Don't Hate President Obama for Giving Seniors and Veterans What They Voted For

I'll begin by saying I don't agree with President Obama's offer of Chained CPI in Social Security and Veterans benefits. (As I understand it, this proposal would mean that benefits would not go up despite increases in the Consumer Price Index as it is currently set up to do.)  I think it's a bad idea to reduce the deficit on the backs of the poor, disabled, and elderly. But if I'm fair about it, I have to admit that since most seniors voted for Gov. Romney and the Ryan Budget (which would be even more harsh on the poor and elderly), they (or most of them) are just getting what they voted for.

A majority of people 65 and older voted fro Romney in the 2012 election, knowing it would mean harsh cuts to Medicare and Social Security.

And active military and veterans, according to pre-election polls, overwhelmingly supported Romney. (I looked for actual poll data and was not able to find it. I'll update if I find it.)

As I said, I think it's a really bad idea. But it's not like these folks can really complain. This is what they asked for.

The irony of American elections is this: some of the reddest states are the very states that receive the most federal assistance, though it isn't exclusive.

My home state of Alabama gets back $1.96 in federal money for every $1 of federal taxes paid by its residents. WELFARE! Look at South Carolina ($2.13) and West Virginia ($2.83)! Arizona gets $1.60, and Mississippi is getting back $2.73 for every dollar it pays into the coffers!

The average by senate representation is  $1.49 if a state has 2 GOP Senators, $1.24 if a state has 2 Democratic senators, and $1.12 if one of each. Where's that small government, spending-cutting GOP? Change begins at home, after all.

The hypocrisy of the GOP decrying deficits and debt only when they lose the White House is nauseating. But the civilian hypocrisy of seniors and veterans lamenting cuts to their entitlements after they voted for the party who promised them even bigger cuts to those same entitlements is head-spinning.

If Americans would get Above Their Raisin' and vote in a manner consistent with their actual policy preferences, President Obama would not be in the position if having to offer the Chained CPI compromise, but could instead institute policy with a Democratic majority that would reduce deficits while protecting the elderly and veterans. Since those groups chose to vote for Romney and the GOP House and Senate candidates instead, President Obama has to deal with a filibuster threat in the Senate and a GOP House. In short, folks, you get what you vote for. And you voted to cut your own benefits.

Herman Cain says 9-9-9. I say "NO! NO! NO!"

Herman Cain is surprising a lot of pundits by staying in the GOP race. I've seen several Facebook posts from people who are behind his candidacy. The appeal of his simple 9-9-9 tax policy on its face may seem like a good idea, but it is not! Like any flat tax, it is regressive. Allow me to explain.

This article from 2005 described the percentage of American families below the poverty line and, most importantly for purposes of my discussion, the percentage of American families who fall short of basic budget thresholds. In other words, they spend every dollar they make (and more) to obtain the basics. In 2005, "42% of families living in cities and 30% of families residing in rural areas f[e]ll short of basic family budget thresholds." Do you wonder what it is today? For the sake of discussion, let's just say that 40% of American families are "below budget."

Mind you, this is the poorest 40% of families in America. We are counting from the bottom up.

Wealthy people make and spend money differently that this bottom 40%. For virtually everyone, our number one expense is housing. But here the road diverges. For the bottom 20%, the second biggest expenditure is food and other absolute necessities at 17% of their earnings. For top earners, they spend 17% of their earnings on transportation.

The more we earn, the smaller percentage of our income we spend on food. The poorest 20% of Americans spends 12% of its income on food at home, while the middle 20% spends 9% on food and the top 20% spends only 6% on food. This makes sense, right? I mean, no matter how much you make, you can only eat so much.

Health care: bottom 20% spends 8% of its earnings, middle spends 6.8% and the top fifth of earners spends only 4%.

You see where I'm going. Top earners spend money on luxuries and travel, sure, but they don't spend all of their money. They save. They invest. They gift it to their kids.

So, here's my point: If 40% of America is spending every dime it makes to try to meet a reasonable budget, that means that under the 9-9-9 plan, the poorest 40% of this country will be paying 18% total tax on their earnings. Period. They get a 9% income tax - no deductions - and since they spend every dime trying to survive, they spend 9% sales tax on everything else. (Hoping they can make it with what is effectively an increase in their taxes for many of the poorest Americans.)

Under Herman Cain's plan, if you don't save, you pay 18% tax.

If you are a high earner, you could choose to live on this "necessary" budget and only pay effective taxes of 12-13%. But even assuming you lived on a nicer, more luxurious budget, you are never going to pay the full 18% unless you just go out and blow your money. Can we agree that this is not a likely outcome?

