Category Archives: Economy

Taking back our country.

Posted on by

No, I didn’t suddenly become a pitchfork wielding right-wing lunatic.  I don’t own a handgun or an assault rifle.  And I have no doubts that President Obama was born in Hawaii.  But I do believe our nation is in jeopardy. 

However, we don’t need violence to address the issues.  All we need is legislation.  And it’s not even new legislation.  Just return the U.S. to the tax structure and regulations that existed in the U.S. prior to Ronald Reagan. 

Want to prevent another financial crash like the one that happened in 2008?  Simply eliminate the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1994.  That legislation, sponsored by a Republican-controlled Congress and signed into law by President Clinton, permitted bank holding companies to co-mingle financial institutions of deposit, investment and insurance which contributed to the collapse of our financial system last year.  You might also fire those in the Federal Reserve who failed to exercise the oversight that’s already within its power.

Want to eliminate the predatory tactics of the banks which issue credit cards?  Simply nationalize usury laws which limit interest rates in many states.  These laws were allowed to be circumvented in the 1980s by large bank holding companies. 

Want to reduce our national debt?  Simply return the highest marginal income tax to pre-Bush rates.   

Want to rebuild the nation’s failing infrastructure?  Return the highest marginal income tax to Eisenhower administration rates of the 1950s.  After all, that was the last era when our nation made significant investments in infrastructure.

Want to bring back manufacturing jobs and diminish unemployment?  Undo the relaxation of tariff laws that enabled “globalization” by our large corporations.  In reality, “globalization” is just another term for exporting jobs, undermining worker benefits and wages, increasing profits and avoiding corporate taxes.  (How many U.S. corporations have created a mailing address in the Bahamas or the Caymans to avoid U.S. taxes?)

Want to calm the angry rhetoric on radio and TV?  Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine which existed prior to 1987.  That doctrine, enforced by the FCC, required the holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance, and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable and balanced.  (Wouldn’t you like to see Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Fox News Network and Focus on the Family try to justify their existence under those rules?)The point is most of the problems in this country aren’t new.  We’ve addressed them all before.  We can do it again.

Right Wing Conspiracy is no theory.

Posted on by

When President Clinton won the White House in 1992, he was hounded by right wing zealots who accused him of everything from corruption to murder.  The cries became so loud that a special prosecutor was appointed to investigate.  Armed with an unlimited budget, he and the right wing accusers were eventually able to impeach the President for oral sex in the White House.  (Oh my!)

This very coordinated effort by so-called conservatives was labeled “the vast right wing conspiracy.”  While at the time that label might have seemed over the top, it was, in fact, correct.  There was a conspiracy.  And this coalition of Republicans, Christian fundamentalists and conservative talk show hosts is at it again with their sights set on President Obama. 

But the conspiracy goes well beyond trying to discredit Democratic Presidents.

In fact, Republicans and Christian fundamentalists have been conspiring against all non-believing U.S. citizens for years.  In the Republican “revolution” led by Ronald Reagan and Jerry Falwell, the intent was to eliminate all so-called entitlements, such as welfare, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.  In the new United States, such programs would be replaced by “personal responsibility.”  If you get in trouble, you’re on your own. 

Of course, labor unions would be banned as an impediment to corporate growth.  As a result of a new, paternalistic relationship between corporate leaders and employees, they would be unnecessary.  (Never mind that we once had a similar system in which industrialists became known as “robber barons” and employees were little more than slaves.)

But the ambition of many conservatives doesn’t end with corporations in complete economic control.  Many Republicans would take things a step farther.   In the words of Senator Sam Brownback as reported by Jeff Sharlet in the book The Family, the goal is to create a nation and economy under God.  The philosophy of these fundamentalists is expressed in Romans 13:  “The powers that be are ordained by God.”  In other words, might makes right.

Based on the legislative initiatives of Brownback and his fellowship, there would be death penalties for abortion providers.  Gay marriage would, of course, be banned.  Public schools would be undermined by school vouchers.  Of course, prayer in school would be mandatory and creationism would replace evolution on the curriculums.  The only sex education would be abstinence.  Hate crimes would be only those against Christians.  We wouldn’t bother with diplomacy, especially with nations like North Korea.  And we would immediately declare war on Iran and, likely, every other Muslim nation.

