Category Archives: Teapublicans

Teapublican Lie #1.

Posted on by

Today begins a series intended to de-bunk the many Teapublican lies that will be repeated over the coming election season. Primary amongst them is this pants-on-fire whopper:  “Cutting taxes creates jobs.”

This whopper has been repeated so often by so many that voters have come to believe it’s true. Yet when you examine the evidence, you find that it defies belief.  For example, if cutting taxes created jobs, then why was there negative job creation during the Bush administration despite the vaunted Bush tax cuts? (And that was even before the economy was driven off a cliff during the last few months of 2008.)

If cutting taxes created jobs, why did the economy flourish under the Clinton administration despite higher taxes?

And if cutting taxes creates jobs, why is our unemployment now so high despite the fact that US citizens are paying the lowest share of their income for taxes – all taxes – since 1958?

Truth is, the only thing cutting taxes on corporations and the rich does for our economy is to increase wealth for those who need it least.

Are We Still Fighting The Civil War?

Posted on by

As I was reading a book about the Civil War, I was struck by the many similarities between the run-up to the war and today’s political climate. The Confederate States of America were sparsely populated and dominated by slave-owning plantation owners who resented any interference by the federal government. As one historian said, they likely would have seceded earlier, but it took 6 years for the plantation owners to convince the poor dirt farmers to fight their war for them.

On the other side, the Union was more densely populated with a recent influx of European immigrants. Many of these people had faced persecution themselves in the Old Country, and their religious beliefs were at odds with slavery. Moreover, as a result of the density of population, those in the North tended to understand that regulations and laws were necessary for everyone to thrive. Not just a few.

So the Civil War was as much the result of a conflict of philosophies as it was slavery. This conflict continued when, following the war, many former Confederate soldiers fled westward to get away from the law and order imposed by the victorious North. Unfortunately for them, they eventually ran out of real estate as settlers who believed in the law followed them west. But the philosophies of the former Confederates never entirely disappeared.

Fast forward to today. Our politics are now roughly divided into red states and blue states. The red states strongly oppose any “interference” by the federal government. And where are most of those red states? In the South and West.

And where are the blue states? In the heavily populated East, Upper Midwest, California and Northwest.

Certainly, there are pockets within the South and West where voters understand the necessary role of government. Those tend to be large population centers. But in the rural areas and smaller cities, government – especially the federal government – is viewed with disdain and suspicion.

Particularly in the West, many people identify with the cowboy mentality of old (not realizing that the term “cowboy” was originally a perjorative akin to calling someone a rustler or bandit). These people see themselves as modern day gunslingers who are standing up for their individual rights. They mostly could care less about anyone else, including the less fortunate. After all, to these people, everyone has the responsibility to pull themselves up by the bootstraps no matter the odds against it.

In the South, the story is somewhat different. Certainly resentment of the federal government continues. But now it’s wrapped in the cloak of religion. The new Christian right stems from churches that believe the Bible is literally the word of God. They selectively choose Bible verses that support their narrow views. They are anti-government (it’s the government that prevents openly Christian prayers in public schools and other public venues), anti-gay, anti-minority, anti-abortion, anti-education, anti-environmentalism, anti-evolution, anti-climate change, etc. If the government is for it, particularly the federal government, they are against it.

So here we are, politically not much further ahead than we were 150 years ago. But at least for the moment, we’re fighting with ballots. Not guns.

Politics of God.

Posted on by

Is God a Democrat? Or a Teapublican? Teapublicans like Michelle Bachmann would have you believe the latter. After all, she claims that God told her to run for president. But He apparently also told Rick Perry to run. And He’s currently negotiating with Sarah Palin. What kind of confusing message is that?

If He truly wanted a Teapublican to win the White House, wouldn’t He just annoint one of them?

And why would God send an earthquake and hurricane as a message for the Beltway to change as Bachmann suggests? One would think if God really wanted change, He’d just pick out a modern day Moses and carve some new stone tablets rather than send messages like Irene that can so easily be misinterpreted.

