Another Tea Party Summer?

Congress is taking another crack at passing immigration reform, but it’s 2007 all over again. It doesn’t matter how it’s packaged or how much data there is that proves that it’s to our economic benefit to pass a comprehensive immigration bill because the right wing of the GOP considers anything less than 100% attrition as amnesty. The right-wing does not want to address the 11 million undocumented people residing in our country other than to say “citizenship …never” and “let’s just secure the border.” There is language in the bill that calls for 90% of the southern border crossing being secured but there are people here  illegally from countries other than Mexico.

It’s pretty funny watching Senator Rubio trying to satisfy both sides of the issue while trying to maintain his credibility. Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee thinks that he has found the answer. He upped the ransom that he will pay to get a few more Republican votes. His amendment will now include 700 miles of additional fencing, and he doubles the amount of the border patrol from 21,000 to 42,000. Remember we’re still in sequester mode but now he wants to hire more federal workers and spend millions more to extend the fence, even though the illegal border crossings are at net zero. All these sweeteners are just to pass a bill in the senate which doesn’t stand a chance in the other body unless Speaker Boehner relies on 100%  yes votes from the Democrats once again.

The Democrats are signing on to just about everything that appeases Republicans because they think they will outsmart their opponents in the long run. Even Michelle Bachmann understands the Democrats’ strategy. If the Senate passes a bipartisan comprehensive bill that has 70 votes in the affirmative, it will put the speaker on even more shaky grounds than he is in now. If by some miracle, the GOP controlled house passes their version of an immigration bill, it then has to go before a committee, so both versions can be merged. Will speaker Boehner stick with the Tea Party and destroy any chance of the GOP ever winning a national election or will he go to Nancy Pelosi ( hat in hand) and ask her for all the Democrats votes when he can only produce 20 or so? John Boehner can kiss his speakership good-bye if he does the latter.

The Republican base’s pep rally issues are front and center awaiting the 2014 mid-term elections. Yesterday, the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, Louie Gohmert, Steve King, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Michelle Bachmann held an all day rally on the White House lawn. I will never understand why people who have so much distain for government, run for office. Their complaints ranged from Benghazi, abortion, the IRS, Obamacare, illegal immigration reform, President Obama and government in general. Ted Cruz called for abolishing the IRS; Rand called for the same, but he also said that he would never send foreign aid to countries that persecuted Christians. Rand Paul is testing the presidential waters for his eventual 2016 run. The crowd images I saw I saw had about as many anti-Rubio signs and there were anti-Obama signs. The call was for small government for the safety net and more government for abortion, NSA and border enforcement. The Libertarian Republicans still have to convince their non- libertarian members that they have to be scared of big brother snooping. It shouldn’t be that hard, they’ll try to use the IRS and Obamacare as examples of big brother can’t be trusted to do anything right.

We are seeing record abortions bills passed in GOP controlled states and in the House of Representatives, but it’s not because there is an increasing amount of abortions, it is for political reasons. The states that are passing the unconstitutional bills don’t care about the costs; both politically and monetary because they want this issue front and center. The Pro-lifers want a Supreme Court challenge where they think having five conservative judges gives them an excellent chance of overturning Roe v Wade. In the meantime, GOP lawmakers are the beneficiaries of the Pro-lifers money and votes.

I’m finally at the point where it’s pretty obvious where the lines are drawn on the gun, Obamacare and immigration issue. The pro- gun people watch the evening news, read their paper and listen to their radio and come to the right conclusion that our country is getting more violent. They don’t trust law enforcement to be at the precise time and place to protect them. They want as much firepower and ammunition as they think is necessary to protect themselves in any situation.

A lot of people don’t have the slightest idea of what it takes to insure 31million more people, because they never spent the time and effort it takes to learn how the Affordable Care Act will affect them. Those who have company paid insurance or those on Medicare and VA will not see much difference. A lot of people fear that the government will take away benefits that their company gives them and redistribute them to the uninsured. There will never be convinced that we pay for the overuse of the emergency rooms with increase premiums rates. I could go on and on but that’s for another blog.

