Over the last few months - in fact, since the inauguration of Barack Obama - those on the right have complained about the Obama Administration using taxpayer dollars in order to fund what seems to be a continuous campaign effort on the part of the President. However, at this point I do not believe he is campaigning. Rather, he is chopping wood.
Moderate voters drove Obama to victory in 2008, coming out in record numbers to propel him into office. His ideas and policies have slowly eroded away the support of moderates, leaving him barely hanging on to the far left. Even those on the far left are disappointed, claiming that his efforts have not been drastic enough. In order to win over enough of the moderates for a repeat victory in 2012, Obama has only two remaining options:
First, he can court the moderates through speech and policy. This would mean compromising with republicans in Congress. Unfortunately, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is not likely to support any measure that includes such compromise.
Second, he can attempt to drive a wedge into the American public. All he needs to do in this case is pick one or two hot-button issues (the wedge) and hammer them until there is a fracture in the populace. As that fracture spreads, more and more of the moderate voters will be forced to take sides. For him to attempt this strategy, he banks on the greater number falling out to his side.
If you have been watching the actions of the Administration and listening to the speeches of the President and those who support him, it is abundantly clear which strategy he has adopted. The continued race-baiting and slander of those who have done nothing more repugnant than disagree with the President's policies (like those who associate with the Tea Party movement) and attempts to draw average Americans into large scale class warfare (by continually preaching about "your fair share" that currently resides in someone else's pockets and by perpetuating the message of groups such as Occupy Wall Street) the President has clearly chosen sides. The only question that remains is whether or not the American public can see the wedge and hammer strategy for what it is.
Those of us in St. Louis are in a particularly good position to see this coming, as this is the very same strategy that recently fractured the St. Louis Tea Party Coalition. There were rumors that MO2 congressional candidate Ed Martin was the cause of the problem, but that is far from the truth. Ed Martin was just the wedge. The axe was wielded by the group of people who failed to separate the candidate from the cause, and then doubled down on that failure by making the candidate outweigh the cause. In their case, the strategy worked. And it worked quickly.
I have no doubt that President Obama and his team have the ability to cause a fracture in the United States. The question is whether it will be the kind of fracture that we can use to rebuild our nation, or the kind that allows us to double down on the failures we have already seen.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Friday, December 9, 2011
Yep, ignorance fits your ideology too
The question:
Why are republicans blocking the payroll tax cut? Isn't this the kind of tax shift that would be likely to create jobs while maintaining a balanced budget? Trickle-down economics is the centerpiece of republican economic strategy, isn't it? Isn't it a shorter "trickle" from employer to workforce than from investor to workforce?
My answer:
Not when you consider the fact that the tax increase included in the package is likely to land squarely in the lap of the small business owners/job creators. It has to be a tax cut that is across the board for the trickle-down concept to even be relevant. All the current proposal does is bail water out of one sinking boat by dumping it into another simply because it isn't sinking quite as fast.
And, of course, it went on from there. We'll call my sparring partners Fred and Ed to protect theinnocent unprepared other guys.
Fred:
It is hardly congruent with reality to say that someone's boat is sinking when they make over $1million a year.
Me:
Is it congruent with reality to say that the person who makes less than $1million deserves a tax cut that is subsidized by someone whose only mistake is too much success?
For example, my father-in-law owns a bakery. If the bakery makes over $1million in a year, the included tax increase will affect him. As do the ever increasing business taxes. Giving him a payroll tax cut is barely a drop in the bucket that would reverse the oppressive tax burden he is already under. Every time his taxes (business or personal income) he has to weigh the following options: take a personal loss, raise prices, fire someone, or work extra hours to avoid having to hire someone new. Every single one of his options is detrimental to the local economy. If he makes less, he spends less. If his prices go up, his customers have to pay more or he loses business. If he fires someone, the become a drain on the economy by becoming eligible for unemployment. And if he cannot hire anyone, he cannot help to decrease the number of people drawing unemployment currently.
Ed:
1. The proposed tax plan would save your father-in-law a lot of money, because it would cut his payroll tax in half.
2. Corporate income taxes haven't increased since 1993. Didn't Glenn Beck tell you that?
Me:
The bakery is in Illinois, where the business taxes increased 22% just last year. And what good is a payroll taxcut if they more than compensate by gouging him on his personal income taxes?
And to assume that since I disagree with you I must be listening to conspiracy theories only proves that ignorance is available to fit all ideologies
And that was when Fred and Ed decided it would be best to discontinue the conversation...
Why are republicans blocking the payroll tax cut? Isn't this the kind of tax shift that would be likely to create jobs while maintaining a balanced budget? Trickle-down economics is the centerpiece of republican economic strategy, isn't it? Isn't it a shorter "trickle" from employer to workforce than from investor to workforce?
