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 ;-)

Sequestration: How has it affected you?

On March 1, 2013 Congress allowed the United States to fall victim to one-sided, across the board government spending cuts.  The sequester is one sided, because revenue is not an element.  It is across the board, because most government spending accounts will be cut back without consideration for the importance of the spending.

Ironically, Congressional salaries are unaffected by the cutbacks even though that element of government spending is assumably one that most of America would agree should be cut.

The effects that the sequester will have on American society and the economy has been varied depending on the source of the observation.

Democrats, including the President have expressed grave concerns that society and the economy will suffer as a result of the cuts.  Although the President has said  the economic effects will not be catastrophic, he issued concerns about a sluggish recovery and has pointed out that certain individuals will suffer as a result.  Being a President of all the people, he has concern for those who depend on the government for essential services.

Republicans, including House speaker Boehner, have essentially welcomed it and expect it will go a long way to reigning in the wild spending that the government has supposedly become accustomed to and which otherwise would have, in their opinion, ruined our economy.  Never mind that the facts prove otherwise.  Republicans have been planning the sequester in their arsenal of tools to eliminate government for a few years now.  A powerpoint slide prepared by John Boehner shows this was a Republican plan since 2011.

With Boehner being a leader of the Party that protects the assets of the rich, he expressed his demands in Congress that any substitute for the sequester would not include an increase in taxes or closing tax loop holes for the rich.  In my opinion, Republicans in Congress follow two philosophies that are essential to their existence; a "head in the sand" philosophy and an "out of sight, out of mind" philosophy.

Regardless of the opinions of others, I want to give you a chance to record the impact that the sequester has had on you.  For that reason I have created the poll at the top of the side-bar.

The poll questions are intended to be answered by American citizens, however citizens of other countries may respond if they believe the American sequester has an impact on them.

A few explanatory notes about the poll questions:

You can only select one answer, so please try to select the most accurate answer for your situation.

I used the term "essential" to describe government services, without which you are severely affected either physically, medically, psychologically, educationally or financially.

I used the term "nice to have" to describe government services, without which you suffer some form of minor inconvenience, such as waiting longer in TSA screening lines at the airport.

I realize that the effects of the sequester may become worse on particular individuals as time goes on, so if you have not voted, please feel free to take the poll at any future date.  You can see the results of the polling at any point in time by visiting any blog on my site.  I will record the results over time and report back on the time related results in a future blog.  In the past, blog polls have not received a lot of responses, but I encourage you to participate in this important research.

Thank you for your participation.

Sequester: How to take action by inaction or how Congress seems to work now

Government domestic and military budgets will be slashed by a total of $1.2 trillion ($109.33 Billion per year) with cuts coming as soon as March 1, 2013 for some areas.  The automatic cuts will come as a 50/50 blend between defense and non defense spending.  This means $54.667 billion per year for each of these categories.

Although it was never intended to occur, it is nearly a certainty that the sequester will occur.  With the date quickly arriving, the Republicans in Congress have decided to go on recess for the next ten days and will not return in time to do much of anything to avert sequester.

Although Republicans blame President Obama for the sequester, in August of 2011 bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate voted to allow the threat of sequestration to force Congress to act on deficit reduction.  It was thought that the drastic, across the board cuts would be viewed as something that Congress would want to avoid at all costs, thereby forcing them to compromise in a bipartisan way to identify and agree on deficit reduction actions.  This proved to be misplaced optimism.

Recently both parties have put forth proposals to avert the sequester.  House Budget Committee ranking Democrat member Chris Van Hollen has offered an alternate plan that would eliminate excessive agriculture subsidies; apply the Buffett Rule (making 30% a minimum income tax rate on the wealthy) and eliminate tax breaks for big oil.

The Republicans have refused any deal that means an increase in taxes or revenue increases from reduction of special interest tax breaks.  The Republican's alternative to sequestration has proposed strict social program cuts and Corporate tax breaks in exchange for  plugging some tax loop holes. This offer doesn't sit well with Democrats and the President who insist on a balanced approach that includes revenue increases as well as spending cuts.  So we are in a stalemate that will result in sequester.

Some areas of government are exempt from sequester.  These include entitlements such as social security, railroad retirement benefits, Department of Veterans Affairs, pension and special compensation programs.  The Farm Credit System Administration and crop insurance and the FDIC Deposit Fund are exempt.  Some low income assistance programs are exempt such as ACG/SMART Grants, Child Care entitlement grants to States, All Child Nutrition (except special milk programs), Children's Health Insurance Program, Some Pell grants (for first year of cuts only), Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Supplemental Security Income Program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.  Medicare cuts are limited but not absent.

