Rush Limbaugh: Apology or not, Rush is WRONG

Last week's statements made by conservative talk radio personality, Rush Limbaugh, about the testimony of a Georgetown Law student, Sandra Fluke, over her contention that health insureres should cover contraception went well beyond the norms of public discourse.  Since then, Limbaugh has apologized but only after an exodus of sponsors have dumped his nationally syndicated radio show. 

Somehow in this whole episode, the issue of health insurance coverage for contraception, somehow got morphed into the boogeyman of government funded contraception - which isn't what this was about or the point Sandra Fluke was trying to make.  Not only did Rush Limbaugh misrepresent the issue (shocker) but he further proved that his conservative flamethrowing style is not remotely concerned about substantive public debate, but is intended to incite anger and further a divisive nature that eats at the bones of our great nation. 

The words he used, calling Sandra Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute", for her position that the government should require health insurers to include contraception in their coverage, saying that she wants "to be paid to have sex", have also touched a nerve in me along with millions upon millions of fellow Americans. 

As a father of two beautiful girls, who are nowhere close to the age where they would have to use contraception (thank God), I'm outraged at the implication that women who use birth control, who might be single, are "sluts" or "prostitutes".  I stand in admiration at Sandra Fluke's courage for standing up for what she believes.  But if I were her father, brother, uncle, or friend of the family, I would be hopping the first plane or jumping in the car to come see Mr. Limbaugh where an exchange would occur that no words would be spoken. 

Sponsors dumping Rush Limbaugh are not enough.  Every station that broadcasts his show should also give him the boot.  Limbaugh's time has past, and it's now time to move beyond his brand of "political discourse". 

Image found at:  http://static7.businessinsider.com/image/4dd53ac9ccd1d51629080000/rush-limbaugh.jpg

Ragging Populism

Class Warfare! Both political parties are using it and both sides are crying foul. Republicans don't want to be chastised for being successful or portrayed as greedy Robber Barons and Democrats don't want to be portrayed as welfare dependents. There has to be a name for what both parties are doing. It's called POPULISM.

In times like these, who wouldn't at least identify with the general sentiments of populist thinking? While populism generally centers around income and anger from the middle class, working class, and the working poor, there's more than one shade of populism. The two dominant forms these days is Tea Party Populism and Occupy Wall Street Populism.

The Tea Party sees the Federal Government as the primary reason for the nation’s economic distress. They see a government that's over spent, taxes too much, is too intrusive into personal lives, assaulting individual liberties, redistributing hard earned personal wealth to those that they perceive shouldn’t be helped, and regards anyone that uses or is dependent on social welfare as part of the unemployment problem.

On the other hand, the Occupy Wall Street movement has a much stronger connection to the turn of the century Trust Busting of “Teddy” Roosevelt, the Women’s Suffrage movement, the rise of Organized Labor during the Great Depression, the FDR New Deal social programs that are the sacred cows of many of today’s fiscal debates.

Occupy Wall Street sees big financial firms, banks, and massive corporations as the problem. They look at how lawmakers in Washington, D.C. were influenced to loosen regulations on their respective industries which allowed them to take on huge financial risks that were fueled by pure speculation and greed. They see a corporate financial sector that gets bailed out with taxpayer money, receives preferential treatment through corporate tax deductions and loopholes, and acts as if they are entitled to all these benefits and don’t have to be accountable for the money they have received from the American Taxpayer.

They also pull a great deal from the 1960s Civil Right Era and tendencies towards inclusivity and strength through diversity. Occupy Wall Street sees social and economic inequity as the driver of the nation’s economic distress, brought on by corporate greed and capitalism run amuck. Occupy Wall Street also reflects some of the outgrowth of protests against globalization across the globe, many of which are marked by violence and hooliganism.

Both forms of Populism have their roots in early American political thought, but they are more a collection of different periods rather than being tied to one definitive historical event. The Tea Party can trace their theoretical justification all the way back to the Anti-Federalists, like James Madison, Patrick Henry, James Winthrop, and even to some degree Thomas Jefferson. These were people that advocated for a small Federal Government and significant local control. They also championed low taxes, especially as they related to the Federal Government, and advocated for states rights over Federal control.

The Tea Party also reflects a strong religious fundamentalist streak that harkens of Puritanical influences and hard line socially conservative policies. There are strong tendencies toward regionalism, nativism and anti-immigrant sentiment, racism, and islolationism. There is also a fear and paranoia element to the Tea Party that flashes back to Senator Eugene McCarthy and the “Red Scare”.

