Republican Party Ignites Violence

The big question in Washington D.C. and around the nation right now is whether the Republican Party is responsible for the current violence against Democratic members of the congress after passage of health care reform. Given what has been going on the last 14-months it should be no surprise that it has culminated in violence against those in favor of reform. During the town hall health care meetings last year I can recall distinctly watching Chuck Grassley, the long time Iowa Senator standing uncomfortably in front of constituents who very loudly denounced the "death panels" provision they believe existed in the health care reform bill. Sarah Palin herself condemned this part of the bill as she claimed it would be used to euthanize her son with Down syndrome. Grassley said that the death panels would be used to "pull the plug on Grandma". Now if I were a member of the tea party and I saw prominent members of the Republican Party affirming the existence of these panels then I might be inclined to believe these panels existed. And if I believed they existed, I think I would get very upset. Upset enough to get violent perhaps.

Herein lies the problem: there were no death panels, these panels are nothing more then a right wing fantasy. But one person's fantasy can become another's truth unless quickly rebutted. Grassley lacked the courage to address this untruth either because he was afraid he would lose their votes or because he was physically afraid of the mobs that confronted him. Then Grassley went one step further: he recommended the provision in dispute which actually referred to living wills be removed from the health reform bill because it was "confusing." So, Grassley not only failed to confront these people with the truth, he placated and encouraged them by reacting to the fantastical claim as if it were true.

Similarly, the Republicans have been loathe to confront birthers who contest Obama having been born in the United States. On this issue the Republicans once again sought to placate this claim. Republican Representative John Campbell of California announced that he would move on legislation to insure that each Presidential candidate show proof of birth. Campbell, like Grassley became a facilitator of ludicrous claims against Obama and the Government. Instead of doing his job and telling the people the truth, he found it easier to mollify them by acting as if these things were true. When the leaders of a mainstream party act as if the most ridiculous claims are true, how can we expect the uninformed and uneducated to understand what is going on? The Republicans are clearly fueling the madness. If mainstream politicians tell the people that the American Government plans to kill elderly Americans with their health care plan, then violence becomes a reasonable option. A lack of responsibility by Republicans can be directly linked to the irrationally rabid response of the tea party types and their brethren. Then, as the passage of health care reform got closer to reality the encouragement of violence by the Republicans became more direct. Hours before passage of the health care bill, protesting tea partyers called African-American lawmakers the "N" word and spit on them. Openly gay Representative Barney Frank was met with homosexual slurs as he too entered the capitol. Shortly after, Devin Nunes, a Republican member of the House of Representatives from California was interviewed on C-Span. When he was asked about the name calling and spitting directed toward his house colleagues he replied:

"I think when you use totalitarian tactics people begin to act crazy, people have every right to smear someone, they can do it, its not appropriate, I would stop short of characterizing twenty thousand people...[in this light]"



You would think that the first thing out of Representative Nunes' mouth would be a stern critique of the behavior described. Instead, he defends it as being an expected result of "totalitarian tactics". This is the first time I have ever heard voting by elected representatives described as totalitarian. And lest we forget, the Senate Health Bill passed 60-40. That is called a super majority. The final House Health Bill passed with a seven vote plurality. The Reconciliation Bill passed 54-43 in the Senate and by eight votes in the House. When a member of congress describes the normal workings of our democracy in such a misleading way, he necessarily fans the flames of malcontents. Soon after passage of the Health Bill, Democrats in various states complained of bricks being thrown through their office windows and threatening messages left on answering machines. Automobiles of Democrat politicians have been vandalized and the brother of one politician had the gas line to his home severed when his address was published on the internet.

The Republicans attempted to avoid being associated with these acts and sent Eric Cantor, the Republican whip to make a statement. He said he too had been the victim of harassment, by a bullet though his office window no less. A police investigation determined later that the bullet had actually been fired straight up in the air and then had fallen through the window of an office occasionally used by the congressman. The police stated that the bullet had not actually been aimed at Mr. Cantor's office. Anyway, Cantor wanted us to know he felt the Democrat's pain.

