The Arrogance of Power--GOP Style

You have probably heard by now that the bankruptcy bill, which benefits businesses at the expense of the people, has been passed. As appalling as this new bill is, considering it provides predatory lenders with the motivation to go out and try and take advantage of more Americans, the process in how this bill was passed through the house is even more absurd. Rather, I should say the lack of process.

From the Carpetbagger Report, word today that Tom DeLay and other Republicans within the House "limited the debate to just two hours and didn't even allow congressional Dems to offer an amendment to the legislation."

Carpetbagger reports "What kind of amendments are we talking about here? Pretty straightforward stuff: proposed provisions included expanded disclosure from credit card companies, limits on lender fees, identity-theft protections, and leniency for military personnel returning from fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's not just that Republicans were opposed to these consumer protections — though they were — it's that the GOP wouldn't even let Dems bring these amendments to the floor for consideration."

These actions by the House GOP are nothing short of arrogant, and although this happened in the house, I it makes a stronger case for keeping the minority filibuster in the senate. If Frist and the GOP are able to eliminate the filibuster get ready to see more laws passed and more judges appointed that will cater to the GOP Agenda: The Right and Big Business. Meanwhile, the rest of us will continue to unimportant to the GOP until election time comes around and they throw us a bone in the hopes of winning some votes. Regardless of any last minute offering from the GOP, let us not forget things like the passage of the bankruptcy bill, and the means in which it was done, because it truly shows that Republicans care more about helping Big Business then they do about helping the American People.

Ryan Oddey
Ryan@TAFMess.com

LETS GET READY TO RUMBLE

Yesterday I broke down some of the arguments regarding the minority filibuster rule in congress as well as giving some of my own thoughts on the issue. The Washington Post is reporting that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist "is all but certain to press for a rule change that would ban filibusters of judicial nominations.."

This decision by Frist could have many ramifications, as the Post speculates that a move to ban minority filibusters could create a situation in which the passage of President Bush's Agenda becomes much more complicated and difficult.

As I said yesterday, I support the filibuster law, as it prevents a tyranny of a slight majority. Although some other bloggers have been calling for the Democrats to give in and eliminate the filibuster, I can not say enough how much I disagree with that idea. Although the Democrats may face problems in the future when the tables are turned and they have a majority, their are enough Democrats in this country who want the party to fight for their beliefs even if they do not hold a majority in congress. If the Democrats abandoned the filibuster and simply rolled over on this issue it would end up eroding at the base of the party, and I costing more votes in the long run as life long Democrats will feel that their elected law makers have simply given up.

If the GOP wishes to use filibusters in the future to stall Democratic policy then so be it, they will deal with the consequences of their actions. Honestly, do you think if the tables were turned the GOP would simply give in and surrender the right to a filibuster? Absolutely Not.

Hopefully enough Republicans can concede the of a minority filibuster, and Frist's plans will never come to fruition. In the mean time, call your representatives and demand that they respect the filibuster as is.

Ryan Oddey
Ryan@TAFMess.com

CHANGE IS IN THE AIR

How does it feel to know you made a difference? I pose this question to you, our readers, because as you may have heard, the FCC ruled today that TV Broadcasters must disclose the source of video news releases. So now, when you watch the so called "Fake News", you will at least be informed that what you just saw was not a news report, but rather a commercial embedded in the news. So I congratulate everyone who took the time to email the FCC and I thank you all for helping to make a difference. Lets keep up the good work.

Ryan Oddey
Ryan@TAFMess.com

Sorting Through the Filibuster Debate

Everyone is weighing in with their thoughts on the filibuster issue and I decided that today I would give my thoughts on it. As you know the GOP is trying to eliminate the minority filibuster in congress, thus paving the way for whomever has the majority to pretty much do whatever they want. I think this sounds a little dangerous, but lets examine some arguments.

