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.

Putting facts above ideology

Recently there has been some debate about the value of a federally funded transit center in Troy. While it seems this particular project may not have a broad consensus the idea behind the transit center should.

In these difficult times we should be looking for the best return on investment of our tax dollars. If cutting public sector jobs shows a great return then do it. If increasing taxes tops the list of ROI then it should be done. In this case, infrastructure spending just happens to have some of the best return possible for government spending. It is better than tax rebates, better than payroll tax holiday, and far superior to business or capital gains tax cuts. Ask any business and they will happily go into debt to invest in a product that if can increase their profit margin from $0.30 per dollar spent to $1.59 per dollar spent.

Part of the reason infrastructure spending has such a high ROI is that the money is spend here in America. Tax cuts can be used to buy goods but there is no guarantee that ultimate benefactor of that money is domestic. Spending a little bit more on Christmas presents this year may help Wal-Mart a little but some of that money also goes to the Chinese company that manufactured the product. Infrastructure spending puts Americans to work improving America.

It also turns out that good infrastructure is important to corporations. This means improving infrastructure could bring more business to an area.

So maybe the transit center in Troy is a good idea or maybe it isn't, but making statements like "I don't believe..." or "I don't think..." adds no facts to the debate. In the end if you can't find statistical data that backs up your ideology then maybe the problem isn't with the project but with your ideology.

Light Bulb

Over the past few days we have seen a couple different articles on this blog (one by Libbey Spencer and another by Henry Payne) about the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 which includes the phasing out of the incandescent light bulb.

As Libbey points out this legislation was originally passed in 2007 with bi-partisan support and then signed into law by then President George W. Bush. With this in mind it seems disingenuous of Henry to make a statement like "The light bulb ban was a dark symbol of the Obama Administration’s zealous appeasement of the green god of Global Warming." The fact that this legislation has become a lightning rod for conservative zealots doesn't mean they get to blame Obama for it. The worst you can say is that as a Senator Obama voted for this legislation.

Henry's classification of the legislation as "sneaky backdoor regulation" also seems inaccurate given the bill itself is called the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and included many efficiency improvements across a wide range of industries which included light bulbs.

In keeping with the current conservative rhetoric Mr. Payne laments the jobs lost by this legislation. In particular he mentions a GE facility in Virginia which lost 200 jobs. It should be noted that these lost jobs paid around $30 per hour for highly skilled workers to do things like place cardboard sleeves in a machine. Odd that a conservative who seems to believe that union employees and teachers are overpaid is defending 200 over paid employees. Also, I thought conservatives believed in putting more money in the pockets of Americans? According to Energystar.gov the average consumer will save $40 per light bulb they replace over the life of the bulb. Australia figures upgrading to CFL bulbs will save the average household $46 per year.

Additionally suggesting that the EISA 2007 is the reason that GE is shutting down their facility is an uninformed view. According to a spokesman for the American Lighting Association "The industry has moved on." They have moved on because of the multitude of countries that are either banning incandescent bulbs or moving towards more efficient bulbs. This list includes China, India, Philippines, Malaysia, The European Union, Switzerland, The UK, Canada, Cuba, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, and Venezuela. If Mr. Payne thinks the job losses now are bad, he should understand that insisting on using a product that the rest of the world has deemed inferior under the guise of "personal freedom" will only put us further behind.

But the thing I really don't get is why conservatives who complain that President Obama doesn't demonstrate enough American exceptionalism whine that we can't compete in the CFL market. The reality is the CFL bulb was an American invention from 1973 that GE shelved. 20 years later a Chinese company started producing CFL bulbs and continues to work on more cost effective ways to manufacturer the units. There is no reason to think that if GE had invested in the CFL bulb back in 1973 that we wouldn't have discovered the same cost cutting measures that the Chinese did and we could be the world leader in CFL manufacturing. We can't compete now because we chose not to be the leaders when we had the chance.

