A Planet Or A Universe?

A Planet Or A Universe?  The government of our country is locked inside of an ever-escalating cycle of partisan gamesmanship.  As many have noted, this has served to render our government ineffectual, sophomoric, and on occasion, utterly ridiculous.  Both parties have contributed to this devolution in democracy and neither shows any sign of putting forth an individual leader capable of rising above it.  It would seem we are doomed to this cycle of petty politics, self aggrandizing, and constant finger pointing.  This is not a new phenomenon; it has been coming on for awhile.  But I think I know what, at least a partial, solution might look like.  Try William Jefferson Clinton and Newt Gingrich.

It is hard to conceive of any person aspiring to the presidency without an abundance (excess?) of ego.  As a matter of fact, it is likely a necessary ingredient for success, as long as it is managed.  Bill Clinton began his first term as president with similar visions to Obama, although presented more modestly.  Rather than boast about slowing the rise of the oceans and healing the planet, Clinton and Gore simply rode in to the sound of Fleetwood Mac promising a new age of prosperity.  Think what you will of Mr. Clinton; the fact is that he delivered.  But that delivery of promises came after he was humbled by a devastating defeat in mid-term elections.  Following that epiphany, Clinton came to the realization that his light could still burn bright, but did not necessarily have to be the only light in the sky.  He saw that he could be a planet, while not being the entire universe.  He began to appreciate that good government must first and foremost function.   He still gave his ego free reign, but he consciously understood that the folks in the Senate and the House also had egos and there had to be room for others in the solar system.  While ensuring that his was the most brilliant and most watched, he accepted the fact that other planets would co-exist.  This embrace of reality and pragmatism made possible some extraordinary accomplishments in government, not the least among them a balanced budget.  It created the possibility for remarkable achievements by a flawed president who, in spite of his destructive appetites, managed to become an effective and accomplished chief executive.

And this is where we find the distinction between a past Democrat and a current Democrat.  Obama is not willing to share the sky with any other planets.  Obama is not willing to orbit, either alone or in partnership, with any other bodies.  The epicenter of all being must begin and end with the One, and he is the One.  Obama is not willing to accept the role of a planet; he must be the universe. 

At this point in his presidency (one year into his second and final term), it is hard to see any prospect that Obama will experience any epiphany similar to Clinton’s.  And even though there are without a doubt many Senators and Representatives of both parties who see themselves as a universe also, the fact is that only the President can lead this government back to a place where it actually works; to some semblance of effective and efficient administration of our nation’s business.  As much as I would like to begin 2014 with some degree of optimism, I fear we are in the throes of a tedious and partisan game that will last another three years.  We are in the Obama universe and there is no room for any other planets.

Republicans...Get Your Ish Together.



Republicans…Get Your Ish Together!  One of the great ongoing mysteries to many thinking people is how can poll after poll show that the majority of voters agree more with Republican policy than with Democrat policy and yet we continue to see what is essentially a balance in power regarding the House, the Senate, and the Executive?  I am not making a value judgment as to which policy bent is right or wrong, but simply noting reality.  To put it differently, why is it that many folks think like Republicans and vote like Democrats?  Let us discuss some the possibilities.

I think one of the primary reasons would be the Republican penchant for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.  Specifically, they have a long history of selecting candidates that are clearly not their strongest options.  Democrats do this also, but not nearly to the extent that Republicans do.  This is best illustrated by the 2008 election cycle, which carried Obama into the White House.  It is open to debate among sincere people, but the Republicans had up to six Senate races in which they had very good chances of winning but ended up running someone other than the strongest candidate and instead lost.  This particular election cycle is the one that created the environment that allowed the passage of the Affordable Care Act.  It can certainly be argued that had the Republicans run stronger candidates in a handful of Senate races during that cycle, Obamacare would not have become the law of the land.   Now once again, to be fair, Democrats make this same mistake, but I submit there are many more Sharon Angles than there are Elizabeth Warrens.

Republicans weaken themselves by conducting their family arguments in the most public ways.  It can be argued with merit that internal Republican disputes get more media play than internal Democrat disputes, but that is not the complete explanation and might, in fact, illustrate a Republican marketing weakness and lack of discipline.  A perfect example is the current feud between Speaker Boehner and the Tea Party.  Have you heard more about this than the Liz Warren-Hillary Clinton battle shaping up on the Democratic side?  Of course you have.  Somehow, Ted Cruz is simply more appealing to the mainstream media than Elizabeth Warren, yet he is no more a Republican-radical than she is a Democrat-radical.  It is good that there is internal debate within each party and each party needs the radical fringe to cling in an uncompromising fashion to that party’s principles.  But if the party is to be successful, the argument occurs, the mess is cleaned up, Uncle Joe and Cousin Larry end up hugging each other, and leave the party as friends.  Republicans have a very difficult time burying the hatchet sometimes and that puts them at a distinct disadvantage when it comes down to counting votes.  When one party faction picks up its toys and goes home, refusing to even participate in the game, then that party loses when the national split is as close as it is between the Republicans and the Democrats.  I don’t know if this Republican tendency is systemic or just personal in nature, but it is certainly foolish and counter-productive.  The choices within a party are degrees; the choices between parties are universes.

