White House Refuses Solyndra Doc Subpoena

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/wh-rejects-subpoena-request-solyndra-docs

More than half health care deadlines missed by Obama administration

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/3/house-subpoenas-white-house-solyndra-documents/

The House Wants Answers

Obama's Solyndra Documents Subpoenaed 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/3/house-subpoenas-white-house-solyndra-documents/

Viva La Capitalismo!

Cuba legalizes the sale of personal property for the first time since the revolution

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CB_CUBA_PRIVATE_PROPERTY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-11-03-12-09-35

Jay Addeth to and Taketh Away...

However, this is in the Bible, "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess."

http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/1111/oh_lord_f5028e26-955c-48c3-9038-bab764ba97b4.html

The Real Issue

The Obama Administration Considered a Bailout for Solyndra Days Before Its' Current Belly-Up Status

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/policy/obama-administration-considered-bailout-for-solyndra-days-before-bankruptcy/2011/11/02/gIQAXkXXgM_story.html

Cain Weathers the Storm with GOP Support

Presidential hopeful Herman Cain

http://news.yahoo.com/supporting-cain-gop-evokes-thomas-hearings-063515247.html

The Clarence Thomas of the 21st Century

We shouldn't be surprised.  The Democrat hatred and fear of the conservative black Republican knows no bounds.  In the good ol' days for Democrats they would just lynch them and be done with it.  Now their method of choice is to accuse black Republicans of rape or sexual harassment.  Kills two birds with one stone.  Not only do you push them out of political candidate contention, but you smear and damage their reputation and credibility.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67194.html

GET OUT OF OBAMA'S WAY

As the news reports of Ghadafi’s death and the news that the President was bringing our soldiers home, from Iraq, came in, I found myself amazed by yet another accomplishment in the President’s foreign policy. President Obama has a string of foreign policy successes to brandish. President Obama not only killed Osama Bin Laden, but he has also killed a series of Al-Qaeda chiefs, including Anwar Al-Awlaki. He has captured more terrorists than the Bush administration ever dreamed of catching, and he has also managed to restore the reputation of America abroad. We are a more respected nation today and simultaneously (at-least among terrorists) a more feared nation. We have captured or killed anyone with American blood on their hands.

Under President Obama we have witnessed the fall of the Egyptian dictatorship, and the rise of the Arab spring. The President arranged a brilliant piece of espionage, in which he crippled the Iranian nuclear program, at-least temporarily. The President has also demonstrated an uncommon discipline in messaging and strategy. By not intervening in the beginning of the Iranian protests (against the cacophonous demands of GOP members), he allowed the protestors to continue to be seen as an entirely indigenous movement. I have dubbed this Obama’s Feng-Shui diplomacy. He seems to understand when he should intervene; when we should be aggressive and when we should allow events to flow like water, and evolve organically. His tactic in Iran produced significant fissures between the iranian government and its young, progressive, and hip population.

When I pondered his foreign policy successes, it dawned on me that foreign policy is the singular aspect of our government in which the President gets the first and last say in national policy. Foreign policy does not require him to compromise with anyone in the opposing party and we have had the opportunity to see Obama’s acumen for strategy. In light of this reality, I wondered what our domestic policy would be like, if President Obama was unimpeded by the GOP in economic affairs. How successful would an unobstructed Obama be in reviving our nation’s economy if he were not forced to compromise with the Republicans? The President currently has a jobs initiative that the Republicans are refusing to pass. It is estimated that we could create well over a million jobs if the package is passed, and yet, the GOP stands firmly, blocking its passage. The President’s brilliance in Foreign policy, an arena he had no prior experience in, makes it clear that the only thing holding back our Presidential prodigy and perhaps the only thing holding back the economy, is the Republican Party. Perhaps, for the sake of the nation, they simply need to Get Out Of President Obama’s way!

The Austerity Myth: Federal Spending Up 5% This Year

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/588254/201110170805/The-Austerity-Myth-Federal-Spending-Up-5-This-Year.htm

THIS USE TO BE A JOKE!

"If Republicans think that lower taxes are always better, then why don't they just try to get rid of all taxes? If republicans think lowering taxes always causes the economy to grow, then they should be arguing that 0% taxes would surely lead to tremendous growth?" ----This is how democrats often responded to hearing republicans talk about taxes and the seemingly endless need to constantly lower them. I never cared for this response. I thought it oversimplified, a reasonable concern about excessive taxation. I thought that it was a snide response; terse and dismissive. I felt that way, until republicans like Rick Santorum started suggesting that the way to emerge out of this recession was to eliminate all taxes, entirely on manufacturing. And he isn't the only one. Serious republicans are suggesting absurdly low levels of taxation, without regard to whether the levels they suggest could even partially fund our nation. And all of their reductions seem to be curiously focused on THE RICH. It seems that Taxes are only for the poor and the middle class. Hedge fund managers pay 0% Taxes. Last year over 1400 millionaires and billionaires paid ZERO in taxes. When conservatives want to attack democrats, or MSNBC, they love to point out that General Electric, MSNBC's parent company paid absolutely NO taxes last year. As if it matters that democratic leaning corporations are also being exempted from paying their fair share. This is not a liberal or conservative issue; its a finance issue. We have a nation and it must be funded, yet we are placing an increasing share of that burden on the backs of the middle class and poor.