It is certainly debatable whether this is good policy or government overreach but acting like this legislation is a job killer ignores reality for the sake of political posturing.

Obama dominates foreign affairs

In a typical Presidential election year the foreign policy success of the candidates and the incumbent would be scrutinized and used as political fodder. If Republicans are lucky this won't be a typical year.

The two men currently at the top of the list to be the Republican candidate for president both accepted multiple deferments for the Vietnam War, and have little to no experience in foreign policy matters with Newt Gingrich even admitting "I don't do foreign policy."

President Obama on the other hand has an impressive list of foreign policy successes that includes the deaths of Osama Bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki and Muammar Gaddafi and the end of the Iraq War.

Additionally since 2007 the world's opinion of US leaders went from being second worst among the major countries to first.

When presented with this information the cries from the right start and they suggest Obama is only popular because he apologies too much. If this claim were even true, this is the same group that loves themselves some Tim Tebow and defends his poor play because he gets results. Well, if results are the only measuring stick then Obama is a winner in foreign policy.

In the end if you are easily persuaded by the fear mongering about national security like the concerns over the future of North Korea after the death of Kim Jong-il and having a president who is strong and foreign affairs is your number one priority then Barrack Obama is your man in 2012.

Bringin' The Stupid: Chris Mannix Edition

I have been a faithful viewer of Jim Rome is Burning for quite some time. For the most part, the guests on The Panel aren't all that intelligent. There are a couple notable exceptions (Ray Ratto! and Matt "Money" Smith) but most of them are nitwits like Jeff Chadiha.

I used to think Terence Moore - former writer for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution was the standard bearer for stupidity on that show but, this week, Chris Mannix of Sports Illustrated has upped the ante.

Let me state my case:

Example One:

Jim Rome asks who wins the NFC East?

Mannix Answers: I like the Giants... outside of Aaron Rodgers, I think (Eli Manning) might be the best quarterback in the entire NFL.

WHAT!?!?!!? I was like Barbara Walters when Herman Cain said he wanted to lead the Department of Defense! That is absolutely insane. Has he heard of Tom Brady? Drew Brees? Ben Roethlisberger? As of this writing date, all three have a better QB rating than Eli Manning this season - let alone the better all around resume (and obviously better team records with each of their teams being 10-3 compared to the 7-6 Giants).

I was wondering if such a statement blew up the twittersphere?

EXAMPLE TWO:

Jim Rome asks Does the punishment (the suspension of James Harrison) fit the crime?

Mannix answers: I think it absolutely fits the crime and it's the right thing to do.

BULLSHIT!!! Sorry, that is pretty much all I can say for that one. He is entitled to his opinion... and he is wrong. Next.

EXAMPLE THREE:

Mannix predicts: DeAndre Jordan is probably going to average 13-14 points per game (in 2011-12).

Can I take the under on this? I might have some Chinese yuan I'd like to wager on that. In fact, Mannix himself predicted that Jordan was going to be another Tyson Chandler. Does he not realize that Chandler has been in the league for ten seasons, has averaged over 10 points per game twice with a career best of 11.8? Oh well, it's still a better prediction than the infamous prediction of Amy K. Nelson!

EXAMPLE FOUR:

Mannix says (regarding the Chris Paul trade): The Timberwolves pick is being viewed as manna from heaven - yet the Timberwolves got Rick Adelman, they got Ricky Rubio, J.J. Barea, (and) Derrick Williams. They're going to be a bad team but they're not going to be so bad that it's a top 2-3 pick... you're going to end up in the 8-12 range.

We'll see. I wouldn't be surprised if they split the difference (end up in 4-6). I will watch this with interest though; Ricky Rubio is probably the Spanish Sebastian Telfair. I like Derrick Williams - but he is probably going take time to develop a la LaMarcus Alridge. Point is that the T-Wolves are still going to suck.