And finally, as I have addressed before, Republicans too many times insist on bringing knives to gun fights.  Democrats are married to their positions heart and soul and do whatever is necessary to put them in motion; the ends justify the means.  They play to win.  Republicans, on the other hand, while just as dedicated to their principles, can’t decide whether to get down and dirty or play nice.  They do a very poor job of recognizing the difference between the two and when one is required.  Would Al Franken be a U.S. Senator today if the Republicans had brought a Colt instead of a Bowie?  I do not mean to imply that Democrats have a franchise on “win at all costs” tactics; both sides are ethically and morally challenged when it comes to politics.  But the Democrats have clearly mastered that get down to the business of winning much quicker and in a more serious fashion than Republicans.  While promoting the current 2014/2015 budget deal, Paul Ryan recognizes this.  If the Democrats control the Senate and the Executive, the range of possible Republican legislative wins is greatly reduced.  Republicans must do a better job of choosing their battles and once chosen, fighting those battles from day one with their best winning strategy.  The strategy to shut down the government to defund Obamacare was in dire need of a reality check.

I am a strong believer in the two-party system; but I am certainly open to the discussion of a third party.  The recent abject failure to accomplish a meaningful and efficient government has left both parties open to that idea.  But in order for parties to survive, there must be liberal factions that tend towards socialism and conservative factions that tend towards Libertarian positions.  These factions guarantee the survival of the parties.  But these factions cannot be permitted to rule the party; to drown out and override the sentiments of the moderates in each party.  I am not implying that the squishy result of bipartisan moderate compromise is preferred; simply that compromise must occur at some point in order to continue.  I think I am trying to say that the different meats of the Republican and Democrat parties must be seasoned by the moderates of each side before going into the pot that will yield the stew.  If the meat never gets to the pot, we all go hungry.

The Budget Deal...Good Or Bad?

The Budget Deal…Good Or Bad?  Representative Paul Ryan and Senator Patty Murray, each representing their respective parties and the leaders from the respective legislative bodies they control, announced this week a two-year budget deal.  I think the two most important immediate indications regarding the quality of the deal is (1) Most good compromises leave both sides unhappy and complaining and there are several on each side of the political spectrum doing just that, and (2) It would appear that the vocal detractors on each side considered, there are sufficient votes in both bodies and both parties to pass the budget agreement.  I reluctantly endorse this agreement and here is why.

My biggest objection to the deal is that it expands federal spending beyond the already agreed to, already established in law figure of $967 billion that was the result of the sequester agreement.  This budget will expand 2014 spending to $1.012 trillion and 2015 spending to $1.014 trillion.  Time after time, I have watched Republicans deal away a bird in the hand for two in the bush and end up bird-less; I fear this may be occurring once again.  I feel the sequester level of $967B should have been chiseled in stone and not open to negotiation; that battle had already been won and it was hard-earned.  Ryan indicates that at the end of two years, thanks to increased or revised fees and various other cuts in spending, we will realize the same spending level as dictated by the sequester. Perhaps we will, perhaps we won’t.  To a common person like myself, an increased or revised-upward fee looks a whole lot like a tax; which Ryan repeatedly claimed there was none of in this deal.  The new cuts are supposed to amount to about $85B, are supposed to target some heretofore untouchable programs, and are to be mandated by baseline spending levels in each body.  We’ll see if those birds end up back in the nest.

On the positive side, it is apparently obvious, based on complaints from both sides of the aisle, that the $20B in 2013 defense cuts were far too great and this agreement essentially replaces them, bringing 2014 and 2015 pentagon spending up to pre-cut 2013 levels.  I am no expert in defense matters, but this seems reasonable to me and apparently has wide, bipartisan support.  It is also true that although the sequester deal could be celebrated for its achievement of spending cuts, it is without debate that those cuts, due to their arbitrary “across the board” nature, were not distributed across the government in an intelligent fashion.  This deal supposedly brings a bit more reason to the cuts in spending, whatever they may be. 

If Ryan is correct that at the end of 2015, government spending with this deal will be at the same level as it would have been with the sequester in force, then his arguments hold water.  If, on the other hand, the promised spending cuts that have not yet been passed into law and the new fee revenues do not meet expectations, he has been hornswoggled.   Being somewhat a fan of Ryan’s past pragmatic approach to government budgeting and spending, I am disappointed to hear him using loose language to disguise mandatory increased consumer spending as fees.  It smacks of that old Washington argument that a cut is not necessarily a cut in this year’s spending level over last year’s spending level, but simply a decrease in the anticipated increase in this year’s spending level over last year’s spending level.  Lipstick on a pig is still bacon and ham.

The one aspect of this deal that makes it palatable to me is the fact that we could now have not one, but two fiscal year budgets on paper.  It has been years since we’ve had a single year’s budget, not to mention two.  The government has lurched from one budget crisis to the next, continuing resolution after continuing resolution, with each side posturing and playing their cards for the most political gain.  This has adversely affected the efficiency of our government, the credibility of our elected leaders, all of our federal employees who have no clear direction on the programs they administer, and the people who rely on those programs to get by on a daily basis.  There will be plenty of battles between the Democrats and the Republicans over the next two years regarding spending and how to split up the whole pie, but the overall size of the pie has now been determined in this agreement and that has always been the single biggest bone of contention.  It is hard to imagine, and perhaps wishful thinking, but this agreement offers the real possibility that Senate and House Committees can get back to actually legislating spending guidelines for their respective areas of responsibility.  The prospect, however great or small you may see it, for a better functioning government might be improved.  That, my friends, is a reason to celebrate and reason enough to support this budget agreement.



For Mr. Boehner...How Much Is Enough?