Matt Yglesias at Tapped notes that the filibuster has often been used to halt progressive legislation.
Yglesias writes: "It is, by contrast, very easy to think of liberal initiatives that filibusters have blocked. Indeed, as conservative activist Jim Boulet Jr. has wisely argued in a memo to his comrades, the filibuster is crucial to conservatism. By his account, without it, majorities would exist to raise the minimum wage; reform labor law to make new union organizing easier; ban discrimination against gays and lesbians in employment; reduce greenhouse-gas emissions; and close the "gun-show loophole." I'm not a gun-control fan myself, but everything else on the list is a key priority. In the past, of course, the filibuster is most famous for its role in delaying the dawn of civil rights. Less well known is that it was integral to the defeat of Bill Clinton's health care plan in 1993. If liberals ever get another chance to go for comprehensible health-care reform, the filibuster will once again rear its ugly head.

At any given moment, the filibuster rule helps the minority party. Right now, that's Democrats. But taking the long view, the filibuster is bad for Democrats. Ideally, you'd want to get rid of it at just the ideal moment. But, realistically, that can't be done; only minority-party acquiescence will let it happen. Now's a good time for Democrats to show some rare appreciation for the importance of long-term thinking and let the right shoot itself in the foot -- rather than giving them yet another tool with which to rile up their base."

Excellent points and a very good argument, however Paul Waldman at The Gadflyer has his own thoughts on Yglesias's opinion. "Matt's argument is pretty persuasive - at the same time, so is the argument that if there's one thing you do want filibusters for, it's judicial nominees, since unlike legislation they can't just be undone."

Waldman goes on to say "So what if the secret plan is to win by losing? It works this way: Democrats goad Senate Republicans into eliminating the filibuster. Democrats are thus given a political issue that fits nicely with the larger story they're telling about Republicans: that they are corrupt, drunk with power, in thrall to a tiny group of theocrats, etc. The filibuster issue becomes part of the 2006 campaign narrative. But in the long run, the end of the filibuster helps enact lots of progressive legislation, and Democrats win in two ways, all for the relatively minor cost of a few extremist judges."

Waldman makes a good case, but what happens if the DEMS do not win back congress, and the GOP is able to throw in some judges who manage to overturn Roe v. Wade? Will it have been worth it then? Not to mention, if we allow the majority to do whatever it pleases then we set the stage for a sort of legal anarchy as laws change every few years simply because one party regains control of congress. Are we really going to let things such as abortion be legalized and criminalized every few years just because the majority keeps changing?

Although the filibuster has caused the Democrats its share of problems, America needs the stability that comes with the downside of this process. If enough people want to see legislation passed, then it will happen, regardless of party politics. The Democrats must not lose the right to a minority filibuster, not only because it could undo many of the great Democratic achievements in the last one hundred years, but because our future as a nation depends on the stability that a filibuster helps deliver. In good times, and in bad, the filibuster is necessary, and on the whole is good for the American people.

Ryan Oddey
Ryan@TAFMess.com

COMFORTING THE COMFORTABLE - AFFLICTING THE AFFLICTED

By: Thomas McKelvey Cleaver

It was once said of the former Governor of Texas - "Pass the Biscuits Pappy" O'Daniel - that his political aim was to "save the soul of the poor man and the wealth of the rich man."

The same is true of today's Republican Party. Today, the radical-right House Republicans voted to permanently end "the death tax."

Even before its "temporary elimination" in 2001, the estate tax - which the far right has turned into a populist cause by calling it "the death tax" - only applied to estates of more than $1 million, and actually affected approximately two percent of Americans.

During their campaign to comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted, the Republicans claimed that the 55% tax on such estates forced heirs to sell off "family farms" to meet the tax, WHEN IN FACT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY "FAMILY FARM" EVER HAVING TO BE SOLD IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES. But then, there's never been a Republican who let the facts stand in the way of ideology.

Under the tax reforms of 2001, the estate tax was to be gradually reduced and eliminated by 2010, only to spring back the following year to its 2001 level. How any Democrat was able to convince themselves that, once done, such an act would be un-done boggles the mind. Those Democrats who still believe in the Tooth Fairy will be the only one surprised when the House votes to keep full repeal in the tax code after 2010.