There’s just one sticky little problem.  It’s called the Constitution.

Show us the money.

Posted on by

When the housing market crashed bringing down the financial industry along with it (or was it the other way around?), trillions of dollars vanished.   The question is where did the money go?

The Federal Reserve along with the Bush administration started propping up the financial industry and the economy beginning in 2007.  Mostly this was done quietly with little to no media attention.  By the time President Obama was sworn in, taxpayers had already shelled out more than $3.46 trillion and the world economy was on the verge of collapse. 

Since Obama’s inauguration, the federal government has committed another $3.77 trillion in loans, bailout funds and stimulus spending to stave off what most economists concluded would be a 2nd Great Depression.   

And people are outraged!  Not at the ones who created this mess and originally hid it from the public.  But at the administration who inherited it.  That kind of logic could only be demonstrated by the likes of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Dick Armey.   Where are their “Teabagger” demonstrations against CitiGroup, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo?  Where’s the right-wing fury for AIG?  Where are the posters calling Bush and Cheney Socialists and Communists for having allowed (or encouraged) this to happen?   

More important, where’s the money?

Of the $7.244 trillion total, $168 billion was mailed to taxpayers in the form of stimulus checks.  $787 billion is dedicated to stimulus spending on infrastructure and new jobs.  $275 billion is targeted at foreclosure relief.  And $15 billion is aimed at supporting small businesses. 

The rest of the money ($6.167 trillion) went to prop up the very institutions that created the mess.  For example, $234 billion went to CitiGroup, $137.5 billion to AIG, $118 billion to Bank of America and $29 billion went to Bear Stearns.   Another $700 billion was dedicated to the Troubled Asset Relief Program.  $1 trillion was set aside for the Term-Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility to make it less risky for banks to lend money to businesses and consumers.  $720 billion was set aside to help banks remove toxic assets from their balance sheets.   Indeed, almost all the rest of the money has been allocated to help our banks recover from their own risky behavior.

And it has worked really well…for the banks.  Thanks to government aid, the CEOs, fund managers, and other financial executives are still able to afford new vacation homes, yachts and other “necessities” with their bonuses.  They’ve been able to raise fees on checking accounts and interest rates on credit cards.  And they’ve been able to return to the risky behavior that led to this mess in the first place.

Best of all, thanks to their lobbying efforts, paid for in large part by taxpayers’ money, they’ve so far been able to fend off serious regulation.   

Bush League Economy

Posted on by

In baseball, bush league refers to the lowest level – a metaphor that perfectly fits the economic performance of the George W. Bush administration.  It’s even more appropriate given that Bush made millions by gaming the City of Arlington and its citizens as “Managing Partner” of the Texas Rangers baseball team.

In short, the people of Arlington got screwed.  Not entirely unlike what Bush did to the people of the United States as our 43rd President.

This is no longer just opinion.  It’s fact.

According to a recent report by the Census Bureau, the median household income in the U.S. declined 4.2 percent during Bush’s two terms.  At the same time, the number of Americans living in poverty increased 1.9 percent to 39.8 million (the most since 1960).  More disturbing is the number of children now living in poverty:  When Bush entered office 11.6 million children were living in poverty.  When Bush left office, that number had swollen to nearly 14.1 million.  That’s an astonishing increase of more than 21 percent!  Under Bush, job growth was a dismal .28 percent – the worst performance since World War II.  The number of Americans employed in manufacturing dropped beneath 10 percent for the first time in history.  And the number of Americans without health insurance increased to 15.4 percent.

On every major measurement, the economic condition of American people declined during the Bush administration!  The housing industry crashed, the financial industry collapsed under the weight of its own risky gambles, stock markets crashed and two out of the Big Three U.S. auto makers faced bankruptcy.   About the only people who didn’t suffer under Bush’s watch were oil executives, military contractors, hedge fund managers and the extremely wealthy.