The Republicans have stirred the pot of this populist rage with blatant lies from death panels to the Health Bill having been passed undemocratically. Their deliberate campaign of misinformation has led to the point where for many people violence is an acceptable reaction.

Enough with Reagan Already!

Apparently Republicans in congress have little to do because some of them are floating around the idea of putting Ronald Reagan's image on the $50.00 bill. I guess being the party of "No" leaves plenty of time for amusing pursuits like preserving the legacy of one recent Republican President.

Just a few years ago the Republicans insisted on renaming the Airport in Washington D.C (originally called Washington National Airport) Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. Now it seems they want to have him staring up at me from my bill fold for all eternity.

However, a problem arises: the $50.00 bill currently has an occupant or I guess the Republicans would consider him a squatter. That would be none other then Ulysses S. Grant the 18th President of the United States. In order for President Reagan to be placed on the bill they would have to oust old U.S. Grant. The Republicans must have sensed that of all the faces on the bills President Grant was the most vulnerable. But why?

Grant led the North to victory over a militarily more proficient South and then went on to become President of the nation. He played a key role in preserving the union: which many think is kind of a big deal. After the civil war Grant saw to reconstruction efforts that brought some former slaves to congress. Reagan on the other hand is known for cutting taxes but then also (less known) for raising them. In fact, he is responsible for one of the largest corporate tax hikes in history. Reagan started his Presidency with a 700 billion deficit and left with a three trillion dollar deficit. On the foreign policy front he is credited with helping to bring about the demise of the Soviet Union, which finally crumbled under his successor Bush I. In fact, Mikhail Gorbachev probably deserves a lot more credit for that then Reagan, but some Republicans would disagree. Notably, Grant was dead almost 30 years before he was put on the bill, Reagan has been dead six.

Do not get me wrong: although I am a Democrat I liked Reagan. I do not know why I liked him but growing up in the mid-eighties he reminded me of a kindly grandfather, with a twinkle in his eye, eating jelly beans by the fist full. I am just not sure he is dollar bill material since he is lacking (at this point) the historical weight to merit a memorial in my wallet. More than likely the impetus for all this is less a need to venerate Reagan and more the creation of a rally point for Republicans. Bush II followed the Republican creed of cutting taxes at all costs and drove the country off an economic cliff; then he pranced about like a cowboy and ended up starting a war for no reason with a trillion dollar price tag and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis. The Republicans may feel that since the present does not bode well for their ideas why not harken back to the past. People may find comfort in the memory of the old actor and perhaps it will distract them for a moment from record high unemployment and an economic crisis unmatched in 80 years. Then again, the people may ask why politicians are not making better use of their time.


Here is a video from CNBC's Kudlow Report: Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) is interviewed.

Irrational Anger

In the wake of the surprise election result in Massachusetts where unknown Republican Scott Brown beat current Attorney General of Massachusetts, Democrat Martha Coakley, many people have tried to make sense of the outcome. There are a variety of possible explanations; some have said Coakley was a weak candidate or that she rested on her laurels after the primary, thinking she could coast to victory in overwhelmingly Democratic Massachusetts. But more then anything it seems that there is a widespread populist anger at what has been going on in Washington from the bank bailouts to the debate surrounding healthcare. I know this first hand because I volunteered to call registered Democrats on behalf of Coakley; I ended up making 200 calls the day before the election. The people I called voiced their general displeasure with Coakley, Washington, and more than anything, the fact that I was yet another call disturbing them to solicit a vote. My numbers showed that 25% of Democrats planned to vote for Brown. This is an extraordinary result given which political party was in power when the economy collapsed.

As a close observer of the political scene and an enthusiastic student of history I was not surprised that the Government sought to prop up the banks and then pass a bill to stimulate the economy. These actions were a combination of Economics 101 and History 101. That is, we learned from the Great Depression of 1929 what did and did not work, and then we acted accordingly. Among experts there is really little debate that the Government had to prop up the banks to avoid a catastrophic failure of the financial system. The reason is simple: From car loans to employee paychecks the U.S. economy relies heavily on credit-without it the whole system ceases to function. Obama made this known and he has made it known more since the Massachusetts election, that the bank bailout was a necessary evil. Despite this, many Americans are still angry with the Government for the bailout. It would seem to me the anger should be directed almost exclusively at the banks.