For Mr. Boehner…How Much Is Enough?  As the Obamacare farce continues its agonizing premier, a very important question is emerging.  Having seen the damage to the Republican label resulting from the government shutdown be erased and surpassed by Obamacare’s damage to the Democratic and administration labels, it is obvious why Mr. Boehner is not anxious to discuss steps to improve the viability of Obamacare.  Given the methods used to pass the legislation, the freeze out of the Republican positions on health care, and the chest-thumping, end zone-dancing that Democrats joyously participated in upon its passage, one can hardly blame Boehner’s willingness to let the Dems stew in their own juices.  But the reality is that even if Republicans retain control of the House and somehow manage to seize control of the Senate in 2014, it is incredibly unlikely that they will do so at a level sufficient to override any Obama veto of an Obamacare repeal initiative.  That means that we, the American people, are saddled with this accursed legislation for at least another three years.  Therefore, the pertinent question to me is this: When does the utility of doing nothing to fix Obamacare become a bad investment for the Republicans?

It is difficult to believe that Republicans will do anything other than continue to remind the public of how Obamacare came to be, how they had nothing to do with it, and how they repeatedly predicted the very flaws in the law that are now becoming painfully evident.  Given the fact that Obamacare is the Democratic present to the Republicans that keeps on giving, revealing chapter after chapter of bad consequences, it would in fact be politically foolish for the Republicans to join in the effort to retool it.  In behaving this way, they have the legitimate defense that Obamacare is 100 percent Democrat, period.  It is also a good faith defense that the law is so fundamentally flawed that it cannot be amended sufficiently to create any reasonable prospect of success.  It is not an unreasonable position to say that it must be repealed to cure it; it is just unrealistic.  Now reality has never been a burden to our elected officials in WDC, but it will eventually become evident to the point that the public recognizes it.  That is when the game must change.

Once the 2014 mid-term elections have come and gone and the Republicans have deservedly milked every ounce of partisan benefit possible from Obamacare, logic tells us that some type of bi-partisan effort must be undertaken to seal this leaky vessel known as Obamacare.   It is difficult, and frankly frightening, to estimate the damage that will be done to our society by this legislation between now and January of 2015, but we are likely condemned to a constant stream of executive actions, administrative fixes, individual horror stories, and unfounded propaganda about the law until that date.  Perhaps there might be a few, a small handful of thoughtful individuals huddling together over the next year in preparation for that opportunity….Nah, what was I thinking!

The Incredible Lightness Of The One.



The Incredible Lightness Of The One.  How wonderful it must be to have spent a lifetime in a world where you live, work, and play in an ideal world where just thinking makes it so.  Apparently, this is the world that our president resides in.  With his bearing of airy narcissism, he blithely goes from day to day without the burden of responsibility and accountability; that is what his minions are for.  Think about it; have we one single time heard him utter a sincere and succinct apology or admission of error?  Now think about how many times we have heard him blame others for what has occurred under his watch….five years under his watch.   In Obama’s world, he operates under the true liberal creed that “the end justifies the means”.

Obama has no desire to empathize with the regular citizen.  In fact, he is likely incapable of doing so.  When examining his writings, his speeches, his political ladder-climbing, and his record as President, it becomes clear that he is anything but your everyman.   There are two distinct traits about our president that become obvious when looking at his body of work.  First is his ruthlessness in pursuing what he deems the noble cause.  He has never won an election or conducted a campaign based on his merit or his accomplishments.  Every political race he has ever run has been based on the destruction of his opponent.  Secondly, he has never allowed himself to become troubled by the details; he is a big idea guy.  Yeah…he is full of big ideas.  When you go up to the white board and sketch out the broad outline, leaving the task of filling in the details to others, you always have an out by blaming someone else for any failures or shortcomings. 

All of this is exemplified in Obamacare.  Obama has recently been chanting that we should not get caught up in the troublesome details of implementing Obamacare because…wait for it…the product is good.

Never mind the carnage that might occur between the beginning and the end, the end justifies the means.  This is a colossal failure of any reasonable analysis that would logically consider the cost versus the benefit. 

Obama and the Democrats, ignoring long established wariness of passing major legislation on a party-line vote, forced Obamacare into law through extraordinary means.  The folly of this push is only now becoming crystal clear to them; especially a few Senators who are looking ahead to next fall.  Once again, they knew best what was good for us; better than we knew for ourselves.  In their minds, they would be vindicated by the infinite wisdom of the final result.  As Nancy famously (infamously?) said…”we have to pass it to find out what is in it”.  How incredible is it that a President would be so aloof and disengaged as to allow his signature accomplishment, his legacy, to be introduced to the masses in the clusterfluk fashion of Obamacare?  Few would do this.  Only a man who dwells in the nether world of ideals and not reality would act this way.  Only a man whose style is to construct a firewall of denial between himself and real accountability would do this.  Only a man who is so full of himself and shallow to the point that you could read a newspaper through him goes there.  Welcome to the incredible lightness of our president.

The Condescension Of Liberal Politics.



The Condescension Of Liberal Politics.  I have always been fascinated by the conflict between liberal and conservative politicians.  Being a moderate independent, I have seen what I view as the extreme wings of each party seize control of their party’s message.  The moderates of each side have been marginalized and have repeatedly ending up being pawns in the radical wing’s ongoing chess match.  There is clearly merit to both schools of political thought, liberal and conservative, and clearly pitfalls to each.  Policy itself is something that can be discussed, debated, and given a reasonable chance, compromised upon.  There is much truth in the old saying that a good man will compromise on practice, but never on principle.  It is the philosophy behind policy that I have always found mysterious and it is this philosophy that I believe has led us to this poisonous WDC environment where nothing can get done in government.   Although there are certainly peculiarities about the conservative philosophy that merit discussion, it is the motivation behind liberal policies that I have always struggled to define.  I think that perhaps I have discovered why at least a portion of that which has puzzled me for so many years.

