for the President’s plan. You may not like the President’s budget, but it is much more of a compromise than Ryan’s budget.  The President is willing to cut some taxes and cut some spending. The President does not have the my-way or the highway approach to his budget like Paul Ryan.

Now I’m sure some conservatives will read this and say “why should we compromise on any issue?” “We are right.” It’s not that simple though.  Both parties always think they are right, but if anything is to get done there has to be a give and take on every issue, and we need to get things done – health care, Social Security, unemployment, the national debt, sustainable energy etc.  The fact is the current Republican Party is unwilling to budge on any of these issues, and this can only cause problems for the country.   Republicans have become so consumed with their ideology that any opposing view is wrong-on-arrival.

Could the Ryan Plan Convert some Republicans to Democrats?

The WONKBLOG makes a curious observation about Paul Ryan’s new budget plan.  It points out, in many ways, the plan panders to those who tend to vote Republican. Most obviously he drastically cuts taxes for the wealthy, the heart of the Republican Party.  Now, let’s look at what cuts he makes in order to pay for those tax cuts.

We see he makes cuts to Medicare, but not nearly as much as he cuts Medicaid.  Not surprising because Medicare benefits the elderly, who tend to vote Republican, and Medicaid benefits the young and the poor, who tend to vote Democrat.

Second, he changes nothing with Social Security because everyone knows that is political suicide.  Even though Ryan continually says his plan is about making tough decisions, I guess it’s only tough decisions that won’t adversely affect his voter base.

Finally, we have everything else.  This includes, as you might guess, a lot of the programs on which poor people rely.  Things like food stamps, federal housing, and the earned-income tax credit will all be cut under Ryan’s plan.

The ‘everything else’ category would be lower if defense spending stayed constant, however; Ryan increases it by $200 billion. This just illustrates how many areas of our economy will be cut to make up for the lost revenue from his drastic tax cuts.

He cuts taxes for the wealthy and pays for it by cutting programs for the poor. Basically taking from those who do not vote for him and giving it to those who do.

Well sort of…

A portion of the plan does pander to the traditional Republican base: the rich, the elderly and those fed up with the welfare state.  But there is a large part of the Republican base who benefits from a lot of the programs Ryan plans to cut.  These are the people who curse government; yet welcome their government handouts each month.  They continue to vote Republican (and against their interest) because they don’t care about fiscal responsibility as much as they care about God and guns.  But I wonder if those checks stopped coming would they still cling to their values as the most important issue? I wonder if Republicans really got their way if it is possible there would  be a massive Republican to Democrat conversion?  It’s easy for those who vote for values to abhor the welfare state as long as they continue to get their checks, but maybe once the money stops flowing they will realize their interests lie on the other side of the political spectrum.

What George Washington and Barack Obama have in Common

So what do these men have in common? Well, they are power-hungry communists hell-bent on achieving a complete government takeover. Wait. Hold on. That doesn’t sound right. I must be watching too much Fox News. What they both have in common is that they both put into law individual mandates. Or according to Fox News, power-hungry communists hell-bent on achieving a complete government takeover.

President Washington signed into law the Militia Act of 1792, which mandated all “able-bodied” males own a “good musket or firelock.”  So over two centuries, before President Obama decided to take over control of the government and destroy the Constitution with his health care bill, which requires an individual mandate, our first President had already beaten him to the punch.

I bring this up because next week the Supreme Court will decide on the Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, which in reality is, as Biden would say, “a big f***ing deal.” Health care is arguably the single biggest issue America faces (next to birth control and porn of course).  Health care affects every single person, the costs are skyrocketing, the programs already in place are running out of money and the future state of health care in this county is shaky at best. With that said, I hope partisan issues do not determine the outcome of this case. Supreme Court Justices serve life terms precisely to avoid partisan politics.

Now, I’m not here to say because Washington had a mandate that was Constitutional therefore the health care act is Constitutional.  However, they are very similar and our court system is based on precedent.  I just hope the extreme growing divide in our political parties does not bear the most weight on this decision.  Health care is too big of an issue to cater to political parties.

Romney – Just an Awful Politician

You may hate Romney, you make like Romney, (I venture few love him), you may think he’s a good businessman, you may think he’s a capitalist pig, you may think he’s a Massachusetts moderate or you may think he’s truly conservative, but there’s one thing he truly is; just an awful politician.