What amazes me is that when republicans look at our nations deficit, they blame social security-which is not a driver of our deficit. They blame healthcare for the elderly and indigent but they don't seem to identify the failure of the government to collect taxes from large mega-corporations, hedge fund managers, and billionaires, as problematic. Perhaps we have a deficit because we haven't been collecting taxes from the wealthy for over a decade (that is hyperbole of course, but how long have we been letting Hedgefund Managers pay a 0% tax rate, and how many years have companies like G.E. paid, 0% in taxes....how many years have they just paid much less then the average small business).

Medicare certainly needs reform, but republicans have suggested plans that eliminate the program-and each proposal is more covert then the one before. The Ryan Plan made it clear that we should transform Medicare into a Voucher program, but seniors saw through that one too easily. Now we have Herman Cain's 999 plan, which is simply a plan that eliminates the funding mechanisms by which we pay for medicare and social security (effectively eliminating them). And adding to the pile up of absurd proposals is Rick Santorum's new 000 plan, which proposes 0% taxes for manufacturers! The idea of starving the beast, i.e. our nations government- has long been a policy goal for the GOP but this latest round of proposals is nothing short of catastrophic. The GOP is guilty of the worst kind of pandering. All politicians placate voters, to some extent, but a line is usually drawn at promising voters the impossible. The GOP has crossed over that line and discovered a new boundary to violate. They are not only willing to embrace the inane, but they are now willing to promise voters policies that would collapse our country and destroy all of the progress our nation has seen in the past few decades. What was America like before, Medicare? What was retirement like for seniors prior to social security?

In the last few years we have managed to make a virtue out of something that was once considered a shameful vice. The desire to avoid paying taxes was once considered to be the greatest of sins in a democracy. Those who were caught evading taxes were labeled "TAX DODGERS", but today we seem to have another sentiment. The GOP has been so successful at demonizing the idea of taxes that we no longer look down on, or blame those that avoid them. In fact, its become something to brag about. It simply needs to be said, that this use to be a joke. The idea of not paying any taxes, was once a sarcastic refrain democrats hurled at republicans, but now its republican policy!

Dems Start to Lean on Justice Thomas

The Democrat lynch mob is gearing up an ethics probe against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Seizing upon a recent disclosure by Justice Thomas that details "inadvertent" disclosure errors submitted to the Committee on Financial Disclosures by the justice in January. These disclosures included the past employment and financial gain of his wife, Ginny Thomas.

Katy Arburg, spokesperson for the Supreme Court, said "Please note that the financial disclosure forms require only the source of a spouse’s income, and not the amount of that income." Democrat strategists are hoping to use the submitted information disclosing Ginny Thomas' work for the Heritage Foundation from 2003-2007, a conservative think tank which opposed the Affordable Care Act otherwise known as ObamaCare, as a means to force a recusal from the conservative justice.


Nevermind that her tenure at Heritage ended prior to President Obama's election, much less the passing of the ObamaCare legislation. Furthermore, as a private citizen her political proclivities are not to be questioned. Short of assassination, the left will devise every means of chicanery necessary to ensure that the Supreme Court give the Affordable Care Act the green light. In the spirit of it's better to be safe than sorry, I suggest the justice hire a food tester.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/05/ethics-probe-clarence-thomas_n_996782.html

Palin Is Out!!!

Palin Says No Thanks


http://marklevinshow.com/Article.asp?id=2303165&spid=32364

The Heat Is On

Demands on Attorney General Eric Holder to “come forward and at least admit” Fast & Furious foreknowledge increase

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65208_Page2.html

Dems Kill Jobs Bill Vote

On the Senate floor today, Republican leader Mitch McConnell asked for unanimous consent to proceed on voting on the bill. Reid, who has struggled to find enough votes for the bill in the Democratic caucus, objected to the motion and killed the opportunity for a vote.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-campaign-says-gop-blocking-jobs-bill-after-reid-blocks-jobs-bill_595022.html

Who Said?

Who Said?

"These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference."

And

"I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years."

Democrat President Lyndon B Johnson

HERMAN CAIN ASKED; AND HE DESERVES AN ANSWER: Why Haven't Blacks Warmed To The GOP?

Herman Cain made news this week when he claimed that Blacks don't vote for the Republican Party, because they are Brainwashed, and Closed-minded! His comments echo his fellow black republican, Allen West, who pronounced himself a "modern day Harriet Tubman", leading blacks off of "the modern day plantation" of the Democratic Party. The two were attempting to explain the nearly unanimous rejection of the republican party by African Americans. The comments sparked a predictable outrage in the black community and throughout the country but they also present an interesting challenge to explain why blacks have not been open to the Republican Party.

The question itself actually begins with a presumption. When we claim that the black community has rejected the Republican Party, we are presuming that the Republican Party has made meaningful overtures to the black community. The question also belies a fundamental ignorance about how the black community arrived at its current political configuration. Black Republicans, and Republicans in general are often very fond of pointing out that at one time, most blacks in the country were Republicans. They buttress that historical fact with somewhat specious claims that Harriet Tubman and Martin Luther King considered themselves to be Republicans. What they often hesitate to acknowledge is that african americans did not leave the republican party, the republican party left the black community. The GOP embraced a southern strategy, in which it consciously chose to abandon black voters. The next few decades were then filled with controversial stances and statements.

That history is reflected in the modern day party in the personage of men like Rand Paul, who continues to echo his party's past discomfort with the 1965 civil rights bill. Rand Paul stated that he was opposed to the government forcing businesses to serve all patrons equally. He stated that businesses that wished to ban blacks, should have that choice. Rand Paul is not necessarily a racist. He simply believes in a free market approach to social change. And he is not alone. It is not uncommon to hear African American Republicans, like the famous Larry Elders, similarly state a discomfort with desegregation laws. Most blacks find such positions inexcusable and they find the party that promotes them, unpalatable. They find the future that the success of those ideas would portend, to be horrifying. To be fair, most republicans don't hold on to this standard-less perspective of civil liberties but it seems that before Mr. Cain, Mr. West, and even Mr. Steele continue to cast "2/3" of African Americans as "closed minded" plantation dwellers, perhaps they should consider that many in the GOP have simply taken positions that most blacks find, distasteful.

