Squatters

It appears that the federal government may be headed for a standstill over budget debates, and all I want to know is this: What are the Republicans smoking and where can I get some?

Actually, I think I can answer my own question. Looking at the Republican proposal and the reasoning for it, I'd say it's a giant joint of cognitive dissonance. I honestly have no idea how heads are not exploding; at lest then they could genuinely talk out of both sides of their mouths.

The argument -- as usually -- is that government is too big and that shrinking it will help us escape crushing debt. Our current government is headed for a downfall, to which the budget plan eloquently speaks:

This is not the future of a proud and prosperous nation. It is the future of a nation in decline — its best days come and gone. The only solutions to a debt crisis would be truly painful. Massive tax increases, sudden and disruptive cuts to vital programs, runaway inflation, or all three.

So to avoid this nightmare scenario of sudden and disruptive cuts to vital programs, it's critical that we make sudden and disruptive cuts to vital programs. Genius.

But here's the part that is absolute insanity, as quoted from The New York Times:

The plan, drafted principally by Representative Paul D. Ryan, the Wisconsin Republican who chairs the Budget Committee, proposes not only to limit federal spending and reconfigure major federal health programs, but also to rewrite the tax code, cutting the top tax rate for both individuals and corporations to 25 percent from 35 percent.

Jesus...fucking...Christ.

You know what sounds like a great way to get out of debt? Stop levying taxes on those with money. That would definitely work. That's like trying to make a mortgage payment by quitting your job. You'd be thrown out on your ass, or squatting in your own home.

But perhaps that metaphor is appropriate, because that's what these rich bastards have become: squatters. Innovations in communication, transportation, and technology -- many of which were made possible through government-funded research -- led to advances in infrastructure which in turn created fertile environments for business growth.

But now that the rent is due they're crying broke. Being generous landlords we gave them a few extra decades to come up with the money. After all, they had nowhere to go. But you turn around and what do you see? A handful of billionaires squatting on the hard work and achievements of the masses.

I don't know about you, but I'm thin on patience sick of excuses. The first of the month has come and gone, so give me my check or get the fuck of my lawn.

The dangers of great expectations

Photo by David Shankbone

I firmly believe in the importance of expecting great things from yourself. Too often people just quit because it's too hard or they think goals are given, not earned. I find that level of apathy irritating.

Yet it's interesting how we can expect so little from ourselves and so much from the things that make up our daily lives. I think comedian Louis C.K. sums it up well.

I'm guilty. I'm always so caught up in matters of money and trying to keep up with the Joneses, but I never stop to ask why. Why do I want this particular thing? Do I really want it? Do I really need it? Or do I just think I do because that's just what people do?

I honestly don't know. I'm not sure if happiness comes from personal satisfaction or the accumulation of stuff. If I had to guess, it's probably both.

Most of the purchases I've made that truly contribute to my happiness have led to self-actualization through connections to others.

I've spent a ton of money on music equipment, but it opened me up to a whole new world of creativity and connected me to a social group that would have otherwise been completely alien.

I've spent a ridiculous of time consuming college sporting events, but they've enabled me to bond meaningfully with my father.

I've spent a lot on video games, but through the power of X-Box and the Internet, those games became kind of a social network that helped me stay connected to friends miles away.

Money can't buy happiness, but it can foster creativity and connectedness, and to me those are the roots of happiness.

In the end, however, I think we'd all be better off if we expected as much from ourselves as we do from the often unnoticed technological miracles that surround us daily. Without such expectations, how fast I can download music from iTunes doesn't really matter.

Now to see if my stupid phone can download that fart noise application. Then my life will be truly complete...

The days after DOMA

With the unrest in the Middle East and the constant debate over government spending dominating the political and news landscapes, one important story flew under the radar last week -- at least to some extent. President Barack Obama is refusing to defend DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996.

Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder will no longer force the Justice Department to defend the law in court, opening the door for the future legalization of gay marriage and admitting that refusing that right in the first place is a violation of civil rights.

In a word: finally. I've criticize Obama pretty harshly on many of his social policies and his failure to stand up for the electorate. Lately, however, it seems that principle trumps political expedience, which it typically should.

Still, it's a bit odd for the executive branch to declare a law unconstitutional, as that is typically the role of the Supreme Court. Though uncommon, this move is not without precedent. But as one would expect, there are oppositional voices from conservatives.

"Some conservatives questioned Mr. Obama’s timing and accused him of trying to change the subject from spending cuts to social causes," said Charlie Savage and Sheryl Gay Stolberg of The New York Times.

I think this criticism is accurate, but neither party really has grounds to accuse the other of altering national discourse for political gain. It happens constantly. In 2004, the Republicans rode the threat of terrorism and national moral erosion into the White House. Obama did the same in 2008 by shifting the focus to domestic issues. Then there's the 2010 election, when concerns over deficit spending put Republicans back in control of the House. So how is this different? It's not. Moving on.