Predictably, the Republicans are now trying to reassign the economic blame to President Obama.  They accuse him of increasing the size of government, increasing the size of the federal debt, and taking over private businesses.  Let’s look at the facts:

The government, the deficit and the national debt all grew under President Bush.  The Department of Homeland Security represented a huge growth in government.  But the growth of government under Bush wasn’t confined to just the one department.  (In the first 3 months of 2008 alone, the federal government added 13,800 jobs under Bush.)  The deficit and debt under Bush increased in large part as the result of Bush’s misadventures in Iraq.  The real cost of that war is estimated at anywhere from $2-3 trillion, and some estimate that the cost of the Afghan war will overtake the Iraq war in 2010. 

The bailout of financial institutions is estimated at $3 trillion.  Approximately one-half of that was approved by the Bush administration.  And none of the money would have been necessary if not for the Republican’s aversion to regulation of financial institutions.

Finally, you can’t blame President Obama for the takeover of the U.S. auto industry.  Indeed, we all should thank him for it.  Had the Bush administration not allowed wild speculation of commodities, oil would not have spiked as they did in 2008.  Had that artificial spike not been followed by the collapse of our financial institutions, the auto industry would never have experience such severe problems.  And had the Obama administration not stepped in to help, the economy may well have fallen into another depression.

“Teabaggers”, “Birthers” and other racists.

Posted on by

Demonstrators at this past weekend’s rally at the U.S. Capitol carried a powerful message. They toted signs with photos of President Obama wearing a Hitleresque moustache. There were signs that called Obama a socialist, a Marxist and even a Nazi. There were signs calling him a “Muslim Kenyan” and an “African Lyin’.” There were signs stating “Bury Obamacare with Kennedy” and “We came unarmed (this time).” The only things they were lacking were torches and pitchforks.

These messages were not just tasteless and threatening. They were revealing. They exposed those who carried them as a rabble of misinformed racists who are angry and aren’t going to take it anymore. But they can’t even say what “it” is. All they seem to know is that President Obama and Nancy Pelosi are the problem.

Could it be that these people simply can’t accept an African-American and a woman as our nation’s leaders?

Of course, Republicans dismiss any such claims. They’re fond of pointing to the demonstrations against President Bush. However, there’s a significant difference. During the Bush administration, political opponents attacked his policies. During the Obama administration, the opponents seem to want to attack Obama. And not just with words. Why else would the demonstrators feel it necessary to threaten violence? Why else would they feel the need to bring guns to demonstrations?

If it were economic policy that concerned these people, they would be protesting against Bush for overseeing the first real decline in median household income in recent history. If the issue was spending, these people would have brought out the torches and pitchforks during the Reagan years or as the result of the $2 trillion war in Iraq. If it were the housing crisis and resulting financial meltdown that concerned them, they would be looking to lynch Bush, Greenspan and Henry Paulson. And if rationed health care was the problem, they would be surrounding the headquarters of United Health Group, Cigna and Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

No, these people are not angry about policy. They believe their country is being taken away by a black man and a powerful woman. They’ve been fuming for many years as they’ve seen African, Asian and Latino immigrants arrive in large numbers. They’ve been told that their “values” and religions are under attack. They’ve been told that President Obama hates white people. They’re easily manipulated by Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and organizations such as Fox News Network and Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks. They’re encouraged by elected officials like Dick Cheney, Sen. DeMint, Rep. Boehner and Rep. Cantor. Worse yet, they’re given publicity and credibility by a media too lazy or afraid to expose them for what they really are.

Rewarding unreasonable behavior.

Posted on by

On the anniversary of 9/11, Republican spokesperson and renowned liar, Rush Limbaugh, chastised President Obama for trying to turn 9/11 into a day of public service.  Wow!  How dare the President want to commemorate the attacks on U.S. soil with something positive!  How dare the President try to encourage Americans to serve their nation! 

Certainly, the past President never encouraged public service and sacrifice.  In the wake of 9/11, Bush asked us to go shopping.  And while our young people were serving and dying in Afghanistan and Iraq, he pushed for tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.  (I guess he believed that only the middle class and poor should sacrifice for their country.)  Bush refused to allow press coverage and photographs of the true cost of war.  Indeed, Republicans treated war much as the Wizard of Oz would.  “Pay no attention to what’s behind that curtain.”