Military Sequester

All other areas of government are impacted.  The sequester percentage cuts applied across all remaining government accounts is between 7.6% and 9.4% of their existing budgets.   The military takes huge cuts in all branches of service.   These cuts are sure to impact defense industry contracts, cause lay-offs of civilian labor, the closing of bases, etc.

Social safety net programs such as Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Woman Infants and Children (WIC) will eliminate $543 million per year and in effect remove hundreds of thousands of families from the rolls.  Low Income Home energy assistance reduction of $285 million will leave hundreds of thousands of elderly and poor Americans fending for themselves to keep warm during the winter months.  The list goes on and on.

Democrats have published a listing of the effects they believe the sequester will have.  See that report here.  The obvious effect of the sequester is that government services will be reduced.  The government has indicated that 750,000 jobs could be affected.  Some economists have stated that the stock market may be affected.

Once the domestic program cuts go into effect I believe they will be here to stay.  I do not see our Congress working out any compromise deal at a later date.  I say this based on Congress' proven lack of ability to do their jobs and their propensity for taking time off.  More importantly Republicans know they would never get Democrats to cut the social safety net so severely  in any other way and they are not going to start being concerned about the poor or helpless now.  That is their mantra.  Only the wealthy deserve entitlements.

There is a very good likelihood that Republicans will re-introduce bills to return military budgets back to pre-sequester levels and Democrats may be forced into voting for the increases either through fear of public embarrassment or falling for Republican false promises for future tax loop hole legislation.  I know that the President will continue to push for tax law reform, but believe it will never happen given the nature of our obstructionist Republicans in Congress and their uncompromising defense of the wealthy, even at the expense of the less fortunate.

The less apparent effect of the sequester is going to be the magnitude of the down-stream effects that these budget cuts will have on our economy and the adverse effect on Americans who depend on government services that will be cut.  We are about to find out.

Whatever happens, remember this day if you are still a member of American society during the 2014 Congressional elections.  In our vote is the power to reverse the damage done.  It is time for middle-class Republicans to voice their opposition to the leadership of their party which has proven that they do not represent you.

Rubio's response promotes Romney's policies as a winning approach even though America rejected it once already

Marco Rubio

Cloaked by a different look and different approach, Mitt Romney's policies don't sound any better when Marco Rubio espouses them.

In presenting the Republican response to the President's 2013 State of the Union address, Mr. Rubio had a difficult assignment.  In a nutshell, he had to convince the American people that the Republican approach to economic freedom, as framed by Mitt Romney, is better than the President's plan.

As with most Republicans, Rubio continues to believe that Republican policies are correct and fails to realize that the majority of Americans rejected those policies when they re-elected Barack Obama.   But you can't blame him for trying.  Or can you?

Rubio focused on big government not being the answer.  He claimed that increasing taxes and government spending are not the correct path.  He implied that the growth of government was President Obama's plan.  

Apparently, Rubio is not familiar with the fact that the size of government and the deficit has been reduced during the President's term.  He obviously is sticking by Republican claims that revenue is off the table during deficit talks, despite serious belief by economists that revenue increases must be had for the deficit to be brought under control.  He isn't listening to the President's talk about a balanced approach to deficit reduction.  He has not heard or does not believe that the President has already offered $2.7 trillion of the $4 trillion in cuts that economists believe necessary.

He claims that the opportunity to join the middle class comes from investing your own money to open a business.  By his definition, if you don't have the money, resources or ability to operate a business, then you don't belong in the middle class.  So I guess you are on your own because Rubio claims government help is not the way to the middle class.  He says this even though he received government loans to attend college, he has a government job that pays him $174,000 a year, he has government health care and a government retirement plan, his parents received social security and medicare helped his father die with dignity.  While he was alive, his father had opportunities to create and maintain his restaurant with the help of the government's small business administration.  This is so common of middle class Republicans who privately take from government programs while denigrating these government actions in public.  It must be impossible for a Republican to admit that the government might help anyone.

Rubio attempted to sway America away from the negative image that Democrats have painted of the Republican Party's allegiance to rich people by proclaiming that he (Rubio) still lives in a middle class neighborhood.  Could he have thought of anything else for a little more convincing argument?  No.

