Support the troops - listen to country?

For some reason there seems to be a belief among conservatives that they are the only American who "support the troops". I assume this is based on the belief that by-in-large conservatives supported the war in Iraq while liberals tended to make up the bulk of those who opposed the war. Unfortunately for those in the "support the troops" elite, there is almost no correlation between supporting a war and supporting the American men and women sent to fight that war.

Beyond that I fail to understand the need to politicize the lives of our men and women who serve this country but a recent song by country singer Brad Paisley contains a phrase that I think epitomizes the ignorance of this line of thinking.

"if there’s anyone that still has pride
In the memory of those
That died defending
The ol’ red, white and blue,
This is country music,
And we do."

If you want to think you hold the lives of our service men and women in higher regard than some know nothing liberal blogger, I think that is great - inaccurate and completely impossible to prove - but great. Perhaps I need to be more like my conservative brethren and start booing American servicemen for being gay to show my support.

Where I really take issue with this line of thinking is when you decide that some arbitrary group of people, of which you happen to belong, somehow holds the patent on pride for our fallen soldiers.

I highly doubt that "country music" puts a higher value on the lives of those who died for this country than the mothers and fathers or brothers and sisters or grandparents or aunts and uncles or cousins or friends of American G.I.'s.

Maybe Brad Paisley fits into one of these categories but "country music" most certainly does not and this claim is either arrogant or ignorant but above all else it is completely and utterly insulting and un-American.

Entitlment of election year rhetoric

In response to a recent post regarding Mitt Romney and his opinion on how best to make America an "Opportunity Society" I received the following comment from Jo Dick Harris:

If a person believes Dale Hansen why go to school. Somebody in the Democratic Party will take care of them and their family if they marry and have children. Work is for suckers.

I'm not sure which statement of mine led Jo Dick to believe that I support some sort of extreme view of America where this description makes any sense but maybe that is how it came off.

With that in mind I wanted to clarify my beliefs since I think this sort of rhetoric permeates what should be a rational debate. Polls show that most Americans believe that there are some people who truly need and benefit from welfare and some people who truly don't need assistance and are just milking the system. If that is the case then the real debate is how many people should really be on welfare not should we offer any welfare.

What I never hear from commenter’s or politicians are practical solutions that assure that those in need don't lose this assistance while eliminating the rest. If you want the states to decide where the money should go - this has been done. If you want less impoverished people to receive assistance - this has been done. If you want less money spent on welfare - this has been done. If you want to limit the amount of welfare people can receive - this has been done. If you want to have better control of what food stamps buy - this has been done. If you want to require people to get job training in order to receive assistance - this has been done.

It should be noted that around 75% of all the money spent on welfare goes to children and subsequently the reductions that we have seen over the past 15 years have affected children the most. Have we really reached the point where we put something like corporate tax breaks or tax cuts for the rich ahead of giving underprivileged kids an opportunity to succeed because that is what will happen if we continuing to arbitrarily attack the welfare system.

I imagine there are some viable solutions to cut the waste out of welfare but you can't crack down on fraud without spending more tax payer dollars and hiring additional government employees - two things that Republican legislators seem to hate even more than welfare. But if we're being honest, this "debate" isn't really about finding solutions is it?

Romney Family Homes

Photos by - CA , MA , NH , CI

Voter ID requirements - a Republican contradiction

One of the big ideas that Republicans are pushing is voter ID laws. The implication being that voter ID's would somehow solve all of the election fraud in the US. Unfortunately voter ID cards would only solve one form of election fraud which also happens to be one of the least prevalent. Additionally the fervor over election fraud is extraordinary given the lack of evidence that this is actually a problem.

The argument from the left on this topic always focuses on voter suppression. Much like the Republican arguments for voter ID laws there is little evidence that proves this would cause widespread voter suppression. That doesn't mean if implemented there won't be a problem of American citizens not being allowed to vote, but at this point this is more speculation than fact.

Having said that, Republican support of voter ID laws is baffling. If enacted voter ID requirements does a number of things that Republicans claim to be against. It would add more unnecessary regulation to the books, which as we all know kills jobs. It would add costs to the election process, which would have to paid for by the American tax payer. It would require additional government employees, which is just more big government. And in some cases if would violate the 24th amendment of the constitution.

For a group that hell-bent on replacing President Obama because they believe he is a big spending, big government President that is killing jobs with unnecessary regulations and occasionally acts unconstitutionally; supporting voter ID requirements must result in a lot of self loathing.

The American entitlement problem

Mitt Romney has decided that inequality in America isn't a real problem. It's just envy. There a plenty of facts that would suggest income inequality is not a good thing for this country but why debate data when you can just throw out a talking point for simpletons to latch on to.

On top of that Mr. Romney believes we have an entitlement problem and he wants America to become and "Opportuntiy Society". This should come as no surprise since growing up privileged Mitt Romney was given every opportunity to succeed. Would he have achieved the same grades in the Detroit public school as he did in his private school in Bloomfield Hills? Would he have been as motivated to get good grades if he had to pitch in to put food on the table and keep the lights on? Would he have been able to pay for his 7 years of college and 30 months on a Mormon mission without his family's money?

What Democrats have been fighting for is a nation where everyone is entitled to a chance at success. Sometimes this means some people need assistance from the government. Unfortunately for most Americans an Opportunity Society favors those like Mitt Romney.