Republicans promote economic policies that may be well founded but most african americans (rightly or wrongly) don't see those policies as benefiting their communities. For instance, the GOP obsession with tax cuts for the wealthy and their recent embrace of the idea that the poor aren't paying their fair share in taxes, may be well founded in economic theory ( giving the GOP the benefit of the doubt) but it sounds insane to most african americans. Black families that are struggling more than any other group in the country are not going to sanction an economic policy that offers as a solution, raising their own taxes, for the sake of millionaires and billionaires. Most blacks don't work for fortune 500 companies and won't see their fate as tied to tax relief for the wealthy. Republicans may think that this line of thought is wrong, but it cannot be called irrational. The black community is an unusually blue collar community, with an uncommonly uniform economic profile. Perhaps Mr. Cain, Mr. West and Mr. Steele should look to this common economic experience as an explanation for the shared political perspective and uniform voting pattern of most blacks, as opposed to casting "2/3" of blacks as brainwashed.

The black community has never been averse to the conservative perspective. Black Republicans often note that black americans are an overwhelmingly conservative lot but they have been at a loss to explain why our collective conservative perspective hasn't materialized into votes for the GOP. Explaining this, should always have been a simple matter. After the GOP abandoned black voters and after the decades in between the GOP has been largely inactive in the black community. Michael Steele has said that "the southern strategy" ended in 1992, when "Bubba" returned to the democratic party. He defines the end of the southern strategy as ending with the election of Bill Clinton and a growing success of the democratic party in the south. The question Mr. Cain, Mr. West and Mr. Steele should be asked is; what the GOP has done since 1992 to woo black voters? And quite frankly, how quickly did the GOP feel it could re-establish it's relationship with the black community? 1992 was not that long ago.

If the southern strategy ended, as Mr. Steele says, in 1992 why would the GOP believe that life long democrats would suddenly abandon their democratic party for a Republican party that only recently abandoned it's southern bias? And most importantly, what did the GOP do to facilitate this rapid change. The reality of voters in america is that most people never change their party affiliation and blacks are no different. When the Republican Party chose to leave the black community, they made a decision with multi-generational implications. Massive demographic political realignments only happen rarely among any group. Republicans after 1992, or any date prior should have realized this and understood the magnitude of the challenge ahead of them. They should have developed outreach efforts that reflected the enormity of the task. The Republican Party has not had any major outreach efforts. In fact, when Mr. Steele became chairman of the RNC, he was ridiculed by his own party for going to Harlem and continuing his own personal (and commendable) outreach efforts.

The reality is that most African Americans have never had a republican campaigning in their neighborhood. The GOP has never, in any meaningful way persued African American support. Mr. Steele has noted himself, that aside from a few "photo-ops" the RNC's efforts have been lacking. How then, can Mr. Steele, Mr. West, or Mr. Cain then blame black voters for not responding to nonexistent outreach. The Republican Party, does not campaign in black neighborhoods, nationwide. They don't typically advertise on websites, television programs, and periodicals that blacks habitually consume. And they have far too few community based efforts. If the GOP wants the black vote, perhaps they should start by making a real difference in the black community. Herman Cain, and Michael Steele have personally made meaningful contributions to black communities, but the party they represent has not. Asking black voters to ignore the inattentiveness of the GOP, is naive.

Herman Cain's own comments are the single best explanation of the black community's perspective on the Republican Party. In declaring "2/3" of black voters to be "closed-minded" and "brainwashed" Cain revealed that he places himself (and presumably all black republicans) in an elite, enlightened class of open minded, free thinkers-unlike the rest of the black community. In most communities, black or white, this would be called a superiority complex. On a more fundamental level, it can be argued that you cannot win the votes of people you don't respect. If Cain, who I think speaks for a sizable perspective in his party honestly believes that most blacks are "brainwashed", he cannot claim to respect them or their perspective. It is the lack of respect that I believe creates the greatest distance between the black community and the Republican Party.

The explanation Mr. Cain gave is standard fair in the GOP. His comments are so common and representative of the way in which the GOP has explained its failure in the black community, that I was honestly surprised it made news. In embracing the notion that blacks are simply brainwashed, and irrationally closed minded, the GOP has denied itself the opportunity to deal with the real concerns black americans have about GOP policies. They haven't formed cogent arguments that allay the concerns of blacks because they don't feel blacks have any legitimate concerns. The explanations they do have for their policies and their benefits are rarely communicated, directly-because REPUBLICANS DON'T CAMPAIGN IN BLACK COMMUNITIES! But even more disastrous for the GOP has been the tone, of it's rhetoric toward the black community.

Consider Cain's own remarks that cast he and his fellow black republicans as a superior class of clear thinkers in contrast to the rest of the "plantation" dwellers or modern day, intellectual slaves (ala. Allen West). Incendiary comments and songs like "Barack The Magic Negro" have certainly added to the distance. The treatment of President Obama by a GOP whose primary objections have seemed to revolve around his race have also harmed the individual efforts of republicans. But the most damaging rhetoric has come from black republicans themselves. Mr. Cain, and Mr. West cannot call their fellow african americans brainwashed slaves and then fein shock at our hesitance to follow them. Those of us that vote for democrats actually have fairly good reasons for our support. Mr. Cain and Mr. West (especially) should understand that you cannot win-over an enemy that you don't respect or that you don't take the time to understand. And both have given black americans legitimate cause to question whether or not either actually respects the rest of the black ("brainwashed") community.

