Are unions really the bad guys?

Allow no compromise!

The longer I live in America the more I realize that politicians like to take sides.  It seems the culture is one where there are winners and losers but very few opponents, at least in modern day politics, who share success.

Look at Congressional Democrats and Republicans.  They have lost the ability to compromise on most everything.  It takes extreme measures to come to agreement.  Each party is at opposite sides of the political spectrum.   There are very few moderates who can empathize with the other side.  Progress in Washington has become stuck in needless competition for the most political points at the expense of America.  Anything is possible and it seems the important thing to most politicians is to propel their party to success in upcoming elections.  Deceiving the public is no exception.

Republicans stand with the wealthy.  Democrats stand with the middle class and poor.  Republicans support management.  Democrats support workers.  Republicans support a right to life.  Democrats support freedom of choice.  Republicans stand with the NRA.  Democrats want to protect families from gun violence.  Republicans want to end the National Labor Relations Board while Democrats support it as the only means left for American worker's grievances to be heard.  Democrats introduced worker union protections with the Wagner Act.  Republicans reduced worker union protections with the Taft-Hartley Act.

Senator Rand Paul

Today I received a mailing from Rand Paul asking me to petition my Senators, Congressmen, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell to support the National Right to Work Act because (and I quote) "union lobbyists, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and their allies are going to use every trick in the book to bury the National Right to Work Act."

Sounds very serious.  Why would the Democrats want to prevent someone from having a right to work?

As I read further into the mailing I soon realized that the real trickster was Rand Paul.  The name of the Act is a misnomer.  The Act deceives the American public into thinking that unions make people pay to work, when its real intention is to weaken employee protections by the further erosion of union membership.  Republicans in government hate unions and since Ronald Reagan have successfully hoodwinked the American public into believing they are the bad guys causing lots of problems with the economy.  Republicans hate of unions rises from the fact that unions protect the labor force.  Labor is a cost to business owners and Republicans in Congress represent business owners.

The Wagner Act became law in 1935.  It established the National Labor Relations Board and legally established the right to organize unions.  Unions were established by Congress as an employee protection against existing unfair practices by their employers.  These practices included such things as harsh working conditions, long hours, low pay, unsafe working conditions, workplace health risks and child labor.  These things really happened and at one time Congress sought to protect American workers from it.  In fact if you don't think it can ever happen again, just look at current working conditions in  factories in China, Bangladesh and India which are used by American manufacturers.  American CEOs are still looking for the cheapest labor and least government labor regulations in order to decrease costs so executive management can profit more.  There is no concern for the safety of employees in those countries and American CEO's know it.

Then in 1946 Republicans won both the Senate and the House.   They acted quickly to reduce employee union membership and further erode the unified voice that American workers had by passing the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947 over President Truman's veto.  This act banned "closed union shops" and encouraged "right to work" laws.  The act gave management new weapons while restricting union activities.

Now just based on those two historical events, the reader should understand that Republicans support the management side of the equation and Democrats support the employee.  For Rand Paul to attempt to make people believe anything else is dishonest.  Any labor act introduced by Republicans will only reduce employee benefits in order to protect wealthy business owners.

Yet Rand Paul wants workers to believe that unions are greedy self-interested groups of mobsters and union dues bankroll tax-and-spend politicians and fund a "limousine lifestyle" for union "bigwigs."  How deceitful!

Rand Paul's Act proposes amending the NLR Act (National Labor Relations Act, a.k.a. Wagner Act)  and the Railway Labor Act in several places.  All amendments would change the current law with the major intention of reducing union membership by making it possible for non-union members to be hired in a union shop.  These non-union members would not pay union dues and still work under contracts negotiated by the existing union.  Paul's Act would allow all states to decide whether they should be pro-labor union or anti-labor union.

Senator Paul uses reverse psychology to make current law sound as though it takes something away from employees since their right to represent themselves to management is not present in current law.  This is completely opposite of the purpose of the law and unions themselves.  Employees could not protect themselves from employers in the first place and that is why unions were allowed by law.  Union negotiations and union actions are made much less successful when a large number of employees in a union shop do not belong to the union.  The protections of workers is seriously reduced as a result.

Senator Paul also believes that most workers would be better off if they do not have to pay union dues.  As he puts it workers are forced to pay union dues to keep their jobs.  Apparently he believes having the few dollars more in a paycheck that union dues would represent is better than having union protections for the average worker.

So what evidence do we have that workers in anti-labor union states are better off than pro-labor union states?   How do the anti-labor union "right to work" (RTW) states fair in comparison to pro-labor union states?

Anti-labor union states

The states where Republican legislatures have passed RTW laws is shown in the map and are shaded with greenish color.

RTW anti-labor union states on average have a 3.2% lower wage than pro-labor union states.  Because wages are lower, some manufacturers are moving their operations to the RTW anti-labor union states and so the statistic sometimes quoted by RTW states is that business is increasing its presence in their states.  Do you think the move to RTW states by business is due to more protections for that state's workers?  Or could it be some other reason, like reduced labor costs?  The AFL-CIO says that wages in RTW states are about $5600/year less than pro-labor union states.

Employers that have health insurance plans is about 2.6% lower in the RTW states and amounts to about two million less workers covered by health insurance nationally.  Employer sponsored pensions are about 4.8% lower in RTW states.  If workers in pro-labor union states were to receive pensions at this lower rate, 3.8 million fewer workers nationally would have pensions.

Republicans have been working for decades to erode labor laws so that their constituents, big business executives, can increase their share of the wealth in the United States.  They are not doing it for the protection of the labor force and don't let them tell you differently.