The immigration bill opposition is pretty easy to understand . We live in south Texas, so a lot of people here think that it’s a Mexican issue. If that’s a case, then it’s about food stamps, welfare, more crime and the overburdened of our hospitals and schools. Those people will tune you out if you present facts that contradict what they already presume to know. Citizenship, hell no; that just legally puts them on the public dole. Some people still believe Americans will pick those crops, and they can say they will pay higher prices to make it happen because they know they never will. The more browning of America is the underlying issue. If you need more proof, you won’t have to look no further than our redistricting maps. I have yet to hear a reasonable answer as what to do with the 11 million people who either came to this country illegally or overstayed their visas.

I believe that you have to be blunt because sugarcoating an issue just prolongs the solution. There’s a lot to “tell me what you really think.” Think about it; that’s why we have all the back and forth about a legal document being translated into Spanish.

Am I the only who is curious about the tease of two homes being raided yesterday? I didn’t see a follow up on the evening news or in my morning newspaper.

The Year of the Libertarian

The political shows that I watch are getting a bit muddled because the liberals' hosts are hearing voices from their libertarian side of the brain. Last night, MSNBC's Chris Hayes spent about 5 minutes explaining why he's agreeing with Representative Louis Gohmert on the NSA issue. He sounded like he was apologizing to his audience. There never has been a right or wrong stance on this issue because it's about a person's tolerance and understanding on where that imaginary line is between security and privacy.

All these discussions take me back 30 years, to a time when I used to go toe- to- toe with libertarians with whom I used to work with. They were all likeable, intelligent human beings who hated government and taxes in general, and they thought that the only role government had was to provide defense. They were literalists in their interpretation of the Constitution, and they all carried that document wherever they went. I put it to the test one day when we were attending the funeral of a fellow coworker. I jokingly asked the friend if he had a copy of the constitution and to my surprise, he said, “As a matter of fact, I do.” Libertarians don’t waver a bit when it comes to defending their ideology.

It was the 1980s, so most of our discussions were about the staggering economy and how they thought that the Fed and government were responsible. I was using quotes from economists, and they were using the theories of Ayn Rand. I soon realized that you can't argue against theories that have not been tried in any country. My adversaries believed in the school of Austrian economics, which don’t rely on economic mathematical models; just theories about human behavior. They used to like to tell me that the markets will self- correct, oh if only I could run into them today; I would ask them “how did that self -correction in the 2008 financial crisis workout for you?” Ron Paul said we should have let Wall Street fall, but that’s easy to say from the position of a congressman who didn’t have to face the American people or other world leaders.

One day our company emailed us to remind us that we all had to make arrangements to attend an offsite seminar about respect in the workplace. When my friend read his e-mail, he got up from his chair, and went straight into the boss’s office to complain. He said it was offensive to be told something that should come naturally. That's true, but like everything else my friend didn’t wait to get all the facts. Management might have been fulfilling their minimum requirements in ensuring a safe workplace.

I remember one segment where the issue was about race. My Libertarian friends were not racists but they were certainly ideologues. Straight out of a Ron Paul newsletter, one of the libertarians said that he agreed with Barry Goldwater’s vote against the Civil Rights Act because it trampled on property rights. This immediately alarmed the lecturer and caused a stir in our small group but he was allowed to make his point. He said while he was against segregation, he didn’t think that the government should be able to tell a property owner what to do. I was more than ready to make my rebuttal. I can’t remember the exact words but I went around the room and pointed to a new female employee, a Hispanic one, and a black employee and said “Do you honestly think that we would all be here together today if not for a nudge by the government?”