Ultimately, Mr. West and Mr. Cain represent a pattern of outrageous rhetoric, supplied primarily by African American Republicans (even more than the rhetoric of traditional Republicans) and it's this rhetoric that continues to destroy any hope the GOP has of winning african american support. Recent books from authors like Larry Elders sport titles like "STUPID BLACK MEN"; and then there is "Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can Do About It" by Star Parker. These books are a mere sampling of the types of titles that have become popular writing and reading for black conservatives. They are more offensive to black voters then any policy to GOP promotes. In looking for an explanation of black voters and their feelings toward the GOP, Herman Cain had to look no further than his own comments and the rhetoric and books of his own fellow black republicans. In fairness to Mr. Cain and West, this rhetoric didnt start with black Republicans. There has been a long history of condemning black republicans as Uncle Tom's, but this trend has long since subsided. Black Republicans gain nothing by returning the Uncle Tom, slur with their own innovation of calling liberal blacks, the equivalent of modern slaves. The ugliness of the rhetoric on both sides has outlived its usefulness. Most black Americans would welcome legitimate political options and the black community desperately needs political diversity. The issues our communities face would be solved more efficiently if we could tap develop solutions that take advantage of both conservative and liberal ideas. If the Republican Party actually wants black votes it needs to get off of the side lines, knock on some doors and change it's tone. Mr. Cain, and other African American Republicans would do well to ditch the slave idioms, and pronouncements of their own superiority and stick to confronting the issues.

DRILL BABY DRILL......NOT SO FAST! Is Shale Oil In Our Future?

DRILL BABY DRILL....was the chant led by former RNC Chairman Michael Steele at the last Republican Nominating Convention. Can Energy Independence be achieved by drilling? Does America have the huge reserves of shale oil and natural gas, that republicans claim. New Studies are raising doubts.

http://howestreet.com/2011/09/shale-gas/

The First Lady Pinches Pennies Too!

The First Lady Pinches Pennies Too!

The current administration risks offending the sensibilities of ordinary Americans with this coordinated stunt. I wonder how much it cost the secret service to prep this Target for these campaign shots?

Biden's Boost to Republicans

http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/29/biden-voters-should-blame-obama-not-bush-for-economy/

THE REAL REASON CHRIS CHRISTIE WON'T RUN FOR PRESIDENT!

In each Republican election, the candidates vie for the title of being Ronald Reagan's namesake. Each candidate usually tries to promote the portions of their personal narratives that parallel Reagan's rise. "I (insert candidates name here), like Reagan, took acting classes"......."I, like Reagan, married a woman"! The level of hero-worship is intriguing but it is also damaging because no one can ever live up to the mythology of the man (Reagan). But each election, brings forth a new crop of candidates claiming to wear his mantle and the legacy always seems to settle on one candidate. In the last Presidential election, George W. Bush's supporters claimed that he too was the next reincarnation of The Gipper. Eventually, GOP voters always come to realize that the "New Reagan" isn't as great as the original version. This years "reluctant" nominee-for the mantle of Reagan is Chris Christie-who has been screaming as loudly as he can, that he doesn't want the Job. Republicans have seemed dumbfounded-afterall, who wouldn't want to be President?

I think that there is a very simple reason Chris Christie doesn't want the job-right now; Why would he take the Presidency now, with everything that is going wrong? I have long stated that the incredible collapse of our economy, created by the failure of government, created a situation that could not be resolved for several years. The truth is that no matter what policies President Obama implemented, this problem was so large and catastrophic that it was always destined to consume most, if not all of the first four years of ANY President. It will likely take a few more years before this nation's economy is fully restored and any President in the interim will be literally bombarded with the attacks of his enemies. The nation will unfortunately blame anyone in the oval office and will likely label them a failure, until the country is healthy, once again. And this is why Chris Christie doesn't want the job. This is why no serious republican wants to be president, right now.

The list of candidates that have refused to run, is almost as long as the list of candidates running (and its also a more credible list). Haley Barbour-the universally respected governor of Tennessee has always been regarded as the best and brightest of the old south. But, he is out! Mitch Daniels the consummate no nonsense republican was sure to run, but he too walked away from the podium; and Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas has decided to keep hosting his tv show. All of them, including Chris Christie and Sarah Palin are running as far from the seat of power as possible! I would argue that two things have deterred these candidates; and Chief among those deterrents is the current political climate. Almost all of the truly credible candidates are guilty of being moderates at some point in their respective tenures. None of them are anxious to step out on stage and be "Perried", which I define as "being lauded as a conservative in the outset of an election, only to have the same conservative base that asked you to run, turn on you like a pack of ravenous unfed pack-animals". The second deterrent is that these candidates understand what we, in the media are afraid to admit; They understand that this economy was always going to take four years to heal and President Obama has likely done all that he can to make it heal. He has done all that anyone can to turn this ship around and no amount of GOP proposed tax cuts could ever have produced a different result. The truth is that republicans don't have any answers that they seriously believe would have made this recovery occur at a faster rate. On camera, they will of-course say very different things but they don't even believe that they could have done a better job. I would argue that the recession was a major blow to republican economic orthodoxy, after all we followed their policies for 8 years and we still ended up in recession. The collapse forced republicans to stumble and loose faith in their own ideas! In reality, republicans know that economies heal, but the process takes time. We endured the worst collapse since the Great Depression. Despite their constant attacks on the President as a failure, reasonable republicans know that this was never something that could have been done inside of a year (or 9 months as Michele Bachman claims). They also know that despite the childish antics and mindless partisan snyping of both sides, this country is recovering but there is still a tremendous mess to clean up.