My answer:
Not when you consider the fact that the tax increase included in the package is likely to land squarely in the lap of the small business owners/job creators. It has to be a tax cut that is across the board for the trickle-down concept to even be relevant. All the current proposal does is bail water out of one sinking boat by dumping it into another simply because it isn't sinking quite as fast.
And, of course, it went on from there. We'll call my sparring partners Fred and Ed to protect the
Fred:
It is hardly congruent with reality to say that someone's boat is sinking when they make over $1million a year.
Me:
Is it congruent with reality to say that the person who makes less than $1million deserves a tax cut that is subsidized by someone whose only mistake is too much success?
For example, my father-in-law owns a bakery. If the bakery makes over $1million in a year, the included tax increase will affect him. As do the ever increasing business taxes. Giving him a payroll tax cut is barely a drop in the bucket that would reverse the oppressive tax burden he is already under. Every time his taxes (business or personal income) he has to weigh the following options: take a personal loss, raise prices, fire someone, or work extra hours to avoid having to hire someone new. Every single one of his options is detrimental to the local economy. If he makes less, he spends less. If his prices go up, his customers have to pay more or he loses business. If he fires someone, the become a drain on the economy by becoming eligible for unemployment. And if he cannot hire anyone, he cannot help to decrease the number of people drawing unemployment currently.
Ed:
1. The proposed tax plan would save your father-in-law a lot of money, because it would cut his payroll tax in half.
2. Corporate income taxes haven't increased since 1993. Didn't Glenn Beck tell you that?
Me:
The bakery is in Illinois, where the business taxes increased 22% just last year. And what good is a payroll taxcut if they more than compensate by gouging him on his personal income taxes?
And to assume that since I disagree with you I must be listening to conspiracy theories only proves that ignorance is available to fit all ideologies
And that was when Fred and Ed decided it would be best to discontinue the conversation...
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Workplace Violence: the New Terrorist Threat
I hate euphemisms. At a very basic level, they are simply deceptions. They are words designed to make us think something is not quite as bad as it is. But no matter the design, those words cannot effect change on the reality that is. After all, does the man who "shuffles off this mortal coil" not die?
No one is better at euphemisms than politicians and the mainstream media. In fact, at times I think they may actually be in direct competition on that score.
For example, we all know that when President Obama uses the word "invest" what he means is that he plans to raise taxes, and they will probably be your taxes. But since it's really an investment into public education or healthcare or what have you, he expects you to be happy about it.
When the media wishes to call someone a liar, instead of taking Rep. Joe Wilson's approach, they skirt the issue. "Well, the facts have been called into question." This tactic leads the public to suspect that the problem is in the facts themselves rather than in the idiot who chose to misrepresent them.
So what brings euphemisms to the forefront today? Yesterday I read about the fact that the White House has classified the attack on Fort Hood by U.S. Army Major Nidal Hassan as "workplace violence." The reason they gave was the fact that they couldn't really call it a terrorist attack because there were "no real ties connecting Hassan to terrorist organizations." Except for the twenty or so emails exchanged between Hassan and Anwar al-Awlaki, an al Qaeda leader who was killed this past year in Yemen.
However, DHS head Janet Napolitano spoke just last week in direct opposition to the White House's claim. She lists Hassan with other so called "lone-wolf" terrorists, people who act alone and with limited or nonexistent ties to known terrorist organizations.
Euphemisms have been traditionally used in order to protect someone or something. We say that "Grandma went to Heaven" to protect a child from the reality of death. We say that the President's "credibility is being questioned" to protect the American public from the reality that not all Presidents are as upright as they would like to believe.
In this case, by calling Nidal Hassan's act of terrorism an act of "workplace violence," WHO IS THE WHITE HOUSE PROTECTING?
I feel safer already, don't you?
No one is better at euphemisms than politicians and the mainstream media. In fact, at times I think they may actually be in direct competition on that score.
For example, we all know that when President Obama uses the word "invest" what he means is that he plans to raise taxes, and they will probably be your taxes. But since it's really an investment into public education or healthcare or what have you, he expects you to be happy about it.
When the media wishes to call someone a liar, instead of taking Rep. Joe Wilson's approach, they skirt the issue. "Well, the facts have been called into question." This tactic leads the public to suspect that the problem is in the facts themselves rather than in the idiot who chose to misrepresent them.
So what brings euphemisms to the forefront today? Yesterday I read about the fact that the White House has classified the attack on Fort Hood by U.S. Army Major Nidal Hassan as "workplace violence." The reason they gave was the fact that they couldn't really call it a terrorist attack because there were "no real ties connecting Hassan to terrorist organizations." Except for the twenty or so emails exchanged between Hassan and Anwar al-Awlaki, an al Qaeda leader who was killed this past year in Yemen.