Many hold the conventional wisdom that liberals are tolerant and conservatives are intolerant.  Now that is oversimplification, but oversimplification is what we do to make sense of this complex world in which we live and work.  In fact, liberal philosophy is tolerance to the extreme; pushing to accept extraordinary behavior simply for the case of acceptance.  By the same token, many conservatives have pushed their claims to individual rights to extreme by arguing for the acceptance of extraordinary behavior simply because of personal liberty.  Herein lays the difference.  Liberals will force the individual to behave in a certain way because they, the liberal, see it as the proper way to behave.  A conservative my engage in strange behavior, but it is their own personal brand of strange behavior and even though it might be outside the norm, they are self-engaged and not foisting it upon anyone else. It has struck me as strange that of all the extraordinary behaviors that liberals have championed, the one that that they find the most difficult to accept is conservative behavior.

The new aspect to liberal thought that I would like to highlight is the fact that while seeming to be extremely tolerant, they are in fact being very dictatorial.  If a liberal would prescribe their desired norms to themselves and the right to be themselves, that would make them not unlike many conservatives.  In fact, I dare say that many conservatives would be just fine with this standard and recognize left individual behavior as much a basic privilege as right individual behavior.  But when liberals endeavor to dictate certain norms through government action, they are not only tossing aside the principle of tolerance, they are engaging in a condescending mode of intolerance.  Obamacare is a good example of what I speak about.  Serious people from both the liberal and conservative sides can agree that there are too many people in this country without adequate health care.  They could probably even agree on a system to make adequate health care more easily available to most of those people.  But the conservatives promote a free market availability, decision-based approach driven by personal choice and accountability.  The liberals, through Obamacare, have foisted upon those Americans who pay taxes the burden of providing, to varying degrees, health care to those in need of it.  There is no choice here; if you pay taxes, you will finance Obamacare.  But it does not stop there.  The government, through the ACA, will prescribe exactly what constitutes adequate health care.  The old adage about “give a starving man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will never be hungry again” is very much in play here.  It is not that conservatives are not compassionate, they simply choose to dispense their compassion in their own fashion; a fashion that is prescribed as their right and privilege under the constitution of this nation.  When the liberals assume their superior airs of compassion through tolerance to the point where they mandate that same behavior upon others who think differently, they lose their mantle of tolerance and become small-minded, condescending intolerants.  Does our government have the authority to make us all good people in the image of liberal philosophy?  As long as we are law-abiding citizens, don’t we have the right to decide exactly how good we choose to be in this life?

Both liberals and conservatives have a right to be idiots and many on each side choose to exercise that right on a daily basis.  However, the conservatives have grasped a fundamental concept that has eluded the liberals; each side has the right to choose their idiocy, as long as they don’t inconvenience others with it. Conservatives are fine with this; they promote individual rights and less government intrusion into our private lives.  Occasionally, they take it to extremes that weaken the whole at the benefit of the individual and on those occasions, some compromise of individual liberty is required.  However, when liberals promote a certain type of personal benefit, right, or behavior based on their own deeply-held beliefs, they are obliged to convince others to accept those beliefs based on merit, as opposed to structuring our society to a point where it demands that type of behavior. 

So…at the end of the day, it would seem that the tolerant liberals are not so tolerant after all.  Some conservative kooks are just that, but their kook-dom is their own individual issue.  Liberal kook-um, on the other hand, is considered by those dispensing it to be of such unquestionable correctness that they feel all should accept and adopt it, regardless of their individual beliefs and philosophy.  That is simply not consistent with the principles upon which this country was founded.   

Nuclear Option Not Such A Big Bang.



Nuclear Option Not Such A Big Bang.  Three observations about the recent triggering of the nuclear option by Senate Democrats:

1.    Sooner or later, one party or the other was going to eliminate the filibuster on administration nominees.  Elections are contests and the spoils of victory go to the winners.  Part of those spoils is the ability to select who you want to serve in your administration.  It is not surprising that a president chooses those of like mind to serve them.  This leads to the less surprising point that since Republicans don’t like Obama’s liberal philosophy and policies, then they will not like the liberal philosophies and policy opinions of those selected by Obama to serve in his administration.  I really do not have any issue with a simple majority in the Senate holding sway over these type of appointments.  We can only hope that our presidents have the good sense to nominate individuals, regardless of political concerns, who are competent to serve.  On the other hand, court appointments carry life tenures and impact our society far beyond the end of a presidential term.  In the famous (infamous?) words of then-Senator Hillary Clinton when referring to some of then-President George W. Bush’s nominees…”If they can’t get 60 votes, then maybe he should send us another nominee”.  If the case of judicial nominees, there should clearly be a 60 vote requirement and the implementation of the majority rule in this area is a terrible mistake.  Mistake though it is, its intention is crystal clear; which bring us to point number …

2.    President Obama has wasted more opportunity in 5 years than most Presidents even have over 2 full terms.  His raw political passage of Obamacare cost him full control of government after two years and its legacy has been open warfare between the two national parties.  Obama’s skill and lack of shame in the arena of political games has even allowed him to secure some victories (not accomplishments) since the Republicans gained control of the House.  However, now that the sheet is being pulled back on his signature accomplishment and people are seeing it for the farce it is, it is dawning on our president that he is indeed a very lame duck and he will likely lose any effective sway over the Democrats in the House and the Senate.  Bottom line: Anything he might accomplish over his last three years will likely be accomplished through executive actions and not the legislative process.  The only reasonable explanation for extending the nuclear option to judicial appointments is to permit Obama to pack the D. C. Circuit Court with liberal judges who will extend a kind reception to any of his administrative regulations that might come before them.  You have to know that they will be coming in large quantities.