The other target of populist anger is the Healthcare bill now on permanent hold in Washington. Massachusetts provided an interesting venue to test people's reaction to that bill since they already have privately run universal healthcare subsidized by the state. Notably, the system they have is very expensive and apparently over budget. Regardless, there appeared to be a general consensus that the bill in Washington was too expensive. A closer look at the Senate Bill which seemed destined to be closest to the finished product shows that the bill actually reduced the budget deficit by $130 billion dollars over 10 years; it also trimmed Medicare costs, extending the life of that almost insolvent program by 10 years. So while it may have been an expensive bill (about 1 trillion over 10 years) it actually saved money for taxpayers over the long haul according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. What is unclear is how the new bill will affect individuals: Will they pay more or less? The failure to lay this out for the public caused extreme discomfort to many Americans. The changing nature of the bill and the fact that it was never clear what final form it would take probably made this a difficult question to answer. Regardless, few Americans would disagree that we need reform and yet much venom flowed toward the President even though the Republicans ignored the issue for 8 years and then refused to debate it on orders from the Republican National Committee.

Finally, some anger was directed toward the stimulus bill, a $700 billion package designed to get the economy going again after the near depression type event that occurred in October of 2008. Once again, following the lessons of the Great Depression, there is little debate we needed a stimulus, although some debate as to the size.

What then? Why would Democrats (forget Independents and Republicans for a minute) vote to give more power to the party that got us in the mess to begin with scarcely a year after the collapse? My answer is probably going to sound condescending: I think many people fail to understand that we narrowly missed a serious economic depression like the one in 1929 which saw 25% unemployment and 27 years before stock prices returned to their pre-crash levels. The bank bailouts and the stimulus package were desperate (yet successful) efforts to avoid worse damage and suffering by the American people. Meanwhile, the healthcare bill is an attempt to bring down medical costs that threaten to bankrupt Medicare and the Federal budget, while insuring 33 million Americans who lack insurance. Given that a Harvard Medical School study found in 2007 that 45,000 Americans die each year from a lack of healthcare insurance, the necessity for this bill cannot be understated. The need for Government subsidized insurance is even more acute given the current economic realities.

The fault of the Obama administration may have been in its failure to educate the public. Obama did make clear in appearances before the press what he was doing, but I think it lacked the urgent note in his voice necessary to express its importance. The former professor should have tried harder to let the people know, step by step, what he was thinking and why he was acting the way he was-especially when opinion polls went south. Clearly, no President has dealt with more weighty issues at one time than Obama, yet addressing the issues right away as opposed to waiting for the healthcare bill to pass appears in hindsight to have been a tragic mistake.

In the midst of the Great Depression and during WWII, Franklin D. Roosevelt conducted a series of "fireside chats" broadcast by radio, discussing the issues of the day. It is said that FDR managed to quell the fears of the populace and give hope to all, while also keeping them informed. Certainly, Obama is capable of a similar bi-weekly address in response to the current fears and concerns of the American public. Otherwise, Obama may find himself making the right decisions for the country but losing the information war and thus the support for his agenda.

Neo Revisionist History

By far the most maddening refrain from the Right wing these days is the one condemning President Obama for spending too much tax payer money. I have to ask the question: "Is that the tax payer money being used to bail out the financial system which collapsed 7 years and 10 months into Bush's presidency?" Sometimes I feel like I live in Alice's Wonderland with Rush Limbaugh as the Queen screaming about Obama spending too much, despite the fact the spending is directed toward cleaning up the mess left by his Republican predecessor whom Limbaugh (and the Right) championed.