Regardless of which side of Populism you stand, both parties are using the nation's economic distress as political fodder for the November elections and are totally ignoring the realities of poverty than over 15% of our fellow Americans have fallen into. According to Washington Post opinion writer, Michael Gerson,

"GOP candidates seldom mention the problems of the poor, for fear of being viewed as ideological weaklings. Elected Democrats are advised by their pollsters to focus on the challenges of the voter-rich middle class. No President - indluding Barack Obama - is naturally inclined to talk about conditions that have grown worse on his watch." 

The Roanoke Times is featuring a series called "Making it".  These are stories about the new reality for many that were in the Middle Class, or at least the Working Class.  This past Sunday's story focused on Piper Lane and Paul Davis who are "Learning to live without." It's a very powerful story of how people that were working hard and playing by the rules are living on the edge.  My hat goes off to them.  If I were in their shoes, I'd be angry and wanting to blame someone, but these folks are doing something about it. They're making it, but just barely.

For all intents and purposes, they're the example of those that were solid middle class, small business owerns, who have seen the work dry up and have bills piling up - not from living beyond their means, but from the basics of trying to live and having little to no work.  They aren't just sitting around feeling sorry for themselves, but scratching and clawing together anything they can, and they're also getting politically involved.  So watch out!  This is the reality of poverty today, regardless of how inflamed Populism gets or how much either political party tries to leverage it to their advantage. 

GOP Presidential candidates channeling Occupy Wall Street

What's that?  Did I hear what I think I heard?  Could it be a change of heart within the field of GOP Presidential candidate about "class warfare".  After months of belittling and bashing the Occupy Wall Street movement for bringing attention to concentrated wealth and income inequity, Newt Gengrich, John Hunstman, Rick Santorum, and Rick Perry are all channeling some form of populist outrage towards Mitt Romney.  

According to Harold Meyerson's Op-ed in the Washington Post, it appears the GOP field has finally become aware of "the economy that most people experience."  Almost to a person, with the exception of Ron Paul - who's coming to Romney's defense for his affinity to fire people and companies for poor performance - all are jumping on the front runner for his work at Bain Capital, a venture capital firm that Romney lead, which seems to have killed rather than created jobs. 

But this seems too simple of an explanation.  A story in Wednesday's Politico cites a Pew Research Center Poll that show nearly two-thirds of Americans see very strong or strong class conflict in society.  (To view the complete Pew Research Center Poll report, click here.)  While this field of GOP Presidential hopefuls are battling for the support of Republican voters, its likely they are seeing the same thing in their polling.  If not, they're not asking the right questions. 

While John Huntsman is a multi-millionaire in his own right, Mitt Romney is the obvious target and most importantly the "frontrunner" heading into South Carolina.  Also, contrary to his self-promotion that he knows how to create jobs - having done so to the tune of over 100,000 while at the helm of Bain Capital, Romney's presidential rivals are painting him as the embodiment of everything that's wrong with American Capitalism. 

Not to worry, Newt and the gang still have plenty to say about Obama's handling of the economy and unemployment.  Doesn't matter that the economy was well on its way into a virtual death spiral before he even took the oath of office, they're still going to try and deflect as much attention from their embrace of failed Supply-side economic policies as possible, and in the same breath call for less regulation which is what got us to this point in the first place.  But when you're the frontrunner for the GOP nomination, to hell with Reagan's 11th Commandment - Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican. 

Image found at:  http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/120108081441-gop-candidates-at-saturday-new-hampshire-debate-story-top.jpg 

OWS: A ship in search of a rudder

A few days ago, someone I went to High School with and haven't spoken to in over 20 years (but none the less is one of my Facebook "Friends") posted a picture on Facebook of some National Guardsmen with a sign that said - Occupy Bagram: Quit your bitchin' and get back to work.  This set off a response from me and a little back-and-forth about the OWS movement.  Needless to say, I was put-off,...no, offended, by this little protest by men and women who I have enormous respect for.  Mainly because most of these same National Guard personnel will be in the very same boat as the OWS folk when they get back to the States - no job and little prospect of getting one anytime soon. 

The image that's being conveyed by the conservative right about OWS is being fed by the liberal left - a mob of out-of-work slackers with no leadership and no sense of direction.  Regardless of what narrative or picture the right wing establishment wants to portray, the reality of who these people are (the Occupiers) is far from their truth but also confirms what is painfully obvious.  This movement is a rudderless ship drifting out to sea, in desperate need of rescue. 

The facts that get in the way of the truth, on how OWS grew, are somehow debatable.  But regardless of how the right wing establishment wants to frame "the Occupiers", there is a national consensus for a re-balancing of relative equality between the 99% and the top 1%.  So what are the organics behind this movement? 

