Different year, same shit

Often I'm glad to see that some things never change; unfortunately, stupidity is among those things. House Republicans, led by incoming Speaker John Boehner, are pledging to cut $100 billion from domestic spending over the next year.

I understand the concern about spending money we don't have, and the all-to-common rhetoric of budget cuts doesn't piss me off nearly as much as the following, quoted from The New York Times:

House Republican leaders are so far not specifying which programs would bear the brunt of budget cutting, only what would escape it: spending for the military, domestic security and veterans.

I'd say it's also a fair bet that social security and medicare will go largely untouched as well, unless the GOP plans on committing political suicide. According to the Pew Research Center, Republicans and Tea Partiers likely rode into office on a wave of older voters. Take away those voters' benefits and that same wave will carry them back out to sea.

If GOP members avoid cuts from the military, domestic security and veterans as they say they will -- and from medicare and social security as they likely will -- just over 50 percent of total federal spending will go untouched. While programs beyond these five areas are numerically greater, they are fiscally smaller.

Bottom line: this is just grandstanding. If Republicans were serious about reducing spending, they would address the real issues, and their deafening silence during the health care debate suggests they won't.

In saecula saeculorum

I know my dozens of readers depend and eagerly look forward to my razor sharp political analysis, but today I'm afraid I must disappoint. As my own disappointment with the Democrats has developed into malaise, I've been reaching for something hopeful to read, so I turned to an old friend: George Orwell.

I recently finished his short essay, The English Revolution. I'm not sure I would favor the level of socialism for which he argues, but he makes several interesting points.

Two words: one term

Last Friday a liberal friend of mine made a post to his Facebook that I was shocked to see, but I found it emblematic of larger issue, so I thought I'd share:

I just removed all my "Barak Obama" links. I know no one will run against him in the 2012 primary, but if anyone does, I will vote for that person. He's proven that he has absolutely no backbone. I regret ever having voted for him.

My response was the following:

I agree that he's a wimp, but I don't regret voting for him. Hindsight is 20/20. I think we should reelect Teddy Roosevelt. That guy knew how to get his agenda passed.

There's two points I like to make right away. First, my friend is not suggesting that we would have been better off with McCain/Palin. Instead, he's arguing we would have been better off with a different Democrat winning in 2008. Second, I'm only half joking when I say we could use another Teddy Roosevelt.

Teddy made the choices he thought were best for the people as a whole and fought tooth and nail with every political tool he had to see his policies passed. I find it incredibly ironic that the great "trust buster" was a Republican, and they hated him for it. But many people think he made the right decision not only for workers but for business as well.

Other TR decisions -- particularly concerning the Panama Canal -- are historically less popular, but he acted with conviction and thought and made a choice without regret or remorse. Say what you want about the Canal, but Teddy never lost sleep over it; I doubt Obama will have the same luxury upon his presidency's end.

Given the picture I've painted of Teddy, he might remind readers of another president we've had recently: George W. Bush. I don't like Bush because I feel his policy decisions were terrible, but they were his and he clearly owns them, and there's something to be said for that.

Do I want another Bush? No. I don't really want another presidency like Bush's because in principle I don't approve of the "bully pulpit" legislative process that his presidency represented. I believe in collaboration and compromise, but the current debate over the Bush tax cuts spurs two interesting caveats to such an approach.

First, you cannot compromise with those who have no interest in comprising with you. As New York Times columnist Paul Krugman puts it, the Republican strategy is tax-cut blackmail, which is essentially the opposite of compromise. Krugman argues that the best Democratic strategy is to refuse engagement now before the blackmailing continues further, and I agree.

Second, there is no reason to assume that a compromised position is better than the position for which you currently advocate. Making such an assumption universally places process above principle. Based on the consequences that follow, there are times when compromise is warranted and times when it is not, and wise men know the difference.

Democrats, whether they admit it or not, are attempting to create greater equality of wealth by taxing the rich. Republicans ran in 2010 on reducing the deficit. Extending tax cuts will lead to greater wealth inequality and cost approximately $4 trillion over the next decade, which is anything but deficit neutral.

If Democrats fail to compromise, they actually achieve what they desire while at the same time holding Republicans true to their own campaign promises, so why compromise? Obama needs to understand -- like TR and W did -- that the role of the president is two-fold: making decisions shaped by public opinion and making decisions that shape public opinion. Voting down the tax cuts for the wealthy actually achieves both.

In any case, you have to make a damn decision, and Obama lets others make decisions for him, which makes him appear weak, it leaves Democrats searching desperately for a true leader, and it leaves progressives -- ironically enough -- hopeless. It's decision time for Obama, and the decision is this: "Do I want a second term?"

This pisses me off

A vague title I know, but there's no other way to describe it. I read in The New York Times today that all 42 Republic senators signed an agreement stating that they would block all legislation for the remainder of the legislative session until a deal is reached to extend the Bush tax cuts.

I am vehemently against extending these tax cuts, but I'm more enraged by the bullying tactics employed here. When you toe the party line, you run the risk of serving only the interests of your constituents, not the interests of the people as a whole. This instance is particularly egregious because all of the Republicans are in lockstep, as though they are of one mind and not 42. Think for yourselves, and more importantly for those you serve.