But, in reality, Republican criticism has nothing to do with President Obama’s statements and actions.  He’ll be criticized by Republican pundits no matter what he says or does.   That’s not surprising.  After all, we’re talking about the same people who accused then-First Lady Hillary Clinton with murder relating to the so-called Travel-gate.  They’re the people who spent $60 million of taxpayers’ money to investigate Clinton’s investment loss in Whitewater.  They’re the same people who called Democrats “whack jobs” and “conspiracy nuts” for crying foul over the 2000 Florida election.   (Never mind the findings of an independent group of journalists who stated, “It’s clear that a significant majority of Floridians intended to vote for Al Gore.”)  And these are the same people who attacked the patriotism of a Vietnam War hero while supporting a candidate who got his powerful daddy to help him avoid the draft by getting him into the Air National Guard. 

Republicans are good at attacking.  In fact, they’re great at it.  Many of today’s Republican strategists learned at the knee of the masters; Tricky Dick Nixon and Spiro Agnew.  Republican attacks and tricks should not come as a surprise to anyone – least of all Democrats.

What is surprising is that Democrats continue to try to reason with them.  And, by doing so, they continue to encourage their bad behavior.  It’s astounding that Representative Joe Wilson can bellow “You lie” to President Obama in an address to a joint session of Congress.  It’s even more astounding that Democratic Senators reword the health care reform bill because of Wilson’s outburst.  (Despite the fact that the bill already clearly stated that health care coverage will be denied to illegal aliens, the wording was strengthened in response to Wilson.) 

The message to Republican extremists is that their extreme accusations and tactics work. 

So Republicans and their media supporters will continue to scare citizens with fabricated issues like “Death Panels”.  They’ll continue to raise fears that a Presidential speech to school children is an attempt to indoctrinate them.  And they’ll continue to compare a centrist African-American President who continues to search for bipartisanship to Adolph Hitler.  (How can anyone actually believe this stuff?) 

Someone once said, “You can’t reason with unreasonable people.”  Yet Democrats continue to try to reason with Republicans.  Why? 

The revealing nature of Republican attacks.

Posted on by

Following Representative Wilson’s outburst during the President’s address before a joint session of Congress, I believe we have to ask ourselves some questions:  Is it a coincidence that the first such outburst was aimed at our first African-American President?  Is it a coincidence that the outburst came from a Congressman from South Carolina?  Is it coincidence that this is the first President accused of being born in another country despite indisputable evidence to the contrary?  Is it coincidence that this President is accused of creating death panels for senior citizens despite the facts?  Is it coincidence that this President is accused of trying to “indoctrinate our children” by merely encouraging them to work hard?  And is it coincidence that the number of death threats against our President has increased dramatically?

The conclusion is inescapable.  The attacks against President Obama represent more than a mere difference of opinion or ideology. 

From the moment he was sworn in, President Obama has been faced with an unprecedented combination of crises – a floundering economy, a failed financial system, a collapsed auto industry, millions of foreclosed homes, out of control health care costs, skyrocketing deficits and two wars.  These weren’t crises of his own making.  These were crises created under the previous administration.  Yet rather than rallying behind the President in the face of these crises as Democrats rallied behind Bush after 9/11, the Republicans have done everything possible to undermine Obama’s attempts to right our ship of state.   

Granted the attacks against President Obama are coming from a small, angry minority in Southern states.  (Okay, okay, I know I just described the Republican Party.)  But, in my lifetime, no President has faced such venomous and personal attacks.  Not Richard Nixon following the cover-up of the Watergate burglary.  Not Ronald Reagan following the cover-up of the sale of weapons to Iran.  Not George W. Bush following the lies that led to the unnecessary invasion of Iraq. 

Perhaps the real lesson of a Republican shouting “You lie!” at President Obama in the House chamber is this:  Pathological liars often assume everyone else is like them. 

The other side of Reaganomics:

Posted on by

In a previous post, I stated my belief that Reaganomics was an utter failure.  That’s not entirely true.  It was a huge success for the wealthy.  It also successfully eroded the power of organized labor. 

When Reagan fired the striking air traffic controllers who were members of PATCO, I believe he inspired his followers to launch an attack on all labor unions.  Since that time, there has been a steady outsourcing of American manufacturing jobs to places like China, India, Indonesia and Mexico.   This has forced unions to make concessions with regard to wages and benefits.  The recent troubles of GM and Chrysler are good cases in point. 

