Government of the fat-cats, by the fat-cats, and for the fat-cats?

This is the United States of America, founded on the principle that there's both a wrong way and a "more perfect" way for government to act.

We have regulations controlling immigration, restricting tobacco and alcohol sales, establishing speed limits, and prohibiting the use of dangerous materials such as lead paint. We embrace regulations about what can’t be in our drinking water, and insuring we have the freedom to practice religion unfettered by the preferences of government agencies or the whims of men.

Not every decision is clear and simple. Our constitution was built deliberately to allow for clarifications and changes over time by wise men who had some notion of the limits on their own forecasting abilities. We've been trying to make good laws - good government regulations - and improve the bad ones ever since.

We have laws about everything from voter registration to verifying the safety & efficacy of drugs because we know we can’t simply trust everybody to do the right thing if there’s no judge or referee. Somehow the GOP has been persuaded to slow down the process of reforming Wall Street’s greedy, self-serving behaviors.

We know what happened when we let them call the shots; deregulation served a few very well indeed, while what trickled down to the rest of us was unemployment, foreclosures, and the destruction of the value of the largest asset most working Americans have, their home -- after we'd been encouraged to use it as a way to get credit to fuel corporate profits.

GOP strategists are now stalling reforms in the Senate, by asserting that we need economic analysis before "rushed rule-making." Where were they before the financial crisis in the late summer of 2008 and the resulting recession? I can tell you one thing, they weren't listening to the then-junior Senator from Illinois, who had written letters to the powers that be about what he saw as the looming mortgage lending crisis, but their hindsight may have factored that in.

Enough is enough. Wall Street needs reform if it's to create wealth for the nation instead of for itself. Congress may not get the new laws perfect on the first pass, but that's not news. If all the GOP has is questions, if they can't grasp the risks in leaving the system broken, I say let them step back; it's time to stop spouting sound bites while impeding progress and solutions.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, former Congressional Campaign Manager, strategist, journalist, and photographer who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community, who incidentally stands in solidarity with the citizens and workers in Wisconsin refusing to let their Governor's self-created budget "crisis" and new spending priorities be re-cast as a reason to undermine contractual obligations and collective bargaining agreements.

You can follow him as @kabiu on twitter. Tweet

Where are the jobs, Mr. Boehner?

Just what are the leaders of the GOP doing with their new-found Congressional majority? We all know they took the symbolic vote to repeal the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (PPACA or sometimes just ACA) complete with a provision explicitly naming their own bill "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act" without proposing any alternative. We all know the majority of U.S. citizens like the reforms, and the savvy have noticed that the only part being challenged in the courts is, in fact, the mandate inserted to win GOP support in the first place and protect insurance company profits -- and that they managed not just one but two responses to the President's State of the Union.

But what are GOP leaders actually doing?

OK, fair enough, House Speaker John Boehner did take to the airwaves on Sunday, to warn FOX viewers that it, "would be a financial disaster not only for our country, but for the worldwide economy," if the U.S. defaulted on its debt, because, "You can't create jobs if you default on the federal debt." That could happen, according to some estimates, sometime between March and May due to - what? Inaction by Congress. So he's talking to pundits, which isn't exactly doing nothing.

But neither this rhetoric nor talking to pundits is creating one job. Meanwhile, Rick Ungar of Forbes and others argue that the repeal they voted for would actually be a job-killer itself. The ironies seem lost on most who fashion themselves as speaking on behalf of GOP voters.

Here's an excerpt from Ungar's Policy Page at Forbes:

"The primary, most enduring complaint of the opponents of the ACA has been that the law is deathly bad for small business.

Apparently, small businesses, and their employees, do not agree.

The next argument has been that the PPACA is a job killer.

If these small businesses found the new law to be so onerous, why have so many of them voluntarily taken advantage of the benefits provided in the law to give their employees these benefits? They were not mandated to do so. And to the extent that the coming mandate obligations might figure into their thinking, would you not imagine they would wait until 2014 to make a move as the rules do not go into effect until that time?

Of course, there is the nagging banter as to how Obamacare is leading us down the road to socialism.

Let it go, folks."

Rick Ungar,

More Small Businesses Offering Health Care
To Employees Thanks To Obamacare

January 6, 2011

So the pundits are permitting the politicians - particularly those leading the GOP - to play familiar partisan games, posturing for the cameras while criticizing every nuance of the President's stance and efforts, but what's the impact? Wasted time.