From the post WWII era up to the late 1970 to early 1980s, Democrats & Republicans (Liberals, Moderates, and Conservatives), were in relative agreement on Corporate accountability and responsibility to the nation. The same goes for personal and corporate taxes, as well as Capital Gains taxes. During that time, while the nation went through some incredible social changes, our overall economy was relatively stable, with small to moderate recessions that we were able to come out of relatively quickly. 

Since the late 1970s early 1980s, people that felt success and those that take risks (in business) were not being rewarded enough for their "prosperity" were able to gain incredible access to elected officials. This started a movement to massive tax cuts and deregulation that eroded the relative economic stability we had as a nation. Within this thirty year time frame or so, we have had three Stock Market crashes - two directly attributed to financial bubbles and one as a direct result of the Terror Attacks on 9/11. Prior to that, the last Stock Market Crash was in 1929. 

All during this 30 year time frame, our nation has run continual budget deficits as a result of cutting taxes and deferring to the judgement of Wall Street hacks (which has developed into a defacto fourth branch of our Federal Government that is more powerful than the three branches that our Constitution is structured on). This has piled up to our current level of national debt. 

To bring my point to a close, the American Taxpayer has given these folks on Wall Street bailout after bailout - whether it be two rounds of stimulus, direct bailouts, deregulation, or tax loopholes where the largest corporation pay next to nothing or nothing at all in taxes. What have we gotten in return? More bonuses for Wall Street CEOs, Hedge Fund Managers, and their lobbying firms on K Street. They have shipped manufacturing and high tech jobs overseas, and parked their corporate profit in off-shore banks to avoid paying taxes.  But somehow this is OK, because they are rewarded with disproportionate influence over our lawmakers in DC and in every state capital in this nation.  All because they have money to fund political campaigns. 

So, why not protest the place and the people that are clearly running this nation. The people we elected to do what's in the best interest of this nation are clearly answering to the Wall Street CEOs and their Boards of Directors.  As for the folks that are being told to get back to work in the sign being held by these warriors, believe me if there were jobs to get back to - that were in a relative pay range or income level prior to the Great Recession - they would be there in a heart beat. 

The students that have graduated college during this time, most (I'm not going to say all) don't want to be living back at home with mom and dad - in the basement or attic playing Call of Duty on their XBox 360 - and would rather have a job. The older folks that got laid-off or lost their job, they're not getting hired because their "too old" and have too much experience. You might say, start a small business.  But the banks are so tight with their lending, that it's next to impossible to get a loan.  They'd rather give their top managers and Board Members bonuses for hording money.  By the time a loan gets approved (if they do at all), they're out on the street or living out of their car - if they even have a car. 

Take a good look and it will become clear that these folks that are part of the OWS movement are doing almost the only thing they can do - bringing attention to the massive income, wealth, access, and accountability disparity between those with money, power and access and those without. I agree that folks need to get back to work, but there are not jobs to get back to work to. 

For a long time, we were a nation where if something wasn't working for us (individually) we could change gears or take a different path professionally. What we've lost is the security of being able to do just that. Making the case to prospective employers that you have transferable skills is falling on deaf ears. Same goes for trying to start a small business and prove to lenders that you are a smart and safe business risk. We have lost that ability and its frustrating, and in many ways - depressing. 

So, where does this put the OWS movement?  Almost all of the encampments have been cleared.  With the exception of clashes with local or campus police, the press coverage has slowed to a trickle.  The decision making structures of the disparate OWS groups has been modeled off of a group consensus format, where participants are held accountable by each other.  In the short-term, this method has worked fine but the momentum has stalled and the larger message is being repackaged by those outside the movement - that of a movement of unemployed, upper-middle income and liberal trust fund babies, just stirring up trouble, that are disconnected from working class Americans. 

A movement that once sparked global action is now drifting out to sea, mainly because there is no focus, no cohesive message, and most importantly no leadership.  Someone, please rescue this movement before it sinks under a wave of obscurity. 

Image found at:  http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2011/10/10/news/economy/occupy_wall_street_protest/occupy-wall-street-rich-homes.gi.top.jpg 

Is poverty being mischaracterized?

A few weeks ago, the United States Census released their latest report on Poverty in America.  It showed that the official number of people who now live in poverty rose to 15.1% in 2010 from 14.3% in 2009.  This is the highest level since the Federal Government started tracking it in 1959.  This breaks down to a little more than 46 million Americans that are living in poverty. 

While these numbers are depressing enough, the part of their report that is starting to receive more attention is the number of people that are living in EXTREME POVERTY.  This has reached a record level over 20.5 million people. 

Extreme Poverty is classifieds as people living 50% below the poverty line.  The Federal Government sets the poverty line at just under $23,000 per year for a family of four.  So, those 20.5 million Americans living on half of that is pretty awful. 