Even if you accept that the earthquake and Irene were God’s messages to Washington, D.C., why did God-fearing people in North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachussets and Vermont have to suffer?

Of course, Bachmann isn’t the first to push the idea of Divine intervention in politics. The space-alien-like Pat Robertson told his thought-challenged followers that Hurricane Katrina was sent by God in retribution for the Godlessness of New Orleans. More specifically, he said that God felt there were too many gays in the city.

So where does God really stand politically? Does He stand with corporate profits, big money lobbyists and the military-industrial complex? Or does He stand with working people, the poor and the disenfranchised? And if He’s pro-American as so many Christian right-wingers would have us believe, why does He encourage his Teapublican followers to ship jobs overseas to dictatorships populated by non-Christians?

It’s all very confusing.

Yee Haw! Another Texass Evangelical For President.

Posted on by

In 2000, an evangelical governor from Texas was awarded the office of President of the United States. He ran as a compassionate conservative promising to cut federal spending and to get the US out of the business of “nation-building.”

Instead, he cut taxes, eliminated financial and environmental regulations, ignored direct warnings of threats by al-Qeada to use hijacked airliners to attack the US, and started two wars costing as much as $3 trillion. His policies failed to create a single private-sector job in the US and led to the worst economic collapse since 1929. In the process, he doubled our national debt.

Now we have Rick Perry following in his footsteps. As Lieutenant Governor, he replaced Bush as Governor of Texas. Like Bush, he talks about his faith all the while promoting an agenda that favors the rich and attacks the poor. And like Bush, he brags about his “accomplishments” as governor. Foremost in his braggadocio is the so-called “Texas Miracle.” The miracle, as the story goes, is that Perry created 80 percent of the jobs in America over the past three years.

Rrrrrrright!

If you examine his claim, you find that it’s a complete and utter fraud just like the cowboy boots he wears. Certainly, Texas did create more jobs in the last year than any other state. But all of them were in the public sector;  i.e. they were government jobs, many of which resulted from Perry extending his hand to Washington in order to receive a disproportionate number of the stimulus funds. Indeed, Texas actually lost jobs in the private sector over the past three years!

And, if you look further, you see rising unemployment in Texas in addition to overcrowded homeless shelters and public schools facing billions in budget cuts. And that’s not even the scary part.

More frightening about Perry (as well as Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin) are his way-out-of-this-solar-system religious beliefs. These were put on display just days prior to his announcement that he is running for president. On August 6, he spoke at The Response, billed as a day of prayer and fasting. In fact, it was a day of lunacy with some of the nation’s most radical evangelical “religious” figures. These are people who believe the US should be a Christian theocracy; who believe in the end times and the necessity to prepare the Earth for the rapture by cleansing the Seven Mountains (arts and entertainment, business, family, government, media, religion and education) from demonic influence. These are people who believe Oprah is the precursor of the AntiChrist; who believe that gays are controlled by demons; who believe that Islam is a demonic spirit.

Just the kind of people you want in the White House and a presidential administration.

Can’t you imagine a US run by a President Perry or a President Bachmann or a President Palin? The administration would begin with a hands-on healing of gays followed by the threat of bombing every non-Christian nation unless they converted. The FCC would command that all sex (violence is okey-dokey) be banned from TV. Public broadcasting would be forced to carry Christian-only programming. All schools would be openly Christian. Every business logo would have to incorporate the symbol of a fish. And all cathedrals, synagogues, temples and mosques would be converted to New Apostolic churches.

In other words, the US would become a Christian version of Iran.

What If FDR, Truman Or Eisenhower Faced This Congress?

Posted on by

Despite the fact that our economy was in freefall when President Obama entered office, people are fond of blaming him for our current misery.  Instead of supporting Obama’s attempts to right our sinking ship, Teapublicans have chosen to fight him every step of the way. 

No matter that the record number of Senate filibusters paralyzed our government.  No matter that the cries of “Socialist” have further divided our nation.  Teapublicans seem only to care about ensuring that Obama is a one-term president.