3.    In the past, I have oftentimes been an advocate for a more aggressive legislative approach by the Republican Party.  I have gone so far as to say that they are in the habit of…”bringing a knife to a gun fight”.  The Democratic execution of this nuclear option will no doubt bring future retaliation from the Republicans.  In a legislative environment that was already paralyzed by partisanship, the injection of this issue was the last thing needed to improve the situation.  Now that the precedent has been established, it will be a great temptation for the Democrats in the Senate to extend the majority rule option to legislation.  They may be reluctant because its utility is limited by Republican control of the House.  However, they may be encouraged because some are convinced that Republicans will do it as soon as they regain control of the Senate.  One can only hope that both parties grasp the terrible damage such a move could inflict on our government and our country.  Let us hope that both parties can find leaders with the wisdom to step away from the cliff’s edge and understand that there must be limits to all political contests.

The Thinkers And The Doers.



The Thinkers and the Doers.  As the Obamacare debacle continues, it appears to me that a clear pattern is emerging from the Democratic side of this issue.   The academic and intellectual architects of the ACA, such as Z Emanuel, are unapologetically defending the wisdom of the program and apparently have no doubt that all we have seen so far constitutes nothing more than a bump in the road on the way to the nirvana of healthcare they have always envisioned.  In fact, if you listen closely to their interviews and articles, they seem to be practicing a bit of “I told you so” with their partners in crime; the ones who helped them birth this thing.  Those partners are the ones I will refer to as the “doers”; the aforementioned architects shall be labeled the “thinkers”.   The thinkers had been working on this project for decades but despite their best efforts (remember Hillarycare?), had been unable to pass it into law.  That task fell to the doers, of which Mr. Obama is the consummate professional.  It is amusing to see how Emanuel and his fellow wonks are entirely mystified as to why Obama and Reid and Pelosi chose to willfully deceive the nation about what the ACA is all about.  In their minds, it is so damn right that it couldn’t be wrong; no way, no how.  But the doers knew.  They knew that if the people could understand the philosophy behind Obamacare, really understood how it was nothing less than the establishment of a new entitlement that would ultimately serve to redistribute the earned wealth of this nation, then not only would they not support its passage into law, they might not even continue to support the Democrats who were proposing it.

In the minds of the thinkers, this is nothing less than “foundation of the nation” business; the type that literally transforms what this nation is and will be in the future.  To them, there is sufficient gravity to this move towards single payer that any means will justify the ends.  They are truly puzzled why anyone would oppose such policy in the first place and frankly feel quite put upon when asked to defend the reasoning behind Obamacare.  This is the type of attitude that in the past has kept them from obtaining the legislative victory necessary to move the ACA into the realm of law.  Enter the doers.  Once the Democrats were able to get a man who was a “thinker wannabe but a doer at heart” into the White House and simultaneously hold sway over both Houses of Congress, the potent brew had reached critical mass. 

But herein lays the problem.  The thinkers have the luxury of debating issues based on theory; on the lightness of academia and the condescension of intellect.  They can pretend to be ordained with the power to know better what is good for you than you know yourself and get by with it.  Their conversations and rhetoric are discussed by people who have jobs that do not depend on performance, but are largely ignored by the overwhelming majority of the public who actually work for a living.  In other words, the thinkers are largely ignored…and it disturbs the hell out of them.  The doers on the other hand are the ones who are in charge of getting things done (normally at this point, I would say “in charge of paying the bills”; but the Dems gave up on that principle when Mr. Clinton left the White House).  They can practice deceit and dance around the truth, but eventually consequences (both intended and unintended) will raise their collective heads and they will have to be dealt with.  They live and work in the real world.  For a few critical months, the thinkers in the Democratic Party won a victory beyond their wildest dreams and that led to an unthinkable accomplishment.  Not only did the moon and stars align properly to constitute Democratic control of the Legislative and Executive branches of government, but more importantly they were able to get the doers to act like thinkers.  The Democrats in the Senate and the House got so embroiled in the quest for all-out political victory that they forgot they were doers.  They forgot that reality would one day come calling and the wages of political over-indulgence would have to be paid.  For a brief moment in time, they made the mistake of assuming liberties that are reserved only for the thinkers among us; liberties like “We must pass it to find out what is in it”.  Several of them, especially the ones scheduled for races that might be termed competitive, are thinking very hard about that right about now.

My God...We Have Learned Nothing.



My God…We Have Learned Nothing.  I cannot believe what I have been reading in the last couple of weeks.  Many journalists (and I use the term loosely!) have been glancing at Elizabeth Warren as a…wait for it…a presidential candidate.  The logic is that she will be able to run to the left of Hillary Clinton and make a serious run for the Democratic nomination.  Now couple this with the conjecture that Rand Paul could be a serious candidate for the Republican nomination because he appeals to the right wing of the party.  Really? 