However, DHS head Janet Napolitano spoke just last week in direct opposition to the White House's claim. She lists Hassan with other so called "lone-wolf" terrorists, people who act alone and with limited or nonexistent ties to known terrorist organizations.
Euphemisms have been traditionally used in order to protect someone or something. We say that "Grandma went to Heaven" to protect a child from the reality of death. We say that the President's "credibility is being questioned" to protect the American public from the reality that not all Presidents are as upright as they would like to believe.
In this case, by calling Nidal Hassan's act of terrorism an act of "workplace violence," WHO IS THE WHITE HOUSE PROTECTING?
I feel safer already, don't you?
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Tempest in a Tea Cup
There has been much ado lately about what the Tea Party is and is not, so I would like to take a moment and sum up my thoughts on the matter. Keep in mind that although I associate myself with the Tea Party at large, I do not actually speak for anyone else involved in grass roots conservative politics.
The Tea Party is a closely knit band of brothers, but at the same time a loosely knit organization. The genius lies in its lack of top-down organization, an anomaly that only a true grassroots movement can create. It quite effectively turns the Tea Party into a political hydra, growing back two or more new voices for every patriot silenced by a maligning media. The Tea Party is a mismatched and disorganized group of pissed off citizens who have politically had it up to here. And the dangerous thing is that most of them are educated - in life experience if not institutes of higher (lefter) learning.
The Tea Party IS NOT a political action committee.The Tea Party is not campaign central for any particular candidate. And the Tea Party is not a prized endorsement waiting to be auctioned off to the highest bidder.
The Tea Party endorsing a particular candidate, especially as early as a primary, is somewhat akin to the Church endorsing a particular candidate. It changes the meaning of the meeting, the meaning of the worship. The Tea Party is a very diverse group of people who come together for one common cause. That cause is to wake up the nation to the disaster at hand, not to propel certain people into office. As soon as it becomes about one person, the focus becomes removed from the cause.
Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with candidates who associate themselves with the Tea Party (or a church, for that matter) or who embrace their ideals. But to do so with the intent of co-opting the driving force behind those ideals is disingenuous at best. At worst, it's devious and unforgivable. And somewhat reminiscent of the liberal tactics that those in the Tea Party have been fighting against from day one.
Monday, December 5, 2011
Flavor of the Decade
Ron Paul is the "flavor of the decade."
Heh. My first thought, after hearing that statement, was, "Well, that certainly explains my lack of appetite."
But seriously. By nicknaming himself in such a way, Ron Paul actually removes some of his own credibility. Sure, he did it to paint himself as the one with the most longevity as compared to "flavors of the month." But the problem is that if he fancies himself to be most in line with the Constitution and the way the Founding Fathers imagined our nation at its inception, he should be calling himself the "flavor of the nation."
The "flavor of the decade" is still transitory and at the mercy of the notoriously fickle voting public.
The "flavor of the decade" will pass, like the Backstreet Boys, parachute pants, Vanilla Ice, love-ins and bell bottoms.
The "flavor of the decade" will be remembered fondly by some, and will leave a foul taste in the mouths of others.
The "flavor of the decade," like any other fad, will not suck in everyone - only the suckers.
Heh. My first thought, after hearing that statement, was, "Well, that certainly explains my lack of appetite."
But seriously. By nicknaming himself in such a way, Ron Paul actually removes some of his own credibility. Sure, he did it to paint himself as the one with the most longevity as compared to "flavors of the month." But the problem is that if he fancies himself to be most in line with the Constitution and the way the Founding Fathers imagined our nation at its inception, he should be calling himself the "flavor of the nation."
The "flavor of the decade" is still transitory and at the mercy of the notoriously fickle voting public.
The "flavor of the decade" will pass, like the Backstreet Boys, parachute pants, Vanilla Ice, love-ins and bell bottoms.
The "flavor of the decade" will be remembered fondly by some, and will leave a foul taste in the mouths of others.
The "flavor of the decade," like any other fad, will not suck in everyone - only the suckers.
Warning: do not read this if you love Twilight.
About a week ago, I was accused of being a "hater" because I made the comment, "If the only good thing you have to say about it concerns the soundtrack, then it's a safe bet the movie SUCKS." (This was in reference to the new Twilight film.) And the accusation was accurate - I do hate Twilight. But it's not like I just hate it for no reason. I hate it because vampires are supposed to be evil and soulless, not sparkly. I hate it because Stephenie Meyer is better suited to writing for bad soaps. I hate it because Kristin Stewart is monotonous. And Robert Pattinson was so desperately awful that even the Harry Potter movie only hired him to drop dead.