How many times did we hear Romney say he would cut Obama Care on his first day in office?  That wasn't enough for Rubio, because he essentially reiterated it by casting fear into the hearts of naive Americans who might believe him.  Let me paraphrase the Republican stand on the affordable health care law:  "Obama Care bad."  We've heard it all before and we rejected the idea when we rejected Romney.

It seemed apparent to me that Reince Pribus was still in control of the Republican party.  Mr Pribus was the architect of the Romney loss and is the newly re-elected Republican National Chairperson.  As Rubio mouthed policies that were exactly the same as those America rejected during the Romney campaign, I kept thinking "there you go again."  

Putting Rubio in front of the camera to represent Republicans is nothing more than a Republican tactic to improve public perception of the party.  We are seeing the repackaging of the Republican party where a softer, gentler party is presented, however Republican policies have not changed at all.  

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.

From Romney's Official Web Site - His Tax Plan explained

Romney and Ryan

While on the Campaign trail we hear a lot of platitudes and rhetoric from Romney and Ryan but very little factual information on how they plan to improve our economic condition.  The Romney tax plan has been one of these kinds of issues.  

So for this session, I will review the actual facts as presented by Romney on his official web site, http://www.mittromney.com  When I am done, I think you'll understand why he is so quiet about it on the campaign trail.  Those lines that are in quotes are extracted from Romney's web site.  Those lines that follow the quoted lines are my explanatory comments.

“To repair the nation’s tax code, marginal rates must be brought down to stimulate entrepreneurship, job creation, and investment, while still raising the revenue needed to fund a smaller, smarter, simpler government. The principle of fairness must be preserved in federal tax and spending policy.”

“Lower marginal tax rates secure for all Americans the economic gains from tax reform.”

The following paragraphs cite the various steps in Romney's plan.

Romney's Tax Plan For Individuals:

“Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates"

Marginal rates have the greatest effect on the wealthiest of taxpayers. A twenty percent rate cut is a huge amount but only makes a real difference to the wealthiest among us.   Add to that the tax loop-holes that are only available to the wealthy and soon middle class America will not only be paying a higher tax percentage than the wealthy, but some may even pay more in absolute tax dollars than the rich.

“Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains”

The categories of income included in interest, dividends and capital gains are used almost exclusively by the wealthy. The current tax rates for these are very low with capital gains as low as 15%. With the many tax loop-holes available to the ultra-rich, this tax rate is already lower than that for most wealthy taxpayers. The point is that this tax favoritism is again directed toward the rich. Most of the middle-class will have almost no tax savings at all because they do not have income from investments.

“Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains”

Again, these categories are already non-existent for most middle-class Americans. The estimated AGI income of the Middle class Americans is around $50,000. About 94% of America has AGI less than $100,000.  Ask yourself how much of your taxable income (not 401K investments) comes from cash stock trades done throughout the year.  Do you understand that Romney's plan is targeting benefits for the wealthy?

“Eliminate the Death Tax”

This tax is already non-existent for middle class Americans unless an individual has over $5,000,000 in assets.  And who do you think would benefit from such a tax elimination? Let me give you a clue.  It is estimated that the heirs of the each of Koch brothers would benefit by nearly $8 billion dollars if this tax was eliminated

“Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)”

The AMT is paid only if the regular tax amount would be less than the AMT amount. It is not used in addition to the regular tax rate, but as the name implies, as an alternative to the regular rate. It is normally required by individuals and Corporations with incomes over $200,000. Since Romney is proposing to make the regular tax rates for the wealthiest individuals much less, he must repeal the AMT, or his favoritism to the wealthy would be over-ridden by the AMT. So this strategy is not to benefit the middle-class, but instead to ensure that his tax favoritism for the wealthy stays in tact.

Romney's Corporate Tax Plan:

“Cut the corporate rate to 25 percent”

Romney's tax plan for Corporations calls for a 10% reduction in tax rates. Similar to the plan for wealthy individuals it goes without saying that Corporate Tax initiatives would favor the wealthiest in America. It has very little benefit on the middle class. No jobs will be created because Corporations have their taxes cut unless demand increases. The American worker is the source of nearly 75% of the demand in America. Reducing taxes for the rich will only benefit the rich as it has for the last thirty years with very little improvement in jobs or take-home pay for workers. When more workers are employed and wages are improved, demand will increase. This starts from the middle-class out and not from the top down.