So how much are we talking about? Try $290 billion in tax breaks for the two percent of Americans who will benefit.

Democratic Representative Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota had proposed an alternative that would protect all estates below $3.5 million for an individual and $7 million for a couple, which would have applied the tax to a mere three-tenths of 1 percent of estates.

With $290 billion coming to the government over ten years, it might not be necessary to cut Medicaid or health care for veterans, among other things.

But goodness, how could we possibly imagine it would be a good thing to ask those who have benefitted the most from the opportunities of America to participate in their community - as the Bible teaches they should - to care for the poor and the sick, to care for those who risked their lives to defend the nation that has provided such riches?

In the four years that George Bush and the Republicans have given us "conservative economics," the pay of the average family has gone up 3.5 percent - and this past year it took a 2 percent pay cut due to inflation - while the pay of the average CEO has gone up 34 percent since 2000, and is now approximately 400 times the annual wage the average employee of that CEO's company.

Anyone who believes their boss is 400 times better than they are, 400 times smarter than they are, is definitely dumb enough to pass the IQ test low enough to be qualified to join the Republican Party. And since that person just knows in their soul that they’ve got as much chance of becoming a millionaire as anyone else - because that's their God-given right as an American - of course we have to abolish the "death tax" so they can pass those riches on to their children.

DELAY UP TO HIS OLD HABITS

The Washington Post reports today that Tom DeLay met with Republican Senators yesterday and asked them to "stick with him" while he fights his way through these allegations. DeLay made the point to reporters that his message was "Be Patient, we'll be fine." Keep dreaming Tom.

DeLay has yet again called these allegations surrounding his relationships with lobbyists a part of "the Democratic agenda." DeLay went even further by suggesting that the allegations he is facing are the result of a "lack of an agenda."

Lets clear this up now, I believe the allegations facing DeLay are true, and they are nut the result of any Democratic agenda, or lack of an agenda. DeLay's situation is the result of a lack of moral integrity and legal responsibility, and the blame can only be places on DeLay. When you and I have to deal with a business, either to fix our homes or what not ,we check out to see who we are dealing with in order to make sure we do not get scammed. DeLay says he did not know he was dealing with lobbyists, yet why should he be less accountable in his daily life then the rest of us are.

DeLay's defense is the equivalent to a situation out of pre-school when you get caught taking someones toy but you try and say the other kid gave it to you. DeLay's response to these allegations have had zero integrity, and thus we are starting to see the Hammer for who he really is: a greedy and immoral lawmaker who will never take accountability for his actions. Enjoy your last term in congress.

Ryan Oddey
Ryan@TAFMess.com

Follow up about Inflation

A quick follow up to my post yesterday about how inflation great at a higher rate than did wages. It appears that it is only those of us not in the Upper Class who are suffering as the Gadflyer reports that high level executives are doing fine.

Quoting an AFL-CIO report, The Gadflyer reports "In 2004, the average CEO of a major company received $9.84 million in total compensation, according to a study by compensation consultant Pearl Meyer & Partners for The New York Times. This represents a 12 percent increase in CEO pay over 2003. In contrast, the average worker's pay increased just 3.6 percent in 2004."

Hmm, The leaders of Big Business continue to make more money while the rest of us suffer, that's the GOP machine for you.

Ryan Oddey
Ryan@TAFMess.com

BUSH, BOLTON, BIGGER PROBLEMS

It appears that John Bolton will pass the first step of his nomination process and go on to face a vote of the full Senate in the very near future. As much as I dislike Bolton as a person, his nomination to the United Nations makes me dislike President Bush even more as I believe that Bush's legacy could be a pit in which America has to spend years digging itself out of.

Bush's decision to nominate Bolton is an indication that he only wants the United Nations to work with the United States if it is on the President's own terms. I always believed that the United Nations existed as an organization that had the freedom to follow its own path, without the bullying of any nation. President Bush has now made it clear that he wants the United Nations to either be a tool of the United States, or nothing at all. This Bush principle goes against the very theories that founded the United Nations.