Never mind he has flip-flopped on almost every issue (did he learn nothing from John Kerry?) and never mind he continually panders in the most obvious ways to every state he visits (“I like grits”, and “the trees are the right height”), and never mind he has put Vice-President Biden to shame as the gaffe king (“I don’t care about the very poor”); never mind all that, I want to talk about his most recent statement.

The one where he says this: “I keep hearing the president [Obama] say that he’s responsible for keeping America from going into a Great Depression, No, no, no. That was President George W. Bush and [then Treasury Secretary] Hank Paulson that stepped in and kept that from happening.”

This statement is not totally inaccurate, but it is so politically dense. By crediting Bush for keeping America from going into a recession he is in effect crediting the Wall Street bailout as not only good, but also a positive force in this recovery.  Whether it is or it isn’t, is irrelevant, it’s widely unpopular with the public. Meanwhile, Romney has been a staunch opponent of the auto bailout. Romney, who is already viewed as a Wall Street fat cat, is now saying bailing out rich bankers equals saving America and bailing out the average middle-class worker equals the demise of America.

Also, does he think bringing Bush back into the conversation is a good political move? The name still puts a sour taste in the mouths of people across the political spectrum.

Like I said, you may like Romney, but he’s just an awful politician.

 

Ryan’s Sounds Good Plan

The new budget plan put out by Paul Ryan has all the usual suspects: lower taxes, spending cuts on programs on which middle and lower class people rely, and of course an increase in defense spending. Along with this are a slew of good-sounding policies, which are vague, unspecific and without factual backing – yet they are guaranteed to decrease the debt.

For example, Ryan proposes simplifying the tax code (sounds good) by creating only two income brackets. That being a 10 percent and a 25 percent tax bracket.  He does not give specifics as to when income will begin to be taxed at the higher rate. Even without specific information we know one thing: tax revenue will go down – not a good thing if we’re trying to pay down the debt.

So how does Ryan account for the lost revenue? Simple, he will close tax loopholes (sounds good).  Which ones? Well he doesn’t tell us, but he assures us it will account for the tax revenue lost from the decreased taxes.  However, if Ryan wants to maintain tax revenue at or around 18 or 19 percent of GDP, which he says he does, then enough loopholes will have to be closed in order to generate $6.2 trillion dollars over 10 years. Not an easy task. Without knowing which loopholes will be closed it’s difficult to say if the plan will actually lower deficits or if it is smoke and mirrors aimed at a Republican base who knows only one thing: tax cuts are the solution to any and all problems.

This is consistent with most of the plan.  Ryan makes a lot of claims that fire up the base but provides no actual details.  It’s difficult to take the plan serious when all we get is cut this program and lower these taxes and bam! just like that, a lower national debt.

Republican’s Misleading Report on Obamacare

The terms revenue and cost are important to any financial report.  Revenue is the amount of money earned, while cost is the amount spent to earn that revenue. Subtract cost from revenue and you have net earnings. Together the two tell a lot about financial stability, but separate they tell very little.  This may sound elementary, which is why it is a shame many Republicans fail to understand this.

In a recent report the CBO updated their analysis of the Affordable Care Act aka “Obamacare.”  Republicans read the report as a glorious confirmation of what they knew all along – Obamacare will cost the nation billions and billions of dollars.  Specifically they are referring to the new estimates of the ACA, which will cost $1.7 trillion as opposed to the original $940 billion. (There are reasons why this number increased, mostly because the reports cover different spans of time. That is a separate issue though) Republicans fail to either admit or realize the $1.7 trillion is only the cost side and without knowing the revenue side the number means very little.  Republicans don’t mention this because revenue also went up and the projected overall net costs actually decreased.  Interesting Republicans do not mention this.

This is one of the most misleading talking points put out by the Republican establishment.  Or maybe it is their absolute disdain for the President and his policies that have put their preconceived notions above the facts.

Should We Really Strive for a Religious Nation?

Should we really strive for a religious nation?

Religion causes hate.  Without it we wouldn’t have the Israeli, Palestine conflict, nor would we have the Taliban nor would 9/11 have ever happened.  Throughout history religion has pitted people against one another. Many of America’s conflicts are driven by religion.

Should we really strive for a religious nation?

Without religion there would be no marriage debate.   The LGBT community has been denied basic human rights because religion has deemed it as yucky.   Gays have been cast as outsiders because religions’ holy books, sort-of, some-what vaguely denounce gay marriage. Simplistically put; Gays are less important because religion has decided to make it so.

Should we really strive for a religious nation?

Our religious nation has put women’s health issues secondary to Catholic Church issues. Birth Control, which has been available since the 1950s, is being reconsidered because of our religious nation.  The women’s rights movement is going in reverse because of religion.