And then I got to thinking about the other things I have said that made people call me "hater."
I analysed Ron Paul and his platform and came to the conclusion that I could never support him. I was immediately told (by someone whose position was that "not all Ron Paul supporters resort to ad hominem attacks in debates over the issues") that I must be horribly uneducated and that I couldn't possibly be in favor of a more Constitutional government. (Hater.)
Right before the health care bill passed, I said to a friend (who was in favor of the health care bill, though every time I referenced parts of it, he responded with, "well, I haven't read that part") that any elected official in the United States who was willing to circumvent the Constitution for personal or political gain should be tried for treason and hanged on the White House lawn. He said that he couldn't talk to me because I obviously advocated cruelty - the death penalty. I asked him how not advocating cruelty sat with his claim that he was pro-life and his vote for Obama, who began his presidency by authorizing American tax-payer dollars to fund abortions in foreign countries. (Hater.)
I guy I used to work with confronted me on the day of Obama's inauguration. He accused me of voting for McCain because I was a racist. I told him that I didn't care if Obama was black, green, or purple - I didn't like his policies. He huffed and puffed and told me that I just couldn't bear to see a black man in the White House. (Hater.)
So maybe it's true that there are a few things I hate. But it's not likely that I do so without reason.
And then I got to thinking about the other things I have said that made people call me "hater."
I analysed Ron Paul and his platform and came to the conclusion that I could never support him. I was immediately told (by someone whose position was that "not all Ron Paul supporters resort to ad hominem attacks in debates over the issues") that I must be horribly uneducated and that I couldn't possibly be in favor of a more Constitutional government. (Hater.)
Right before the health care bill passed, I said to a friend (who was in favor of the health care bill, though every time I referenced parts of it, he responded with, "well, I haven't read that part") that any elected official in the United States who was willing to circumvent the Constitution for personal or political gain should be tried for treason and hanged on the White House lawn. He said that he couldn't talk to me because I obviously advocated cruelty - the death penalty. I asked him how not advocating cruelty sat with his claim that he was pro-life and his vote for Obama, who began his presidency by authorizing American tax-payer dollars to fund abortions in foreign countries. (Hater.)
I guy I used to work with confronted me on the day of Obama's inauguration. He accused me of voting for McCain because I was a racist. I told him that I didn't care if Obama was black, green, or purple - I didn't like his policies. He huffed and puffed and told me that I just couldn't bear to see a black man in the White House. (Hater.)
So maybe it's true that there are a few things I hate. But it's not likely that I do so without reason.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Rapid fire update
So, it's been awhile. A stomach virus for me plus three of the kids and pending final exams will do that...
So, Herman Cain is out. Taking bets here on how long it takes him to endorse Romney.
This just in: it is now politically correct to refer to the British as the "English"...but only if you're the President.
Craft fairs now involve more than just homemade items - it seems that Pampered Chef reps now qualify as "crafters."
Switching to decaf when your husband gets stuck with a week's worth of extra - long shifts and you and the kids get sick is poor timing.
Obama is "really sorry" about all those people who died in Pakistan. I'm sure they're taking that well.
Hillary Clinton has once again pissed off the Israelis. Good call making her Secretary of State, yeah?
Another dead at an Occupy camp. So glad they're just like the Tea Party.
Justice Department in a tailspin over Fast and Furious. They could save themselves the trouble and just give Holder up already. (another good hiring move on the part of the President)
And since everything seems to be completely under control, the Obamas are off to Hawaii for an extended vacation - though Congress may not get any time off if they refuse to cower before the President's latest threats regarding budget negotiations...
Business as usual, I guess.
So, Herman Cain is out. Taking bets here on how long it takes him to endorse Romney.
This just in: it is now politically correct to refer to the British as the "English"...but only if you're the President.
Craft fairs now involve more than just homemade items - it seems that Pampered Chef reps now qualify as "crafters."
Switching to decaf when your husband gets stuck with a week's worth of extra - long shifts and you and the kids get sick is poor timing.
Obama is "really sorry" about all those people who died in Pakistan. I'm sure they're taking that well.
Hillary Clinton has once again pissed off the Israelis. Good call making her Secretary of State, yeah?
Another dead at an Occupy camp. So glad they're just like the Tea Party.
Justice Department in a tailspin over Fast and Furious. They could save themselves the trouble and just give Holder up already. (another good hiring move on the part of the President)
And since everything seems to be completely under control, the Obamas are off to Hawaii for an extended vacation - though Congress may not get any time off if they refuse to cower before the President's latest threats regarding budget negotiations...
Business as usual, I guess.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)