I Hate to admit it...But.

While it is probably clear to most readers that I am not a big fan of the GOP generally, lately some of the actions of the Democrats in Congress have annoyed me much more.

For example, the debate over whether the New START treaty should be voted on before the next Congress comes into session next year has been all over the news in the last few weeks. Now as a rule, I have no problem with such treaties simply because nuclear arms reduction is always a good thing in my book, especially considering how large the stockpile of the United States and Russia still are now 20 years after the Cold War has ended. My problem with this treaty has been timing.

This treaty was signed by President Obama and Russian President Medvedev on April 8, 2010. Since that ceremonial signing, little has progressed with the treaty here in the United States and this uncertainty of whether it will passed has caused the Russians to become cautious of the treaty as well. So why has it taken so long for the treaty to come to a vote? Many actually predicted the treaty would be passed with little delay since it was backed from the start by Senator Lugar who is seen as one of the most influencial Republicans (and Senators in general) on matters such as these. But support from Republicans has been much less than forthcoming.

The main issues brought up by Republicans is that the treaty is more oriented in reduction and maintaince than modernization. The Obama administration denies this but the Republicans, led by Senator Kyl, have not been convinced and want more time to debate this treaty. In the same thought, others have made the point that debating the new START treaty is not as high of priority as other matters, mainly the continuation or the Bush Tax Cuts.

Another problem some see with the New START treaty has been made by conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer. He contends that while as a whole the treaty does not restrict U.S. efforts to build a real ballistic missile defense system, the pre-amble does suggest that such efforts may be restricted and contends that during the talks before the signing of this treaty there may have been some verbal deal between the American representatives and their Russian counterparts that if Russian agrees to the reductions the US will reduce its efforts to build a complete "missile shield" in return. The Obama administration denies this but Krauthammer and others contend that this should be investigated properly to make sure there were no miscommunication between the American and Russian representatives....And I agree.

While I do agree such a treaty is very important and Democrats points that there have been no inspectors in Russian to observe nuclear arsenal for over a year are quite valid, these are things that can be handled next year. Why? Because for the moment, I believe the American economy is a more important matter for the 'Lame duck' session to worry about. The New START treaty will still be there in two months and I believe thorough debate is a must on such treaties and once all is clear what the treaty will and will not do, then a vote on it can be had.

The issue of whether the Bush tax cuts should be extended or not, is in my mind more important for the 'lame duck' session to worry about right now. These tax cuts expire in a little over a month and still neither part has a concesus on what should be done. More or less, the GOP is unified in their belief that at the very least, all the tax cuts should be extended at least til next year and preferably the GOP would like to see them permanently extended. The Democrats on the other hand are all over the place with ideas of compromises but no one has a majority of support it seems. Some, like the President, believe that at the very least tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 should extended, possibly permanently while tax cuts for upper class Americans should return to their pre-Bush levels. Some have recently suggested the bar be raised to $1 million dollars instead to try and appeal to Republicans. The reasonings behind these ranging opinions from both parties is too lengthy to cover in this blog entry but there are at some solid reasoning for both sides arguments.

Ultimately, considering how little time there is left to figure this out, I think it is prudent for Democrats to quite bickering among themselves and find some compromise with the Republicans. Personally, I am not a big fan of continuing the tax cuts permanently simply because of how much they are projected to add to the deficit over the next decade (enough to make the Stimulus and TARP look like child's play). However considering the shape the economy is in right now, it is more prudent to not raise taxes on anyone at least until the economy escapes this recession. But I do believe I know why Democrats are seemingly stalling on this issue. They likely fear that if they agree to extend all the tax cuts for a few years that when the time comes to decide what to do with them again the Congress could be held completely by Republicans and they may choose to extend them permanently, and this is a valid fear but for right now they are just going to have to take that risk for the good of the economy.

Deficit Reduction Plans..There are many!

Recently, the Co-Chairmen of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility & Reform published a proposed plan for reducing our deficit through a rather long list of pretty specific changes ranging from a gradual gas tax to reducing the Defense budget. Within just hours of being published, Democrats and Republicans alike showed their disdain for the proposal though Democrats have been FAR more critical of it (Soon to be EX speaker Pelosi called it "unacceptable").

