Goodlatte's fingerprints all over the pulled vote in the House

For years, Congressman Bob Goodlatte has been one of the biggest, if not the biggest, champions of the BBA (Balanced Budget Amendment).  According to CNN this afternoon, one of the reasons why Speaker Boehner pulled the vote last night was that the bill didn't have the BBA in it. 

It pretty clear now that Goodlatte is at the center of this mess, as one of the lead hostage takers of the nation, all because they wanted to insert the Balanced Budget Amendment.

I’ve just got one question: What do we do if the nation finds itself in another situation where we have to actually declare war, or take extraordinary measures to address a national crisis?

In order to address the worst case scenario, we would have to repeal the BBA, which would take weeks or months, and by the time that happens it would probably be too late. Otherwise Congress (both the House and Senate) would have to break the law. 

At that point everyone in Congress that voted to ignore the BBA, and the President once they signed the bill, would be eligible for impeachment because they violated the Constitution in order to save the country.

Talk about a Constitutional Crisis! 

This is just insane!  Goodlatte, Cantor, and all the other Tea Party hostage takers would rather burn down a nation in order to pass a bad law that could usher in a constitutional crisis. 

This isn't leadership.  This is wholesale extortion. 

Call Congressman Goodlatte and tell him to stop holding the nation hostage and give up the Balanced Budget Amendment. 

Harrisonburg Office
P: 540-432-2391

Staunton Office
P: 540-885-3861

Lynchburg Office
P: 434-845-8306

Roanoke Office 
P:540-857-2672

Washington, DC Office 
P:202-225-5431

Image found at:  http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Images/reps/bobgoodlatte.jpg 

Krugman is right!

No matter how many ways you slice it, President Obama has bent over backwards to work with the GOP and their Tea Party leadership to address: 1) raising the Debt Ceiling, and 2) making painful cuts to entitlements. 

Even when the GOP gets what they want, which is massive, massive cuts in entitlements and other government programs, they are still not willing to concede the other part to the problem - Revenues. 

Nobel Prize winning economist, Paul Krugman, lays it out in his column this morning, how if the GOP and the Tea Party really cared about governing and what's best for the people of the United States, they would have agreed to the President's and Democrats' conditions on revenues by closing tax loopholes and eliminating some very popular exemptions in order to pay down the national debt and start bringing cost under control. 

As further evidence of the willingness of Democrats to do what's best for the financial stability of the nation, and the world, they even proposed taking out most of their demands on the revenue side of the ledger by pointing out that with both Iraq and Afghanistan winding down, we would be able to count that funding towards reductions in spending. 

But yet again, the GOP and Tea Party deny that the money spent on both wars counts towards our deficit spending.  Are they really that departed from reality that they thought the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were freebies?  That Iraq and Afghanistan didn't cost this nation a dime?  Come on! 

So Paul Krugman is absolutely right.  Even when the GOP and Tea Party gets everything they want, and more, they care more about what's best for their own political base than what's best for the nation. 

Even if Obama agreed with them that the world was flat and that the planet was actually cooling rather than heating up, it still wouldn't be good enough for them. 

Don't look, but the GOP and the Tea Party are about to off all the hostages.  In case you're wondering who the hostages are - they're US. 

Image found at:  https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHNS9y0WzUJ3cOzBoJiqqZlMVOk1jAUMji1tFUKtsRY7x3pLpEkODX82LlDU7VGkhGWs1yoYeA2v6prAclkS5cmF3WnP4yFbwTvOH4XRfaclC6xX62YYxzMEI11rAKpuJevFZ7MLm-gmyX/s1600/hostage.jpg 

GOP playing "Chicken" with the Debt Ceiling

On Tuesday, May 31st, the GOP controlled House of Representatives voted down a "clean" bill to increase the Federal Government's Debt Limit by $2.4 trillion.  By a vote of 97 - 318, the symbolic vote on the "clean" bill went down to defeat as expected.  All House Republicans voted against it and were joined by 82 Democrats. 

The current debt limit is set at $14.3 trillion and if the bill had passes, would have gone to $16.7 trillion.  Now you might say that teaching the Federal Government a lesson, like credit card companies do by not increasing a person's credit limit when they have maxed out their credit card, seems reasonable and the Federal Government should live within their budget.  Fair enough except for one thing,...the Federal Government is not the average consumer. 

