Aug. 1 - Finally a debt deal. My first reaction is one of outrage, partly because all through this negotiation, Obama has seemed to have been fighting on the wrong side. He applauded the gang of six proposal, whereas I got on the phone trying to lobby to kill it.

     To me, that is the real kicker in this deal. The spending cuts are not going to help the economy, but I have more fear over what the bi-partisan "super congress" will propose. Will it be something as odious as what the gang of six proposed or what the Catfood Commission proposed? And will Obama then sign it and praise it as historic reforms?

     Given his reversal on the Bush tax cuts and his Republican rhetoric in the past few months, I feel like I cannot trust him to fight for the working people of this country. Having already signed off on $3 trillion in tax cuts, mostly for the rich, Obama could not then point out the Republican absurdity of stamping their feet, threatening the whole country in order to get $2.5 trillion in spending cuts.

     $3 trillion in extra revenue would reduce the deficits more and do less harm to the economy (and the vulnerable) than $2.5 trillion in spending cuts. Not to mention that the public has now forgotten the Ryan plan to end medicare as we know it.

July 15 - Still no progress on the debt ceiling. Cantor says that Republicans are standing firm on their principles. Their key principle seems to be - sacrifice everything to avoid increasing taxes on the rich. How many times will they show that for them, the rich come first, before the public catches on?

May 24 - Sometimes Republican politicians defy belief. Congressman Eric Cantor says that Congress won't pay for relief for Joplin unless it is offset by cuts to other programs. It's probably a good thing I am not in Congress because I would have to be physically restrained if he said that near me, and would probably respond only with words that would make my mother ashamed. Shades of Mr. Smith goes to Washington.

      The absolute unmitigated gall to suggest that we cannot afford to help people who have been wiped out. Especially people who are my near neighbors. I consider Joplin to practically be in the 2nd district. I considered advertising in Joplin to cover Columbus and Galena. A few miles different and that tornado might have hit in Kansas. Not to mention that Leavenworth had a tornado warning just a week before and might easily have been in the same boat.

     These people will give trillions in tax cuts to the richest Americans, but even when it comes to people who have been wiped out, suddenly they are pinching pennies and worried about the debt. Seriously, are they even human?


Apr. 7 - Maybe it's just an April Fool's joke (again) but Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan has released the Republican Roadmap to balance the budget. Because Republicans claim the budget deficit is such a big problem, they are threatening to shut down the government next week. It is vital, they say to cut $61 billion from spending or the national debt may kill us all.

Of course, in December they  passed over $100 billion in tax cuts for rich people (households with incomes over $150,000) but they claim to be serious about balancing the budget.

The newly released "Roadmap 2.0" is "more of the same". It includes even more tax cuts for rich people. They often compare the Government to a household (while ignoring that households typically go into debt to buy houses and cars and sometimes major appliances). So imagine a household with a debt crisis. The Republican plan, as they suggest for the nation, is first for the main bread-winner to quit his/her good-paying job and take a lower paying part-time job.  Then to compensate for the lost income, they suggest to stop paying for food and medicine for their kids. If the little leeches wanna eat, then let them get jobs, or let them eat cake.

This is not a serious plan, it is an insult and a joke. The Republicans think the American people are stupid  enough to fall for this nonsense. It is about time for the voters to prove them wrong.

Feb. 8 - Got a call from Congresswoman Jenkins today, a telephone town hall. I noticed that when one caller asked about a COLA for social security that Jenkins blamed that on Obama. In fact the COLAs are set automatically by a law passed in 1983. There were at least three bills to provide a COLA - HR 3536, HR 3672, and HR 4429, but Jenkins did not co-sponsor any of them.

Jenkins also stated that "the social security system is getting closer to bankruptcy every day" which is a lie. A CPA should know better than that. Social Security is projected to be solvent until 2037 and even then it will be able to pay 76% of benefits. 76% is a big cut, but it is a long way from bankrupt.

Jenkins continues to claim that "out of control spending is the problem" even as she voted for $4 trillion in tax cuts over the next ten years, a major portion of which goes to richer people. She continues to put tax cuts for millionaires ahead of social security payments for workers. Instead of taxing millionaires, it is proposed to raise the retirement age and tax the middle class. Those are in the Ryan plan. Does Jenkins support it?


Feb. 8 - It is long over, but I consider the Obama compromise on taxes to have been a major betrayal. As I wrote about here, not only because it kept tax cuts for the rich, but it also increased taxes on the working poor.

Dec. 24 - What's the matter with Congress?

       In his best-selling book, "What's the Matter with Kansas?" former Kansan Thomas Frank tried to explain why so many voters in rural states like Kansas have been voting against their economic interests and instead voting on social issues.

      However, President Obama undermines his argument. By, as Senator Franken said "punting on first down" and making a deal on the Bush tax cuts and even sweetening that with estate tax cuts and a payroll tax cut, President Obama blurs the difference between Democrats and Republicans on economic issues. Suddenly Obama was pushing a big tax cut as a way to help the economy and the working poor, just like Bush did in 2001 and 2003.

     Then, after having agreed to give tons of cash to the rich, Congress moved ahead on other issues - non economic issues like DADT (Don't Ask, Don't Tell), the START treaty, and food safety. This makes Kansas logical. Since both Republicans and Democrats are almost the same on economic issues, it makes perfect sense to vote based on social issues. There's nothing "the matter" with the working class voters, the problem is the politicians who don't represent them.