“Strengthen and make permanent the R&D tax credit”

This tax advantage is intended to increase spending on Corporate Research. It is difficult to know how much of an impact that this tax credit has had on the economy but it is known what kind of tax advantages are had by Corporations because of it. A study by Ernst and Young in 2005 reported that 17,700 Corporations claimed $6.6 Billion in R&D Tax credits.

“Switch to a territorial tax system”

This is Romney's way of allowing American Corporations to escape paying taxes on any business carried out in foreign countries. A territorial Tax system is one that only taxes income earned in the United States. This would be a huge loop-hole for Corporate America to escape paying their fair share of taxes. It is difficult to estimate how much revenue would be lost since it would likely change Corporate practices to take advantage to the greatest extent possible.  It is easy to say that the reduction in Corporate tax revenue would be extremely high and outsourcing of plants and jobs would likely be increased to the max.

“Repeal the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)”

For the same reason as the individual AMT repeal, this would be necessary if Romney's other reductions in taxes are to be effective in reducing taxes for the wealthy.

Ultimately, Romney's tax plan would favor the wealthiest of Americans and do little for the middle class.  With a territorial tax it may even hurt the middle class by taking more jobs out of the country.  And who do you think will get stuck paying the taxes that are being lifted from the rich?  You guessed it...Middle-class America.

If you hear Romney and Ryan proclaim that they are for the middle class during their campaign tour, now you'll know that they are both compulsive liars who will say anything to get your vote.  

Like sheep to the slaughter, millions of our middle class American Republicans are being led astray by the slick double-talk of their so-called concerned Republican leaders.  

Save your vote and your job.  Vote a total Democratic ticket this November.

Republican optimism is so refreshing it's like drinking soured milk

Mean old white men taking their football and walking off the playing field.  That's how I'm seeing the Republican Party lately.  It doesn't matter to them that the economy is in the dumps and that the American people who they are sworn to represent are suffering.  They will obstruct progress on economic improvement by simply refusing to play.

Many authors have written about this do-nothing Congress that we have been saddled with during this administration's term but writing about it doesn't help.  President Obama, in giving them the benefit of the doubt said that he believed Republican obstruction would end if he were re-elected.  His reasoning included the assumption that there would be no longer any reason to block legislation in his last term because there would be nothing for the Republicans to gain by it.  Now the Republicans, by way of Mitch McConnell have said they won't cooperate with Obama even if he wins the upcoming election.

America should be outraged.  Once again they are throwing America out the window for their own selfish reasons.  This Party does not represent you America.  They are a bunch of angry old white men who think that they are above the Americans they represent.  How many of you voted for your Republican leaders so that they could do nothing but obstruct progress and prevent resolution of problems?  These fools say that if a coach doesn't have any wins in three years, you'd boot him out.  So it follows that if the players all sat down on the playing field during every game in spite of their coach, you should be looking for better players.  

These worthless idiots are showing you how little they care about you.  They are all nice and cozy with their high paying government sponsored jobs with terrific insurance plans and excellent retirement plans.  They are already taken care of.  They do not care about you.

Republican leaders have proven that they are liars.  They have proven that they are obstructionists.  They have proven that they do not represent you.  What are they still doing in office?  

Your vote is the key.  Don't waste it.  Vote Democratic in all elections and let's get this country back on the right path.

Deciding factors that create jobs

Republicans advocate reducing taxes on the job creators as a viable means to grow jobs.  They claim that burdening job creators with additional costs will reduce the likelihood that they will hire.  I like to call this the "job creator lie" because it is nothing more than a Republican empty threat.  Greed is the source of the lie.  It is intended to prevent government taxes on the wealthy, ruling class who apparently are teetering between great wealth and possible financial ruin and taxes would make all the difference.

Are taxes really the major determining factor preventing job creation?  Certainly not.  Studies have shown that there is absolutely no correlation between taxes and job creation.  In fact, some have reported that in times where the rich have had to pay higher taxes, more jobs have been created.  You can rest assured that taxes are not the reason that Republicans spread this job creator lie.

So let's assume that greed is the main reason for the lie.  What then are the factors that really play a part in job creation?  Some factors like supply and demand appear obvious.  There are many theories behind how these two factors interact.  But which is most important?  And are there any other factors like cost of labor or business owner's wealth?