UPDATE: As with a lot of their policies, despite their phony rhetoric about saving America, there is an ulterior motive for Republicans desire to remove Unions from America.  Unions are the greatest political lobbying groups that working class Americans have against the vast array of conservative lobbyist groups.  Unions represent working class Americans.  By removing Unions, Republicans are removing all of their competition from the political money arena.   Especially with the Citizens United decision that gave big money the ability to buy politicians, this makes a huge difference in elections and increases the chances that Republicans will get elected.  This is not a coincidence.

Fed Chairman Bernanke's report to Congress

Ben Bernanke

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke met today with Congressional leaders of the Financial Services Committee to report on the Federal Reserve's take on the state of the economy and Federal Reserve actions in that regard.

In an introductory statement Mr. Bernanke made it clear that the fiscal policy that legislators have chosen to take has been a detriment to the economic recovery.  In an effort to acknowledge the impact that a dysfunctional Congress has on the economy, he highlighted that tight fiscal policy will restrain economic growth.  He warned that political fights over raising the debt ceiling as has happened in the past would hamper the recovery.  Although a few of the Congressmen on the committee appeared to understand the importance Congress has in assisting in the recovery, it is still to be seen if Congressional Republicans take this guidance into consideration as they enter discussions about raising the debt ceiling, ending sequester or resurrecting the American Jobs Act.

Bernanke believes the economy is recovering at a moderate pace.  He cited the improvements in the housing market as contributing to economic gains and predicted this would continue to improve notwithstanding recent mortgage interest gains.

He believes the labor market is improving gradually and contributed a 0.1% drop in the unemployment rate to the Fed's policies of buying assets.  He admits that job growth has a long way to go to be considered satisfactory.  As I have stated in previous blogs, I question the impact that buying assets really has on the job market especially because it does nothing to increase demand for products and services.  It does have an important impact on the stock market as we have seen investors sell off stocks and bonds when Bernanke hinted that the asset purchase program was going to be discontinued.

Understanding the emotional nature of the stock market, Bernanke was careful not to repeat the mistake of hinting at a change in the asset program at the committee meeting.  He emphatically stated that the current asset purchase program will continue and monetary policy will be "accommodative" for the foreseeable future.  As of noon today the US markets appeared to be unaffected by Bernanke's comments.

In order to help prevent another Bush era financial collapse of the big banks, Fed policy is to prevent  collapse by increasing the requirement for cash reserves under what is called Basel III capital reforms.

 In summary, Bernanke explained three mechanisms that the Fed is using to support economic growth.  These are mortgage asset purchases, forward guidance on Fed plans for the federal fund rate target and Basel III capital reforms.

Based on the comments at the committee meeting, it appears obvious that the Fed needs a lot of help from Congress to revitalize the economy.  Bernanke's warning about Congressional actions around fiscal policy may have been his cry for help.

Harry Reid is giving Senate Republicans one more chance before launching the nuclear option

Senator Harry Reid

Senate majority leader Harry Reid entered closed door session Monday evening with Minority leader Mitch McConnell and other Senators interested in avoiding the "nuclear option" being threatened by Reid which would likely change Senate filibuster rules solely by Democratic votes.  

Because Republicans in the Senate have caused an unprecedented number of filibusters, some of which are directed toward obstruction of President Obama's appointments to key federal agencies, Reid has hinted that the rules around Presidential appointments might be changed to allow a simple majority vote for approval.  Currently, appointments must be approved by 2/3 of the Senate, or 67 Senators.  Additionally, the rules change could also reduce the number of votes necessary to overcome a filibuster.

Reid's urgency to adopt a rules change is the result of the Republican disruption of government affairs.  There are a good number of federal agencies that cannot function properly without the appointees who are being blocked.  Republicans have publicly announced that they do not have a problem with the appointees, but they are opposing the appointments because they are trying to change the mandates of and prevent affected agencies from being effective.  To paraphrase, Republicans believe this conspiracy to obstruct government affairs is necessary in order to mold government into one that would better serve their constituents.

What has been disclosed about the meeting thus far indicates that no agreement has been reached that will prevent the nuclear option.   Senator Reid will test the stubborn determination of the Republicans in blocking President Obama's appointees by calling for a vote to approve some critical bureau appointees in Tuesday's Senate session.

Among these appointees is Richard Cordray, acting head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  If Republicans block this appointment, Reid will go ballistic and initiate the nuclear option.  It is not clear if Reid will still go nuclear if all of the previously blocked appointees are still blocked by Republicans.   See the details about the CFPB here.

During the meeting, some Republican Senators were still expecting to get the advantages they have been fighting for by offering empty compromises.  For example, they offered approving Richard Cordray provided the CFPB could be changed the way that Republicans wanted it.  

Reid has said that if the rules change is enacted, only Presidential appointments would be affected by the simple majority rule and not all Senate business.  Some are concerned that such a change could be used against Democratic  introduced legislation, such as ObamaCare if Republicans take the Senate majority after the 2014 elections.

Opinion is that the chance for the nuclear option is high, particularly because of the blockage of the appointees to the National Labor Relations board.  Republicans want to eliminate that agency and approving the appointees is the furthest thing from their minds.

Senator McCain is trying to strike up a deal with other Republicans and Senator Reid to stave off the nuclear option and is leaning toward approving the appointees.  Senator McCain was not sure what the outcome would be.

So we wait.  The one thing that seems most certain is this: if an agreement does not happen before tomorrow's vote and Republicans still block the appointments, the nuclear option will be used.