What about the third 9? That's corporate tax, and while wealthy people do tend to invest more dollars in corporations per person, many, many people in the bottom 40% have retirement accounts with stock ownership. I'm going to call this a wash.

So, when talking about individuals, under the Cain plan, everyone will pay between 9% and 18% of his or her earnings in federal taxes. Unfortunately, since the bottom 40% will always pay the full 18%, and the top earners never will, Mr. Cain has managed to create the most regressive tax policy in American history. What's more, since the wealthiest actually pay fewer taxes when they spend less, we can also count on these so-called "job creators" to be even more incentivized to sit on their money.

So, poor people get poorer, fewer jobs are created, and rich people get even richer. Sounds good if you're Herman Cain. Not so good if you are in the bottom 40%.

The thing I wonder about is this: How many Herman Cain supporters are in that bottom 40%? Ignorance is really, really dangerous. Get above your raisin' people, and stand up for yourself. No one's going to be on your side but you. Well, and me.

Everything Old is Newt Again

Only a politician would explain his serial infidelity as (paraphrasing) "having received much forgiveness from God." Ladies and gentlemen, for your consideration, Newt Gingrich.

Here are my reasons why he won't be President:

(1) His name is Newt. Come on!

(2) He won't get the GOP nomination because, on TV, he said
a- something nice about the "individual mandate" in the Health Care Reform Act, and

b- Paul Ryan's (R) budget plans for Medicare are "radical."

(3) When you have been a pol as long as Newt, you have changed positions many, many times. Chances are, anyone reading this has disagreed with him and agreed with him about the same issue at different times. This throws people.

(4) Did I mention his name is Newt?

(5) Lots and lots of infidelity. (And forgiveness!!!)

(6) Look at the picture. Does that look like the leader of the free world to you? I know it's shallow, but honestly, don't you think John McCain's age and "dodderiness" hurt his chances of getting elected? Electing this guy would be like electing Junior Sample. (If you're laughing at that reference, you are (1) kinda old and (2) from the south.)

(7) He is NOT smart, despite people continuing to say he is. (Though for some voters, this may be a selling point. "I wanna vote for someone like me!" Why in the hell would you want to do that? I want to elect the smartest MFer we can find a long-form birth certificate for. That ain't Newt!) Here's what he said in his efforts to crawfish back into the election after sticking his foot in it TWICE on TV (see above): "Any ad which quotes what I said on Sunday is a falsehood." (See above link.)

I could list more reasons, but I want to talk about his quote.

"Any ad which quotes what I said is a falsehood." Well, Newt, if it's a quote of what you said, it cannot, by definition, be a falsehood. It may be more true to report that you were "against it before you were for it," or "for it before you were against it," but you did say it. On national TV. So, expect to see it A LOT in the future.

I think some GOP members were hopeful that Newt would be their legit candidate, quashing the Bachmans and Palins and Trumps and Santorums. I don't think that's going to pan out very well.

The problem here is really not with Newt. The problem is that his party does not tolerate any deviation from (1) absolute rejection of anything Obama is in favor of (I think I read somewhere that the GOP has banned basketball.) and (2) unwavering support of everything advocated by another Republican. I suppose this does help the party stay on message, but it is pretty distressing in a time when we have lots of problems, and intelligent discourse about alternative solutions would be beneficial to us all.

Ironically, I agree with Newt on both the individual mandate and the radical-ness of Ryan's budget. Or, I agreed with him on Sunday. I know what I think today, but since his "recantation," I have no idea where Newt stands.

At Least 46% of Republican Mississippi Primary Voters Polled Are Racist. Are You Shocked?

This is remarkable to me in 2011, but in a recent poll of usual Republican Mississippi Primary voters, 46% said that interracial marriage should be illegal. 40% said it should be legal. The other 14% were undecided. (How does one not have an opinion about this? Are they not sure if they are racist or not?)

Mitt Romney, a Mormon, also did not fare very well in the poll (only 48% approval), although serial adulterer Newt Gingrich did OK (58% approval).

And we wonder why the GOP keeps nominating and electing idiots. Your candidates are only as good as your voters!

In Mississippi, it's better to be a professional politician and adulterer than a successful Mormon businessman who is faithful to his wife. Also, best not to date outside your race since the extreme-right-trending political climate in red states might mean your wooing efforts are in vain.

The one good sign? They apparently don't know who Michele Bachman is. That's a relief!

But, Whitney Says It's the Greatest Love of All!

Today's big winner is .......Delaware.

You all had to know I was going to blog about Christine O'Donnell. But actually, I'm not picking on her. I'm mocking the people who voted for her.