Whatever you may think of Obama, his performance and his policies, it is indisputable that he carried one of the lightest resumes in history when he moved into the White House.  And now, serious people are talking about doubling down on that move (how’s that Obama vote working out for ya…change you can believe in?) by giving us a choice between a wannabe Indian chief and a curly headed idealist.  

At the local (county) level of politics in this country, it is common to hear our friends and neighbors moan and groan about the quality of our political candidates.  The logic goes something like…nobody worth having the job will run for the job.  It is true that running for political office has become very expensive and lays one open to unwarranted intrusion and persecution regarding their private lives.  However, a larger explanation for this logic is that we are always looking for the perfect candidate; the one who looks the part and who thinks just like we do.  Good luck with that search!

Instead of Democrats seeing who can out-socialize the others and Republicans seeing who can out-Tea Party the others, it is time to look for people who are serious about wanting to WORK to improve our government, who are reasonable enough to grasp the reality of what is possible and what is impossible, and most importantly, who can demonstrate a record of experience and accomplishment that gives us some tangible hope that they might be somewhat successful at governing.  He was not my favorite cup of tea, but history will show that Mitt Romney was perhaps the most qualified presidential candidate for his time in our history.  We need to vote for our public officials the same way we hire our employees; choose the best qualified from the pool that is available.  The American voting public was blinded by the light, voted for flash instead of substance, and look where that has gotten us.  Unfortunately, we will always have to live with the question…”How would things be different right now with Romney and Ryan in the White House?”

Repeal And Replace.



Repeal And Replace.  The window of opportunity has been pried open by reality, but many hands are trying to pull it back down.  How long it remains open is very real question.  There exists an opportunity NOW to repeal and replace what is quite possibly the worst piece of legislation ever approved by our government.  It should be done.

In the past, I have been an advocate of trying to fix Obamacare, as opposed to trying to repeal Obamacare.   I attribute that opinion to an objective and pragmatic view that told me repeal was not politically possible and that a fix was essential.  Like almost everyone else, I did not anticipate the degree to which this legislation would fail.  That colossal failure has created the possibility  of starting over (in a legislative sense) by simultaneously repealing the ACA and passing a new piece of health care legislation that reflects the 80 percent of the ACA that can garner bi-partisan support.

You might ask…Why not just fix Obamacare?  The answer is simple.  Even though there is a great deal in the ACA that reflects bi-partisan solutions to real problems in our health care system, the fact is that the ACA is intrinsically tied to the mandates, both individual and employee.   The mandate is woven throughout the fabric of the ACA and it would be impossible to remove it without destroying the program.  I am not a lawyer and do not have a professional understanding of the law, but it continues to confound me that the Supreme Court could rule that it is legal to require us to buy health insurance and then have the government prescribe exactly what that health insurance should be.  This is simply wrong and contrary to so much that our country stands for.

 Democrats could not stomach stand-alone repeal of Obamacare; they have too much skin invested.  They are, however, beginning to realize that the program is fundamentally flawed and will never function as it is designed.  They are looking for a way out of this thing.  The Republican ploy of delaying the mandate is not the solution; that just postpones the inevitable.  In the long run, it will lock in the damage for many, many more citizens.  The rumored Administration ploy of supplying a new subsidy to those who lost existing policies is nonsensical…on so many levels.  It would simply exacerbate the existing problems and do absolutely nothing to address the fundamental fissures in the program.

There was a bi-partisan plan or two in the Senate prior to passage of Obamacare.  There has been a multitude of Obamacare fixes passed in the House.  Clearly, there is common ground between the two parties on health care legislation and that ground has been somewhat prepared.  Without obtrusively inserting government into our lives and personal choices on health care, I believe we can all accept that some of our tax money could be spent on insuring that all Americans have a minimal amount of health care maintenance.  If each party can get around their “win at all costs and crush the opponent” strategies that they are currently employing, they could promulgate some repeal and replace legislation that reflects good compromise and both can declare victory.  Is that really too much to ask from a democratic government?

Well....Here We Are.



Well…Here We Are.  The Obamacare rollout has premiered to, how can I say this, less than rave reviews?  What are we now left with?

·        There is, for the present, a new God-given right to all Americans: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness….and free health insurance if you can’t afford it…and only as prescribed by Uncle Sam.

·        We have a president who is not only a shallow, unprincipled, narcissistic, sophomoric, spiteful incompetent; he is also a liar who will say or do anything, to anybody, at any place, at any time, in order to win a political game.

·        The Republicans are slowly coming to the realization that rather than pursue the “David vs. Goliath” goal of defunding Obamacare, they are much better advised to get out the way and let it deconstruct itself.

·        The mainstream media (I hate that phrase but how else do I refer to them…flock of fools, sniveling groupies, blind following the blind, fools to the fool), based on their coverage recently, remain solidly in the tank for Obama and will rationalize to the max to try and save his hide.

·        The Citizenry of America can be hoodwinked on many issues which do not directly impact their daily lives; they are quite content to be sublime in the abstract.  But doctor bills, hospital bills, prescription bills, and insurance premiums hit home real quickly and this bitter pill is not going down real well.

·        Although one event cannot adequately define an issue, on rare occasions one event will really bring an issue into focus.  The rollout of Obamacare was a chance for its supporters to prove to the public that…yes, the government can competently administer health care for this nation; that government knows better than you what is best for you.  Epic fail.  Anyone who had any illusions about the government’s administrative competence should now realize that if they can’t even get the website right with over 3 years to prepare, how in the hell will they manage a program that reflects one-sixth of this nation’s economy?