During the debate over auto industry bail-outs, the discussion seemed to revolve around the wages and benefits of United Auto Workers.  Never mind the decades of questionable decisions by the company executives, along with their inflated salaries.  In the minds of many, the real problem is that UAW workers were paid more than their counterparts at Honda, Toyota, Nissan and other import brands.  The claims were that while the workers for foreign brands were paid approximately $45/hr, UAW workers were paid $70/hr or more.  Outrageous!  Right? 

Well, hold on a moment.  My UAW friends tell me that the figure of $70/hr not only included wages and benefits such as health care.  It also included the cost of benefits for recent retirees, plus all costs associated with workers – overtime costs, Social Security, Medicare, etc.  It even includes the cost of tools used by the workers!  Take away all of those costs and the actual average hourly wage was $29.78. 

But it’s not just lower wages the Reaganites are after.   What they really want to do is to rid corporations of the obligation for health and retirement benefits.  And what better way to accomplish than to crush organized labor? 

It took a couple of wars, the Great Depression and many bloody management/labor clashes for conditions to improve for American workers.  I fear that Reaganomics combined with globalization and the greed of CEOs may be leading us back to labor conditions similar to those under the robber Barons of the early 1900s when work was more like servitude.

The end of voodoo economics?

Posted on by

I was never a big fan of President George H.W. Bush although, compared to his son, he was a fabulous president.  And he did get one thing right – his description of Reagan’s theory of trickle-down economics.  That’s right.  It was George, the elder, who first appropriately labeled it “Voodoo” economics. 

The idea that cutting taxes for the wealthy would somehow benefit the rest of us never really made any sense.  It was clear to me that the wealthy would simply spend the extra money on themselves or invest it in the stock markets.  I couldn’t see how the theory would result in more jobs or increased living standards for everyone else.

What did make sense to me was the idea of cutting taxes on companies that created jobs, and Reaganomics did do that.  Unfortunately, the Reaganists relaxed or eliminated many of the regulations and safeguards that controlled corporations.  The result was tax cuts and tax credits for large corporations that took their manufacturing jobs overseas.  And due to the lack of regulation, many corporations created phony “headquarters” in the Bahamas and the Caymans to avoid paying taxes altogether.  Amazingly, Republicans refused to even consider banning these off-shore companies from receiving U.S. government contracts. 

How on Earth were U.S. citizens, other than corporate officers, supposed to benefit from that?

The short answer is that we didn’t.

In an op-ed column for The New York Times, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman summarized the real effect of Reaganomics.  “…real incomes of the top .01 percent of Americans rose sevenfold between 1980 and 2007.  But the real income of the median family rose only 22 percent, less than a third its growth over the previous 27 years“.  Krugman also points out that “most of whatever gains ordinary Americans achieved came during the Clinton years “, and that President George W. Bush “…had the distinction of presiding over the first administration since Herbert Hoover in which the typical family failed to see any significant income gains”.

Of course, Krugman’s statistics don’t include the fiascos of 2008 in which the Fed started bailing out banks long before the public noticed; when gasoline prices hovered around $4 per gallon; when foreclosures dragged down the entire economy; and when the Bush and Obama administrations had to bail out Wall Street.  All of these issues are likely to make the final cost of Reaganomics look even worse.

Yet despite all evidence to the contrary and despite the near-disastrous collapse of our entire financial system under their leadership, Republicans still cling to the notion that the failed economic policy of their former leader and idol can cure our present-day problems.  “Make the Bush tax cuts permanent,” they say, “that will bring our economy back.” 

If Republicans should somehow regain control of Congress during the 2010 mid-term elections, be afraid, my friends.  Be very afraid.  Like other apparitions of black magic, voodoo economics may be more difficult to kill than you think.

For me, the (Republican) party’s over.

Posted on by

For many years, there was a tradition in politics. You could count on each side giving its “spin” on an issue in hopes of influencing voters to their point of view. If you didn’t have the time or inclination to research the issue on your own, you could be relatively certain that the truth was somewhere in the middle. But sometime in the 1990s that changed.