The crop of "could have been" candidates have just concluded that they should let Obama finish cleaning up the mess that was made before he arrived in Washington. The next President will surely have a much easier time leading this nation. In order to truly repair this country, Obama will have to make some of the toughest decisions of any President and it seems that Obama- the eternal optimist, is actually willing to make all of those hard decisions (entitlement reform). He has already offered to reform social security on multiple occasions and he even offered a grand bargain that would have included Medicare reform. These reforms are critical changes but any sane, career conscious politician will be hesitant to approach them. I am not attacking these "would be" candidates or suggesting anything negative about their character. It is entirely normal and understandable, for a politician. Why face the wrath and ridicule of angry voters in both parties, when you can simply let someone else be "the bad guy". The current political climate hasn't rewarded any politician, willing to challenge his or her own base constituency. But Obama seems almost enthusiastic to try; it seems he senses the "fierce urgency"- of our current condition. By the time 2016 comes around, all of the really hard lifting will have already been done, and Chris Christie and all of the others can run for the Presidency of a much improved nation, in a much healthier political environment.

TRIED AND FAILED: Gutting The Government, Cutting Spending and Decapitating Deficits: Does Austerity Work?

In the United States, our discussion on economics has circled around a single dominating philosophy called Austerity. The Republicans have demanded that we immediately reduce our spending, and attack our deficit. They have argued that the deficit is weighing down our economy and that the only way to dig ourselves out of the economic whole we are in, is to reduce spending immediately. Their demands for cuts have become so ravenous that Eric Cantor, the House Minority Whip, recently suggested that we withhold emergency funds for recent hurricane victims until we cut those funds from other lines of the federal budget. The philosophy actually makes sense, on an intuitive level. Our country is in debt. Its natural that we would want to get out of debt. The notion that cutting back and reducing debt is the path to success is so intuitive, that it has become the dominant economic strategy throughout Europe and in the UK, in particular. But recent observers have noted that Austerity hasn't worked very well for the UK. In fact, many are starting to question the conventional wisdom entirely.

Reuters reported that Bill Gross, the manager of PIMCO, the world's largest bond holder, recently stated that the UK is risking another recession as a result of their austerity measures.

He recommended a "mid-course correction" that he says could lift the UK economy. "The economy in the UK is WORSE OFF than it was when the plan was developed, so there should be at a minimum fine-tuning and perhaps re-routing of the plan". He then suggested that a similar readjustment needs to take place in the United States. The new International Monitary Fund Chief, Christine Lagarde has suggested that the world's economy is entering a "dangerous phase"She says that weak balance sheets and poor growth are "feeding negatively on one another". She went on stating that "This vicious cycle is gaining momentum, and frankly, it has been exacerbated by policy indecision and political dysfunction" (I wonder who she is talking about......U.S.). She capped it all off with, "Exactly three years after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the economic skies look troubled and turbulent as global activity slows and downside risks increase". As the U.S. plots its course ahead, it is useful to look at the results or lack thereof, that other nations are experiencing. Few nations have testified to the gospel of austerity, as sincerely as the UK. The current Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne has sworn an eternal oath to decapitating the british debt and in this battle, austerity has been his primary weapon. But the british economy has not thrived and as a result, a growing chorus of voices is insisting on a new direction, away from what have been perceived to be failing policies.

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that unemployment in the UK, has risen at it's fastest pace in the last two years. The government had been banking on private sector jobs and the absorption capacity of the private market. The government, filled with blind faith, slashed 111,000 workers in the second quarter and plans on dropping 310,000 workers from the public sector. This strategy is similar to the course demanded by the Right in America. The british ideals are perfectly representative of the U.S. efforts. They believed, as we do that sincere efforts at curbing debt would result in growing confidence in the fiscal accountability of our respective nations and would also result in confidence in the private sector. But in the UK, for every two jobs cut in the public sector, LESS THEN one job was created in the private sector. These facts have led to a raucous debate about the effectiveness of UK austerity measures and perhaps should lead the U.S. to question whether or not we are on the right path.

Is the Right Wing of America, leading us down a path of tried and failed policies, based on a blind faith in a private sector ideal that does not exist-and never has existed? Even the Deputy Prime Minister of the UK, is starting to turn. He has announced a round of infrastructure spending. The economic situations of the UK and the U.S. are like mirror images, or more accurately, the UK has seemed like a window into our future. Our own President has proposed a new round of infrastructure spending and the GOP is unsurprisingly, opposed! Will we head down the same road as the UK, of austerity and a decline in public sector employment, only to see the same results? Will we find ourselves frantically scrambling for new strategies, a few months from now?Or will we experience a totally different result? Will we be the one place in the world, where Austerity is actually working?

I Don't know----what do you think, Spectrum Family?