Regardless of how valid or likely the proposal is, it turns out there are already several proposed such plans to reduce our deficit and bring spending under control which can make looking at just one a bit confusing and tricky. In order to clarify all such plans, the good people at PolitiFact.com have compiled a list of the many proposal. I encourage everyone to read these proposal so that they at least know what is on the table and who is behind them.

Many thanks to PolitiFact!
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/nov/12/factsheet-reducing-national-debt/

Veteran's Day

On today, the day set aside to honor those who put their lives on the line for all Americans, I look to the man who proclaimed this holiday 91 years ago...President Woodrow Wilson:

‎"To us in America, the reflections of Armistice Day will be filled with lots of pride in the heroism of those who died in the country's service and with gratitude for the victory, both because of the thing from which it has freed us and because of the opportunity it has given America to show her sympathy with peace and... justice in the councils of the nations."

Originally a national holiday honoring those who fought in World War I, it was expanded decades later by Congress to include all veterans not just those from WWI, a change sparked not by a politican but by a shoe maker from Kansas by the name of Alfred King. And as history would have it, this change was signed into law by President Dwight Eisenhower.

Finally, I leave you with these words..

"As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them"- John F. Kennedy

Happy Veterans Day

Leave it to Charles to Sum it up best..

The results of Tuesday's election results are still not entirely final but one thing is clear: Democrats got their 'asses' handed to them. To best sum up the results of the election results and real meaning behind them, I give the floor to Mr. Krauthammer...Take it away Charles!


"For all the turmoil, the spectacle, the churning - for all the old bulls slain and fuzzy-cheeked freshmen born - the great Republican wave of 2010 is simply a return to the norm. The tide had gone out; the tide came back. A center-right country restores the normal congressional map: a sea of interior red, bordered by blue coasts and dotted by blue islands of ethnic/urban density.

Or to put it numerically, the Republican wave of 2010 did little more than undo the two-stage Democratic wave of 2006-2008 in which the Democrats gained 54 House seats combined (precisely the size of the anti-Democratic wave of 1994). In 2010 the Democrats gave it all back, plus about an extra 10 seats or so for good - chastening - measure.
The conventional wisdom is that these sweeps represent something novel, exotic and very modern - the new media, faster news cycles, Internet frenzy and a public with a short attention span and even less patience with government. Or alternatively, that these violent swings reflect reduced party loyalty and more independent voters.
Nonsense. In 1946, for example, when party loyalty was much stronger and even television was largely unknown, the Republicans gained 56 seats and then lost 75 in the very next election. Waves come. Waves go. The republic endures.
Our two most recent swing cycles were triggered by unusually jarring historical events. The 2006 Republican "thumpin'" (to quote George W. Bush) was largely a reflection of the disillusionment and near-despair of a wearying war that appeared to be lost. And 2008 occurred just weeks after the worst financial collapse in eight decades.

Similarly, the massive Republican swing of 2010 was a reaction to another rather unprecedented development - a ruling party spectacularly misjudging its mandate and taking an unwilling country through a two-year experiment in hyper-liberalism.

A massive government restructuring of the health-care system. An $800 billion-plus stimulus that did not halt the rise in unemployment. And a cap-and-trade regime reviled outside the bicoastal liberal enclaves that luxuriate in environmental righteousness - so reviled that the Democratic senatorial candidate in West Virginia literally put a bullet through the bill in his own TV ad. He won. Handily.

Opposition to the policies was compounded by the breathtaking arrogance with which they were imposed. Ignored was the unmistakable message from the 2009-10 off-year elections culminating in Scott Brown's anti-Obamacare victory in bluer-than-blue Massachusetts. Moreover, Obamacare and the stimulus were passed on near-total party-line votes - legal, of course, but deeply offensive to the people's sense of democratic legitimacy. Never before had anything of this size and scope been passed on a purely partisan basis. (Social Security commanded 81 House Republicans; the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 136; Medicare, 70.)

Tuesday was the electorate's first opportunity to render a national verdict on this manner of governance. The rejection was stunning. As a result, President Obama's agenda is dead. And not just now. No future Democratic president will try to revive it - and if he does, no Congress will follow him, in view of the carnage visited upon Democrats on Tuesday.