At this point there should be little debate about the wisdom of spending our way out of this current depression. Ben Bernanke, a Republican and the chairman of the Federal Reserve appointed first by President Bush agrees the only way to get out of the current financial crisis is to inject taxpayer money into the economy. In fact Bernanke believes there should be a second stimulus. Bernanke was the architect of the initial bail out of the banks to include the controversial purchase of Merrill-Lynch by Bank of America. Alan Greenspan, former Federal Reserve Chairman appointed by Ronald Reagan and also a Republican agrees in his naturally obtuse way, that it is acceptable for the US Government to provide capital in an economic crisis. However, he feels the financial system should be fixed first. Prominent economist on the left side of the economic academic elite promote Government intervention with tax payer money as well: Paul Krugman a former Professor of economics at Princeton and recipient of the Nobel Prize in economics has advocated in his New York Times columns not only for Government intervention but a much larger infusion of cash then the current stimulus contains; Laurence Summers, an economist and former President of Harvard University echoes the need for Government intervention and currently serves as an advisor to the President.

What gives then? If both sides of the economic political spectrum are in agreement why are the populist fires being stoked to such great effect against the bail out and the stimulus plan? A big part of the answer of course lies in simple partisan politics. Limbaugh and Co. want the Democrats to look bad no matter what. The problem is that this propaganda is being regurgitated by common people on the street and there is nothing explaining the very compelling opposite side of the coin. It may be time for non-partisan office holders like Bernanke to explain why the Federal Reserve and other agencies have taken the measures they have, if for no other reason then to enlighten the public.

Bernanke is an interesting person to have on the world stage right now. As a Princeton Professor one of his areas of expertise was the Great Depression. He has commented publicly on his efforts to avoid the mistakes made by the Government back in 1929. Specifically, those mistakes include the failure of the Government to get involved in keeping the banking system from collapsing which led to 25% unemployment and 25 years before stock prices reached their pre-crash levels. This sort of historical information might be useful to the American public right now. It is unclear why the Obama Administration, the Fed and other agencies have not been more effective in getting the word out. This is not a matter of partisan politics but a part of the duty of the Government to keep the people informed of the reason it is taking a certain course of action. Such explanations have been lacking or so quiet as to be lost in the storm of baseless criticism against the bail-out and the stimulus.

Here is a late Fall 2009 video from REAL TIME with Bill Maher interviewing Paul Krugman, among others.

The Rise of Mobocracy in America

Every history class I ever attended from junior high through college warned about the threat of mobocracy on the American Political system.

To me a mob is an angry group of people who move from place to place mindlessly destroying people's property. I never understood how unruly people could effect something as large and abstract as Democracy. Well, with the recent town hall meetings on healthcare and other issues I now understand. In Massachusetts, Representative Barney Frank was told by a woman that the President's health plan was akin to Nazism. Mr. Frank, with great disdain, declined to respond to her question. Similarly, a Nazi symbol was painted on the sign of a Democratic Congressman from Georgia who supports Obama's plan. I am unclear what providing healthcare to children and the poor has to do with a regime that started World War II and systematically killed 6 million Jews including children. A death threat was made to a congressional supporter of the health plan. The town hall meetings themselves have turned into shouting matches where the opponents of the health plan drown out any discussion. Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri admonished the crowd for their rude behavior. Arlene Specter's town hall was so boisterous it was impossible to have any rational discussion. In New Hampshire an opponent of the Obama administration showed up with a pistol strapped to his leg; in Arizona, a man appeared with an AR-15 automatic rifle. In both instances the President was only yards away.