When a business is started, it is assumed that markets have been evaluated and the product or service is something of value which consumers will purchase.  Some estimate of the demand and the profits are made in a business plan and start-up funding is found.  Eventually people are hired to operate the business and the first jobs are created.  In some large businesses there is a choice of hiring from an American workforce or a foreign workforce.  Because patriotism is not a belief of many profit motivated businessmen, where it is possible it is an easy choice to hire cheaper labor from foreign sources.  So even when a new business is started, American job growth is not guaranteed.  In that way, business owner's wealth and cost of labor is an important factor determining where jobs will be created.

Simply stated, job growth usually happens when a business has a product or service which has demand that exceeds the supply or when the demand for a greater number of products or services offered exceed the capacity of the existing workforce.  The important word is "demand."

When we talk about demand sources, we are talking about the consumers who mainly are also the workers in America.  The major factor which affects consumer demand is consumer pay.  Pay comes from jobs.  When Americans do not have jobs or when those that have jobs are not paid well, American demand for products will decrease.  This decrease in demand cannot be overcome by making more products.  It cannot be overcome by reducing taxes of the wealthy business owners.  It cannot be overcome by producing cheaper products in a foreign country or by foreign workers in America.  It can only be overcome by finding new markets or sources of demand.

For many businesses this is not an option.  As demand decreases, so do the profits of that business.  Without new sources of demand, the business is forced to take drastic actions.  Perhaps first trying to increase demand by reducing the price of products and then by reducing the workforce to be more in line with the decrease in demand.  Eventually it may mean the business is sold off to a venture capitalist or becomes bankrupt and fails.

Businesses need consumers.  The loss of demand is a bigger threat to them than any increase in taxes.

There should be a synergy between the executives and the workers in a business where both parties are aware of the importance each has for the other.  In recent years workers wages have stayed stagnant while executives wages have increased 300 percent.  The greed that is implied in these statistics is as much a cause for the loss of demand and resultant loss of jobs than anything else unscrupulous business owners have done.

It is time that American workers have been made whole again and received the importance they deserve  in this relationship with business.  President Obama's policies are the greatest hope we have to restore jobs to Americans, revitalize the economy and return demand to businesses.

If Romney's speech is all it takes to convince America that he should be President, then America isn't listening

After three days of self indulgent speeches by Republican Governors and repeated lies about the out of context words 'you didn't build that' and false statements about Obama's hidden agenda to screw the elderly by stealing from medicare,  I was actually looking forward to Romney's speech.  I wanted to hear for myself how this potential President of the United States would explain how he plans to make things better for the people of this great country.

But, if you're someone who is not easily impressed, a thinker, or use to dealing with facts, then you were probably disappointed by Romney's address to the Republican National Convention.

After getting by all the fakery about being concerned that Obama was unsuccessful and that America deserved better, Romney started getting into the complaints about the current administration.

Romney's explanation of Obama's failure is based on the fact that he does not have business experience.  It may seem reasonable to ordinary Americans that a CEO would be a good person to fix our struggling economy, but is this necessarily true?

The most important thing driving the actions of a Corporate businessman like Romney is to make a profit through the sale of goods or services.  A government not only does not sell goods or services, it also does not have a profit motive.  A government is driven by concern for all members of it citizenry.  Sometimes that concern is in the form of social programs to help Americans through times of hardship.  Sometimes it means building an infrastructure of roads, bridges and technology that benefit society and provide citizens and businesses a means to accomplish more.  In Corporate America, times of economic difficulty usually mean that a Corporate CEO takes actions to reduce those elements of cost that he believes are not indispensable.  Interpreting this into a CEO-President Romney terms, this means cutting those social programs that the government provides.  As expected Romney was short on explanations of how his business experience at Bain Capital would help him be a better President than Obama.  How much he believes the importance of business experience may have been exposed today when he mis-spoke and called America a "Company" instead of a "Country."

Romney dismisses the idea that the economic problems we have been experiencing were the result of the Bush Presidency.  He simply states that Obama should just accept the blame for it because he hasn't gotten us out of it yet.  This is as anti-intellectual as stating that the person sent in to help fix a mess confess that he created the mess because he wasn't done cleaning up yet.  People have to realize that the  recession we are in is the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression.  That disaster took nearly fifteen years to get resolved.  Instead, Romney would return to Bush era practices that caused our present economic situation.  Additionally, Romney would not mention that there are many signs that the economy is improving and has been since Obama came into office.  Obama's policies are working despite all the obstruction that Republicans in Congress have caused in order to prevent him from being successful.  As they have stated themselves, Republicans in Congress had a most important objective to obstruct everything Obama proposed in order to make him appear to be impotent and unsuccessful.  They did this in the midst of the economic disaster and they did it to the detriment of the American people they are sworn to represent.