What does the country need? What do we want our elected leaders to actually do? Act responsibly, behave like adults, get to work and fix the problems for Main Street like they did for the fat cats on Wall Street who contribute to their campaign coffers - we need jobs.

There are millions of us, millions of hard-working citizens - and voters - out of work watching jobs move overseas and foreclosures ruin our neighborhoods, yet the politicians prefer to pretend that what matters most are symbolic votes, the profit margins and bonuses on Wall Street, and criticizing without proposing solutions, or even alternative initiatives? What's next, Mr. Boehner, holding your breath until your face turns blue?

It's enough to make a grown man cry.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, former Democratic Campaign Manager, strategist, journalist, and photographer who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community. You can follow him as @kabiu on twitter.

Donna Brazile @ CNN: SOTU as Prom

Always insightful, author, strategist, and professor Donna Brazile talks about the sudden, good-natured "civility" exhibited by Congress for tonight's State of the Union in an OpEd column today at CNN - How State of the Union became a prom. There remain two problems she's glossing over as she concludes, charitably...

"We don't all have to agree with each other, but for the good of the country, it's important that we sit together as Americans. After all, this could be good for the country, too."

Professor Donna Brazile, CNN Conributor

25 Jan 2011

First, it's patently political posing -- plain old posturing -- a ploy for the attention and implied praise of the pundits that probably won't impact one Congressional debate or vote, but will probably garner that holy grail, media coverage for most of the players.

Secondly, focus on the mechanics, or logistics, or whatever you want to call this staging of seating arrangements, inevitably detracts from time people spent reflecting on the President's actual message. Granting that GOP strategists are delighted to direct public attention to anything but President Obama's hour in the limelight, particularly in the wake of his speech dealing with the tragedy in Tuscon, it seems curious that their Democratic counterparts are being pulled in.

The narrative of tonight's State of the Union speech is fast becoming "they played so nicely together." Count the minutes in the coverage leading up to the State of the Union and particularly the post-speech dissection, bearing in mind that every minute spent on how members of Congress arranged their seats is akin to watching the royals - "Congress-watching" lacks substance, although it's probably easier for most pundits on the spur of the moment than genuine analysis.

I don't need to relive Joe Wilson's "You lie!" moment, but I've watched politics too long to fall for this pre-planned mugging for the cameras and the echo-chamber media, either. When they control the information the GOP wins the messaging battle; who wins if they can distract from the President's powerful post-Tuscon message by getting the media to talk about who sat with whom, and possibly draw a few extra eyeballs to the dueling GOP/Tea-Party responses?

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, former Democratic Campaign Manager, journalist, and photographer who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community. You can follow him as @kabiu on twitter.

GOP Midterm Mandate? Not so much...

We know that the voters who turned out tended to be older, richer, and whiter than the U.S. population as a whole, but a new McClatchy-Marist poll suggests the majority of Americans didn't give the GOP any mandate - in fact, they tend to lean toward taxing the rich, and tweaking the health care reform, not extending the Bush Tax cuts and repealing what opponents insist on calling Obamacare.

For instance, while the survey did find that mandates for buying health care don't sit well with voters, some of the other changes, such as the end to denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, enjoy the support of 2/3 of those surveyed. From the article:

Another 35 percent want to change it to do more. Among groups with pluralities who want to expand it: women, minorities, people younger than 45, Democrats, liberals, Northeasterners and those making less than $50,000 a year.

Not surprisingly there's broad support for asking the wealthy to pay a fair share on tax day, too. But the mainstream media seems intent to echo the Republican's claim that they've got an overwhelming mandate, and ignoring both the folks who point out that the pundits are glossing over the actual data and the reality that the current President actually lowered taxes for most Americans - just not ratings friendly stories, you see?

What the Republicans have got is success turning out voters in a mid-term election, and despite their protests that "the media" has "liberal bias" they've got control of the reports that get air-time. I'll give them credit for that.

Read more about the results at McClatchy. 

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, journalist, political strategist, and photographer who recently worked as the Campaign Manager on the Madore For Congress campaign in Minnesota's 2nd District. He contributes regularly to a host of other web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

After earmarks?