HOW MUCH OF THE MONEY I EARN, DO I DESERVE TO KEEP: A Democratic Response

HOW MUCH OF THE MONEY I EARN, DO YOU THINK I DESERVE TO KEEP? This was the question posed by a 17 year old young man, at the CNN/ TEA PARTY EXPRESS Debate; and ever since it was asked, Republican pundits have been anxious to ambush the first democrat they can come across, with it. We must admit, that the GOP has a way with words. They have mastered the art of oversimplification; They have an economic philosophy that can fit on a napkin-"Tax Cuts For The Wealthy, Produce Jobs and Growth". And When asked why we have to give tax cuts to the wealthy? They respond with "You Have Never Gotten A Job From A Poor Person"; Their is even enough room left on that napkin, for their foreign policy-"Peace Through Strength". Before The Iraq war, the bedeviled democrats, opposed to the war with, "Doesn't Everyone Deserve Freedom. Why Don't You Believe That People In The Middle East Are Capable of Handling Democracy?" And When Democrats point out that the current deficit Republicans rage about, was built by the Republicans themselves, they respond with the tried and poll tested phrase, "Blame Bushing", which manages to be childish and disarming all at once. Yep, Republicans have a way with words, and this question is no different; Talk radio has already produced another generation of Republicans adept at developing questions that manage to paint any respondent as an evil socialist, Son of Lenin! "How Much of The Money I Earn, Do I Deserve To Keep? It's a question perfectly designed to solicit the kind of absurd responses that some have come to demand of elected officials. And far too many politicians have lowered themselves to simply telling their audiences whatever they would like to hear. "How Much of The Money I Earn, Do I Deserve To Keep?" "ALL OF IT! IT'S YOUR MONEY! YOU EARNED IT!" This is the only response that won't get you booed offstage and the perfectly phrased question allows the pandering pols to tell voters precisely what they think we want to hear, which is that we shouldn't have to pay taxes at all. And the media allows the absurd implication to fly by unchallenged.

So What Is The Best Answer to This? How Can We Stop the cycle of ridiculous promises and insipidly shallow debate? We tell the truth: How Much of Your Money Do You Deserve To Keep?

"You Deserve to keep all of your money. You Also Deserve to not be taxed at a higher rate then the average billionaire. The Most Unfair aspect of our current tax system, is that we expect Secretaries, Carpenters, Teachers, and Cops to pay more of their paychecks in taxes then we demand of any billionaire hedge fund manager. And we need to ask the GOP WHY THEY BELIEVE THAT YOU DESERVE TO BE TAXED AT A HIGHER RATE THEN MILLIONAIRES!"

This is the best answer, in a quick pinch. Now if we have more time to talk we should expand on this. What is interesting about this question is that it came from a 17 year old. Now hopefully, this young man hasn't been listening to Glenn Beck, who has been telling his listeners that college aint for everybody. And that some people need to simply not take out the debt, to go to college. Hopefully this young fellow, wants to go to college, but if he does, it probably means he has filled out a FAFSA. He is probably seeking federally secured loans. He may be going to a publicly funded university or he will most certainly be attending a private college that receives grants for everything from research to faculty. Just like Michele Bachman, Joe Miller, Rand Paul and virtually every Republican, our nation and all of its citizens need services that only a centralized government can provide. No company is eager to build a highway for little to no money out of your pocket, and you can't pay for streets as individuals. The public school this young man likely attended can't be funded individually. In fact if he or his parents tried to pay for the services they received at that public school, they would likely go into bankruptcy. We live in the best America that has ever been and most of the things we enjoy: THE INTERNET, DIGITAL CABLE: FROZEN DINNERS; ROADS, SCHOOLS, THE BUSES PEOPLE TAKE UNTIL THEY CAN AFFORD CARS, POLICE DEPARTMENTS, FIRE DEPARTMENTS: All of those require that we pay taxes. So the Extended Answer to this young man's question is:

You Deserve to keep all of your money. You Also Deserve to not be taxed at a higher rate then the average billionaire. The Most Unfair aspect of our current tax system, is that we expect Secretaries, Carpenters, Teachers, and Cops to pay more of their paychecks in taxes then we demand of any billionaire hedge fund manager. And we need to ask the GOP WHY THEY BELIEVE THAT YOU DESERVE TO BE TAXED AT A HIGHER RATE THEN MILLIONAIRES----but anyone saying you shouldn't have to pay any taxes is lying to you. ---You deserve to keep all of your money, but you also have to pay taxes for the services you want and need-that way the things you need in life, like your education, the roads you drive on, the police that protect you and the healthcare that your grandparents need today and that you will need tomorrow-you pay taxes so that those things are actually affordable. We know what life was like without Social Security, the suffering of the elderly without Medicare; We know what life was like before those programs and YOU WOULDN'T EVER WANT TO LIVE IN THAT AMERICA! Don't let the Republicans con you into believing that we don't need to pay taxes, thats an empty promise-and don't let them get away with taxing you more then they tax the rich. YOU DON'T DESERVE THAT!

You know, 95% of Americans utilize some kind of Government Backed Agencies to purchase their homes. Ever since 1938, the American Dream became affordable for millions of americans. In fact, what we call the American Dream became a reality through the programs the GOP now opposes. Now, I'm sure that 95% of americans includes that young man's parents; it certainly includes Michele Bachman!

The GOP Would have people believe that if we do anything together; if we work together in any way; if we are, at all concerned about each other, THEY CALL THAT SOCIALISM. Its not socialism and if your in that 95% of Americans, if you have ever attended a public school, or called a police officer, or driven on a highway-the republicans are calling YOU a communist. They are trying to make you feel ashamed-but the reality is that none of them got through life without the services they now oppose! We need to work together as a country and when we do, healthcare becomes affordable-safe neighborhoods become possible-and education becomes accessible to all!

Now, all of that won't quite fit on a napkin, but it will fit in a 30second -1 minute response time.