EXAMPLE FIVE:

Mannix claims: In the 2007-08 and 2008-09 seasons, Chris Paul was by far and away the best point guard in the entire league.

Come on! The key phrase, in this case, is "far and away". I don't doubt that Chris Paul was the best point guard in the league in those two seasons, but it's completely revisionist history to claim he was "far and away" better than Deron Williams. I have some empirical evidence to present on this one: consider the 2008 U.S. Mens Olympic Basketball Team. Paul and Williams were both on that team. The minutes played per game in that tournament was Paul at 21.9 and Williams at 19.0. That hardly seems like the spread where one player far outclassed the other (in the eyes of the US coaches).

F The 99%, I'm With The 13%

Everyone knows these are confusing times. It can be difficult to know who to trust. However, there is one thing that no one in the Furriners office disputes - and it's not that Justin Bieber never should have cut his bangs, Elijah! - it's that I am a man's man. I like my passing game vertical and the front of the net cleared. Of course, this means I think - nay, I know - that Roger Goodell is turning the NFL into a sissy league. In fact, the only person more of a pussy than Goodell is Harold Ford, Jr. I will not argue about this. It is a fact.

Hence, I was disturbed by the question that I just found on ESPN.com. The question is:

Who is the dirtier player?

A) James Harrison
B) Ndamukong Suh
C) Neither is a dirty player

Like Rick Perry, this is a no brainer. The answer is C. The ANSWER is C. The answer IS C. Anything else is lunacy... like Michelle Bachmann.

So how is that 87% of the respondents picked either Harrison or Suh?!? I will not even elaborate on the breakdown. It does not matter. They are equally and unequivocally wrong. Period. Unless we're playing flag football, which the NFL is getting dangerously close to under the Goodell stewardship, neither is a dirty player.

I am with the 13%. The rest of ya'll can watch Justin Bieber and Harold Ford, Jr. and decide who would prevail in a fight between those two. FYI: my money would be on Bieber.

Job killing FCC

That job killing force known as the Federal Government is at it again. In yet another example of government overreach the FCC is instituting another new regulation and as everyone knows regulations kill jobs.

What is the new regulation you ask? Well the FCC has decided to punish companies that want to advertise using the television and force them to make sure that their vehicles of patriotism (commercials) are played on your television at the same volume as the program that you are watching.

I think we all know this is a clear violation of the freedom of speech for some of our countries most important people – corporations.

At this point the best thing we can do is just cross our fingers and hope that the damage isn’t too significant and that the Supreme Court fast tracks the challenges to this clearly unconstitutional regulation that we all know is an obvious attempt by President Obama to simultaneously implement Sharia law, limit the rights of true patriots, and force his socialist agenda down our throats.

May god help us.

"Sebelius and Obama Should Be Ashamed"

As is often the case, I'm a few days late with this post but I'm sure our loyal follower (the GoogleBot) won't mind.

The latest kick in the balls to the progressive movement by the Obama administration came last week when Kathleen Sebelius (Secretary of Health & Human Services) announced that despite an FDA finding that 'Plan B' posed no health threats and could be sold over-the-counter without restriction, the Obama administration was maintaining the status quo that girls under the age of 17 would need a prescription to receive the medication (despite the fact that it needs to be taken within 72 hours of a sexual encounter to be effective - which essentially eliminates the possibility of getting a prescription quick enough for it to matter).

When asked about this at a press conference last week, Obama replied that he didn't want a 10 year old being able to buy medication next to batteries and bubble gum that "if not taken properly could be harmful".

That is a load of bullshit, no?!?

Couldn't that line of reasoning be applied to just about anything? I seem to recall that some jackhole died in the past year or two during a stupid radio-show stunt when he drank too much water! Does that mean we need to restrict water purchases because it could be harmful if not utilized properly?

It brings to mind a quote that I associate with Ani DiFranco:

Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right.