I first realized the change in 1999 when I visited the website of the Republican National Committee in search of quotes from conservative Republicans. What I found was “Gore Gaffs,” dozens of ridiculous statements attributed to then-Democratic presidential candidate, Al Gore. The only problem was that I recognized all of the quotes as having been made by Dan Quayle. I was dumbfounded. Why would the leadership of a political party lie about something that could so easily be disproved? For what possible benefit?

The only conceivable answer is a cynical one – the party believes that no one will actually recognize the lie or hold the party accountable. Unfortunately, “Gore Gaffs” foreshadowed an ugly and disturbing trend by the party.

The Bush administration used lies and half-truths to lead us into an unnecessary war in Iraq. It lied about the “outing” of a clandestine CIA agent whose husband publicly exposed administration lies during the run-up to the war. It lied about the firing of U.S. Attorneys. It lied about eaves-dropping on American citizens. The list of lies during the Bush administration is quite lengthy and growing. In fact, former Homeland Security Director, Tom Ridge, recently admitted that he was pressured to raise the security threat level in 2004 to help Bush get re-elected. And it was recently discovered that former Vice-President Dick Cheney and the CIA hired a mercenary force (Blackwater, aka Xe) to form an international hit squad that was unconstitutionally kept secret from Congress.

Complicit in all of the lies are Fox News and conservative talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh. Rush has long been known to make things up in order to whip his audience into a frenzy and increase his ratings. And, although Fox claims to be “fair and balanced”, it’s anything but. Former Bush Press Secretary, Scott McClellan, admitted that the administration used Fox to “get out its talking points.” It takes only a few minutes of viewing to realize that Fox News is simply a megaphone for Republican lies. But, of course, its viewers are so partisan or uninformed that they don’t care or don’t know.

During the 2008 presidential election, the GOP was in full attack mode. The difference in tone couldn’t have been more striking. Indeed, had one not known better, one might have concluded that all of the problems created by 8 years of the Bush administration were actually the fault of the Democrats.

The 2008 elections were a strong rebuke of the Republican Party and its policies. But rather than examining the policies that led to the election defeat, the party decided to redouble its attacks. Republicans and their surrogates blame the loss on perceived voter fraud by Acorn. And, with a lack of real leadership, the party has turned to Rush Limbaugh as its titular leader. He and other conservatives are not just “spinning” issues based on their point of view. They are creating, or at least repeating, lies in order to scare people about the new administration’s policies.

Attempts to rescue our financial system following its collapse under Bush are described as “socialist” and unnecessary government intervention. The same terms were used to describe the rescue of the auto industry, one of our nation’s few remaining manufacturing industries. A carbon cap and trade bill will “lead to the collapse of the energy industry and put millions out of work.” Health care reform is a “Nazi policy using death panels designed to kill granny” or an attempt to “put bureaucrats between you and your doctor.” Never mind that three government-run health care programs are run quite well. VA, Medicare and Medicaid are generally well-liked by those who participate in them.

At town hall meetings, angry conservatives have tried to shout down any real discussion of the issues, and, as if to make their shouts more forceful, some have brought loaded guns.

The Republican Congressmen and Senators refuse to discuss policies or the merits of legislative initiatives. They offer no counter-proposals. All they offer are lies, fear and more tax cuts for large corporations and the wealthy. And if any Republicans dare break ranks with their brethren on a single vote, they’re labeled RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) and they’re attacked by even more conservative candidates in the primaries.

For more than 30 years, the Republican Party has led an assault on the middle class and the poor with “trickle down” economics. In truth, under Republican leadership, the economy was reduced to a trickle. And none of the tax cuts have trickled down.

Indeed, a recent study found that the disparity between the wealthy and the rest of the population has reached the highest level since 1913, and the tax rate on the wealthy has dropped from 70 percent in 1980 to 35 percent in 2009. Thanks to Republican policies, as of 2007 .01 percent of the population controlled 10 percent of the wealth and 10 percent of the population controlled 49 percent of the wealth. And, if you want to consider the effect of Republican policies on health care reform, 47 million Americans are now uninsured, millions more are underinsured and nearly a million Americans will be forced into bankruptcy this year by illness.

This is why a fiscal conservative and social liberal like me no longer votes for Republicans. After 40 years as an independent, I am now a proud member of a party that respects me enough to not lie to me.