I think this is the year of the Libertarian because it’s safe to assume that the Tea Party is coming home to their roots. Rand Paul is now the de-facto leader of the Tea Party because unlike his father, he has won a state-wide election. It shouldn’t be hard for Senator Rand Paul to tie in all the so-called government scandals into a message that government is too big and cannot be trusted. That’s easy pickings for his constituents, but if he goes too far out there (as he is usually inclined to do) he will lose the independents. He will be given ample opportunity to spread his message but will he be able to sell it? I have to admit he did a good job with his filibuster of our drone policy, but we’ll see how he does with the NSA policy. The ball is his court, but as I see it, he will miss the three pointer, when the more makeable layup was available.

It’s just the first bite of the apple

My goodness, you would've thought that the deal that was made to prevent us from going over the fiscal cliff was the last chance at legislating.  This morning Joe Scarborough was ranting and raving because for the first time in over 20 years, Republicans raised taxes.  According to Grover Norquist, Republicans lowered taxes but try convincing those who make over $450,000 next year when they get their  tax bill.  Joe went on and on about Paul Ryan voting for a bill (without tax cuts) that will add $4 trillion over the next decade. He was so mad that he said Ryan voted for the $7 trillion Medicare prescription bill a few years ago, so he stripped him of his deficit hawk title.  Joe Scarborough is one of those libertarians / conservatives who think republicans should just be reforming the entitlements and reducing the size of government; nothing else.

For the average Americans, they get to keep their credits for the next five years, so they can plan accordingly.  Economists have told us that business wants certainty, this bill gives them that, so hopefully we will stabilize the markets and increase consumer confidence. American workers will see a 2% reduction in their paychecks because the Social Security payroll deduction rate went back to 6.2%. Two million unemployed Americans got a one year extension of unemployment benefits.Neither party got all they wanted but that's what compromise is all about.

Ricci Ware, radio host for San Antonio's KTSA radio, said liberals were walking around with their chest out because they stuck it to the rich man. He also said that we were headed for a socialist agenda. The libertarian / conservatives are angry because they lost the argument about tax cuts paying for themselves and the hideous thought of ever raising taxes. That small group cannot win national elections on two goals: reducing government and reforming entitlements. We do have to reform entitlements and reduce government, but we have to take a balance approach, and the goal should be efficiency because it's obvious people do not want to give up Social Security and Medicare.

There are two big battles just around the corner: raising the debt limit and the sequester cuts. The president said that he won't partake in a battle to raise the debt limit to pay the bills' Congress agreed to make.  I guess that he could veto the bill and make the Congress pass it with a 2/3 vote, which is virtually impossible.  The leverage on the debt ceiling belongs to the GOP because they have proven that our credit rating and an unstable world financial condition takes a back seat to lowering our deficit and debt. The GOP will hold up other projects President Obama wants to undertake like illegal immigration comprehensive reform, infrastructure, energy policies, gun control and unemployment.

There's only one way to avoid the unnecessary 11th-hour  decisions our Congress is undertaking.  We need a grand bargain to reform the entitlements' minus Social Security because the latter does not increase the deficit, and it's in pretty good shape for right now.  That could be a standalone bipartisan commission fix.  We mustn't forget defense department waste, and we shouldn't get fixated on today's numbers because that will change once our economy starts to pick up.  We also have to factor in us leaving Afghanistan.  We can also cut out several loopholes but keep our progressive tax system.

Walter Williams: Big time propagandist

I'm going to have to set my alarm and start taking my blood-pressure medication at 5:00AM, if this morning's Walter William’s column titled “Liberals, Progressives and Socialist” is an example of what we will be seeing for the next 89 days. It's the same red baiting tactics but Mr. Williams just inserted some new names and deleted ACORN.