Moreover, think back to when you were ten... were you perusing the pharmaceuticals looking for medication? When I was ten and happened to get my hands on a few precious dollars, I was buying baseball cards and/or candy. Did I miss out on a rite of childhood? The recreational use of over-the-counter pharmaceuticals? And, by the way, considering Obama bent over for Big PHaRMA during the health care reform debate, you'd think he'd be cheerleading people buying their products.

It also brings to mind an old Jerry Seinfeld joke about laundry detergent ads that stressed how good their product was at dealing with blood stains; Seinfeld observed that if you're dealing with clothes with bloodstains all over it, maybe laundry stains aren't really your biggest concern! This feels like that, if a pre-teen is looking to use B (either legitimately or illegitimately as in Obama's ludicrous scenario), then I'm going to suggest that misusing medication (deemed to be safe by the FDA) is really not the biggest concern in this child's life.

Comparisons

At this point it seems like there is nothing that the President can do that won't have conservative honks coming out of the wood works to complain about. It doesn't matter what the issue is. For these people no topic is too trivial.

The most recent example of this is the belief that President Obama compared himself to Teddy Roosevelt. Regardless of how accurate this claim is I fail to see how this is at all relevant to the troubles facing the country. Are we to assume that the President can no longer make informed decisions on domestic and foreign policy issues because he may have compared himself to another President?

He is after all one of only 43 people in the history of this country to hold the position so it would seem comparisons to his predecessors would be likely. Perhaps history will prove Obama right or the commenter's wrong. Regardless, what I can't find from these same conservative honks is their articles complaining about Newt Gingrich comparing himself to Ronald Reagan and Margret Thatcher, or Dan Quayle comparing himself to JFK, or George W. Bush comparing himself to Ronald Reagan, Harry Truman, and Abraham Lincoln. Also absent from their writing is the reference from the patron saint of the Republican party Ronald Reagan comparing himself to JFK.

It seems like many of these examples should elicit a similar response, but this complaint, of course, is not about the absurdity of the ego of men in power but the vitriol towards a President. This is the beauty of the bully pulpit; no admission of historical facts required.

Balanced budget

Republicans have started a new push that has more to do with gaining votes using simplistic rhetoric than help our this country. Rep Tim Walberg summed up the plan on his Facebook page.

"Only a Balanced Budget Amendment and meaningful spending cuts will be able to bring down numbers like these [of the national debt]."

Do you know what people think using a balanced budget approach is asinine? Corporations. No corporation in it's right mind uses a balanced budget form of operating. A business understands that investments in future profits may make them unprofitable in the current year but that doesn't mean they suddenly start making cuts just to end up with a balanced budget for the year.

For a group of people who have been pounding the mantra of "government should be run like a business" a balanced budget amendment is baffling. These two ideas are essentially mutually exclusive.

Abraham Lincoln stated that "The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities."

While the definition of a business states that businesses are "administered to earn profit to increase the wealth of their owners."

If Republicans really wanted to use a business model to reduce the national debt they would look at a combination of spending cuts, increasing their profit margin (raise taxes), and investing in future growth.

Passing a balanced budget amendment solves nothing. With or without it there are still tough choices to be made. Given how Republicans are already back tracking and looking for loopholes to the relatively minor cuts they insisted on in the debt ceiling debate it becomes obvious that this amendment is just a political tool that Republicans will carry home to their districts as a badge of honor. They will ignore the fact that no one in congress has the gravitas to make the cuts and tax increases required by such an amendment.

It should be noted that the highest increase in national debt according to the most useful measure, debt to GDP ratio, happened under George W. Bush. Odd that only now that a Democrat is in charge does a balanced budget become paramount.

Perhaps the most concerning about Mr. Walberg's statement is the "only" part. As if there are no other answers. Amazing that we have had a national debt for over 100 years and no one else has been smart enough to figure out that a balanced budget is the only possible solution. Not only that but a total of zero other countries in the OECD have balanced budget requirements. That includes the much revered Germany. Maybe this is the obvious common sense solution to Mr. Walberg and his colleagues but history would suggest otherwise.