EMPLOYERS RAISE DOUBTS ABOUT OBAMA JOBS PLAN

The New York Times Has An Interesting Analysis of The Potential Doubts Raised By Employers Themselves About The Obama Jobs Bill. Many Say, It Simply Won't Work. Is The Obama Plan The Right Plan, or Is It More Of The Same and Destined To Fail? Read The New York Times Article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/10/business/economy/in-the-real-world-will-the-jobs-plan-make-a-difference.html?_r=1&hp

Obama’s ‘Groundhog Day’ Speech

It’s a scene that has been created for his throng of adoring fans in times past. Not so long ago the great oracle of reverberating platitudes was expertly placed betwixt Corinthian columns admonishing America to look past his lack of experience and loathing of country and focus on how fabulously he delivers a speech with love from a teleprompter. It was classic Barack Obama. He was in fine form. A speech laced with the honeyed banalities that famously hypnotized the willing like the head of Medusa on Athena’s shield. Entertaining and replete with goose bumps like the tingle up Chris Matthews’ leg, Obama’s speech was vintage in its charm and magnetism. He even made me, one who knows not to look into Medusa’s eyes, feel and not just hear his words. We want to believe him. We hope we can believe him. That is until one realizes that this is political Groundhog Day.

What Obama offered was nothing imaginative or new and certainly not outside of his comfort zone. He proposes that we spend more money to create jobs (wink, wink) and that every penny spent will be paid for entirely (wink). Thankfully, I have not lost my mind, nor have the majority of the American people. He has tried most of this in some measure and has made sure to offset it all with astronomical spending. In short the American Jobs Act, promises long, but only shortly delivers. A lynch pin of the act, is the cuts in payroll taxes. This will gut funding for Social Security and Medicaid. For all the talk of Republicans wanting to throw grannies off of the cliff earlier in the summer, this is the ultimate send off. The $4,000 tax credit for new hires who have spent more than six months looking for a job, a tax cut for new hires and a tax cut for those business who increase wages does not an economy grow. What difference does this all make if no one is hiring? If this all sounds vaguely familiar do not adjust your computer screen or hit the refresh button, it is because it has all been foisted on businesses before. Last year the President embarrassed himself by blaming businesses for not hiring after he had so wisely told them that they were free to do so because of his tax credits and tax cuts for expansion.

Let me jog your memory. It was called the HIRE Act signed into law by Obama in March of 2010. CBS described it as such:

The bill mandates that payroll taxes will be forgiven for businesses that hire someone who has been unemployed for at least two months;

It will permit small businesses to write off investments they make in equipment this year;

It will reform municipal bonds to expand investment in schools and clean energy;

And it will continue roadway infrastructure investment into the spring and summer, when, the president said, construction jobs pick up.

These cuts in payroll taxes and tax credits do not solve the problem of high unemployment in this country because it does not address the reason for the nationwide hiring freeze. In short, high unemployment is a side effect of a slow down in a nation’s economy. Businesses look for the stability of maintaining their workforce and forego the risk of adding to their rosters thereby increasing expenses. These recessions are cyclical and when left to heal itself, exemplified in the crash of ’21, the market will correct itself and quickly. However, when the government takes this as an opportunity to never “let a crisis go to waste”, you will see the crash of ‘29, but you will get the deep recession and subsequent depression that followed engineered by the good, sometimes even nefarious, intentions of bureaucrats and their interests.

In addition to creating more jobs, according to President Obama, this bill will fix our roads and bridges along with various other forms of infrastructure, fix our schools, put all of our teachers back to work, veterans will be hired, unemployment insurance extended, construction increased, cuts in government spending, reduction of the deficit, and the discovery of unicorns while confirming Darwin’s theory of evolution with fossil evidence. (I might have added the last two, but if he could promise the world I figured a few more addendums for my own amusement can’t hurt.) All this on the heels of Obama giving Solyndra Inc, a solar panels manufacturer in California, over $535 million in federal stimulus loan guarantees in 2010. This same company has since declared bankruptcy and as of September 8, 2011 is being investigated by the FBI. This president gave away $535 million dollars of taxpayer money to a clean energy initiative, per the HIRE Act, and ended up losing jobs and an enormous amount of public money! Obama said several times during this speech that it was all just “simple math.” Well, I say that someone should give this president a calculator and gift him with a tax credit if he uses it.

R.L. Ward

PASS THIS BILL NOW! The American Jobs Act

Well, we have made it through yet another joint cession of congress, but this time there was no heckling; No Shouts of "You Lie", from the recalcitrant right. Instead a sober President, challenged our nations leaders to meet the demands of the moment. The eternal optimist, put forth a plan designed to appeal (yet again) to both sides of the aisle. The President's new initiative consists largely of tax cuts that both parties have suggested in the past. Bloomberg News described the plan as,

"$447 billion jobs plan tilted heavily toward the Republican prescription of tax cuts."

But does this bill have any chance of passing? Almost certainly, NOT! The President has crafted a plan that will save the jobs of teacher, invest in our infrastructure, and cut payroll taxes for workers and the businesses that hire them. But the plan that consists of ideas culled together from GOP proposals will likely encounter the same opposition his previous proposals have met. The question readers should ask, is WHY? Why would republicans oppose their own proposals? And how can they get away with such blatant obstruction? The right wing is out spinning, in every way they can to justify, the irrational.