What's worse is the accusation from Senator Mitch McConnell, who said, "Last month, the American people issued their verdict on the Democrats’ priorities." The implication here is that Democrats are ignoring the will of the people, which is blatantly untrue regarding the tax cut issue. Only 29% of Americans favor extending the Bush tax cuts in their entirety, which is the current Republican position. It appears that the reverse of McConnell's accusation is true: at least on this issue, Republicans are ignoring the people's will.

Regardless, we have some serious problems to deal with both domestically and abroad, and blackmailing the opposition to achieve a single victory at the expense of shutting down the legislative branch of the government is flat out irresponsible. You represent the people. You look out for their interests. You legislate. It's your damn job, so do it. Don't take your ball and go home like a whiny 4 year old. Whether you support the tax cuts or not, this move by the Senate Republicans is essentially a giant "fuck you" to the American people, and that just pisses me off.

I'm religious, but only when it's convenient

Both the Left and Right are guilty of using religion to further their agendas, but each has no problem strapping on the blinders when religious doctrine runs counter to the cause. Consider the following from the Pew Research Center:


When it comes to opposing same-sex marriage and abortion -- staples of the political Right -- conservatives report their religious backgrounds as important influencers of their decision making, which makes sense. The Bible has spatterings of passages condemning homosexuality -- Leviticus 11:22-23 perhaps being the most commonly cited -- and the New Testament in particular speaks to the sanctity and importance of human life.

Those same passages that support the preservation of life likely lead conservatives to shy away from religion as an influence on beliefs surrounding the death penalty. Consequently, liberals find their religion on this issue because there is greater support for the political Left's view, namely the condemnation of the death penalty.

I don't have a problem with either side cherry picking from religious doctrine in this manner. Anyone who believes wholeheartedly in any philosophy either founded it or is too damn foolish to question it meaningfully.

I do think, however, that it is important to admit that religion is referenced only when it is personally, socially or politically expedient. This selective use means that religion -- at best -- informs our decisions, it doesn't dictate them.

If we can look past belief to justify our positions when necessary, then belief is not enough to codify our positions into law. In other words, a secular society should and does depend on reason to establish law. Religion alone is not enough.

Religion and politics

The old adage to never talk about religion or politics will be broken here, as I'll be talking about both. Time to offend, I suppose. The spark: an interesting crossover between "politics in the pulpit" as the PEW Research Center calls it.

According to a recent study, 15% of churchgoers said that political information was made available to them during religious services at the time of the 2010 midterm. Even more alarming, 5% said their respective clergymen urged them to vote a particular way.


Regular readers should know that my personal faith is waning, but regardless, I believe a separation of church and state is good not only for government, but for religion too. If religion begins sticking its nose is politics, the reverse is bound to happen -- and arguably already is.

And of course there are individuals ignorant of constitutionally-based separation, perhaps the most famous being former Delaware Senatorial candidate Christine O'Donnell. Granted, she is probably the most moronic of the latest crop of political sideshows, but her notoriety provides a platform for disseminating stupidity.

A point of clarification: the phrase "separation of church and state" does not explicitly appear in the constitution, but the First Amendment has been interpreted such a manner almost from its inception. Consider the following from a letter to the Danbury Baptists by Thomas Jefferson in 1802:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

Most attribute the notion of separation to this letter, and the reader will notice that Jefferson justifies this notion of separation by quoting the First Amendment, so clearly there is a constitutional precedent.

Religion and politics should be separate in this country, but that wall may be eroding. I'm optimistic to see that 85% of churchgoers aren't getting political messages during services, but are they getting such messages from churches outside the walls of worship? Probably. And is the number of clergymen urging a particular vote on the rise or the decline? I would bet the former, but I hope the latter is true. Maybe a future longitudinal study will provide some answers.

Disbelief on global warming

Image by Mike Edwards

Global warming is a hot button and strangely partisan issue according to the PEW Research Center. Apparently, 53% of Republicans do not believe there is any evidence for global warming, up from 31% in 2007.

I find this shift interesting. My perception is that, about a decade ago, most Republicans shared this opinion. Then the rhetoric changed to agreeing that the problem existed, but that it was already too late to take action.

As conservative humorist P.J. O'Rourke puts it: "My argument is that we can't do anything [about climate change]. So, my suggestion is to install air conditioning and buy beachfront land in Greenland."

Now we're back to disbelief. Very odd, I think.

By no means am I an expert on climate change, but my perception is that the scientific community believes it is occurring, so I defer to their expertise. Wherever you stand on this issue, I think we could all agree with Bill O'Reily; and no, that's not a typo -- I said Bill O'Reily:

"My opinion is a cleaner planet is better for everyone. So I don't care whether it's the automobiles that are making it dirty or some guys in Ohio with smoke stacks or it's the natural cycle of the universe. It doesn't matter. When we have a cleaner planet it's better for everyone. So let's all work together to get the planet clean. That's all."

That's a good starting point, I feel.