Are you misguided, uniformed, heartless or rich? Then you must vote Republican.

Elections for many political offices will be occurring this fall.  The winners of these elections will be responsible for future legislation in federal and state governments that will control our daily lives.

The upcoming mid-term elections are not insignificant nor typical.  One could say that these mid-term elections are the most important election of our time.  The future of our American society could be in the balance.

The Congressional elections for the federal House and Senate could reinforce Republican obstruction or eliminate it, depending on the results.  State elections could make life or death differences to many who cannot receive medical care under Republican obstructed medicaid expansion.

To help you remember or to just inform some of you for the first time, of some of the deleterious effects of having Republicans in office, let me recall some things you should know by now.

America's unemployed work force could be put back to work if the President's American Jobs Act is enacted without Republican obstruction.

Women could become equal in the workforce if legislation to prevent discrimination in wages was lifted by removing Republican obstruction.

America's immigrant families could receive fairer treatment if Republicans could not prevent it.

Opportunity for all Americans and America's economic condition could be improved with an increase in the minimum wage which Republicans refuse to support.

The unfair control of government realized by the few uber-rich American contributors to the Republican party who influence their legislation and activities could be eliminated.

The American worker and middle class could rise in importance and our government could be "of, for and by the people" again.

Poor children would go to bed less hungry if Republican cuts to the SNAP program were eliminated and reversed.

Falsely imposed voting restrictions could be stopped if Republicans were run out of state legislatures.

The Republican party's partisan witch-hunts based on false  accusations would stop being the focus of the Congress and taxpayer money could be used more productively for legislation that Americans need if Republicans lost control of the House.

America would never again renege on their debt obligations if Republicans are not given the power to cause it.

Dealing with scientific facts, the government could make more reasonable decisions to enact laws that protect our environment if Republicans were not in control.

Near treasonous acts that show Republican leadership's opposition to government would end.

Using fear tactics and lies to persuade Americans into voting against their own self interest could end if Republicans are shown that using those unethical tactics cannot win them elections.

The federal government may never face another shutdown if Republicans were not in control.

The Affordable Care Act might be allowed to continue to benefit people; improve the health of America; put money back into the economy with increased jobs in health services; improve the profits of medical device manufacturers, hospitals, doctors, nurses and insurance companies while at the same time making healthcare affordable.

Expanding Medicaid in Republican run states would insure and protect the health of over seven million uninsured poor voters and reduce costs for taxpayers whose premiums are higher in order to cover the costs of those who do not have health insurance.  Hospitals in rural areas of Republican run states could become profitable again and re-open their doors.

America's tax policies could be reviewed and certain unfair loop-holes closed so that all Americans and American Corporations pay their fair share of taxes and revenue could again become part of the equation for budget considerations if  Republicans did not control the federal House.

Ultimately, the mid-term elections are  extremely important.  You should consider this as important an election as a Presidential one and get out to vote. 

If you consider yourself a Republican, perhaps you have inherited that title or been influenced to vote as one from your parents and grandparents whose culture of Republicanism goes back many years.  You should recognize that political parties change over time and may not be the same as the party your parents or grandparents aligned with.  For example, Abraham Lincoln was a Republican who freed the slaves yet some modern day Republicans pass legislation to restrict voting rights to African-Americans.  In regards to empathy toward others, Republicans have changed dramatically.

A political party affiliation should not be treated the same as your genetically inherited characteristics. Although "mutation" is a similarity between genetics and political parties, your party affiliation should be based on how closely a comparison of the overall beliefs and policies of the party match your own personal beliefs.  The comparison should not be limited to one or two policies but to all policies and beliefs so you get a complete picture of a party.  For example, Republican leaders claim to hold to the teachings of Christianity because they support a right to life but their legislation may indicate that they oppose Christianity since they do not support the needy and carry out injustices to other diverse populations.

In order to make such comparisons you should research the facts about the political party's policies; understand how they vote on issues and determine if they represent your views.  It is important to determine these things by reviewing factual reference material while ignoring commentators or others who would attempt to deceive you or are just misinformed themselves.  One way this can be done is by reviewing government web sites such as http://www.house.gov, http://bls.gov and http://www.senate.com.  

To keep informed on current events in politics, watch political television shows on both sides of politics and judge for yourself which is most truthful.  For example, Fox News is known to be conservative television that takes a less factual "entertainment" approach to supporting Republican causes while MSNBC is known to be progressive news reporting that supports Democratic causes.  Seeing these two networks present both sides of the same issue can be enlightening. 

Paul Ryan (R) Wisconsin

That being said, I want to begin analyzing Republicanism with one of the most telling subjects in recent days; the 2014 Republican budget proposal.  It has been said that you can tell where a party's priorities are by the budget they propose.  

Paul Ryan was tasked with the job of preparing a Republican budget proposal that balanced within ten years.  Balancing a budget can be done in many ways, but the Republican budget had to be based on Republican principles which molded and forced the end result.  

One building block of that Republican budget is that tax revenue cannot be increased.  Without new revenue, only cuts in federal programs would be possible. 

Another prerequisite was that military spending must be increased. Increasing military spending without raising taxes means something else must be cut by the amount of increase in military spending.  About $650 billion is spent on the United States military each year which exceeds the combined military spending of the next ten highest spending countries in the world.  Even the US military has stated that the amount is too high and can be reduced.  When Republicans speak of military spending they do not mean government assistance for veterans.  They do mean to increase the wealth of defense contractors.