To me this sort of behavior means only one thing: the Right wing does not want any discussion of the issues, they want to drown out the discussion with shouting, threats and ridiculous accusations. You could say that the actions of these crowds are a clear sign of mobocracy as they are drowning out democratic discourse. Clearly, such actions can be a threat to democracy. However, I am afraid that the mobocracy we face has ascended yet another level. Republican Senator Grassley of Iowa met with constituents throughout his state during the August recess to discuss the healthcare plan and other matters. A week or so earlier, Sarah Palin, the former Governor of Alaska and other prominent Republicans began to refer to a portion of the healthcare plan dealing with end of life counseling as a 'death panel'. Ms. Palin inferred that Government bureaucrats would decide who lived and died, or as it was so aptly put by Senator Grassley himself, 'pull the plug on Grandma.' In fact the end of life counseling referred to advising patients about living wills, powers of attorney and other legal devices that have been around for decades. The description of this portion of the bill as a death panel was a complete fiction. No one knows this better then Senator Grassley, as the amendment to the healthcare bill including end of life counseling, occurred in the Senate. The capper is that the end of life counseling was actually proposed by Senator Isakson, a Republican from Georgia. Senator Grassley fielded questions from angry citizens, some of whom invoked the death panels as a reason for the bill to be defeated. Not once did the good Senator explain what in fact the amendment was about. Perhaps he was afraid of breaking their spirit or more then likely he was afraid of losing their votes by telling them the truth. Unfortunately, going along with this lie was the rule not the exception for Republican lawmakers, with even Senator Isakson distancing himself from this harmless piece of legislation. Then, in a final bit of submission to the mob the Senate has decided to do away with the end of life counseling because it is 'confusing'.

Prior to the August recess, other town halls were held and that is when yet another mob (although I suspect essentially the same people) asserted itself although on a different subject. This time it was the issue of whether the President was a natural born American. One after another people stood up completely enraged inquiring from their elected representative why a man who was not born in the United States is President of the Country. The Democratic lawmakers I saw on You Tube said Obama was born in the United States to the boos of the people present. But here once again the Republicans acquiesced to the madness. Our very own Orange County Representative John Campbell appeared on the news show Hardball to explain why he was sponsoring legislature to ensure that Presidential Candidates show proof of their American birth. He also refused to say definitively whether the President was born in the United States. Representative Campbell's lack of character did not permit him to confront the irrational folks in his party and instead encouraged their madness further with proposed legislation. Certainly this new high in American Mobocracy was a new low for the nation. It is one thing for the crazies to disrupt meeting places yelling and carrying firearms; it is another for politicians to knowingly go along with the madness so as not to antagonize them. Members of our Government our giving into the mob so as to not lose their support. It is not the first time that politicians have given into ludicrous mob sentiment.

In the 1920s the National Socialist German Worker's Party came to be in Germany. That party was born as a result of an economic depression, not unlike the economic times the United States is currently experiencing. In addition, there was a wide spread but entirely unsubstantiated belief that Germany's humiliation at the end of World War I was the result of a Jewish/Communist conspiracy. Many political factions on the right tolerated and joined with that party because, among other things, they helped control the communists. In the end, this tolerance led to the complete destruction and division of Germany for 50 years. Perhaps if there had been enough Germans with the character to confront the thugs and their lies a lot of pain might have been averted. It is my sincere hope there are enough strong Americans to stem the current tide.

Unedited Letter to the Editor of the Economist Magazine

Dear Sir: Your article projecting the rise of Texas and the fall of California is seriously flawed. You need only examine the Periodic Table where you will find elements named Berkelium and Californium; there is no Houstonium. Why? Because Texas has opted to offer tax breaks instead of investing in its people and its institutions. California's public universities have lifted the state to become the world leader in computer software, computer chips, bio-tech and fine wine production among other areas. This investment caused the State of California to have at one time, the world's fifth largest economy. For sure, California is currently a mess. But this is a mess attributable to rigidly ideological politicians in Sacramento and one rigidly ideological former President, ironically, a Texan.

Will Bruzzo

Obama Joker: RACIST!

Obama Joker: Racist! In July of 2008, Vanity Fair posted this depiction of President Bush as the Joker. I cannot find a single legitimate repudiation of this image, nor should their be. This artist is clearly exercising their first amendment rights.

So why is it that a simple Google search will turn multiple repudiations of this depiction of Obama as the Joker? This brilliant piece of art has already been called racist (of course), dangerous, insensitive etc, etc.

Hypocrisy of the Left knows no bounds.

Shawn Fago