Tied to the debt ceiling is our credit rating, which as it stands now is still very, very good.  Just for comparison sake, Greece was recently downgraded, again, from B1 to Caa1.  As one international business analyst on CNBC described it, this is almost Junk Bond level and very close to a point where the nation of Greece could default on its debt payments.  The United States is still in the AAA rating level, but if we can't pay our bills it affects the rest of the world in really bad ways. 

The simple fact is that the Republicans are more scared of the anti-tax, anti-government Tea Party wing of their caucus than they are of an even worse, shall we say nightmare scenario, of the U.S. government possibly defaulting on its debt obligations.  Heck, the GOP won't even consider raising taxes on the wealthy.  Their solution, only balance the budget and reduce our national debt by cutting the Federal Budget.  Tied to that faulty logic is cutting Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security which are paid for separately and aren't even the reason for our national debt.  That's it.  That's their path to prosperity. 

The Democrats on the other hand, don't want to cut any more from the budget and see their best opportunity to drive home the point that while tax payers don't want to pay anymore in taxes, they don't want to see any cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.  If it means tax payers have to pay a little more in taxes to continue these programs, as well as other popular social programs, they'll do it. 

This sentiment has been aided by Congressman Paul Ryan's budget proposal that turns Medicare into a voucher program and shifts more of the health care costs away from the Federal Government and onto seniors.  Simply put, this idea has gone over like a lead balloon. 

It seems like the GOP would clue in and be more fearful of the American Voter than the fringe elements of their Tea Party caucus.  During the 2010 Mid-Term elections, Republicans did a masterful job in scaring seniors and others that depend on the very programs they now propose gutting in order to balance the Federal Budget.  They were just as adept at painting Democrats as out of the mainstream and tagging them with the bad guy lable.  It's clear now, the tables have turned. 

It's not an overreach, or a stretch, to label what the GOP and their Tea Party caucus are trying to do as outside of the mainstream of America, or shall we say extreme or FRINGE.  This is a very dangerous game the Teapublicans are playing with the Debt Ceiling, and if they don't stop the losers will not only be their House Majority or chances at regaining the Senate or the White House, but the American people.

Is Trump the second coming of Jesse Ventura?

Some would liken Donald Trumps second flirtation with a Presidential run to that of Ross Perot.  But then again, Trump has taken several steps that indicate he is more serious this time than in the past.   There's no question that Donald Trump is a media darling, but the conventional wisdom from the "eye rolling" political establishment is that he's not a serious candidate.  Or is he? 

According to Politico, Trump has reached out to conservative faith leaders and groups, has contacted several high level Republican consultants and media firms, started looking at potential campaign managers, and is preparing FEC paperwork that would provide more concrete details about his vast financial holdings.  All this seems to be adding up to running in the GOP Presidential Primary.  Then again, the possibility of an independent run is not out of the question. 

With an American electorate that is weary of the overexposed hyper-partisanship, an independent run by Trump would parallel that of former Navy SEAL, former Pro-Wrestling star, and former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura.  No one took Ventura serious from either side (Democrats or Republicans).  Because of this he was able to tap into frustration with establishment party politics and mobilize a block of non-traditional voters (WWF/WCW/WWE) that propelled Ventura to the Governorship.

Now, we're talking about a Presidential run here and not something small like a Governor's race.  But the reason why any one should even entertain the thought---The Donald has deep, deep pockets and is one of the few people that could even come close to competing with Obama, dollar for dollar.  Nice to speculate but is it really that inconceivable?  We will see... 

Images found at:  http://nymag.com/daily/intel/30_trumpconcern_lgl.jpg and http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/july2005/010705ventura.jpg

Bloomberg News yankin' the ski mask off of TARP recipients

It looks like the American Taxpayer will finally get to see which banks got the bailout.  The Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal by the Banking Industry to keep secret the details of who got what from the TARP.  Thanks to Bloomberg News filing a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request, the Federal Reserve will have to disclose the "names and details of the banks that borrowed money from the “discount window,” where U.S. banks have turned for emergency funds — confidentially — for nearly a century." 

This is just another example of the hubris and the disconnect that corporations (specifically the Banking Industry) have from Main Street and reality.  When you take taxpayer (public) money to bailout a private enterprise, the taxpayers get to see who you are and what you spent it on.  Once you've paid us back, then we'll get out of your business.  Simple as that. 