Issa committee is still wasting time and taxpayer money on the IRS non-scandal

Darrell Issa

Still wasting time and taxpayers money on the IRS non-scandal, Darrel Issa is attempting to redefine the fifth amendment for one last chance to find something to pin on someone.

On June 28th, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform met to hold a markup session of a resolution that Lois Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination when she made a voluntary opening statement at the May 22, 2013 full Committee hearing entitled "The IRS: Targeting Americans for Their Political Beliefs"

Just as an aside, doesn't the committee hearing's name give you the idea that Issa and his gang of numb-skulls have a pre-formed prejudicial view of the IRS that they are trying to impose on the rest of America?  I can't say that they are jumping to conclusions, but Republicans really have a knack for making our government appear to be the enemy.

Be it resolved then, that the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform have hereby found new interpretations to the intent of the Fifth Amendment.  I guess they read between the lines of the text of the amendment.

Let's see if you can find the same interpretation by reading the actual text of the amendment that follows.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

There are many rights stated in the amendment.  Did you find the hidden meaning that the Committee found?  If you did, then "taking the fifth" may mean something entirely different to you and may have more to do with imbibing a certain size of alcoholic spirits than constitutional law.

There is nothing in the amendment that indicates a person forfeits their fifth amendment right protecting them from being compelled to be a witness against themselves if they say anything in defense of themselves first.  

The simple truth is that Issa, frustrated that this attempt at a Republican generated conspiracy theory did not lead directly to the President's door, is trying to find some way of making his Committee's efforts appear something more than a waste of time.  

But they have been nothing more. 

The real scandal isn't at the IRS

The IRS is tasked with the responsibility to review applications for tax exemption.  In what is known as the 501(c) process, organizations can apply for tax exemption by providing information which proves to the satisfaction of the IRS, that they are non-political, social welfare type organizations whose primary function is not to advance a political agenda.

The IRS has recently come under attack by Republicans in Congress who claim that the IRS over-stepped their authority when it came to reviewing tax exemption applications from Tea Party type organizations.  The outrage of Republicans is evident  in the chambers of Congress where Republicans led by Darrel Issa, chair of the special investigative committee, have sworn to get to the bottom of the connection of IRS wrong-doing with the White House and more importantly with President Obama.

Perhaps because Republicans are blinded by the rush that getting a chance to implicate the President of wrong-doing elicits, they are missing some of the important facts which could, and by all rights should, turn the tide of wrong-doing onto their constituents.

First, to even refer to an organization as a Republican group implicates them as being political.  This violates the meaning of a 501(c)3 and 501(c)4 and should not entitle them to tax exemption.  Even so, the IRS approved applications for many obviously Republican political groups such as the "Tea Party Patriots" the "American Patriots Against Government Excess", "National Tea Party Group" and "Tea Party Radio."  If you have any doubt that these organizations are primarily politically focused, all you have to do is go to their web sites to see it for yourself.

So why did the IRS approve these applications?  If they followed their own guidelines, they should have known that these organizations were primarily involved in politics.  So what did they base their  decisions on?  Despite what the right wing media and Republicans in Congress are attempting to convey, the IRS did not make their decisions based on the names representing these organizations.  They could not have, otherwise they would not have approved the applications.  They made their decisions based on the information that the organizations provided.  

It appears a safe bet that the information provided to the IRS by the applicants was insufficient to implicate the organizations as political action committees.  If this was done by the applicants to  intentionally mislead the IRS review, then it is a crime which is punishable by fines and/or imprisonment.  That is the real scandal here.  These organizations might have knowingly hidden information from the IRS in order to get unfair and undeserved tax advantages.  That sounds familiar.  Where have we seen this before?  Oh yeah, Romney was pretty good at that.

Lindsey Graham

Now in a relentless pursuit to find something bad to pin on the President, Senator Lindsey Graham (R- SC) is calling for a special prosecutor to investigate the entire IRS "scandal".  This could be the best thing that ever happened for the IRS and the worst thing for the Tea Party Patriots and their Republican leadership.

If a special prosecutor is called who is impartial, then I predict that the IRS and the President will be cleared of any wrong-doing.  Furthermore, some unhappy Tea Party organizations will be paying for their arrogance and deception when the real scandal is revealed.  Perhaps clearer Republican heads will prevail and convince Graham to drop the idea before the truth can be known.

That would be a pity.

A Republican to English dictionary

Although born and raised in the United States, my father, who passed away in his old age a few years ago, was not really good with the English language.  Sometimes he used words that he made up in conversation that sounded like words that they really weren't.  My kids were often confused by their "Papa", as they used to call him, and I would joke with them that maybe we needed to get a Papa- to-English dictionary.

Because of their support for policies which Republicans stand for, most of which go against their best interest, middle-class Republicans may be well served if they had a Republican-to-English dictionary.  Perhaps that way they could better understand that their welfare is not of concern when it comes to modern Republican politics.

Here are a few examples of statements we have heard our Republican leaders talk about.  I have given some assistance to the American voter by attempting to identify the true meaning of these words in plain English.

"Jobs, Jobs Jobs": Cheap foreign labor for America's Corporations.  

"Support for our troops": Increasing government funding of defense contractors.

"Reducing the deficit":  Protecting the 1% by taking revenue off the table, increasing military budgets to protect defense contractors and only calling for government spending reductions in programs for the poor, women, children, the elderly, students, the handicapped, military veterans and the unemployed.