Although the United Nations is located within the boarders of the U.S., this organization will remain most effective when it is free from major nations trying to over-influence different policies. If you follow the Bush logic here, and that have Bolton, then you have to admit that Bush wants the United States to be the driving force within the United Nations. However, what happens down the road if India, China, or the European Union were to come in and apply the same logic that Bush has installed? I doubt the President would yield to a foreign power, yet Bush also seems to not care what happens past his second term.

With the recent economic figures, the ongoing situation in Iraq, and the lack of decent foreign policy President Bush is digging American into a hole that could quite possibly take generations to dig out of. For example, nations that have privatized Social Security ,in the same way that President Bush wants America to do, are still trying to find a way to undo that damage. In spite of all the failures in privatization, Bush is still campaigning for his vision of change.

It would be one thing if Bush was taking a course of action that could sink the GOP, but his path will not only sink Republicans, but Americans as well. The cost of oil is up, yet President Bush would rather drill in Alaska instead of finding a way to decrease our dependency on oil. Why? Because when he is out of office it won't be his problem. Bush's short term answers will only cause long-term problems.

2006 is the year that America must stop the bleeding, more Democratic seats in congress means a tougher time for President Bush to pass his policies. Bush will put American in a hole, but we have the power to make it as small as possible.

November 2006 is still far off, but we must remember all of the things Bush and the Republicans have done, and what the implications of these actions will be in the future. John Bolton is just the latest Bush move towards sending America into the ground.

Ryan Oddey
Ryan@TAFMess.com

When The Going Gets Tough...Change the subject


Bad news today via the New York Times as we find out that in spite of the economy adding 2.2 million jobs in 2004, the average wage for workers fell for the year once you adjust for inflation. The first drop in almost 10 years. The New York Times Reports "Pay increases are not rebounding, even though the factors normally associated with higher pay have rebounded," said Peter LeBlanc of Sibson Consulting, a division of Segal, a human resources consulting firm.

The big question becomes is this new situation a long-term thing or is it a temporary slide that will work itself out? Stephen Roach of Morgan Stanley said "We're in for a long period where inflation-adjusted wages will be under acute pressure....That's a most unusual development in a period of high productivity growth. Normally, real wages track productivity."

Others believe the difference is temporary, some who believe the decrease in wages has been caused by the soaring costs of oil.

This is a serious problem that needs to be addressed, as consumers are also being forced to pay the high costs of oil, yet do not have the luxury of having more money coming in. The whole premise of the Bush administration has been to allow more Americans to have more of their money, yet this economic news indicates that the opposite is true. So how does President Bush plan on addressing this issue? According to The Gadflyer, with a speech at Fort Hood "to address the troops about the War on Terror, and other tough-talkin' stuff." Way to dodge the issue Mr. President.

Ryan Oddey
Ryan@TAFMess.com

What to do with Tom DeLay

Matthew Yglesias at Tapped is concerned over how the Democrats are handling the situation involving Tom DeLay. Yglesias writes "What, for example, is the DCCC doing trumpeting efforts by vulnerable Republicans to distance themselves from DeLay? They should be emphasizing everyones ties with DeLay." Are the Democrats mishandling this, and if so, why?

My take on this is that the Democrats have been so eager to put DeLay or any other GOP member in their place in the hopes of helping the Donkey that they may end up failing to maximize the impact of DeLay's actions. Ygelsias is right, the Dems need to use DeLay's history against people other than Tom DeLay in the hopes of winning a number of seats come 2006.

I am as excited as any other Democrat about catching DeLay with his hand in the cookie jar, but I think the powers-that-be need to get together and come up with a better long-term approach on how to handle all of this. It would be a real shame to look back after the elections in 2006 only to see that we could have come up with something better in order to knock of some Republicans at the polls.

Ryan Oddey
Ryan@TAFMess.com