GOP leaders, apparently taking cues from Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and thrilled to be in a majority in the House of Representatives when the next Congress convenes in January, seem intent on banning legislative earmarks despite reforms initiated during the 110th Congress which brought much-needed transparency and accountability to this relatively small part of the allocation process. In fact, reforms have already reduced earmark spending by about $3 billion, to the point where the process now represents between 1% - 2% of federal spending.

But here's the million dollar question: By what new process will funding decisions be made if earmarks go away? If Congress doesn't specify allocation decisions, then it falls to the executive branch. Will spending choices made by agencies and their politically appointed heads be somehow superior to those made by our elected officials? It may sound like progress at first blush -- it's obviously got the elite GOP messaging teams excited, and right-leaning media commentators love it -- but GOP Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) doesn't think it's a good idea at all.

Inhofe, who says publicly he'll keep right on earmarking, knows the danger in moving away from the recent reforms to adopt a new process under control of political appointees.

Is that "executive branch control" over spending really what the people who assert the government has too much control and that earmarks are simply - and always - pork spending honestly think is the "best way to rein in big government," or is it more sound-bites setting up partisan bickering that will distract Congress from taking up more important challenges?

Look, when it's done away from the light, if the media and other watchdogs fail to follow the money, then earmarking is a system open to abuse and fraud. But are we going to ask Congress to invent a whole new process during a time when the GOP controls the House while Democrats retain the majority in the Senate and prominent GOP Senators are saying that gives too much spending control to the Obama administration?

Oh that should go really quickly.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, journalist, political strategist, and photographer who recently worked as the Campaign Manager on the Madore For Congress campaign in Minnesota's 2nd District. He contributes regularly to a host of other web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

GOP Congressman Kline dodges veterans

Congressman John Kline (R-MN) was conspicuously absent from the Goodhue County United Veterans Organizations "Candidate's Forum" in his district last night. The forum was not far from where Kline has made his home since relocating from Texas. Do you suppose he didn't want to have to explain the disconnect between his rhetoric and his votes?

Why would a former Marine officer serving in Congress not vote to support funding for Veterans Affairs?  I don't know; since action speaks louder than words maybe vets and other voters just learned how little Kline cares for the honest, working Minnesotans in his adopted District.

Former MN Representative Shelley Madore: Cannon Falls VFW
Goodhue county United Veterans Organization Candidate Forum

Kline's opponent, former State Rep. Shelley Madore was certainly there, joining candidates at all levels from Governor through county offices to meet with vets and their families and talk about needs and priorities.  Madore's record in the Minnesota House shows a dedication to Veterans that you might expect Kline to want to counter in front of a receptive audience. Considering his startling anti-veteran votes on spending for Veterans Affairs he'd better find some friendly audience or Madore's "35 Cent Tour," which is gaining traction with the media and the voters, will become the story of the election.

Republicans, following President Bush's lead, led this country into an economic quagmire pursuing wars of choice while protecting big banks and special interests, but that's no reason for Kline to dodge his military family constituents.  Leaders get out and talk to voters, and if necessary explain why they made bad decisions, but Kline evidently lacks the commitment to the veterans in the district to face those tough questions.

True leaders don't sit back and spout ideology when the chips are down, they roll up their sleeves and take ownership of the challenges and problems.  They lead by example, not by talking points.  The men and women who put on this country's uniform deserve the respect of all of us, but a former officer couldn't be bothered to attend their forum?

The November election across the Twin Cities metro from the Bachmann-Clark contest will be a choice between a former marine officer who voted against defense department funding and now deliberately dodges veterans and a former legislator who's visiting every community in the district at every opportunity to make sure her constituents know how hard she works.

Ask the folks who went to Farmfest if their current Representative cares about farmers. Kline ignored that invitation, too, while Shelley Madore, who grew up on a farm and may already know more about the challenges than he does, made the trip and talked to farmers.  It's beginning to look like a pattern, with Kline avoiding any unscripted appearances while Madore shows she knows how to reach voters and has the courage to talk to them face to face.

The choice for voters is increasingly clear: Kline's content to sit at home, while Shelly Madore continues to show she'll work harder and do more.

Thomas Hayes is a political strategist currently managing the Madore for Congress campaign, entrepreneur, journalist, and photographer who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

Ronald Reagan must be rolling in his grave

Former U.S. Representative David Stockman (R-MI), who served as Ronald Reagan's first director of the Office of Management and Budget, used the forum of the Sunday New York Times to unmask and rebuke Republican members of Congress and their elite messaging strategists who cling to claims to be fiscal conservatives.