"Smaller Government": 1. Eliminating government protections of it citizens in regards to regulations on business so that big business can operate with a free hand to decrease costs involved with making a safe product, protecting the environment, giving fair wages, creating a safe work environment, treating workers fairly and otherwise operating responsibly.  2. Reducing government spending by eliminating public service jobs such as teachers, police, fire-fighters and government workers and rejecting the American Jobs Act that would have improved the infrastructure of roads, bridges, schools, etc. 

"2nd Amendment rights": Returning the favor for NRA lobbyist money and preserving the market and demand for weapon manufacturers regardless of the wishes of the majority of Americans for stronger gun laws.

"Obama-Care": Originally a Republican introduced derogatory term for the Affordable Care Act which later became adopted as a catch-phrase by President Obama.  Republican intent is to put fear into American citizens and protect big insurance corporations from the effects of treating American citizens with fairer insurance rules and charging costs that would benefit the citizen.  Most of the effort of the Republicans in the 113th Congress has been in attempting to repeal Obama-Care law 37 times as of this date.

"Sequester": A Republican plan since 2010 to reduce the size of government in a way that would protect the wealthy and would otherwise never be possible by normal legislative proceedings.

"Filibuster": The cornerstone of Republican obstructionism used to prevent problem resolution, slow down progress on legislation and block President Obama's appointees and ideas that support middle-class Americans.

"Balanced Budget": A financial plan that reduces spending on useful government programs such as medicare, medicaid, the social safety net and social security which must not be balanced by any increase in revenue, especially by increased taxes on the wealthy or corporations. 

"501(c)4": Republican worked loophole in the IRS regulations that permits a political action committee to receive donations that are exempt from federal taxes and then to complain when the IRS workers request information that may prove they are political action committees.  The 501(c)4 is supposed to be for non-political social organizations.

"Stimulus package": Another name for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.  An act carried out by the Democrats and President Obama that saved the country from financial collapse.  Republicans voted against the stimulus package.

"Voter ID": An attempt to reduce access to voting by members of the citizenry who would not vote Republican in elections.  This action as well as closing down voting precincts and voting hours were used by Republican state legislatures as a strategy in the 2012 elections.

Republicans have proven that they do not represent the middle-class or the poor.  If you are in one of these groups and you vote Republican, I would be interested in knowing why you would vote that way.

If you have any other definitions, please feel free to add a comment.  I'll add the best one's to my collection.

TIGTA says no evidence leads to White House participation in IRS 501(c) scandal

TIGTA

So full of joy were Republicans when another so-called scandal looked like it could involve the upper levels of the Obama administration.  I'll call it the IRS501(c) scandal, even though calling it a scandal is a real stretch.  

Fox news contributors seriously reported that this IRS manipulation was being controlled by the White House so that Republicans would lose Ohio.  This had to be the case they believed, otherwise Obama would have lost the 2012 Presidential election.  People say ignorance is bliss but spreading that kind of misinformation is unforgivable. 

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) was notified by certain Republican members of Congress that they suspected wrongdoing at the IRS.  The TIGTA did an audit investigation of the situation at the IRS and published their findings.  They found no evidence that the White House was involved in any way.     

The incident took place during a time when Douglas H. Shulman was IRS Commissioner.  Mr. Shulman was a Republican and a George W. Bush appointee to the office.   Does anyone seriously think (other than Fox news and the radical right wing media) that President Obama could manipulate a Republican to target other Republicans for political gain?  Of course not.

George W. Bush

And what happened at the IRS exactly?  The IRS saw a dramatic increase in the number of applications by groups and individuals for 501(c)3 and 501(c)4 tax exempt status for their organization.  Per tax regulations 501(c)3 exempt organizations cannot have political ties at all and must receive IRS approval.  The 501(c)4 organizations may only have limited and not primary focus on political issues.  It is the job of the IRS to investigate these applications to ensure that they meet the requirements.

The IRS receives nearly 70,000 tax exemption requests each year.  All of the applications for tax exemption are sent to the IRS office in Cincinnati, Ohio where less than 200 employees must review each one.  In order to facilitate this daunting task, some of the workers there used character searches to find those exemptions that may be 501(c)3 or 501(c)4 types.  Since the workers noticed a lot of the applications had words such as "Tea Party" and "Patriot" which implied to them that they may be 501(c) exemption requests , they used such words to help them filter out the applications.  

IRS indicates that these were not the only search terms used and that there was no political bias intended in any of their searches.   In fact only 70 of the 296 cases reviewed contained the words "Tea Party".   However, IRS management realizes that this method is "inappropriate"  and vows to change the process.   They note that even if the search process was not used, information in the application would still have targeted these same groups for follow-up (or as IRS calls it "centralization".)   There are currently 470 cases that are centralized.

The TIGTA found that the IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax‑exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention.

They identified that ineffective IRS management:
1) allowed inappropriate criteria to be developed and stay in place for more than 18 months,
2) resulted in substantial delays in processing certain applications, and
3) allowed unnecessary information requests to be issued.

Although the processing of some applications with potential significant political campaign intervention was started soon after receipt, no work was completed on the majority of these applications for 13 months. This was due to delays in receiving assistance from the Exempt Organizations function Headquarters office.

For the 296 total political campaign intervention applications TIGTA reviewed as of December 17, 2012, 108 had been approved, 28 were withdrawn by the applicants, none had been denied, and 160 were open from 206 to 1,138 calendar days (some for more than three years and crossing two election cycles).

More than 20 months after the initial case was identified, processing the cases began in earnest. Many organizations received requests for additional information from the IRS that included unnecessary, burdensome questions (e.g., lists of past and future donors). The IRS later informed some organizations that they did not need to provide previously requested information. IRS officials stated that any donor information received in response to a request from its Determinations Unit was later destroyed.