Should we really strive for a religious nation?

I am not here to denounce religion.  I am here to denounce those who believe one particular religion is essential to our country and to our government.  Religion does good things for people but it also leads to people holding incredibly strong beliefs, which are fortified by their god.  This is problematic for a society that allows for various faiths.  Religion does have a place in society, but it has no business in government.

Our Constitution believes this as did our founders.

So, should we really strive for a religious nation?

You Must Actually Teach the Man to Fish

I frequently get in conversations with conservatives who constantly gripe about government handouts, believing the welfare system is what is wrong with this country.  It is people not wanting to work and expecting government to just bail them out.  When I get in this discussion with Republicans they always bring up the clichéd line “give a man a fish and he eats for a day, but teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime”, basically saying government handouts will never bring prosperity to people who depend on them.   Now I do not whole-heartily disagree with this and I think it is a wise saying.  However, for the line to actually make sense the man must actually be taught how to fish.  I think it is incredibly hypocritical for Republicans to denounce welfare, and at the same time be anti-education, in both rhetoric and policy.

Mr. Santorum called President Obama a snob because he wanted every person to have access to higher education.  “What?” College graduates on average earn far more than those who do not graduate from college and the unemployment rate for college graduates is 4.2 percent (compared to 8.3 percent for those with only a high school education, and 12.9 percent for those without a high school diploma). Now I know college is not the right option for every person, but it is not snobbish to want every student to become better educated.  Similarly Mitt Romney told a high school student to go to a school that is cheaper and not to expect government to help pay for his loans.

Instead of telling students to settle for a cheaper school why isn’t he encouraging reform to keep tuition rates low and to make college affordable to all students who wish to go on to higher education?  Mr. Romney seems to forget this country was made great because we invested in education.  America started the “high school movement,” which made secondary education standard. It also passed the GI Bill, which led to a generation of college-educated individuals.  Government worked to make education a priority.  In 1979 Pell Grants covered 77 percent of the costs of tuition at public universities that number is now down to 36 percent.  This is due to skyrocketing education costs and one political party that argues we must cut spending at all costs. Is it any wonder America is no longer the pinnacle of education?

Republicans curse those on welfare for not helping themselves while de-funding education and regarding it as snobbish. Education is precisely the means people need to help themselves.  Yet they talk about education as if it was toxic, they want to cut Pell grants, and they scoff at the idea of government intervening to help.  Republicans want to cut both welfare and education; I just don’t see how that will make anyone better?

Construction is the Achilles’ Heel of this Recovery

I posted yesterday about the most recent jobs report.  Overall the report was good news for the country. Most sectors of the economy saw increased job growth like that of manufacturing, however; job growth in construction declined by 13,000.

I have recently been saying (here and here) government investment and consumption, and not tax cuts can spur economic growth. Even though we know investment boosts the economy, Washington has decided to cut government investment; so is it really any surprise we are losing construction jobs.  Construction is an area of the economy where government can easily boost job growth.  Public works programs would lead directly to an increase in jobs in the construction sector of the economy.  Another stimulus package directed towards increased construction on things like infrastructure would provide a substantial boost to this economy.

This will not happen though.  We currently have one party in Congress who believes reducing the national debt should take precedent over recovering from the worst recession since the Great Depression.  We have one party in Congress who believes any government investment is one step closer to socialism. And we have one party in Congress who believes we can solve every problem with a reduction in taxes.  Because of this one party the possibility of another government stimulus plan to increase growth in a declining sector of the economy, namely that of construction, is off the table. The country seems so close to really turning this economy around, and it is a shame Congress is not considering every option.

Another Month of Good News

The jobs report that came out last week was another month of good news.  The private sector added 227,000 new jobs.  We have now seen job growth every month for over a year a now.  Although the unemployment rate stayed constant at 8.3% it is still good news.  For the first time in months the economy actually saw an increase of people entering into the workforce.  Around 500,000 people began looking for work, which means confidence in the economy is increasing.  So the fact the unemployment rate remains unchanged is not a negative.

For months now skeptics of the recovery have claimed the unemployment rate has only been going down because many workers quit searching for jobs (partially true), which means they are not counted in the unemployment numbers.  This is not true for this report.  The good news should not hide the fact the economy is still fragile and the recovery still has a long way to go; we seem to be on the right track though. A couple more months of reports like these should solidify this recovery as an actual recovery and not just an accounting trick.