And just when it appeared that the economy was growing again, Teapublicans chose to turn the debt ceiling into a “crisis” resulting in a downgrade of US Treasury Securities and further despair.

All this got me wondering: What if today’s Teapublicans had been around following the Great Depression? Would they have been willing to fund Social Security? Would they have opened the US Treasury to build our infrastructure? Would our nation’s most iconic structures have ever been funded? Would there be a Hoover Dam? Would the Tennessee Valley Authority exist?

What if Teapublicans had been around following WWII? Would they have approved the post WWII-era top tax rate of 91 perecent? Would they have approved of the billions spent to expand our Universities? Would they have supported the GI Bill? Would they have approved of Eisenhower’s interstate highway system?

Looking at more recent history, would they have approved of raising the debt ceiling as Reagan was tripling the national debt? Would they have approved of his tax increases?

I think you know the answers. 

Now ask yourself this: What would have become of the US if today’s Teapublicans had been around during the founding of our nation? Would they even have been willing to spend their money to fund the Revolution?

It Is Now Clear That S&P’s Downgrade Was Political.

Posted on by

Now that the Fitch rating service has confirmed the AAA rating for US Treasury bonds, it raises questions about the real motives for the downgrade by S&P. Of the three rating agencies, both Moody’s and Fitch have maintained the AAA rating. Fitch even called the outlook for US Treasury bonds positive.

Why the different outlooks?

It is possible that it merely represents a difference of opinion. It’s also possible that S&P wanted to flex its political muscle. When you read the full analysis by S&P, two statements stand out:

1 – “The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America’s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy. Despite this year’s wide-ranging debate, in our view, the differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently.”

2 – “Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.”

Certainly, each party has rushed to blame the other for S&P’s downgrade. However, since only one party (The Democratic Party) was publicly willing to compromise, and since the other party (The Republican Party) chose to create a crisis in order to get its way, it’s abundantly clear which party is truly to blame for the US Treasury bonds being downgraded for the first time in history. It’s also clear that the Republican position of maintaining the Bush tax cuts is fiscally irresponsible.

A Question of Compromise.

Posted on by

When Democrats and Teapublicans named their members of the so-called Super Congress, the media immediately asked, “Will Senators Patty Murray, John Kerry and Max Baucus be willing to compromise with their Teapublican counterparts? What about Representatives James Clyburn, Xavier Becerra and Chris Van Hollen?”

Say what?

During the last three and a half years, Democrats have amply demonstrated a willingness to compromise.  During the negotiations for health reform, they caved on the most important component – the public option. Last Fall, they gave in to Teapublicans by extending the Bush-era tax cuts despite the growing deficit. And in the recent negotiations to raise the debt ceiling, Democrats gave up on increased revenue from closing tax loopholes and raising taxes on the wealthy. 

What compomises have Teapublicans been willing to make?

One can’t help but wonder why the media failed to ask if the Teapublican representatives on the Super Congress committee will be willing to compromise. After all, Mitch McConnell said he would not appoint anyone to the committee who would vote for increased tax revenue. Could it be that the so-called “mainstream, liberal-biased” media are now biased toward Teapublicans?

The Democrats can’t afford to negotiate away their principles again. If they do, Democratic support for the administration and Congress will likely collapse. Of course, that’s what Teapublicans are counting on.

Downgraded Expectations

Posted on by

I’m not just referring to the lowered credit rating for US Treasury notes. If Teapublicans are allowed to continue the same political obstructionism they’ve displayed in the first 2-1/2 years of the Obama administration, we should all become accustomed to expecting less. Less jobs. Less retirement benefits. Less access to health care. Less government services. Less civility in public discourse. And less honesty.

Just consider: Despite being elected by an overwhelming majority of the voting public, President Obama has, thus far, been stonewalled by Teapublicans who, the day after the election, stated that their main goal is to make Obama a one-term president. Many on the right immediately called for Obama to fail despite the obvious implication that that would mean the US would also fail.