Ultimately, this so-called scandal is really a few IRS employees innocently trying to expedite their work assignments by a process which coincidentally gives the perception of political bias to people so biased in their own beliefs and so quick to judgement that they were inclined to blow this out of proportion, especially in their attempts to link it to President Obama.

Barack Obama is the President of the United States.  It's time Republicans started treating him that way.

President Obama

Why the Republican Party is destined to become extinct

Extinct Dodo Bird

As certain as the extinction of the Dodo bird, so is the imminent extinction of the Republican Party.

"What!??" you say.  The Republican party has survived the test of time and is a powerful machine that can't be stopped.  How can the party be destined for extinction?

Glad you asked.

The decline of the Republican party popularity is obvious in the polls and related to their obstruction in Congress for the most part.

Although the radical right wing of the Republican party, called the "Tea Party" deserves much of the blame for the party's loss of popularity, the acceptance of that faction by the moderate Republican membership is being seen by outside observers as the new direction of the Republican party as a whole.

In many respects this is probably a correct perception since the Tea Party Caucus still exists and some members of Congress who have been members of the Tea Party Caucus hold powerful positions on some committees.  I don't think the majority of voters know who in the Republican party is a Tea Partier, yet a large number of Tea Partiers lost seats in the last election.   From the stand-point of the American voting public, the Tea Party and hence the Republican Party may be losing support.

A lot of the personality of the Republican party is still coming from Tea Party members.  The party is inflexible.  It is obstinate and over-reaching.  It does not keep promises.  It is deceitful.  It is bigoted.  It is self-serving.  It is anti-intellectual.  It is uncaring.  It is war-mongering.  It is misogynistic.

The party refuses to accept or pass most Democrat introduced legislation.  They have become famous for being the party of obstruction.  Their overall approval rating in most polls is devastatingly low and around 20% as of this writing.

If you are a politician and the people don't support you, then you should be worried about losing your job.  The fact that most are not worried and continue to act the same way could show how anti-intellectual they are, but because the Republican side of the House has gerrymandered state voting districts, they are fairly sure that their actions represent the majority of people in their districts and they will be re-elected.

The party is populated with leaders who constantly re-invent the wheel and make it a lot less round each time.  Republican political leaders have re-written the workings of the female reproductive system.  They refuse to accept any scientific findings about climate change.  They believe science manipulates data to derive their own self-serving facts.  Needless to say, an overwhelming number of scientists do not belong to the Republican Party.

Republican leaders like John Boehner have said the number one issue for Republicans is "jobs, jobs, jobs."  Yet republicans have done nothing to create jobs.  They stick to the claim that Corporate America would create jobs if we don't tax them, even though Corporate America has given away millions of jobs to third world nations and incoming third world nationals over the last thirty years.  This is deceitful and just another way that Republican leaders show that they do not really mean what they say.

Republican leaders have recently publicly announced bigoted remarks such as calling gays "filthy homosexuals" and calling immigrants "wetbacks."  The White Student Union recently attended the Conservative Action Council where it's leader supported segregation and slavery.

KKK emblem

Without even thinking about the number of Republicans in the KKK, Republican bigotry is becoming more obvious since President Obama has been elected.

The Republicans in Congress appear to hate the fact that a black man could be the President.  They met even before President Obama's inauguration in 2008 to agree to block all legislation he introduced to make him a "one term President."  Failing that, they have continued their obstructionist actions to deny the President any successes.  They are now attacking the Affordable Care Act by voting for a 37th time to repeal it and in the process wasting $55 million of taxpayer money that could have otherwise gone to other more fruitful uses.

Their obsession with causing harm to President Obama includes casting rumors and suspicions of his personal involvement with recent controversies concerning the Benghazi attacks, the IRS review of 501(c)4 tax exempt organizations and Department of Justice obtaining AP members telephone records.

The uncaring attitude of Republican leaders is aptly represented by the introduction of the Ryan Budget which slashes social programs in favor of tax advantages for the wealthy.  Mothers and children who have little to eat rank far below the Republicans favorite person, the wealthy Corporate CEO.  In order to save America with so-called jobs, Republicans will ensure that their favorite persons increase their wealth while much of America starves.  Meanwhile Corporate coffers have become overflowing with cash while jobs are nearly non-existent.

The Bush administration brought us the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.  Had Mitt Romney won the 2012 Presidential election, Iran may already have been invaded.  We saw the clamoring in Congress when it was suggested that Iran might already have or very soon acquire nuclear weapons.  Republicans see war as a means to benefit their wealthy supporters who happen to own and operate companies involved in the weapons of war.  This explains their anxious dialog about going to war and funding war, while their legislation prevents the American victims of war and the veterans of war from getting assistance in returning to civilian life.

Republican leaders, where they control state legislatures and governorships have shown their misogynist side.  Republicans in Congress have stood against the Violence against Women Act.  Other Congressional actions to obstruct or defeat certain social programs will have an impact on women and children.  Wisconsin has passed repeal of equal pay for women.  North Dakota's Governor and other state governors have signed bills which many consider unconstitutional, to reduce women's access to reproductive rights services.  Even though Roe v Wade is law, Republicans in Congress and in the States have managed to restrict the intention of the law.    

Many Republican policies can be explained by what they are against.  They are anti-middle-class in their favoritism to the wealthy at the expense of the middle class.

They are anti-women in their fights against women's rights.

