GOD To The GOP: “I Don’t Endorse”
Dear Politicians,
Permit me to explain my reluctance to endorse. As the All-Powerful, Benevolent Deity I have a certain responsibility to non-partisanship among my constituents. Of course, I do prefer those among you who are moral, kind, compassionate, good and gracious. I have, however, noticed a certain tendency for these qualities to be diminished upon entering office. Next time around I intend to tinker a bit with the mix, and see if I can make My creation a bit more consistent. The first batter is always lumpy.
The problem is that in times past I did intervene in elections. When Moses and Korach were, in a sense, running against each other, I took clear sides. So certain was I of the proper outcome that I resorted to the simple expedient of having the ground swallow Korach and his cohorts. That severely cut into their base. Some people thought this an extreme form of censorship, but I believed it was unworthy of the Ruler of the Universe to simply stuff ballots. If I am going to endorse, it will be in biblical measure. I don’t do leaflets. I do pronouncements. (For those of you who have not read My book in a while, check the 16th chapter of Numbers.)
There were times when I was sorely tempted to raise My right hand for a candidate for office. A parade of villainy has passed before My all seeing eye, but I left the choice up to you. Some of the people whom I most favored – dear old honest Abe comes to mind – had to win on their own. I could have delivered a key county or two. But Korach’s indignant plea as he caromed off the canyon wall reminded me that I tend to push a bit too hard. Moses had some electoral deficits – a speech impediment, a certain impatience, and an alien upbringing – but he probably could have carried the pivotal Sinai districts even without My help.
So please, I ask you in My Name – don’t use My Name. You haven’t any idea whom I endorse. I don’t tote up church attendance like a celestial accountant and award the election to the one with the best record. I see inside hearts, remember? Watch out. While I am very, very patient, sometimes I snap. When I do decide to turn My countenance to you, if you have been tossing My name around like a cheap ticket to the Oval Office, I could be very put out. You don’t want that, trust Me. Just ask Korach.
Blessings,
God
By: David Wolpe, Rabbi of Sinai Temple, Los Angeles; The Washington Post, June 6, 2011
The GOP’s Hezbollah Wing Is Now Fully In Control
I have a guest column at the Daily Beast about the Republican Party’s self-destructive decision to support the Paul Ryan budget and, faced with the disastrous consequences, to dig in deeper. For an example of digging in deeper, check out Marc Thiessen’s column today. In the face of clear evidence to the contrary, he asserts that Kathy Hochul won in New York only because a third party spoiler split the Republican vote.
Having assigned to the Republican 100% of Jack Davis’s third party vote, Thiessen proceeds to argue, “Democrat Kathy Hochul won only a 47 percent plurality — just one point more than Barack Obama got when he lost the district back in 2008. As national referendums go, that is not terribly convincing.” It’s not? If House Democrats beat Obama’s 2008 vote by one percentage point in the next election, who does Thiessen think will control the House? You could argue that Hochul is just one data point and probably an outlier, and I’d agree. But it is a data point with clear negative implications for Republicans.
After asserting that the race proved almost nothing about Medicare, Thiessen then, arguing in the alternative, suggests a solution for Republicans to fight back anyway:
[T]he lesson of the New York special election is that if Republicans want to win in 2012, they need to stop playing defense and go on the offensive.
Why on earth have Republicans allowed Democrats to define the Ryan proposal as a plan to “end Medicare” when it is the Democrats who risk ending Medicare though a policy of neglect? Even the New York Times editorial page warned after the New York vote, “Sooner or later, Democrats will have to admit that Medicare cannot keep running as it is — its medical costs are out of control, and a recent report showed its trust fund running out of money in 2024, five years earlier than expected.”
Democrats have put forward no plan to deal with this fiscal crisis. Quite the opposite, they made it worse by taking $500 billion out of Medicare to help fund the president’s health-care law — robbing Medicare to pay for Obamacare. The time has come for the GOP to take the gloves off. When liberal groups put up an ad showing Ryan pushing Grandma off of a cliff, Republicans need to counter with an ad showing Obama, Pelosi and Reid pushing Grandma off the cliff — because that is where Medicare is headed if we follow their policy of inaction. The message should be: If we do nothing, Medicare will collapse — and millions of retirees will be left without health coverage. Democratic neglect will kill Medicare; Republicans are trying to save it.
Next, Republicans need to expand the debate. The Medicare proposal is just one element of a broader GOP plan to reduce our ballooning debt — which, in turn, is one element of a larger plan to restore economic growth and create jobs.
So, accuse democrats of letting Medicare go bankrupt, promise that you just want to save it, and then try to persuade voters that preserving the Bush tax cuts that have been in place for a decade will stimulate growth. Wow, why haven’t Republicans thought of this plan before?