No previous president has been subjected to such organized obstruction and nonsense. Teapublicans have questioned his legitimacy by saying he was born in Kenya. They have called him a socialist, a communist, a facist and a Nazi. And they have blamed him for the economic disaster created by his predecessor.

In Congress, Teapublicans have filibustered a record number of legislative initiatives. They have blocked a record number of cabinet and judicial nominations. They have blocked nearly every attempt to stimulate the economy and create jobs. And they created a debt ceiling “crisis” when their own tax cuts led to massive increases in the national debt.

It’s all part of their “starve the beast” philosophy of less government. So what has it gotten us? An economy that is still struggling more than three years after their less-government-no-regulation policies led to the worst economic crash since the Great Depression. And now that US Treasury bonds have been downgraded as a result of their brinksmanship, the economy is once again teetering on the edge of disaster.

Given that S&P clearly stated its reason for downgrading our bond rating is our dysfunctional Congress, one might assume that Teapublicans will come to their collective senses and begin to compromise in order to create jobs, generate more revenue and cut our deficit.

That is the lesson sane people might take away from S&P’s message. But, that’s not who we’re dealing with.  Instead, we have to rely on John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Michelle Bachmann and Eric Cantor correctly reading their tea leaves.

Main Street 57, Wall Street 41.

Posted on by

For two days in a row, a bill for financial reform came up 3 votes short in the Senate. All 41 Republican Senators voted to prevent debate. In other words, they voted to filibuster. Polls show the American public overwhelmingly wants to see financial reform because they understand that it was the high-risk gambling on Wall Street that caused the worst economy since the Great Depression. Yet Republicans voted in unison to block it.

Why?

The answer is simple. Republicans say that they want financial reform, but they don’t want it to interfere with the almighty “free” market. It took them 62 years to undo the Glass-Steagall Act and they don’t want to see a similar bill. They don’t want to limit their wealthy and powerful masters’ ability to make outrageous profits from consumers. They don’t want to allow any form of consumer protection. And they certainly don’t want the voting public to see them taking the side of Wall Street in an open debate.

By keeping the debate behind closed doors, Republicans can make deals with bank lobbyists that will keep the money flowing on Wall Street and, more importantly, keep the money flowing toward Republican candidates.

So, for now, we’re treated to a high stakes game of cat and mouse. Democrats will keep asking for debate on financial reform, and Republicans will keep voting to block it. How long before Main Street reminds Republicans who they’re supposed to be working for?

Just Plain McNasty!

Posted on by

For years, John McCain was known as the maverick because he occasionally crossed party lines to vote with Democrats. But now he says that he has never considered himself a maverick. Really? After months of campaigning with the half-governor, Sarah Palin, as “a team of mavericks?”

Well, I guess we’ll have to go back to referring to McCain by the nickname given him by his classmates: McNasty. It fits him better anyway.

For several years now, McCain has been campaigning against the truth. During his latest run for President, virtually every commercial or ad was based on outright lies. (I know this, because I vowed to send McCain an email for every lie he told. As a result, I sent him an email almost every day. And some days, I sent him 3 or more.)

One of McCain’s biggest lies is his famed stance against “earmarks” or what he calls “pork.” McCain is proud of the fact that he’s never been responsible for a single earmark. But if you study the issue, you’ll discover that his claim is nothing to be proud of, especially given McCain’s definition of pork. He has long turned down legitimate requests from the State of Arizona for schools, roads, bridges, health care, etc., etc., etc. Indeed, it’s difficult to determine what McCain has ever done for the state he allegedly represents.

Now McNasty is living up to his nickname in his campaign to retain his Senate seat in a primary battle against conservative radio talk show host and former Congressman, J.D. Hayworth. The campaign has turned into a contest to determine who can be the most far right wingnut – Dumb versus Dumber.  McCain’s commercials call him “the last man standing against Obama’s radical agenda.” They then go on to attack Hayworth by taking his statements and votes out of context. The commercials end by stating “It’s a matter of character.”

That’s correct. McCain has none.