The President repeated his demand, "PASS THIS BILL, RIGHT AWAY"! But the right doesn't want to let go of it's election year bone. The economy is still anemic. The suffering is still severe and its the hardship of the american people that the GOP is relying on to garner votes in the next election. But what happens to the GOP if the economy turns? What happens if the suffering is abated? The right wing has attempted to present this President as the most Left Wing, Socialist to ever ascend to the oval office. He has been called a communist. The right has suggested that he is so fundamentally foreign, that he cannot possibly understand what makes this nation great, and as a result, they have argued that he has utter contempt for the very foundations of our democracy. The rhetoric has been effective. Republican voters can be seen shedding tears at the very thought of President Obama winning a second term. The GOP has effectively painted Obama as an extremist and yet their depiction couldn't be further from the truth.

The President's proposals have largely maintained a single pattern; that is, centrality! No matter what proposal you consider, each Obama initiative has been derived in nearly equal measure, of Republican proposals and Democratic ideas. The Republicans for instance have claimed that the health care reform, known to them as OBAMACARE, is the single-most destructive bill "EVER" passed in the history of the nation. In fact, they have argued that it has been the arbitross around the neck of the nation's economy. Yet, the most common complaint about the healthcare bill has been against the Healthcare mandate-which requires citizens to purchase Health Insurance. The right has called it communism; the product of a socialists mind. Ofcourse they have forgotten that the socialist mind that originally proposed the mandate, was a member of the Republican party. The Mandate was actually first proposed by "Reagans favorite Think tank"-The Heritage Foundation. It then became the centerpiece of Presidential Nominee-and Republican-Bob Dole's healthcare bill during the Presidential race. Newt Gingrich proposed it. The majority of Republican senators during the 90's supported it. Mitt Romney even proposed that the UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM he established in Massachusetts, should become the model for the nation.

The Presidents stimulus package dedicated 40% of its total, to GOP requested Tax Cuts. If the stimulus package didn't work, as the republicans claim, then they should have to own 40% of its failure. We have at some point, failed to hold the GOP accountable. We are in dangerous waters when parties oppose legislation simply as a matter of pure partisanship. While I consider myself to be rather independent, I can tolerate ideological leanings. If leaders were voting on the basis of principle, or ideology I could understand their behavior. We often think of politics and our political persuasions as being the result of rational thought and consideration. In truth, our position on the political spectrum is the result of our own inbred tendencies; our own natural proclivities and leanings. I have found that the politics we adopt is much less subject to reason then we would like to think. It may seem like an exaggeration, but I believe that many of us were simply raised with the perspective to be liberal, or conservative, and that rarely changes throughout life. This is why, I hold no real malice against those I disagree with. Ideology is acceptable and understandable in my mind. But this is not about ideology.

The rise of President Obama has been accompanied by the rise of a form of GOP politics that sanctions opposing policies, even their own proposals, simply as a means of opposing the President. The Pay Day Tax Cut, was a GOP proposal, and yet the morning papers are filled with Republican statements declaring the Tax Cut to be ineffective. How these lawmakers can call proposals that they once championed, ineffective is beyond any understanding. The reality is that the media has failed to hold GOP lawmakers accountable. Partisanship in America has reached such a fevered level that it has made the entire American body-politc, ill. And it will not end, until the media calls these republican lawmakers on the carpet, and demands that they at-the very least-vote for their own damned, ideas!

RICK PERRY VS. THE WORLD (aka, the rest of the GOP field)

As the old saying goes, ‘one should never look a gift horse in the mouth.’ However clumsily accomplished, this fifth GOP debate gifted the Republican Party an air of preeminence in relation to the issues on hand. After the Presidential scheduling snafu resulting in the leader of the Democrat party bowing to the beforehand scheduled Republican debate, there was an air of anticipation surrounding this event.

On top of this publicity, was the excitement surrounding the entry of the Texas Governor Rick Perry into the presidential race. The interactions between the candidates and Perry did not disappoint. In short, this was the Rick Perry v. Mitt Romney debate. Most of the questions were in reference to something Rick Perry said, thought, wrote or signed. Rick Perry took the barrage of questions about his governorship of Texas and his stance on national issues with gusto and resorted only a few instances to equivocation. Mitt Romney hit back with a few effective responses and rebuttals to attacks, but he was not the shiny new toy in the romper room. That prize went to Perry where almost every candidate took an opportunity to attack his credibility as the leader of a state that has faired better than almost all others in the union, for which Perry happily assigns to his governance. Michele Bachman was largely ignored, but perkily consistent. Ron Paul was…Ron Paul. He is the ed

ucated uncle who makes as much sense as anyone else, but has read one too many Jim Marrs books and it shows. Herman Cain was resourceful in his monopoly of frankness, but we’ve all heard the promises to reform the tax code. Rick Santorum sent out a series of complete and inspiring answers to questions, that is when he was asked a question. Newt Gingrich served as the cheerleader of the Republican Party, preferring to separate himself from the current administration than criticize his fellow candidates.

The stand out was John Hunstman. Not only did he distance himself from traditional conservatism, but he practically called them all rubes by cautioning them to stop “running from science” on the subject of global warming, as to avoid losing the party’s validity. Seems to me that the only validity that will be lost by such statements is his with the base of the Republican Party. Further solidifying his role as the liberal Democrat running with an “R” beside his name, Huntsman gifted us with this utterance, ““By making comments that basically don’t reflect the reality… we turn people off,” Huntsman added. He has chosen to “turn off” 60% or more of the Republican base. Hunstman stated, “We can’t run from science.” Come primary time, he will want to run back to the conservative base.

Overall, the debate was lively and spirited. The idea that the Republicans have a weak field is a flat out lie. We shall soon see if Obama can stimulate a voter rebellion in ’12 that will place one aforementioned candidate in the White House.

Rebekah Ward