This is my personal favorite among the dissenters: "This is the real politicization of the Justice Department — when the personal views of the president override the government’s duty to defend the law of the land." This statement comes from Republican Texas Rep. Lamar Smith.

Personal views always inform political and legal decision. Why do you think the approval of Supreme Court justices takes so damn long? We vet their personal views. The law is really just a social contract that reflects our collective personal views concerning what we deem acceptable and unacceptable at the time of its writing. As our views change, so does the law, though much more slowly.

My big question in all this goes to the Republicans, supposed champions of personal freedom and limited government: Why do you care about how two consenting adults choose to live their lives and why should the government involve itself in such decisions? To me, their stance it the epitome of hypocrisy. Score one for freedom!

Spend, save or draw?

Surprisingly, few Americans support decreases in federal government spending according to a PEW Research Center study.


In only two areas -- unemployment benefits and aid to the world's needy -- does the public favor a decrease over an increase.

I say these results are surprising for two reasons. First, it seemed as though the midterm elections were focused on deficit spending and decreasing federal spending as a whole. As it turns out, most people aren't ready to make those cuts. Perhaps all we heard were the loudest voices, not the people's voices.

Second, the wave of Tea Party candidates pushed an agenda of lower taxes. But lowering taxes and preserving the Bush tax cuts, while at the same time increasing spending, will inevitably lead to a deficit. We can't have it both ways.

Interestingly, perhaps we don't want it both ways. In a previous post, I pointed out that most Americans don't feel overtaxed. Again, perhaps all we heard were the loudest voices, not the people's voices.

Regardless, until the silent majority finds its voice, we're looking at political deadlock and party-line idiocy.

News and Comedy Central

There's an interesting study out from the PEW Research Center about viewers of the Comedy Central news programs "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report."

According to PEW:

When it comes to mixing news and point of view, at least seven-in-ten NPR listeners, "Colbert Report" and "Daily Show" watchers and USA Today readers say they want news without a point of view.

As a regular viewer of these programs, I tend to agree, but I recognize the irony. Stewart and Colbert unquestionably present a point of view, and typically a politically liberal one. What makes these programs unique is that these viewpoints are disguised by satire, which has some interesting implications for what results when comedy and information mix.

Personally, I find their views to be logical and well informed and their humor to be...well, humorous. Still, maybe that's a rationalization for my own biases. Something worth thinking about...

Well enough alone

Americans are split when it comes to what the federal government should do concerning the recent health care bill.

Twenty percent think we should leave it as it is, 35 percent think it should be expanded and 37 percent think it should be repealed, according to findings from the Pew Research Center.

My guess is we'll have a preservation of the status quo. The support for expansion and repeal are roughly equal, so I doubt either side has much to go on -- that is, of course, assuming Democrats don't roll over on this one, which is a damn big assumption.


It's no secret that I'm for expanding to a single-payer system. My few interactions with insurance companies have been unpleasant to say the least, and as I understand it, my insurance is damn good. Maybe my mood is telling or maybe I expect to much.

The politically interesting point of all this concerns the deficit. According to the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan group, the GOP plan to repeal the health care bill would actually increase the deficit by $145 billion over the next 8 years.

Also, consider that the George W. Bush deficits were larger than those of any other president in history and that the RNC debt currently sits at $23 million.

I'm not arguing that this makes Republicans fiscally irresponsible. Deficit spending during times of economic crisis are useful ways to stimulate business growth because of reluctance to spend from the private sector. Don't believe me? Ask Paul Krugman. That Nobel Prize in Economics should carry a bit of credibility.

I am, however, arguing that Republicans are disingenuous. They are engaging in practices similar to those of the Democrats, yet they condemn the opposition. They accuse Democrats of a "tax and spend" philosophy, but at least there is an input for the output. The real Bush doctrine was "don't tax and spend anyway." It doesn't take a financial genius to see how that will play out, but I didn't hear any Republican cries for reduced spending then.

Now the new GOP policy is "don't tax, cut," but the proposed program cuts would put a minimal dent in the deficit -- or even increase it in the case of the health care debate.

In the end, I feel like being the party of "no" is just a hard habit to break. Opposition isn't bad, but when it's blind, it can become stupid and down right dangerous, as my good friends at the Onion point out.

Fatherhood

Nearly 70% of Americans see the trend toward single-motherhood as societally damaging, according to a study from the Pew Research Center. Continuing with my recent conservative trend, I'm throwing my lot in with the majority.

I'm not saying that being a single mother is necessarily bad, or that entering a loveless marriage or "staying together for the kids" is a good idea. However, there have been numerous studies highlighting the positive social and psychological effects of a two-parent home.

The strengths and weaknesses of one parent tend to balance out in the other, often resulting in more well-adjusted kids. I think family is critically important and that children benefit from positive male role models.

However, I seriously doubt that the nuclear family has a monopoly on producing people of good character. Still, I would bet that a commitment to childrearing beyond just the mother provides a definite boost.