Yet another prerequisite of the Republican budget is that much of the cost and operation of Federal government programs must be passed on to the states.  Making states take on safety net programs will force them to either increase their taxes (if they plan to continue to provide the service) or cut or eliminate the programs.  In Republican run states I can state almost certainly that these services will be cut.  Overall, their budget expects that the financial burden that they are eliminating from the federal government should be placed on the states.  Provided the states maintain the programs, the savings to the individual would be no different than if the federal government had kept the financial burden except that the taxes would be coming from the state instead of the federal government.

The Ryan budget makes severe cuts to services that support the poor, middle class, students, the elderly and disabled while at the same time rewarding the rich with lower taxes, repealing the alternative minimum tax, reducing corporate tax, and changing international tax laws to allow corporations to avoid being taxed on foreign income brought back into the United States.

By the explanation he gives in his budget's narrative, Ryan tries to convince people that government loans are the reason that students must pay such high tuition costs as these somehow encourage Universities to charge higher tuitions.  Even if this were true, Ryan's solution is to reduce government loans and cap Pell Grants for students, thereby eliminating help some deserving students might be able to obtain without a government loan.  It's funny how Republican reasoning often defies logic.  They accept big business' action of  charging higher tuitions as reasonable given the availability of government money and instead blame the federal government for providing so much loan money.  I guess we are supposed to understand as our Republican leaders do, that the ethics of businessmen can readily be overcome by such easy opportunity for profit.

Sticking to the Republican claims that the Affordable Care Act is the worst thing that could happen to America, his budget calls for the repeal of the ACA leaving no alternative but to return to the way it was before the ACA.   The budget calls for repealing Medicaid Expansion and eliminating healthcare premium subsidies available on the government healthcare exchange.  With these words, Republicans are saying that insurers can deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, so if you lose your job and have a pre-existing condition, you will no longer have health insurance.  They remove healthcare access from millions of the poor who are now covered under medicaid expansion.  Lifetime coverage caps will return so if you get a debilitating and costly disease you may also lose your life savings.  If you have limited income, you will no longer get any help to pay for your insurance premiums.  Certain free services will once again be charged.  Children between 21 and 25 will lose their parent's insurance and be required to purchase their own or not be insured.

Medicare and social security will not be the same for  future seniors.  Not being capable of funding social programs almost certainly means medicare and social security will suffer under Republican rule.

There are many more aspects to the budget that you should see for yourself.  Visit this link: The 2014 Republican Budget to find the actual text.

If you are not in the top 2% financially, voting for Republicans is not in your best interest.  If you are a caring person, voting for Republicans should outrage you.  If you are an informed and intelligent person and not in the 2%, you should never vote Republican.  What does that make you?

Remember to vote in the fall's midterm elections.  It's your protected right and it's what will make all the difference to America.

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.

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.

Republicans would even lie to their mothers

How can you trust them?  They'll lie about anything.  They'll lie to anyone.  And now they are even lying to their mothers.

Have you seen the commercials where certain Republican Congressmen are asked by their aging mothers if they would hurt medicare?  It is pitiful that they can lie to their own mothers like that as they look them straight in the eyes and deny it.  Some may be trying to distance themselves from the Ryan budget, but most are just fibbing.  They should have their mouths washed with soap.

This year the Republican National Committee is throwing caution to the wind as they incorporate lying into their arsenal of vote capturing tools.  It seems that everyday RNC Chairpeople, Mitt Romney and now Paul Ryan are telling some new lie about  President Obama or Democratic policies.  They obviously think if they repeat the lie over and over again, eventually the public will believe it.  It seems like an assembly of third graders have organized this Republican campaign.

Democrats have been known to be the champions of social programs like Medicare and Medicaid.  Paul Ryan is famous for his Republican budget proposal which slashes many social programs, including Medicare.  Mitt Romney has publicly announced his support for that budget.

President Obama's Affordable Care Act reduces medicare fraud and excessive payments to Insurers and Doctor's.  It is estimated that this will save about $716 billion in costs but strengthens medicare benefits for the elderly.  It is estimated that with these actions, President Obama will extend the solvency of medicare by eight years.  Mitt Romney intends to repeal the Affordable Care Act the day he is elected.  This would eliminate the cost savings in medicare brought about by that Act.  By these actions, Romney would return the $716 billion to the insurance companies and business owners who are perpetrating medicare fraud.  It's also been estimated by AARP that Paul Ryan's plan would undermine Medicare and lead to additional annual costs as high as $6400 for seniors.

Paul Ryan and Mom

So now Romney and Ryan are claiming that President Obama is reducing medicare benefits by the $716 billion.  This is a total lie that Ryan told at a retirement community in Florida this morning, with his mother listening at his side.  Both Romney and Ryan continue this lie in public appearances across the country.

Romney and Ryan's plan proposes that seniors pay up to an additional $6400 per year to get a private insurance plan that will actually cover their medical needs since their voucher program will allow only minimum medical care.  Perhaps wealthy seniors like Ryan's mother won't find the additional costs too hard to come up with.  But for the most part, that cost could be up to 25% of the annual income of many seniors.  Further, being forced to make choices on how to spend their limited income, some seniors may not be able to afford the care that they need and this could lead to premature death.      

If there is one thing that rings true about Republicans, it is that their approach to cutting the deficit is to cut social programs first.  Worse still, they intend to do this while at the same time giving tax breaks to the wealthy.   With tax revenue reduced at the top, the rest of us will have to come up with the difference if our deficit is to be managed at all.  This can only be accomplished by increasing government revenue by middle class tax increases and slashing or eliminating social assistance programs.

Ultimately, the top 2% are given governmental assistance (let's call it high-class welfare) and the rest of us are pushed under the bus.  Does it make sense to give assistance to people at the high end of the economic scale instead of those in the middle and lower end that really need it?  It does to the Republicans.

Don't let them fool you.  Class warfare is alive and most of the shots are coming from the Republican party and aimed directly at the rest of us.