·        And then there is this little nugget.  In an arena that has seen command performances from players both Democrat and Republican, this outfit has set new standards for cronyism.  It is nothing short of hilarious that the company that was originally contracted (no-bid, BTW) to construct the ACA website has now received a new ADDITIONAL contract to repair it.  You can’t make this stuff up!

·        Thoughtful Democrats are beginning to have serious doubts about the wisdom of Chicago-style politics.    After ramming Obamacare through the legislative process using every abnormal play in the book (and some new ones heretofore not thought of) on a straight party-line vote (NOT ONE SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTE!), they now roam around whining that the other party will not sit down with them to “fix” Obamacare.   How many ways can you say…”that train has left the station”?

·        Many people, from both political spectrum sides and the middle, are beginning to reflect on the wisdom of Democratic/Progressive/Socialist policies.  They were fooled twice by Obama.  They briefly put the Democrats in full control of government; just long enough to pass Obamacare.  They must now be wondering….”if they can do this to our health care system, what can they do to the rest of our country?”.  The 2014 mid-term elections will be interesting indeed.

·        As much as we all despise excessive Capitol Hill hearings and investigations that seem to go on forever and feature bloviating, self-aggrandizing buffoons from both parties parading themselves before any camera that might be operating, no Administration in my memory of over 60 years needs a thorough cleansing more than this one.  After 5 years of being left to its own devices and having the run of the kingdom, this arrogant king and his minions have created a cesspool that is dire need of draining.  I fear the only way to do this is to shame the media into legitimate investigations.  And the only way I see that happening is if the Republicans gain control of the Senate, hold the House, and begin their infuriating rounds of hearings.  Only if the public is force-fed a taste of this administration’s mode of operation will it raise a clamor sufficient to shame the media into doing its duty.

The Path Forward For Republicans.



The Path Forward For Republicans.  I have been fascinated by all the talking heads rendering their opinions on “who won and who lost” in this recent CR and debt limit struggle; which by the way is not yet completed.  Frankly, I think it a regrettable indictment of the media that we are discussing the issue in these terms and not in the true substance of the arguments.  It is simply just another indication that the media is as shallow as our politicians.

To me, the way forward for the Republicans is very clear.  There is nothing to regret about allowing the diverse elements of your party to have their say; even when it unwise to say it.  True democracy and debate demands that various views are aired in their entirety before any final decision is made; and the very conservative members of the House and Senate who are so adamantly opposed to Obamacare pursued a path they selected based on principle (giving them the benefit of a doubt).  But now, having had the debate and confrontation, it is time to develop a game plan that has a reasonable expectation of bearing some type of substantial benefit.  For that to happen, I believe the Republicans in the both the House and Senate should pursue the following strategy:

·        You do not have the votes to undo Obamacare.  This is reality.  Let it self-destruct.  Do not aid in patching it up with band-aid and scotch tape legislation.  Allow it to fail and then, when that is obvious to all involved, come together with reasonable Democrats and pass a bill that will morph it into what it should have been to start with.  Republicans must accept that Obamacare was passed and cannot be rescinded in whole.  Democrats must accept that Obamacare, as passed, was a train wreck and has to be gutted in order to make it workable.  This is the ultimate win/win in the health care debate.

·        Do your jobs and pass appropriations bills prior to the fiscal year in which they apply.  There is simply no excuse not to do the primary job for which U.S. Senators and Representatives are elected to do.  For the current CR, that means a half-ass bundle job that simply plugs a hole.  For the future, just…do…your…job.  Using a term the Democrats are fond of, the sequester is now “settled law” and we should just let it do its work.  It is a modest step in the right direction.

·        The debt ceiling should not be raised to accommodate additional national debt.  Any increase in that ceiling must be accompanied by appropriate language that will address, at a minimum, an equal reduction in federal spending as compared to the increase. 

·        These three issues should be the foreseeable future agenda for the Republican Party.  They control the House; that is one of three votes.  There are times when they have leverage (debt ceiling) and times when they do not (CR); they really do need to come to terms with recognizing those times.  This nation elected Obama in a swoon.  This nation re-elected Obama out of ignorance.  This nation deserves what it is getting.  Get out of this administration’s way and let it demonstrate, once and for all, to the American public what ruin liberal policy can wreak on our country.  Once that realization becomes mature, be ready with a plan to pick up the pieces and begin to set things right.

Three Steps Towards Sanity.



Three Steps Towards Sanity.  Lord knows there are plenty of experts giving the Republicans advice these days; not to mention an undisclosed number of therapists.   It is rather pointless to discuss what the wisest pre-negotiating position would be when negotiations have matured well towards a deadline; whatever the merits of principle involved, it is now time to fish and stop cutting bait.  Negotiating strategy for the future has a place at the table, but the clock is running down and it is time to execute, not game plan.

Here is one simple man’s idea about how the Republicans (BOTH House and Senate, not option A or option B) should handle this end game on CR and debt ceiling:

1.     The Democrats passed Obamacare on a party line vote.  They passed it using extraordinary procedures.  They had no inkling what was in it and many Democrats are now deeply alarmed at the reality it is revealing.  The administration has played fast and loose with its implementation strategy, handing out exemptions like candy at Halloween.  Obamacare is doomed to failure because of its fundamental logic; let it self destruct.  I do not believe it is sustainable in its true form and substance.  Now sincere legislators will argue that it is their sworn duty to try and correct bad law and that is true.  But a friend once told me that sometimes a train must run completely off the tracks before everyone realizes the train needs to be fixed.  I think we have reached that point with this health care law. Pass a short term CR with adequate time to pass the necessary appropriations bills and above all, adhere to the afore-approved sequester cuts.  They are significant, they represent modest progress in the budget process, and they are as much settled law as Obamacare.  Stop trying to defund Obamacare or revise it in the appropriations process.