"Mr. McConnell’s stand puts the lie to the Republican pretense that its new monetarist and supply-side doctrines are rooted in its traditional financial philosophy."

David Stockman
31 July 2010

Describing current and recent GOP tax rhetoric "a mockery of traditional party ideals," Stockman says these policy doctrines have led to four "great deformations" of the U.S. economy over the past four decades, starting when the Nixon administration ignored the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement to balance our accounts with the world while "Republicans have turned a blind eye to each one."

"By fiscal year 2009, the tax-cutters had reduced federal revenues to 15 percent of gross domestic product, lower than they had been since the 1940s. Then, after rarely vetoing a budget bill and engaging in two unfinanced foreign military adventures, George W. Bush surrendered on domestic spending cuts, too — signing into law $420 billion in non-defense appropriations, a 65 percent gain from the $260 billion he had inherited eight years earlier."

David Stockman
31 July 2010

Doubtless this is why so many who lately vote against Republican policies and politicians describe themselves as socially liberal yet fiscally conservative. The GOP has been abusing the trust of their base, successfully waging a PR war on the truth: relying on either the inattention, and/or gullibility of voters who have fallen for their appealing "brand ideology" without realizing this rhetoric is entirely at odds with actual GOP goals and actions for the past 4 decades.

That's the real threat to the Republican Party, which is now gleeful for media coverage of Tea Party events so far to the political right they may fool swing voters into thinking the GOP looks as though they occupy the middle-ground. Stockman's Op-Ed article is a must read for all who take politics seriously enough to vote.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, Democratic Campaign Manager, journalist, and photographer who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

No Senator Left Behind

The GOP claims they're really serious about deficit reduction, but Sentator McConnell (R-KY) says it's the "uniform view in his caucus that tax cuts needn’t be offset by other changes in spending..." Evidently none of them think tax cuts affect the budget.

$678 billion - it's a math thing. Republican Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) doesn't even want to talk about it.

There's ample evidence that the tax cuts enacted under the previous administration were, in fact, the largest factor in rapidly turning the Treasury's surplus in 2000 into the deficit under the Bush administration which mostly enjoyed a Republican Congressional majority.

What kind of voodoo budgeting lets you ignore a revenue decrease?  We lost 3 million manufacturing jobs while Bush was President, but the GOP line is that tax cuts will help?  Tax cuts don't put groceries on the table of an unemployed person, but they do add to the deficit - it's not complex math.

We've got to get more rational in discussing the budget and the deficit. The U.S. economy can work - productivity has nearly doubled in this country in the past 30 years, and corporate profits are obviously robust even as CEO salaries and bonuses have sky-rocketed.

Leaders who will safeguard the interests of ordinary citizens are becoming an endangered species in the Congress. In late summer 2008 Congressional leaders and the Bush administration told the country that big business needed behemoth bailouts or our entire economic system would collapse, but that Wall Street bailout did nothing to save blue collar jobs, or reverse the outsourcing trends, and while some say the jury's still out on job creation if the GOP pundits insist the Obama-era stimulus package didn't help then what of the Bush-era bailout? The bailout certainly didn't stimulate lending, though it did give banks enough cash for lavish year-end bonuses.

Can you think of another industry that would award bonuses when they had to get billions of dollars simply to remain in business?  Evidently it's not just GOP Senators who'd benefit from a little remedial math refresher.

And now Senate Republicans want to balance the budget (and stir up fears about deficits) while they claim there's no need to offset tax cuts with other revenue?

Think about that.  Tax cuts may or may not make be your cup of tea; they're a tool in the economist's arsenal. Yet to claim on the one hand deficits are bad and then turn around and advocate revenue reduction -- in this case by providing tax cuts for the wealthiest citizens -- without offsetting it in any way defies the reasoning powers we expect in our elected leaders.

Thomas Hayes is a Democratic campaign staffer, entrepreneur, journalist, and photographer who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

If government-run health care is an evil, socialist plot, why do 55 Republican Congress members participate?

As of October, 151 Congressmen had "government-controlled" health care insurance plans. That's close to 30% of our elected officials. 55 Republicans on that list have steadfastly opposed other Americans getting the public option, like the one they have chosen.

Here's the list.

If they think government controlled health-care is a problem, why do they continue to trust it for themselves and their families?