They are anti-gay rights in their opposition to marriage equality legislation.

They are anti-student in their votes against funding Pell grants.

They are anti-urban voter in their fight to make voting more difficult with reducing voting hours and requiring voter ID cards.

They are anti-student voter in their legislation to prevent students from voting in the state where their college is located.

They are anti-labor by their fights against the national labor relations board membership.

They are anti-jobs by their activities to block President Obama's American Jobs Act.

They are anti-consumer by their blocking the Presidential appointment of a Director for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

They are anti-Christian by insisting that social programs for the weakest of society be cut in favor of tax breaks for the wealthy.

They are anti-elderly by their demands for changing Medicare and Social Security which will hurt the elderly.

They are anti-poor people for fighting to repeal the Affordable Care Act which covers millions of formerly uninsured persons and improves patient treatment by insurance companies.

They are anti-veteran by preventing government aid to injured veterans and blocking assistance in finding jobs after serving their country.

They are anti-immigrant by failing to pass immigration reform.

They are anti-family by failing to protect children and families from gun violence by their actions to prevent improved background checks for firearms.

My guess is that the total number of people who Republicans are failing to represent amounts to nearly 98% of the country.  The reason they have not been voted out of office yet, I blame on the "one-issue" Republicans who continue to vote them in.  One-issue Republicans are those voters who dispel any other adverse effects of having a Republican represent them provided they cover their one major (usually social) issue of concern.

Remember Romney

The specific social issue may vary from voter to voter.   Republicans have done a good job in recognizing and appealing to those issues.  These issues include but are not limited to such things as gun rights, right to life, small government lie, no new taxes lie, the moochers syndrome and the job creators lie.

Convincing the voter that Republican policy will benefit them is greatly assisted by the Republican knack for lying to the public guiltlessly about anything that advances the Republican cause.  Fox news and other radical right wing talk show hosts contribute to this and may actually be hurting the Republican party more than it knows.  Lest you forget, remember the lies of the Romney campaign?  The same political infrastructure that led Romney is still leading the Republicans in Congress.  Romney lost the election but we are still being inundated by his policies...because they are Republican policies.

Ultimately, once the majority of one-issue Republican voters start to realize that it is in their best interest to evaluate all of the issues, the extinction of the Republican party will begin.  I think this process has already started and expect that we will see some of the results of this in the 2014 Congressional elections.

I'll bet you $10,000.  (Not really.  That's how I remember Romney ;-)

Can we learn anything from Republican accusations about Benghazi?

Serious concerns or political posturing?

Like Mitt Romney before them, Republicans in Congress would like to turn the deaths of four Americans serving their country in Benghazi, Libya into fuel to burn the Democrats in the next election.

Despite the public statements of Darrell Issa that Republicans are not targeting President Obama or Hilary Clinton, the outrage of Republicans is aimed at the so-called "cover-up" which the Republicans claim that the Obama administration is pursuing and not in finding ways to prevent such a tragedy in the future.

Presented below is a brief description of the Benghazi incidents at the US diplomatic offices and the CIA annex.  Perhaps we can learn from this information to focus on prevention and escape the disgraceful accusations that Republicans are making for political gain, at least for a little while.  I have highlighted in red font any sections that we might learn from for later discussion.  

There were about seven Americans in the US diplomatic offices in Benghazi, Libya when 125 to 150  armed terrorists attacked the building on the evening of September 11, 2012 around 9:40PM local time.  That night four Americans would die.

A Diplomatic Security Service Agent sounded the alarm that an attack was underway.  DSS special agent Scott Strickland secured Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith, an information management  officer, into a secure area.  Other agents left for another building to retrieve their weapons but could not return because of enemy gun fire.

Benghazi Consulate

The attackers entered the main building and set fires with gasoline.  The thick smoke made Stevens, Smith and Strickland move to a bathroom but the smoke made them decide to exit the safe area.  Strickland left through a window but Stevens and Smith did not follow.  Although Strickland returned several times he could not find them.  Strickland returned to the roof where he radioed for help.

Three agents returned to the building and found Smith's body but could not find Stevens.

The Regional Security Office placed calls for help to the CIA building in Benghazi and the embassy in Tripoli but the calls were cut off.  The Global Response Staff at the CIA office, led by Tyrone S. Woods, made a plan to mount a rescue operation into the Benghazi diplomatic compound.  By 10:05 PM they embarked on the rescue operation.

When arriving at the diplomatic offices, the rescue team found Sean Smith who was unconscious and later died.  They could not find Stevens and decided to return to the CIA annex with the survivors and Smith's body.  On the way back they were attacked by an armed force but were able to make it back.

Around 1:00  AM Ambassador Stevens was found by local citizens and taken to a hospital where he was administered CPR for about 90 minutes but died from smoke asphyxiation he incurred while trapped in the building.

After midnight, a second attack on the CIA annex began.  CIA defenses were able to withstand the attack until the early morning hours.  At that time Libyan government forces met up with seven American reinforcements from Tripoli at Benghazi airport.

Around 5:00AM the Libyans and American forces arrived at the CIA annex to deliver 32 American  survivors back to evacuate through Benghazi airport.  Minutes after arriving, they were met with heavy enemy fire.  They took up defensive positions.

With a lull in the gun fire, Glen Doherty began searching for his friend Tyrone Woods.  He found him manning an MK46 machine gun on the roof of the annex.  Minutes later Woods was hit by mortar fire and killed.  After retaking a new position Glen Doherty was killed by a second mortar explosion.  

The remaining survivors escaped serious injury although fired upon while leaving as they were being evacuated to the airport.