This is not, however, a rejection of Democrats as a party. The center-left party as represented by Bill Clinton remains competitive in every cycle. (Which is why he was the most popular, sought-after Democrat in the current cycle.) The lesson of Tuesday is that the American game is played between the 40-yard lines. So long as Democrats don't repeat Obama's drive for the red zone, Democrats will cyclically prevail, just as Republicans do.

Nor should Republicans overinterpret their Tuesday mandate. They received none. They were merely rewarded for acting as the people's proxy in saying no to Obama's overreaching liberalism. As one wag put it, this wasn't an election so much as a restraining order.
The Republicans won by default. And their prize is nothing more than a two-year lease on the House. The building was available because the previous occupant had been evicted for arrogant misbehavior and, by rule, alas, the House cannot be left vacant.

The president, however, remains clueless. In his next-day news conference, he had the right demeanor - subdued, his closest approximation of humility - but was uncomprehending about what just happened. The "folks" are apparently just "frustrated" that "progress" is just too slow. Asked three times whether popular rejection of his policy agenda might have had something to do with the shellacking he took, he looked as if he'd been asked whether the sun had risen in the West. Why, no, he said. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/04/AR2010110406581.html

Joe Scarborough Talks Some Sense...

Recently, Joe Scarborough, a former House Republican and host of MSNBC's "Morning Joe", published an opinion piece on POLITICO discussing his view about how important or earth-shaking this years mid-terms elections will actually be. In short, he makes the point that both parties are equally guilty of having terrible records when it comes to fiscal responsibility and that the end-of-the-world like rhetoric we hear from both Democrats and Republicans is all just that...Rhetoric. Whether there will be any real change this November remains to be seen and though I am not as skeptical or cynical as Mr. Scarborough, I am not holding my breath that the Republicans will be any better than the Democrats in terms of Fiscal Responsibility should they come to power.

As an interesting sidenote, this opinion piece by Scarborough has cause a good bit of reactions from readers of POLITICO. There have been alot of comments on the piece ranging from Liberals claiming Joe is just another dumb conservative and doesn't belong on MSNBC, to Conservatives accusing him of sucking up to Liberals and not being a real conservative. Such a wide range of comments suggests to me...that Mr. Scarborough must have said something right to irritate both ends of the political spectrum so kudos to you Mr. Scarborough for being bipartisan in your ability to piss off both Liberals and Conservatives!

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44134.html

19 Days til....

In just 19 days, millions of Americans will go the polls in what is sure to be a memorable mid-term election. How memorable of an election all depends on who you ask of course. Many Republicans would try to convince you (and themselves) that this year's elections will be something close "tsunami" if 1994. Some Democrats (including the Vice President) actually try to convince people that the Democrats have a real chance at maintaining their majorities in Congress. What is the truth? Well, even though we still have 19 days til the election, thanks to polling data all over the nation and the good people at the New York Times FiveThirtyEight blog we can make a pretty good educated guess.

As of their latest projections, this is the outcome FiveThirtyEight is predicting according to the latest available polling data (October 8-12):

House of Representatives

• Republicans- 226.5 seats



• Democrats-208.5 seats



• Independents-0.0 seats
  

Senate

• Republicans- 47.9 seats



• Democrats- 52.0 seats



• Independents- 0.1 seats
  
  

Now, assuming the math behind these projections is correct, the results we will see this Novemember will hardly be a "tsunami" but it will radicially change the dynamics of Washington D.C. The Republicans would have a fairly strong majority in the House of Representatives though not as great as the Democrats now and likewise the Democrats will still have a pretty strong presence compared to the current Republican minority. However, the real difference will be in how each party conducts themselves while the majority.

Democrats in their short rule of the House have passed several major pieces of legislation but have also had problems with party unity and keeping promise made before they came into the majority in 2006 (especially in the area of ethics). Republicans on the other hand don't traditionally have alot of internal problems and often more united in the political positions. Even with the election of so-called Tea Party candidates, this isnt likely going to change as long as President Obama is in office.