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, journalist, and political analyst who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

Tom Hayes: For GOP Congress is now the opposite of Progress

It would be laughable if it wasn't such obvious partisan grand-standing. The minority party wants to have their cake, and eat it, too.  After years of exercising rock-solid legislative control with Congressional majorities they're finding the rules aren't as fun when the other guys are in charge.

The GOP leaders say they want the President to, "show some leadership," and, "get things accomplished." But along the way he'd better compromise with them.  The latest example comes from the stage of international relations. The President's supposed to represent indecision in Copenhagen, courtesy of the 7 GOP members of the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee.

These esteemed Senators have threatened a boycott of planned work sessions - get this - to delay the start of the committee debate.  We're not even talking about a vote, they don't even want to talk about the bill yet. Progress isn't supposed to be the opposite of Congress, is it?

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who chairs the committee, said, "We're not going to rush this through," because she hopes Republicans will, "return to the table." She's extending the deadline for Republicans to notify her of amendments they're considering, and canceled the Tuesday session so Environmental Protection Agency staff could come appear before EPW to answer technical questions, even. She's bending over backwards to craft a bi-partisan bill and get a committee vote before the Copenhagen Climate talks.

But she doesn't have to. All the posturing about costs, and how acting too quickly will surely be a burden on business, are echoes of the tired, familiar litany that the GOP always recites whenever their lobbyists haven't blessed a bill.

Even if the 7 Republicans don't show up the committee still has the necessary quorum to conduct business.  It only takes 10 votes to move the bill forward to the floor, and 12 of the 19 members are Democrats. Obviously Senator Boxer and the administration know this simple math.

Evidently the decision has been to to compromise on some of the procedures, and possibly even policies, but to set an agenda that shows American values in the court of world opinion - yet the GOP chooses to play obstructive games while complaining that Obama doesn't exhibit leadership in world affairs.

I know that sort of thing can be spun into indignant rants by extreme pundits selecting judicious sound-bites. Yet, when Swedish Prime Minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt, has called on China to set a tougher target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions after 2020 as its part of the international agreement to be negotiated in Copenhagen, shouldn't the U.S. Congress step back from the rhetoric and help set the stage for U.S. participation?

The facts are stark; the U.S. can lead in Copenhagen, or we can trail along behind petulantly like a spoiled brat. If the GOP wants the President and his administration to demonstrate leadership it's logical that they facilitate -- rather than delay, decry, and obfuscate.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, journalist, and political analyst who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

MYTH BUSTED: No Increase to Business Taxes, even for Joe the Plumber

Why are pro-business Republicans among the critics suggesting Obama's proposal includes a tax hit on people who run the small businesses that those same Republicans always insist drive job growth in the USA? Are they worried about the Joe-the-Plumber scale businesses? If so, it's already been documented that neither Joe nor his boss earned enough to be hit by the new taxes, and so they'd likely see a tax reduction. Don't forget, for these purposes "small business" includes up to 500 employees.

It's a curious thing - but to actually gross the $250,000 that represents the threshold for the tax increase is not common for small business owners. I know - I was one. I created jobs, I had more staff than my predecessor had in the same business, and I paid for health coverage for my full time staff (my part-timers had coverage through other sources) and even though the business moved a lot of cash through my bank, I didn't come close to grossing 6 figures. Many small business owners actually earn less than their best paid employees do, and that's even more true today that it was 10 years ago.

According to the Associated Press, an independent analysis estimated that just over 75% of all U.S. households would qualify for Obama's proposed tax credit for workers.

Did you know that there are over 3 times as many businesses in the USA without any employees as there are with employees? That's right, many professionals in partnerships, sole proprietorships, some S-Corps, and many who "organize" themselves as a for tax reasons as a business earn little or no taxable income from their business. So sure, some of those folks who are very successful and are technically small businesses on paper will end up paying more taxes - if their accountants can't figure out how to structure the cash flow to keep their paycheck under $21,000/month.

But the GOP has been campaigning for years - and often winning - based on accusing the Democrats of being the party of tax and spend. So even though that old familiar attack didn't work during the general election in 2008 their messaging gurus apparently don't have another theme ready. And that means we're going to hear about the mythical "drag on the economic engine of small business job creation" until the GOP finds somebody that makes for better coverage than former Massachusetts Governor Romney, or current Governors such as Palin, Pawlenty, and Jindal.

Buzz it up at Yahoo
or digg this story!