The CIA had successfully rescued six members of the State Department, evacuated about thirty Americans out of Benghazi and recovered Smith's body.

Some sensitive documents remained in the diplomatic offices.  Some listed the names of Libyans working with Americans and some relating to oil contracts.

Here are some quick and easy things I think I have learned from this.

Agents that might have helped Stevens and Smith left the building where Steven's was hiding in order to get their weapons which were stored in a separate building.  My learning:  US embassies and diplomatic buildings should have a mini-arsenal conveniently located in each building where personnel are located.

The attackers entered the building and set fires.  These fires were apparently not put out by any fire extinguishers or automatic sprinkler systems in the buildings.  My learning:  US Embassy and diplomatic buildings should all be built with fire sprinkler systems.

Stevens and Smith were overcome by smoke inhalation.  There were no respirators or air supply lines in the safe area.  My learning: American Embassy and Diplomatic building safe areas should all be stocked with respirators and self-contained oxygen supplying units as standard safety equipment.

Sensitive documents were left behind.  This may endanger some of the allies of America.  My learning: Sensitive documents should be scanned and stored on computer storage devices and then destroyed.  The storage devices should be stored in specially constructed file cabinets that can safely self destruct at the push of a button.

These things would all cost money, so the Republicans in Congress will probably block any such ideas as they did once already.  People should not forget that it was the Republicans who denied the State Department $300 million in order to beef up Embassy security around the world.  This should also be a lesson learned: Republicans in Congress are willing to put American heroes in harms way and then when the inevitable worst thing happens, they are the first to point fingers away from themselves.

Of course, there may be other lessons to be learned from the attack on the diplomatic buildings and CIA annex in Benghazi, but trying to place blame on the Obama administration for the attack or for a cover-up serves no good purpose for America.  But then Republicans have demonstrated over and over, that they are the party that stands for no good purpose.

Republicans have proven that they hate this President with all their thoughts, words and deeds.  They are willing to push this story for any damage it can do and will insist that there is a link directly to the President, even when the facts prove otherwise.

        

Why Republicans in Congress are Guilty of Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice

In 2010 Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act which establishes the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) as the agency with enforcement power over the Financial industry.  This agency has an important role in preventing another financial disaster as created by a financial industry that enjoyed excessive liberation from regulations during the Bush administration.  The Act is now the law.  

Republicans, in their carefree joy for obstruction of all of President Obama's policies, have decided to take on the CFPB and the Dodd-Frank Act by preventing the approval of Richard Cordray as the CFPB Director.   You may ask, how is this conspiracy to obstruct justice?

We know that crimes were committed that caused the meltdown of financial markets prior to the 2008 crash.  The white collar criminals who committed those crimes are still free.  Although their criminal methods may have become dormant, there is still a public outcry that justice be done by finding and   incarcerating these criminals.  The CFPB is the agency that could make that happen, but their enforcement power is nullified without a Director.  It is the Republicans who are obstructing the actions of the CFPB.  

Congressional Republicans who have sent a letter to President Obama explaining their demands, admit that they are taking the action to reject the President's choice of a Director because they want to weaken CFPB's power.  In using their power to reject the Director, they have lied about their real intentions.  They don't disapprove of Richard Cordray.  They have stated that they will not approve of any Director until the powers of the CFPB as are legally established by the law are changed.  They have conspired to create this fraud against the CFPB and the United States with the admitted intention of obstructing it's legal authority.  This is conspiracy to obstruct and conspiracy to defraud.

The following is the legal explanation of "Conspiracy to Obstruct" (18 U.S.C. 371).

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

The following is the legal explanation of "Conspiracy to Defraud" 

Section 371 contains both a general conspiracy prohibition and a specific obstruction conspiracy prohibition in the form of a conspiracy to defraud proscription. The elements of conspiracy to defraud the United States are: (1) an agreement of two or more individuals; (2) to defraud the United States; and (3) an overt act by one of conspirators in furtherance of the scheme.  The "fraud covered by the statute ‘reaches any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful functions of any department of Government” by “deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest.” The scheme may be designed to deprive the United States of money or property, but it need not be so; a plot calculated to frustrate the functions of a governmental entity will suffice.

It is true that Congress has immunity from prosecution for acts they commit in the normal operation of their duties as legislators.  It does not protect them from committing crimes or violating existing laws.  A case could be made for this obstruction being a criminal act where the department they are obstructing is a federal agency and the actions these Republicans are taking is protecting criminals from prosecution and has done so now since 2010.  These Republicans have certainly over-stepped their normal authority and entered the realm of disobedience of law.

At the very least, every one of the 43 members of Congress who signed Mitch McConnell's conspiracy letter should be fined.  But wouldn't it be great if we could end this obstruction by putting them all in jail.  

How Republicans plan to transform the President's budget into the Paul Ryan budget

Republicans in Congress still can't seem to realize that their Party did not win the Presidency in 2012.  And by that I mean they still do not understand and do not represent the expectations of the American people.

One example of this is HR 444 REQUIRE A PLAN Act that was discussed today in the House.

Parenthetically the Act also adds the insulting attack remark erroneously directed towards the President, that it can also be called the "Require Presidential Leadership and No Deficit Act."  My guess is that the Republicans see leadership as making strong cuts into social programs to hurt the Americans who can least afford it and who most depend on it.  This would follow right in step with the Ryan budget and Republicans misguided thinking that revenue is off the table in budget talks.

