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.

茶分心 - Tea Party Distraction

Many of the pundits and commentators have been speculating, uttering for public consumption variations on a disingenuous theme: the Tea Party threatens to undermine the grand old Republican party. Are you falling for it? Nothing could lead you further from the truth.

Ask what motivates those who echo this "conventional wisdom"

In the case of most employed in the media the answer is simple enough, they seek attention because their producers use ratings as the primary metric - corporate media thrives on advertising revenues, which rise and fall with ratings. Relatively few fans realize credibility takes a back seat to celebrity -- logic is overwhelmed by the profit motives of the "business" of news coverage.

The goal of an expert political commentator has some of that same need for attention, interwoven with the complex agendas of using their pulpit to at once distract and mislead their opponents, hopefully to such an extent they become depressed and disenfranchised, while inspiring and energizing those who contribute to their party's success via both votes and on-going media "success."

Consider the two major factions

In the case of a political strategist the goals, at least, are clear even though the strategies and tactics often defy attempts by the pundits to explain, let alone forecast.  The political strategist cares not - the pundits are a tool, and persuading them to portray the process in a way that conveys advantage to the strategist's cause doesn't require the understanding and consent of the media, although that willingness to play along (as the Fox network is generally charged with doing during the previous administration) has obvious benefits.

Both major parties seek to expand their influence and control. Since voters often forego logic when deciding who to empower, the original goal of a political party has to bow, at least in part, to pragmatic reliance on persuasion to preserve their bureaucratic turf.

The Democrats would be delighted if more people accept that the Tea Party signals the decline of the GOP no matter what the party strategists may or may not believe.  The Republicans party's goal is to use the coverage to suggest that either the mood of the country is more right-leaning than it was as the electorate swung from supporting Bush administration initiatives to sweeping Obama and Democrats into office, or that voters who feel that way are shrugging off their lethargy and energized enough to matter nationwide in the looming elections - although we hear over and over that all politics are local.

What does the Tea Party represent?

The Tea Party ideology may have had legitimate, grassroots origins, but it's now a tool of right-wing strategists who spread the story of their concern that it attracts extremists and all manner of unsavory and under-educated bigots while disingenuously stressing the threat to the GOP if Republicans don't accommodate and react. The appeararnce of a growing third party movement even further to the right than the Republicans sets up the GOP strategists to market their candidates as "middle of the road" moderates in the political spectrum. Brilliant not simply as strategic ploy, but also because it's lately become impossible to continue winning votes by touting the GOP brand as compassionate,  fiscally conservative, or good for small business interests.

On most ballots in November, though, there will only be Democrats and Republicans; the GOP will have invested in looking sensible and middle-of-the-road in their coordinated advertising campaigns while many Democrats will rely on voters to make the logical choices.  Logically, of course, more voters are aligned with what Democrats have accomplished and Democratic candidates advocate. But compared to the media coverage of Tea Party rallies replete with misspelled signs and hats festooned with tea bags the Republicans will seem close to most voter's self-image: sensible and moderate.

The Tea Party is now, above all else and quite regardless of the beliefs and goals of its founders or participants, an excellent marketing tool to reposition and re-brand the GOP in advance of the 2010 general elections.

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.

Spinning Surveys -- keep thinking

You've probably seen recent stories that over 40% of Republicans -- or an even higher fraction of Tea Partiers -- think the current President wasn’t born in this country. You may also have heard Rush Limbaugh talking about what the people surveyed think in dramatic (or even bombastic) terms. It's spin.

Here's the thing:

No matter if you’re listening to Limbaugh, watching cable TV, or reading about it in Salon or your favorite blog-site, the surveys only tell you what people say, not what they think. Pundits are free to theorize about what the survey means, but to go beyond and tell us what people are thinking? That is plain, unmitigaged guessing, and it's almost certainly motivated by the desire to keep ratings up and make money from ads - which sadly relies all together too much on spin intended to keep you coming back for more, no matter if the source is right-leaning or left-leaning politically.

Allegedly expert commentators and media darlings alike may choose to infer the Republicans responding to such surveys “think Obama wasn’t born in America,” but it’s equally valid to infer they simply wish that he wasn’t -- you could even suggest they want you to think they think he wasn’t born here, but the fact remains that all you know is what they've said.

The data, the facts, are how those people responded, nothing more. You can’t know what a person is thinking; that's why the American legal system, for instance, is predicated on actions, not media coverage, commentator speculation, or inferences drawn by partisan pundits paid to keep ratings up.

Keep thinking.

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.

Modern patriotism isn't so different

To be a true patriot, a pro-republic American, is to recognize the role of civic virtue, of participation in the public affairs of the community, and to be among the men and women of whom future generations of Americans will say, "They were worthy of their city and their nation."

Gary Hart, in a recent Op-Ed, said:

"No single step would revitalize our fearful national spirit than a new era of civic republicanism. The single best vehicle to achieve this goal is the proposed Serve America Act sponsored by Senators Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch. It is a genuinely bipartisan response to President Obama’s challenge to Americans of all ages to serve the national community."

It would be refreshing to see the media focus less on the whining of political wanna-be pundits and apologist politicians whose goals have obvious resonance to special interests that have overhwelmed the relationship between elected officials and those they represent, and more on the inspirational leadership exemplified by the late Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch in authoring that bill.

Reporters, and news producers, love controversy - it's good for ratings, and the coverage of "news" is clearly a business in the 21st Century. There's never been a sexy sound-bite to be found talking about, VISTA, Habitat for Humanity, or the Peace Corps - you have to work much harder to tell these compelling human-interest stories.

But the country I want to leave to my son and his generation is much better when we take the time, and initiative, to help our neighbors and give to our communities - and so, too, are my son and his peers better when they join us in those efforts. The dangers of debt-fueled consumerism have become old news, as the pundits have led us on a hell-bent ride to blame whoever makes the best target in terms of their ad revenues, without any investigation into how best to recover.

A great way to start as we mark the quintessential American holiday, Thanksgiving, is for each of us to look within ourselves, to recall the lessons we've learned, to recall that our community matters -- to give a little.

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.

Baffle the exit poll pundits - show unity November 4th

There is a special feeling pervading the polling place on voting day, a sense of participation that transcends the partisan posturing of the preceding weeks and months. If you’ve never voted before I hesitate to shape your anticipation, but there’s no denying the sense of being a part of something that’s happening nationwide. In fact, that’s one of the reasons I wish that there were fewer people exercising “early voting” options, though I grant that there are fine, legitimate reasons that every state and territory should make that not merely possible, but easy.

I also understand the desire to flash your allegiance in a year when the focus is on national politics, particularly as the rhetoric from certain candidates has been more inflammatory than inspirational. I feel strongly about who I’ve campaigned for - there are signs in my yard right down to the level of my choice for city council, my car is practically a rolling billboard, and there’s no time I’m seen in public when there’s any doubt which candidate I support in the presidential election.

But on Tuesday, I’ll wear purple.

No matter who you think is the best candidate or party there is one truth Barack Obama articulated way back in 2004. “The pundits like to slice and dice us…" It makes for better television coverage, and they want you watching their network(s) to insure their ad revenues are high, so every year they seek to make it more compelling coverage of what they seek to portray as a more dramatic election. Despite that, on Tuesday when we make our communal pilgrimage to express our preferences, “there are not red states or blue states. There is the United States of America.”

On Tuesday, November 4th, what will you wear while you cast your ballot?

Got purple?