Delaware voters yesterday said "No" to experienced, conservative, respectable Mr. Castle, and instead said "YES!" to a person who may be an even bigger political joke than Sarah Palin.

Ms. O'Donnell has a professionally unimpressive resume with many of her jobs being actually in the realm of politics - so not so much an outsider as the Tea Party thinks. One of her jobs was actually a political job in Washington, DC!

She has had serious debt issues with both her college alma mater and the IRS. And has been accused by her former campaign manager of misusing campaign funds for her own benefit.

She is an ardent proponent of teaching creationism, and opponent of evolution, calling it "just a theory." (As the cited article points out, evolution may be technically a "theory," but it is so widely accepted by scientists as to be considered "fact.")

And I haven't even gotten to the best part: She is a strong advocate of sexual purity. In that context, she campaigns against masturbation (a victimless crime if ever there was one).

This seems like a mere thumbnail of information. Yes, it is. But look her up. There is nothing else. At least Sister Sarah was the half-Governor of Alaska. Ms. O'Donnell's got nothing on her CV to make anyone think she even understands parliamentary procedure, much less convince the voters that she possess the skills and knowledge to carry out the duties and responsibilities of a US Senator.

So, Delaware has elected a woman who is both a professional and financial failure, with a mediocre work history inside the DC beltway, who owes the IRS and misused her campaign funds, who does not believe in evolution, and who thinks masturbation is the moral equivalent of adultery.

Wow. Just. Wow.

But don't beat yourself up, Delaware Republicans. Really. Don't. Apparently that's a serious moral offense.

Is It "Conservative" to Want to Amend the Constitution Every Time There's Something you Don't Like?

Am I the only one who's noticed the rhetoric from the right that is at once decrying liberals for not honoring the constitution (as they see it) while simultaneously promising the make multiple amendments to that same constitution?

Just a few of the proposed amendments:

Declaring marriage to be only between a man and a woman (New Amendment)

Removing the part of the 14th Amendment that declares anyone born in the US to be a citizen

Banning flag burning

Requiring a balanced budget

Banning abortion (Though I haven't really heard much of that this year)

Repealing the 17th Amendment (popular election of senators)

Those are the ones I found in a 10 minute search online. There may be others.

I hope voters realize how very difficult it is to amend the constitution. Since the Bill of Rights was adopted (Amendments 1-10), it has only been amended 17 times. The last three: 27 - preventing congress from giving itself a raise (delaying pay raises until the next congress); 26 - setting the voting age at 18 years; and 25 - dealing with Presidential disability and succession (a reaction to President Kennedy's assassination).

I have several points to make here. First, if your candidate promises you a constitutional amendment on anything, he/she is lying. Amendments are impossible to get passed without an overwhelming consensus (as it should be). So, ignore that campaign pandering and focus on things that actually matter.

Second, amending the constitution is not a serious way to address the real problems our country faces.

Let's assume they prevailed on all these amendments.

(1) You lose your right to directly choose your senators.

(2) We would have legalized discrimination against same-sex couples and banned a form of political protest. (How will that make your life better?)

(3) The return of back-alley abortions and increased death among the women who get them.

(4) The balanced budget amendment would actually cause the government to shut down. Some of you are thinking, "Good!," but you'd be wrong. No matter how conservative you are, when the "fit hits the shan," we all turn to Uncle Sam for help. That is not going to change. Debt is a tool that, if used properly, helps a business, a family, or a government function properly and smoothly. To think otherwise is to be short-sighted IMO. (Think about the things you rely on the federal government for: postal service and protection form our enemies at the very least. Add the interstate highway system, regulatory agencies (that ensure some level of safety when you eat, drive, fly, ride a train, buy a car or other consumer product, etc.), and federal criminal laws that provide some rules for doing business and co-existing, and we already have a pretty full plate. Yet we take all of this for granted.)

(5)And we now have to decide how we determine who is a citizen and who is not. Will there be tests for everyone? Will the government get to decide who is and who is not a citizen?

Scared yet?

In truth, it is difficult for me to imagine myself changing so much to one day wake up and decide to join the GOP, but I can assure you, it will never happen until that party can find some serious people to advocate some serious ideas.

BTW - I'm not buying the "smaller government" and "balanced budget" rhetoric. In the last 30 years, the federal government and the debt have grown more under Republican administrations and leadership than under the Democrats. I'm too old and too smart to fall for that. I just wish more people noticed.

I'm not suggesting that it has always been this way. It has not. But Eisenhower and Nixon would likely be conserva-dems in this political climate. For sure Goldwater would be a as he would likely be vilified by the GOP for being pro-choice.

So, other than pandering to people's fears, and empty words about fiscal responsibility, what do you have to offer me, GOP?

*crickets*