Mr. Price

The Act introduced by Republican Mr. PRICE of Georgia (for himself, Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin, Ms. JENKINS, and Mr. SESSIONS) requires that, "if the President’s fiscal year 2014 budget does not achieve balance in a fiscal year covered by such budget, the President shall submit a supplemental unified budget by April 1, 2013, which identifies a fiscal year in which balance is achieved, and for other purposes."

It goes on to require that the supplemental budget include budget information required by US code but also include the Republicans wish list of items.  These are (a) An estimate of the fiscal year in which the supplemental budget is not expected to result in a deficit; (b) a detailed description of additional policies needed to accomplish no deficit; and (c) detailed description of the differences between the President's FY 2014 budget and the FY2014 supplemental budget requested.

There is no constituional requirement for a President to offer a budget which will balance by some future date.  Since the 1920's there have only been about three occassions where a budget actually did balance.  However Republicans appeared to be confused about the President's intentions.  They made it seem that this was a simple request that would help them understand where the President stands on balancing the budget.  But what are they really trying to do?

The reason that the Republicans imply they are proposing this Act is because the President's actions during his first term have shown he is not a good financial stewart.  The Act's section on "Findings" indicates that the President can't keep to his promises and has caused the deficit to rise during his term.  It's almost as if the President has authority over financial and budgetary policy and total control of the money that he was charged to spend and spent it unwisely.  Oh wait, that is the job of the Congress!

So what are the Republicans really trying to do by placing this Act into consideration?  I think they have a somewhat sinister plan in mind indeed.

CBO estimates of deficit causes

First, they are trying to create an image in the eyes of Americans that removes themselves from any blame they may have for the country's financial condition.  They won't admit  that it was their Party's administration that got us into the financial situation we are in and largely responsible for the deficit.  The graph at the left is the Congressional Budget Office's estimates of the factors leading to the deficit.  One can see that the largest contributors to our present deficit are the wars and Bush era tax cuts.  But deficits were not that important to Republicans when their guy was President.

Republicans pretend to be the only Party concerned with future generations who will be responsible for the deficit's payback.  While he was Mitt Romney's running partner, Paul Ryan's first budget plan would not balance the budget for thirty years.  And that one was considered harmful to the poor in society and the economy because of the magnitude of its cuts to social programs while at the same time cutting taxes for the rich.  Recently Ryan has been tasked by John Boehner to write a budget that will be balanced within ten years. Without considering revenue increases (as the Republicans believe), Ryan's new budget would start hurting people immediately.

It seems to me that with HR 444 and the previously passed HR 325 that temporarily raises the debt limit with stipulations for "No Budget/No Pay", Republicans are trying to force the President into cutting the social safety net, voucher-izing medicare and medicaid and making changes to social security that would not benefit the American worker.  All of these were Romney-Ryan policies that Americans rejected when they ended Romney's political career in the last election.

Ryan's Budget paves the path to
increased Prosperity for the wealthy

Republicans are really putting the cart before the horse if they think that the President can create a supplemental unified budget without Congress first acting on modifying the tax code and closing loop holes. The President cannot know the impact that new revenue will have to paying down the deficit  until Congress acts on tax law.  So once again Congress needs to understand that tax revenue must be considered and they have a more urgent role in addressing that than the President has to give them a supplemental unified budget.

Fortunately some Democrats understand that Republicans are trying to force a budget that looks like the Ryan budget and have added amendments to the Act to counteract this intention.  Unfortunately none of them was allowed during the actual rules committee session.

Mr McGovern of Massachusetts, a member of the committee made it clear that the members were only made aware of HR 444 on Thursday and the act was not entered until Friday last week.  He felt that there was not enough time to enter amendments.  He also made the point that the rules committee did not have any meetings, markups or open discussion around the need for the act and requested that it was entered into open rules.  That was voted down.

Mr Connelly of Virginia had submitted an amendment that prohibits "additional solutions" in the unified supplemental budget to include conversion of Medicare into a voucher program. However that amendment was not allowed.

Mr. Deutch of Florida submitted an amendment that removes social security from the definition of "Unified Budget" however that amendment was not allowed.

Jackson Lee of Texas submitted two amendments.  One protects the safety net of the most vulnerable in society.  It was not allowed.  The other proposes ending the estate and tax provisions so the applicable exclusion amount is allowed to revert to $1 million and the tax rate is allowed to be 55%.  It was not allowed. 

Chris Van Hollen from Maryland submitted an amendment to replace the entire sequester for 2013 which would cause deep cuts to domestic priorities and defense with a savings from specific policies that reflect a balanced approach to deficit reduction.  He wants to protect the most vulnerable and asks people making over $1 million to contribute more.  He wants to eliminate agriculture direct payments and cut subsidies to large oil companies.  Because he was not present due to his father's death, his substitute for sequester was voted down.

An amendment was submitted by Mark Takano of California which makes changes to the "Findings" section of the act.  He wants clarification that Congress holds responsibility for passing budgets and appropriating funds.  A responsibility that some Republicans have attempted to side-step.  That one was allowed.

Four Republican amendments were approved.  All of them require additional work from the Presdient to present more detail in the supplemental unified budget.

President Obama

As the President has stated publicly, like the Republicans, he also understands that the deficit should be brought under control.  Actions taken since his administration started have reduced the Bush deficit each year and the CBO expects that the deficit will be below $800 Billion by the end of 2013.

But in the President's case, his concern is that deficit reduction be done in a balanced approach with revenue increases and program cuts that do not harm the economy, that do not hurt Americans and are done fairly.

The divergence in the President's policies and Republican policies are fairly obvious to middle class Americans.

That's why he won the election.