Bloomberg News, you have the thanks of a greatful taxpayer.

Speaker Boehner: "so be it" if Federal workers lose their jobs

President Obama's proposed budget doesn't cut deep enough for the GOP.  If the GOP gets their way with the austerity ax, the jobs of the Federal workforce are on the chopping block.  According to CNN, during a news conference today, Speaker of the House John Boehner said that,

"Over the last two years since President Obama has taken office, the federal government has added 200,000 new federal jobs and if some of those jobs are lost in this, so be it."

It would seem that Speaker Boehner and the GOP have declared war on Federal Workers.  Now this 200,000 new federal jobs number cited by Boehner seems like a lot and would lead you to believe that the Federal workforce is growing faster than the private sector.  But not so fast.  The folks over at Political Correction, a project of Media Matters, did some fact checking and found that Speaker Boehner's numbers don't jive.

Since President Obama took office, the Federal workforce has grown by 58,000.  Since Obama's economic policies have taken effect, it has only grown by 25,000 jobs.  This is all according to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics. 

Now to provide a little context, from December 2007 to July 2009 (the end of Bush's second term and the first six months of Obama's first term) the private sector lost 7,796,000 jobs.  The private sector went from 115,574,000 people in the workforce to 107,778,000 during that same period.  What this means is that during that same period government spending remained the same and tax revenue (income taxes, federal gas tax, etc.) fell as well.  When that happens, what do you get...?  Not just a Budget Deficit, but an exacerbated budget deficit.  This all gets added to the National Debt. 

In July of 2009, there were 107,649,000.  As of January 2011, there were 108,030,000 people in the private sector workforce.  That's an increase of 381,000 private sector jobs.  In the whole scheme of things, relatively flat job growth but still positive.  Keep in mind that the Federal Government added and shed thousands of temporary Census Worker jobs and still, there was only an increase of 25,000 federal jobs. 

In short, Mr. Speaker, you need to get your facts straight.  Also, don't be so quick to take the ax to the budget in the rush to austerity.  Take a look at how well taking the ax to the budget has worked in Britain.  According to an article on Salon.com by Andrew Leonard,

"Wasting no time, the new coalition U.K. government led by Prime Minister David Cameron, made a dramatic package of government spending cuts its first order of business. Many U.S. conservatives have looked with great longing at the austerity surge. The numbers are staggering -- an average 19 percent cut for all government departments, resulting in half a million public sector layoffs.

And look! Just as the Keynesians predicted, the economy immediately slumped, apparently proving that the last thing a government should do in a weak economic climate is suddenly kick the legs out of the demand side of the economy. It could happen here, Obama should argue! It's still too soon, and the U.S. economy is too fragile, to make austerity the watchword of the day."

This anit-worker, anti-government worker (at any level of government) attitude coming from the Speaker of the House is reckless, but more importantly its just disappointing.  Sure, there are lots of stories out there about government employees, at any level, that are caught in the act of being lazy or waisting tax payer dollars, but for the most part these are people that do their jobs and are good stewards of our tax monies.  I would wager to say that there's more waist from private sector employees than public sector.  The only difference is the public sector is under a much bigger microscope. 

Its a fact that the U.S. Federal government is the largest employer in the country.  You start cutting thousands, hundreds of thousands of government jobs it just might be a cut too deep.  The only saving grace is that Democrats control the Senate and the White House.  Does this mean a government shutdown is inevitable?  Not necessarily.  At this point, they're just a bunch of turkeys struttin' around, puffing up their chest to see who's the biggest, baddest turkey.  Oh well,...

GO HOKIES!

God Bless America and no one else?

There's no getting around it.  Religion is serious business, it matters, and is relevant to everyone (beliver and  non-beliver alike).  According to the many scholars and people that advanced the concepts of Secularization Theory, the United States and much of the world should have let go of their attachments to spirituality and faith by now, replacing it with critical thinking and rationality.  Events of the past few weeks in a rural, mountainous county, as well as the chambers of the Virginia House of Delegates and the Kentucky legislature, disputes this theory. 

The issues of hanging the Ten Commandments and prayer on school property are once again being hotly debated.  On one side, citizens who profess America's foundations as a Christian Nation.  On the other, advocates for strict separation in matters of faith and state.  This tug-of-war has found a new ground zero in this ongoing national debate:  Giles County Virginia. 