If Tim Walberg and the Republicans really wanted to affect the economy and subsequently the national debt they would focus on health care costs. No other single expenditure takes up a greater percentage of the nations GDP and the costs for our current system far eclipse any other industrialized country. If we reduced the cost per person of health care it would add over $780 billion a year to the economy. Unfortunately of the 33 legislative priorities that Republicans are currently backing to improve the economy none of them address this issue.

Tim Walberg's insistence that a balanced budget amendment is the only solution shows how committed he is to getting re-elected. If only he had the same commitment to improving the prospects for the rest of us.

Job creators

Currently Republican rhetoric would have you believe that the rich are the only job creators. As though creating jobs is somehow a tenant of capitalism. While companies do create jobs, they only create the number of jobs that are necessary to maximize profit or to produce the supply of products that consumers will purchase. Employees are a supply that some businesses need to create products.

If more money in the hands of the rich or companies created more jobs then we would be setting records since taxes are at or near record lows for the rich and companies are holding record amounts of cash.

The problem with the belief that the rich create jobs is that it assumes jobs are the motive of companies. Profits are what increases stock prices and nets exorbitant bonuses for the top brass. If job creation was paramount to business success it would be listed on the companies quarterly reports.

The reality is that the true job creators are consumers. Consumers can exist without businesses but businesses can not exist without consumers. Before a monetary system was devised the barter system was the method used for individuals to satisfy their needs and with high unemployment the practice has seen a resurgence.

It should also be noted that in 2008 there were over 21 million firms in the US generating over $930 billion in sales using zero employees. This means that not every company needs employees to survive but without consumers, companies are irrelevant.

So while it may be true that the rich create jobs, they can not do it alone. The success of capitalism requires a balance of companies providing services and products that consumers want and can afford to purchase. If only congress could find a similar balance instead of staking out positions on the fringes like calling the 1% job creators to the detriment of the other 99%.

Professional Malfeasance

Yesterday, the whole nation, nay, whole world saw a public acknowledgement of professional malfeasance. Now, the liberal media is all apoplectic about the failure of the so-called Super Committee. Seriously, no one cares!

What people - from Zion to Kankakee - are really outraged about is the Chicago Bears going into the season with Caleb Hanie as their backup QB! How did their GM not take a run when Derek Anderson was available?!?! It's inexplicable. Now Jay Cutler is out indefinitely and you can stick a fork in da Bears.

If I were Keith Olbermann, I would say: Jerry Angelo, you need to RESIGN!!!

However, I am not Keith Olbermann. I am not making $10,000,000+ a year while thinking I am in touch with "the little guy". Sucks to be me.

And sucks to be a Bears fan... because you don't have Derek Anderson to save your season.

Lions, Falcons, and Giants/Cowboys fans rejoice!!

Monitoring The Media Monitor

Since I have a short attention span, my favorite segment of CNN's Reliable Sources is Media Monitor - where Howard Kurtz gives his "hits" and "misses" in the media during the previous week. I think he stole this segment idea from The Colbert Report's "Tip of the Hat/Wag of the Finger". Come on, Mr. Kurtz! I'm on to you! If you start doing a segment on the War on Christmas - everyone else will see what you're up to.

Anyway, I wanted to point out a blatant whiff by Mr. Kurtz this past Sunday:

The (actual) liberal media took notice last week that Fox News had labeled the young man who fired an automatic weapon at The White House - and was subsequently charged with Attempted Assassination - as the 'Occupy Shooter' (despite his having no connection to the protests).



How is it this massive media fail evaded the watchful eye of Howard Kurtz? Instead he took a few moments to defend Bill O'Reilly against his critics who have pointed out errors in Bill O'Reilly's new book. Way to take on the big issue, Howie! Glad you were there to catch that one.