This week, CNN's Belief Blog tackled some misconceptions about poverty.  They ranged from questioning if poverty exists in America, are people doing fine if they make above the poverty line, the rational for Safety Net programs, and why only half of Americans pay taxes.  Needless to say, much of this was to address lack of understanding about poverty and how many of us view the poor. 

One perception about poverty that was not addressed was the view that if you are living in poverty, it's your fault.  There are lots of people out there that are of the opinion that poverty is the result of bad life choices. 

While some of that might be true, the reasons for why more people are living in poverty these days is largely due to a bad economy.  Millions of Americans are now living in poverty because their jobs were directly and indirectly tied to poor financial and management decisions made by our national business leaders. 

In short, to paint all people that find themselves in poverty with the same broad brush of generalization, disgust, and sanctimony by those that are not in these dire straights, mischaracterizes the underlying reasons for poverty today.

By and large poverty is not the result of bad life choices, but to a certain degree bad timing and the result of bad decisions made by a very few that affected millions of Americans who were just trying to live their life to the best of their ability.  The reality is that there are more people that are living in poverty, or just above it, that look like you, me, close family, and your neighbor down the street.  Whether we realize it or not, we are being judged by how we treat the least of us among us. 

Image found at:  http://realestateimpresario.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/poor-man.jpg 

Does Bob Goodlatte even get it?

Forget the 12% approval rating of Congress, and the 6 out of 10 people polled that are not willing to re-elect their own Congressman.  And let's just ignore the fact that back at the end of July and beginning of August, we had a very small group of House members who couldn't find common ground with the President on the Debt Ceiling, even if they fell out of a tree and landed on their heads.  This last little maneuver brought the nation to the brink of default and let to a downgrade of the country's credit rating. 

As posted on the Roanoke Time's Blue Ridge Caucus blog, Congressman Bob Goodlatte continues to obsessively push his signature piece of legislation, that, by the way, every economist that's worth the title "Economist" says will cause more harm than good to the US economy.  Let's not forget, Bob Goodlatte led that small group of House members to hold the nation hostage over the Debt Ceiling if the Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) wasn't added to the House Bill, which was Dead On Arrival (DOA) in the Senate. 

They say that the definition if insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again and expecting a different result.  Not only will the BBA never pass Congress or make it to the President's desk, where it will be VETOED, it will never be added to the Constitution of the United States.  Good bumper sticker, bad economic policy. 

So, take you pick.  Bob Goodlatte either a) doesn't get it? or b) doesn't care?  The BBA is a cure that's worse than the disease.

The name of this GOP natural disaster: STUPIDITY

How many different ways can the GOP shoot themselves in the foot?  Here are a few examples from just this past week:

• In response to the 5.8 magnitude earthquake that rattled Virginia and states up and down the eastern seaboard, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor commented that in order to assist those people affected, “those monies” need to be “offset with appropriate savings or cost-cutting elsewhere.”

• As Hurricane Irene approached, Tea Party darling and GOP Presidential hopeful, Congressman Ron Paul renewed his call for the elimination of FEMA, stating that funding FEMA contributes to the “deficit financing” of the Federal Budget.

• This past week Republicans actually came out in support of a TAX INCREASE. Would the proposed tax increase come from letting the Bush Era Tax Cuts for the wealthy expire? Oh no. It would come from letting the Payroll Tax Holiday expire on those that earn less than $107,000 of earned income. That translates into a tax increase of $1,000 on those earning $50,000 per year, and $2,000 for those that make $100,000 per year.

If you're keeping a running tally, add all the above plus the bill that Speaker Boehner was pushing just prior to the August 2nd deadline to raise the Debt Ceiling, which was held hostage by Republican Congressman Bob Goodlatte, until the Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) was added to the bill.  Should I mention that Boehner's bill was DOA without the BBA?  Or that virtually every credentialed economist, to a one, has concluded that a BBA is one of the dumbest public policy ideas ever conceived?  

It seems as if the GOP is going out of its way to say “screw the working poor and middle class in this country. They don’t pay their fair share anyway. And you can clean up your own mess, figure out how to restore your own power, get clean drinking water, bandage your own wounds, search and recover your own dead bodies from the aftermath of an earthquake and hurricane.” 

WOW!  And this group want to lead our nation?  Thanks but no thanks.  I'll take my chances with another natural disaster over leadership like this, ANYTIME. 

How in the world can this political party say they care about America, they love this country, but if you don't do as they say, they'll destroy the nation unless their political agenda and policies are adopted?  How can any American support people like this?  

Image found at:  http://www.carolinalifestyles.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/hurricane-warning-flag.jpg