2.     There is truly something morally wrong when a law is passed and the folks passing the law exempt themselves and selected others from the law; especially when it is controversial to begin with.  In the CR action, as many exemptions as possible should be removed.  This is a position that is defensible, winnable, and can be easily understood.  In order for voters to realize how truly bad this law is. it needs to be implemented in its original form.  This “cut and paste” implementation philosophy being exercised by the administration is questionable in legitimacy and can go forever, effectively masking just how stupid the original law is.  It was passed; put it out there the way it was passed and let the chips fall.

3.     There is one argument that the public understands and supports in this debt ceiling discussion; that is “one dollar cut for one dollar increase”.  Now we all know that a cut in WDC is not a cut in our hometown, but that is another issue.  This argument is sound in principle, is easily argued, and actually makes some good sense.  Try to slow down spending with the appropriations process; using the debt ceiling to put some meaning in word “ceiling”.

Be Afraid; Be Very Afraid.



Be Afraid; Be Very Afraid.  I have wondered on several occasions since last November exactly what it is that motivates our president to do some of the things that he does.  He is clearly childishly petulant sometimes, reacting without thinking in ways that are spiteful and sophomoric.  This is his true nature and he does these things in a natural way without thinking.  But beyond those moments of infantile behavior, why does he continue to play political brinksmanship games with the Republicans?  It would seem that a man who is no longer going to stand for election would be far more interested in his legacy and getting something substantial in a bipartisan sense accomplished than in winning small battles with the opposition party.

There is only one answer that makes any sense whatsoever.  Everything that Obama does is targeted towards one thing.  If nothing else, he and his minions have the ability to bring a laser type focus on something when they are properly motivated; look no further than their masterful job at getting re-elected.  So, what might it be that is drawing their laser focus at this time?  The only explanation for his inexplicably confrontational and partisan activity is that he is wholly consumed by the 2014 mid-term elections; the goal of holding the Senate and wresting control of the House.  With that objective in hand, he and Reid and Pelosi can begin the completion of the vision they had only begun with the passage of Obamacare.

Whether you be a Republican, an Independent, a Libertarian, a Democrat, or a non-party citizen who votes for the candidate regardless, think about what “Obama unleashed” would be like.  Consider all of his community organizer and activist activities that have come to light since his election.  Consider how his foreign policy has sought to transform  not only the posture of our nation as the beacon of hope for freedom and democracy, but also his shift away from historic allies to a naïve friendship extended to some of the most dangerous governments and organizations in the world today.  Look at how the economy has performed since his election.  Look at how our society and culture has changed since his election.  Consider how your life and the lives of your family members have changed since his election.  Consider how your views and dreams of your future have changed since his election.  Do you feel a sense of pride when he stands behind the podium, beneath the presidential seal, glancing towards his ever-present teleprompter, and dishing forth his meaningless partisan pap about how everything that is bad is someone else’s fault and has nothing to do with him?  Is Russia impressed with him or laughing at him?  Has he reassured Israel or forced them to consider radical autonomous actions to insure their own survival? 

If the Democrats maintain control of the Senate in 2014 and take control of the House, and then continue to be lapdogs for Obama and his activist agenda for America, how much damage can they manage in the two years left to them with unfettered control of our government?  This dream of transformation is what drives our president on a daily basis.   All he does, all he says, and all he plans is performed with the 2014 mid-terms foremost in his mind.  Want a preview of what could happen if their dreams come true?  Look no further than what happened the last time they had control of all three elected offices of government; Obamacare.

Words Of Wisdom From JCM.



Words Of Wisdom From JCM.  Johnny Cougar sang…”I need a lover that won’t drive me crazy”.  Listening to Jon Stewart the other day, it occurred to me that this is pretty much what is going on in WDC these days.  Stewart, while criticizing the Obamacare rollout to Sebelius, referred to the Republicans as “crazies”.  It is not uncommon to hear conservative-leaning journalists refer to Democrats in a similar fashion.  But the reality is that this is pretty close to the bone.  The old saying about…”He might be a devil, but he’s our devil” is pretty much in vogue.  There is an abundance of blind loyalty to extreme principles by moderate folks that is feeding the polarizing environment we see in our government.

This is especially true for Democrats; only because they control the White House and their leader is so definite and visible.  Of all the things we need in our government these days, highest on that list is the courage for some prominent Democrat to step up and disagree with the gamesmanship of the Obama administration.  That is not to say the Republicans aren’t engaging in gamesmanship themselves.  The simple fact is that they have a good deal of dissension in the ranks and no clear-cut national leader with which to disagree.

We need a Democrat that won’t drive the Republicans crazy and a Republican that won’t drive the Democrats crazy.  I’m not talking about a RINO or a Blue Dog; I’m talking about someone who wears their party brand clearly and is recognized as true blue; someone whose dissension would be significant and bring into question the wisdom of the leader’s message.  So far, Reid and Pelosi have managed to prevent the appearance of such a Democrat.  Mr. Boehner would likely say he could do with a few less of them.  Here’s hoping that one will soon appear in the U.S. Senate and we can get down to the serious and necessary business of running this government.