Walter Williams is just a black version of Glenn Beck but with a lot more education. He's a libertarian and a supporter or Ron Paul, and endorses a laissez-faire economic system in which the government should not interfere with commerce. Anything short of that is considered socialism or communism. He's out there on the outer edges because he believes in legalization that would allow someone to sell their own body organs and after reading the founders documents, he concludes that it is the right of U.S. states to secede from the union. Mr. Williams’s appeals to the low information voter and those who like to get their ears tickled, but I have to give him props, as I would any snake oil salesman; he's made a lot of money off the gullible.

The first four paragraphs of his article accurately describe some of the most ruthless regimes, but he inserts his definition of what their motive was. As Glenn Beck does, he picked up the words "social justice"(imagine him using a chalkboard)  and did his best to link the Wall Street occupiers to the fascist and totalitarian dictators who committed mass murder. If pushed, he would say, "I was not calling them mass butchers I was just be saying that's how Hitler got his start in Germany." It's 6° of Kevin Bacon to the extreme. The propaganda wouldn't be complete, unless there was a reference to an Obama appointee or a former member of the administration. He uses a controversial statement from Anita Dunn speech to some high-school graduates  where she said “Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa as two of her "favorite political philosophers." Beck stated that the speech revealed Dunn as a Maoist, while Dunn stated that, her reference was meant to be ironic, and was a quote borrowed from Republican strategist Lee Atwater. If that's the best he's got, he is deceiving his readers but then again, as long as their ears are tickled; nothing else matters.

Walter William's fear mongering article wouldn't be complete, unless he used the words" loss of freedom or liberty." In a typical victim fashion, he blames the academic community, the media elite, stalwarts of the Democratic Party, and organizations like the NAACP, La Raza, and Green for All, the Sierra Club and the Children's Defense Fund. I guess they are more fearful than the Neo-Nazi clubs. I guess voter suppression doesn't register as a loss of freedom in his mind. Mr. Williams is an ideologue, who believes either you with him or against him (and he's always right) because, if you don’t like his opinions, then you believe in the primacy of the state over individual rights. The author asks," you don't believe it, just ask yourself: which way are we headed tiny steps at a time-toward greater liberty our toward more government control over our lives?" How ironic, I would bet that Mr. Williams believes in the republican led personhood bills headed toward our legislation. Mr. Williams and his ilk, do not own the definition of liberty or freedom; I am 67 years old and have never been fearful of losing my freedom or liberty. It's always available at the ballot box; sometimes I win, sometimes I lose.

Mr. William's piece is just the preamble to the familiar culture war politics we are about to endure. It's the first shot across the bow because the previous Romney campaign tactics are not working, so they need to go to what they think will work, and that is welfare. Recently, the Romney campaign launched an ad stating that Obama is gutting Welfare Reform Bill Clinton, and the GOP led Congress voted and signed into a "welfare to work" legislation. The Ad Praises Bill Clinton, trying to lure the Reagan Democrats and uses the typical "too lazy to work" byline to reel in the 6% moderates. The only trouble is, that the ad is a complete lie. According to ABC News "These requirements are quotas, which states must meet to receive federal welfare dollars under Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF, pronounced “taniff”): certain percentages of enrolled households must meet “work activity'” requirements, including work training, job searches, “job clubs'” that offer job-search advice, and job searches with verified paperwork from employers where jobs were sought.

HHS announced that states can propose pilot programs, which can include changes to how qualified welfare recipients are counted. If HHS approves a state’s program, it will grant a waiver from federal work-activity requirements. For instance, HHS suggests, states could propose, “projects that demonstrate superior employment outcomes” if work-activity participation rate requirements are dropped and replaced by other measurements of “employment outcome.”

This is another area where the federal government wants to give more rights to the states, but it's demonized for political gain.

I'm feeling a lot better now, but my work is not done because there are many misconceptions that are being thrown around as facts about the constitution and the role of government. I can't do much with a “unverified comment" but if I can make one person aware of another viewpoint, it might help them from being a victim of propaganda. I am just a lowly poster without clout but I'm aware of that; I’m not like the gun owner that thinks he needs a gun to protect him from a repressive regime.