The Senate is another story entirely. If these projections hold true, the Democrats will retain their majority but just barely. This will present a rather interesting situation in the Senate. The threat of Filibuster by Republicans will only be more real and could result in a deadlocked Senate. Its even possible Republicans could draw in several more conservative Democrats on important votes and therefore not even need to filibuster. No matter what though, its likely the Senate will not be a very active body after the election (which is a sad statement to begin with).

In fact many Republicans, including prominent members like Senator Jim DeMint have called for a deadlock should they not get their way. The idea of a standstill in the Senate and the whole of Congress will remind many of a similar event after the 1994 mid-terms over the budget. The idea of a similar event is not likely to win any votes considering how ineffective and lazy most Americans already think Congress is..Just imagine how they will feel when one of the major parties has the equivalent of a hissy fit and causes the entire government to grind to a hault. Now whether such a standstill is going to happen we can only guess, but it's just one of many possibilities of what the Congress will look like after the mid-terms.

Sadly though, I think anyone who thinks these elections are going to be some radical change or some great improvement are going to be disappointed. I myself am a rather cynical political wonk who sees both parties are being dysfunctional and self-centered in their own ways and don't hold much hope either party is ready or willing to create any real political change in America. In my mind, should Republicans come to power in the House, it is going to just be politics as usual and they will be more focused on the elections in 2012 than getting something accomplished or showing any real national leadership. This is just politics as usual in America and I haven't seen any reason to believe any different..But of course I could be wrong and perhaps the Republicans will really take charge and focus on the deficit as they have promised and not focus too much on partisan politics but I'm not going to hold my breath...

Regardless, I really want to give kudos to the people behind the FiveThirtyEight blog at the New York Times for their impressive set of information, polling data, and great articles on this years elections. We need more sites like these out there to better educate the American voter..Many thanks!

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

The Write-In Contenders..Rebels against the Tea Partiers?

This political season has so far shown that the Tea Party movement does have some sway at least with Republican and even many independent voters with the nominations of several so-called, "political outsiders". The most recent addition to this club has been Christine O'Donnell who defeated Republican moderate Mike Castle in the Delaware Republican Senate Primary. Mr. Castle had the backing of not only the party establishment but also political veterans like Karl Rove. O'Donnell's victory cause many in the establishment to publically vent their frustration with the Tea Party movement that had propelled O'Donnell to win the nomination. Mr. Rove stated it best in that with O'Donnell as the Republican Candidate it made it unlikely that she would be able to defeat her Democratic candidate largely thanks to her conservative beliefs that aren't nearly as effective in the Democratic-leaning state of Delaware. This belief has been reinforced by the latest polls that show Ms. O'Donnell far behind her Democratic opponent.

As such, some have suggested that Mr. Castle could mount a Write-In campaign as Ms. Murkowski has in Alaska after being defeated by a more conservative tea-party backed candidate. However, many venerable political analyists don't see that as very likely. Write-In campaigns are tricky to pull off in the best conditions but they are seen as the only option for non-Tea Party Republicans who believe they can still win in general elections.

This year has really shown the threat the Tea Party poses to the Republican Party as a whole. While the Tea Party movement has helped motivate many new voters towards the Republican party, it has also shown that it can derail some of their efforts to win traditional Democratic states (like Delaware). This tension between the Tea Partiers and the Republican establishment could pose an even greater danger to the GOP should they gain control of Congress because it could infighting not just this year but in the next election cycle, in which the Democrats could take advantage of the chaos. For the moment though, the Democratic voters are not nearly as motivated and for the moment have been unable to trully captialize on the tension between the GOP and the Tea Party.

This November is shaping to still be very exciting, with most experts agreeing that Democrats will lose control of the House of Representative but thanks to recent events it looks that the Senate will likely remain in Democratic hands which will make the aftermath of the Mid-Terms all that more confusing and exciting (for political wonks anyway).

Which brings me to a new link I have added to the my blog. The New York Times has this year set up a Political page/blog called the FiveThirtyEight which includes a vast array of information on races all over America including poll numbers, local statistics, voting records etc. The site also makes their own educated guesses for the likelihood of the outcomes of these races and the likelihood of who will control Congress after the Mid-terms. I highly recommend it to those who want to see the big picture this year politically.

Enjoy!
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/