Back in December, in response to a complaint from a group that advocates for the strict separation of church and state called the Freedom from Religion Foundation, the Giles County Schools Superintendent agreed to remove prints of the Ten Commandments from the classrooms after conferring with the attorney for the School District. 

In late January, the Giles County School Board vote unanimously to rehang the prints of the Ten Commandments after more than 200 parents, citizens, and leaders from Giles County churches packed the School Board meeting room and spoke passionately to defy the law.  This has brought strong reaction from the Freedom from Religion Foundation, as well as the Virginia ACLU who has threatened to file a lawsuit. 

Eric Gentry, Chairman of the Giles County Board of Supervisors, expressed support for fighting any legal action that may come, as well as fighting any "hate groups" like the ACLU.  In response to Eric Gentry's statement, Virginia ACLU Board Member David Drachsler has written an op-ed in the Roanoke Times that address this charge and does an excellent job of framing the historical context and perspective of why it is a really, really, bad idea for any government body to promote one faith over another. 

Then we have Delegate Bill Carrico, (R)-Grayson County, who again introduced a bill to amend the state Constitution, HJ 593, to guarentee the right to pray on public property, which includes public schools in Virginia.  It passed the House of Delegate easily, but it is likely to die in the State Senate. 

In Kentucky, three Democratic legislators have introduced a bill to "teach Bible literacy", as an elective.  Opponents argue this is noting more than a "backdoor approach to teaching religion" in public schools. 

These might seem like well intentioned efforts, but one has to question the raw motivation behind challenges to longstanding state and federal legal rulings on Church-State separation.  So why do we have a First Amendment which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment off religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;", or the constitutional guarentee that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States" (U.S. Constitution, Article VI sec. 3), or state laws that reflect the same legal philosophy?  It seems the reasons can be found much farther back than those of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams.

Contrary to what we have been told or learned in school, the founding of the original colonies were not based on a desire for religious freedom.  It seems that when any of the religiously oppressed groups landed and established their communities, they also enacted laws and other rules that established their faith and prosecuted anyone that did not conform. 

In an article published in the Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion in 2005 titled "Political Origins of Religious Liberty", Anthony Gill, PhD., Professor of Political Science at the University of Washington, offers a very insightful section on religion in the colonies called "The Early United States."  If you can picture a map of the original Thirteen Colonies, Congregaionalists had New England, down south (Virginia to Georgia) was dominated by Episcopalians and Presbyterians, the Quakers had Pennsylvania and the Catholics controlled Maryland. 

Each colony had some form of a religious tax or mandatory tithing.  Individual towns and communities had religious laws, some of which were quite strict.  What became clear very early on, it's extremely costly to enforce a strict set of religious laws.  As Anthony Gill states,

"While some denominations tried to maintain strict control over the beliefs and practices fo the local population, de facto religious pluralism and freedom gradually resulted from the mere fact that people could up and move if they did not like the laws under which they were living,..."

What is also interesting is that strict enforcement of religious laws started impacting interstate trade.  So much so that religious orthodoxy almost resulted in a trade war between Puritans and Quakers in 1659.  In essence, the desire to engage in commerce and trade trumped religious dogma and purity.

So, all this nibbling around the edges with introducing bills to change state constitutions to allow prayer on public school property, elective classes on Biblical literacy, and fighting to post the Ten Commandments in every classroom, is a little disconcerting to say the least.  So again, what are the motives behind these efforts to introduce religious regulations into a secular government?  Political pandering, plain and simple. 

Religion is a private matter that has a public presence.  Billions of people draw personal strength from their respective faiths.  By and large, most people that publicly profess their faith are good people.  But then there are those that profess those same beliefs and take them a step or two, or three further and politicize their faith.  There are just places that are meant for faith and places that should be neutral ground.  Our public schools are a place where religion can be discussed as part of the learning process, but not where one faith is promoted over all others. 

While these recent moves to post the Ten Commandments in classrooms, allow government sanctioned prayer on public school property, and teach Biblical literacy are not likely to withstand longtime legal precedent on the matter, if it did would this also mean that we would be on the path to laws that forbid the United States from doing business with China or the Middle East?  Who knows, but one thing is clear, the United States was founded on commerce and trade and not Christian principles.