Jobs under Bush (red) vs Obama (blue)

Romney claims that Obama crushed the middle class because there are no jobs.  He does not admit that since Obama has been in office new jobs have shifted their negative trend from the Bush era and have been on a constant increasing trend.

Romney says that Obama hates small business and intends to increase taxes on small business.  He does not admit that Obama has only reduced taxes on small business since he has been in office.  Obama's newest proposal for taxes does not increase tax on small business.  Government programs such as the Small Business Administration are strong and helping small businessmen and women everyday.

In his speech Romney continues the lie about Obama stealing 716 Billion dollars from medicare to fund Obama-Care.  I hope everyone knows that this lie which has been disproved by numerous independent sources will not become true simply because the Republican leadership re-states it over and over again.

His speech took on a very militaristic character at one point.  I thought for sure he was against cutting the military budget because he has plans to start a war with Iran if he was elected.

Romney concluded his speech with promises to the American people.  Romney gave no detailed explanation of how these promises will be accomplished so I guess he just wants us to trust him.  He promised:

1. Twelve million new jobs.  It has been estimated that we are currently on a path to accomplish this without any new Romney actions within four years, so I guess this one is possible, but still an empty promise.

2. Energy independence by 2020. This claim is made even though Romney is critical of Obama's interest in  funding research on new forms of energy.  Romney has signed onto the Oil and Coal coalition as well, so I guess he intends to drill and dig more in America.  We have been told many times by the oil companies when they increase gas prices, that oil is in limited supply.  So over the long term how does Romney expect to become energy independent?

3. Create new trade agreements and punish any country that cheats.  Which countries and how punishment would be carried out was left to our imagination.

4. Assure that the "job creators" investments won't vanish.  Romney will also cut the deficit and balance the budget.  None of this is explained, but protecting the wealthy  investors sounds like tax law reform and Wall Street regulation is not high on Romney's agenda.

5. Reduce taxes on business.  I guess this is to support the job creator lie or maybe to give more credence to the possibility that the job creators really will turn away from American workers as an effective threat against having their taxes raised.

6. Repeal (and now replace) Obama-Care.  I can't believe Romney thinks taking health insurance away from the American people will be seen as a good thing to anyone except die-hard (and healthy) Republicans.  Again Romney gives no explanation on any of this.

In concluding his speech, Romney's additional unexplained rhetoric included statements that seemed intended as a band-aid to cover what has recently become controversial about Republicans.  He vows to care for the sick, statements apparently made to soften the view that he intends to repeal Obama-Care.  He claims that he will respect the elderly, seemingly trying to change the popular view that Republicans like he and Ryan have plans to change Medicare into a voucher program.

Empty promises claiming certainty of success may sound good but without details give us no factual information to evaluate whether they will ever be achievable.  I guess we'll need to listen closely to Romney's explanations if they exist in future appearances.

I'm so looking forward to the Presidential debates in October.  Perhaps by then Romney will have better explanations for his promises.  If not, President Obama will walk all over him.

Romney's head will be spinning and he'll probably have to admit that his Party really was not only responsible for the current  economic disaster, but also responsible for blocking  progress on resolving it.




       

Little did I know that my layoff in 1995 from Dupont Medical Products was a God-send that saved my Dupont pension from the Bain Capital boogey-men

New England Nuclear logo

After college, I started working for a little medical diagnostics company in Worcester, Massachusetts known as New England Nuclear in 1974.  We occupied two converted former residential houses on Harvard Street, which was a newly zoned business district.  Our specialty was manufacturing medical diagnostic kits that utilized a radioactive "tracer" component.

When I began working there, the company had sites in Worcester, Boston and Westwood, Massachusetts.  We didn't make much money then, but it seemed the owners were satisfied with their share of small profits, which still allowed them to live well.  Executive salaries in the tens of millions of dollars was not common and really could never have been accommodated given our tiny profits at the time.  It was a different time then.  The profit motive was not the only consideration to businessmen at that time.  Employees made the difference and executives realized that and honored them for it.  We all could feel the warm concern that our employers had for us.  Many of us worked for them for a long time.  We were a small "family" that grew with each other.  We considered ourselves scientifically trained intellectuals and all had respect for each other.   We had fun doing our jobs and fun socializing with each other.