If not would Paris Hilton have been given a chance to have a reality television show or release a record? Would Dale Earnhardt JR. be a NASCAR driver? Would Joe Buck be a big time sports caster? Would Jay Paterno have been the Quarterbacks coach for Penn State for the past 12 years?

Mitt Romney would have you believe that he can help this country create jobs because he has run a business. The idea being that his knowledge of business will be an asset that makes his views better than those who do not have business experience. If this is true then Mitt Romney's opinions on how to help people pull themselves up by their boot straps are completely irrelevant. Mitt didn't start at the bottom and work his way up. He took a limo to the corner of privilege and don't you know who my dad is and managed not to screw it up.

Barack Obama on the other hand, grew up in a house that needed government assistance to make ends meet. Contrary to the Republican rhetoric of "welfare dependency", Barack Obama, because of this assistance, was afforded the opportunity to succeed. If personal experience is the measuring stick Mitt Romney wants us to use then Barack Obama's opinion on how to successfully get Americans off of government assistance is far superior to Mr. Romney's.

In the end I agree with Mitt Romney - we have an entitlement problem. But the problem is with the entitlements that are given to the rich and famous not the impoverished. Perhaps it is just hard for Mitt to see how cutting government benefits might not be considered an "opportunity" by the poor from the Romney family ivory towers in California, and New Hampshire, and Massachusetts and Utah.

Fox News has it all figured out

Fox News contributor Liz Peek has it all figured out. It's simple. The problem with the economy is of course all Obama's fault. What in particular is the President doing to ruin the economy? He's not positive enough. According to Liz Peek "(The President) is not aware…that his pessimism...is bad for our economy".

I guess what the President needs to do is just be more upbeat about the state of the nation and the economy, like Republicans, and everything will magically be better.

So with that in mind here are some of the Republican examples of how to be positive and boost consumer confidence.

Ron Paul - "A false recovery is under way. I am reminded of the outlook in 1930, when the experts were certain that the worst of the Depression was over and that recovery was just around the corner."

Eric Cantor on his official government web page has an article with the following title: "The Obama Economy: 60% Say It's Getting Worse"

Mitt Romney - "Barack Obama has failed America. When he took office, the economy was in recession. He made it worse."

Rush Limbaugh - "The recession is twice as bad, economic growth two times as bad."

Mitch McConnell - "There’s no denying the fact that the policies of the past two and a half years have made a bad situation worse."

Herman Cain - "stupid people are running America.”

Newt Gingrich - "(Obama is) the most destructive president economically since Herbert Hoover.”

And even some of Liz Peek's colleagues at Fox News are getting in on the act.

Sean Hannity - "And tonight, more bad news on the state of the American economy which comes as no surprise to anybody except members of the Obama administration."

Bill O'Reilly - "As we all know, the U.S. economy is bad and getting worse"

Nothing quite like that warm fuzzy feeling you get from all that positive energy eh?

I wonder if Mrs. Peek gets the irony of how writing an article complaining about everything the President is doing wrong might also be one of those things that contributes to a low consumer confidence number.

The never ending welfare state

In what is clearly a referendum on the Obama administrations job killing obsession with climate change; it snowed in Cordova, Alaska. If that doesn't prove climate change is a hoax I don't know what will.

What's more, thanks to this dusting of snow the mayor of Cordova, Alaska has declared a disaster emergency and has enlisted the help of the National Guard, the Coast Guard, and even Homeland Security to get the snow removed. Who is going to pay for all this government assistance? The American tax payer, that's who. If we send in the National Guard every time a little snow falls in Alaska we create a situation where these people will come dependent on the assistance and will never learn to shovel snow on their own. Lazy freeloaders like this are the reason we have such massive deficits. Just think of the money we could save if these people just demonstrated a little personal responsibility.

To make matters worse the town of Cordova wasted more tax payer money on infrastructure improvements which put their power lines underground preventing them from losing power during storms like this. This money could have been used to lower the tax burden on the valuable job creators in Cordova instead of continuing the welfare state.

This is just more proof of how President Obama is turning us into a nation of socialists by forcing emergency assistance down our throats rather than letting the free market take its course.

Recess appointment hysteria

It has become common place for conservative "news" sources like Fox News to over react to everything that President Obama does. The most recent example of this is the hysteria over his recent recess appointments which Fox News reported might be an impeachable offense.

First it should be noted that not only is Obama not the first President use recess appointments but he uses them half as much as George W. Bush while Ronald Reagan had three times a many recess appointments per year as President Obama. Additionally with a Democrat controlled Congress 75% of George W. Bush's nominees were confirmed while only 57% of Obama's nominees have been confirmed thanks to a litany of delaying tactics used by Republicans.

Having said that, these recess appointments are slightly different due to another delaying tactic known as pro forma developed by Senator Robert C. Byrd and later implemented by Harry Reid. Back when Harry Reid first implemented the pro form sessions some on the right as termed this tactic never ending obstructionism, now that Obama is challenging the blocking of recess appointments the right is defending the practice and claiming Obama's actions are unconstitutional. Which is it? Is pro forma a vital senatorial procedure or an obstructionist tactic? According to lawyers in the Bush administration there were examples of other Presidents (Theodore Roosevelt and Harry Truman) taking similar actions and these lawyers urged President Bush to ignore pro forma.

Based on this information it seems that both the Bush and Obama administrations have determined this action to not be unconstitutional. The good news is we have a system in place to shine a light on these grey areas of the law and it doesn't rely on talking heads from the media.