Investment in research helped us rapidly develop a number of new diagnostics kits and our product line and profits began to increase.  In about a year after I started, the business  expanded and moved from Worcester to a nice new facility in Billerica.  And that is where I worked for the next 20 years.

In 1982, Dupont Company became interested in our little company and purchased us.  It was really a good thing for our company.  Dupont management was very knowledgeable and taught us much about managing a company.  But this huge Corporation was very different than anything we knew before.  The corporate culture was very structured and inflexible.   The environment became somewhat more uneasy and competitions between departments began to arise.  As Dupont began to bring in their own people some of the original members of our New England Nuclear team lost out on promotions.  We played second fiddle to Dupont's own talented organization.

Around 1992, the newest thing to managing a business was Manufacturing Requirements Planning (MRP). The essence of MRP was to implement a computer tracked transactional system that allowed management and business users to have much better understanding of their sales, production capacity, inventory, purchases and financials.  We began an implementation of MRP in 1992.  We did a good job of implementing that computer system and became a "Class A" manufacturing company within two years of implementing it.  It gave management a better understanding of our business activities, future potential and financial situation.

In anticipation of undisclosed future actions, Dupont management moved the people from the Billerica diagnostics operations to the Boston site.   Perhaps because the MRP system was providing such good information, or perhaps because Dupont expected more profits than we could produce, in 1995 Dupont management decided to have a reduction in force of a good percentage in all divisions.  Many of us who were with New England Nuclear from the early days were let go.  I was one of them.  Maybe they were trying to save the greatest costs or perhaps they thought our severance package would get us further along to finding a new job, but we were all surprised by the selection of experienced people who were laid off.

For those of us who were terminated, it was a stressful time.  Jobs were not easy to find.  One of our young colleagues was found dead in his apartment.  I never knew why he died.  It may have been due to some other cause or due to some other reason, but I tended to believe it was suicide.

Because of my longevity with Dupont I was one of the lucky ones.  I had enough time in to have earned a Dupont pension.  I was given eleven and a half months severance pay and eleven months later I finally found a lower paying job.  Not my best choice in jobs, but my only choice since I had come up empty on any other offers.  At the time I thought this was terrible, but I did not know that my lay-off in 1995 was going to save me from a fate worse than the lay-off I had just experienced.

Dupont management's undisclosed plan was to divest entirely of the medical diagnostics division.   Dupont's main reason for the move from Billerica to Boston was to move the medical diagnostic personnel into a common location with the other medical site that they also planned to sell off.  Some commonly refer to this as putting all the crap into one sock.  The year after I was laid off, in 1996 Dupont found a buyer in Bain Capital.

Mitt Romney and Bain Capital team

Bain had already purchased another medical diagnostic company called Dade International in 1994 using mostly borrowed money.  Right away Bain paid themselves nearly $100 million in fees for buying the company and managing it. This amount was over three times Bain's original investment.

In 1996 Bain included my former colleagues into the Dade organization.   During Bain's reign over Dade International, more than 1700 US workers were laid off.  Some of my colleagues were the first with a layoff in 1997.  At first Bain's approach to cost cutting included reducing salaries and not paying overtime to existing employees.  Then they revoked their pensions.  Finally they laid them off.

In 1998, Bain wanted to sell Dade and were given a generous offer by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts and Company, but Romney wasn't happy with the offer.  By the next year Bain used creative financing to find a way out.  Romney had Dade take out hundreds of millions of dollars in loans to buy out half of Bain's shares and half of those of its investment partners.  As a result, Bain extracted $242 million from Dade and Goldman Sachs got $121 million.  Top Dade executives got $55 million.  Total payout was $420 million.

In 2002 Dade's liabilities reached nearly $2 billion.  By leveraging the company so badly in order to pay themselves, Bain put the company into bankruptcy.  In the bankruptcy, Romney was accused of "unjust enrichment" and Bain had to relinquish its remaining ownership of Dade.  Romney and Bain kept the $342 million.  The other creditors didn't fair so well.

After bankruptcy, Dade's revenue and share price rapidly increased and it was bought by Siemens in 2007.

Here's hoping that many of my former colleagues survived Romney and Bain Capital.  My bet is that they will not  be voting for Romney for President, even if they're Republicans.