By: Jonathan Chait, The New Republic, May 31, 2011
No Brains In The Head: Truly The Dumbest `American Exceptionalism’ Attack Yet
I didn’t think the right’s “American exceptionalism” attack on Obama could get any dumber, but Sarah Palin has now outdone them all. She’s now faulting Obama for insufficient praise for our armed forces:
She also made a slight dig at President Obama for saying Monday at Arlington National Cemetery that his “most solemn responsibility as president [is] to serve as commander in chief of one of the finest fighting forces in the world.” Answering a question about Memorial Day, Palin said, “This is the greatest fighting force in the world, the U.S. military. It’s not just one of the greatest fighting forces. And I sure hope our president recognizes that. We’re not just one of many. We are the best.”
As it happens, the reporter got Obama’s quote a bit wrong. This is what Obama actually said: “It is my most solemn responsibility as President, to serve as Commander-in-Chief of one of the finest fighting forces the world has ever known.” But this isn’t good enough for Palin: If Obama doesn’t say that our armed forces are the bestest, baddest, most ass kicking-ist fighting forces in all of human history, he’s subtly denigrating the troops.
This is a reminder, if you needed one, that the charge that Obama doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism — which has taken literally dozens of forms now — will be central to the 2012 campaign. It’s also a reminder, though, of what this attack line is really about. It’s impossible to imagine that a significant number of voters could hear Palin’s latest attack and come away thinking there’s something to it; her claim is just too dumb for people to take seriously. But these sorts of attacks aren’t about the actual claims themselves.
Rather, they are part of a much broader effort to insinuate that you should find Obama’s character, story, motives, identity, cultural instincts and intentions towards our country to be alien and fundamentally suspect. The idea is to keep piling various versions of this charge — no matter how ludicrous — on top of one another, like snow piling up on a roof.
Mitt Romney has already made it completely plain that various versions of this insinuation will be a major feature of the 2012 GOP nominee’s argument against Obama. Donald Trump’s experiment in birther hucksterism — even though it crashed and burned — confirmed this beyond any doubt. Now Palin is at it, too.
Hearing this kind of thing from Palin actually makes me want her to run. Who better than her to reveal how vacuous, childish, jingoistic and unbecoming of the presidency this sort of nonsense really is?
By: Greg Sargent, The Plum Line, The Washington Post, May 31, 2011
Fewer Hangouts For Lobbyists: Senators Propose Closing State Offices To Save On Budget
There may be no better example of how bloated the government is than the number of offices each senator has. First, there’s a senator’s official Washington office in one of three massive buildings on Capitol Hill, especially busy during the 153 days the Senate is scheduled to be in session this year. Add to that a myriad of committee offices. And many senators have hideaways tucked in the Capitol’s corners, where they can hold private meetings with colleagues and constituents or sneak a nap, lunch, or respite. And then there are the 460 state satellite offices.
Back-of-the-envelope math puts the total number of Senate offices at close to 700 for its 100 members. And those 460 state offices are expensive to rent and maintain: $40 million, or nearly one-fifth of the $219 million budgeted to run all Senate offices. That’s why Sen. Ben Nelson, the Nebraska Democrat who chairs the legislative branch panel of the Appropriations Committee is thinking about closing some of those state workrooms as he attempts to impose a 5 percent spending cut to prove the Senate means business in slashing the deficit. “It’s something that needs to be looked at,” Nelson tells Whispers. “There are some economies to be achieved.”
His Republican colleague, Sen. John Hoeven of North Dakota, agrees. Pruning senator’s budgets “may mean that you don’t have as many offices in your state.”
Terrance Gainer, the Senate sergeant-at-arms, says closing down state offices would also lead to savings in IT expenses and other office goods. “I’d ask them to take a look at that,” says Gainer.“We all ought to feel the pain so as we go to kind of zero-based budgeting or zero-based running a state, how many offices do we need?”
Well, many apparently. While the allotment of offices is supposed to be based on state population, it doesn’t always work that way. Nelson has five state offices in Nebraska, the same as Florida Republican Marco Rubio. Nebraska’s population is 1.7 million; Florida’s, 18.5 million. Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California (pop. 36.9 million) has four state offices; Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York (pop. 19.5 million) has nine.
Gainer, a long-time police executive, says it’s time for an adult approach to the Senate budget. “If they are given an allowance,” he says of senators and their state office budgets, “they’ll spend an allowance. So if we reduce the allowance, it will force the tough love.” Still, Nelson’s not looking forward to delivering the news. “It will be awkward for us to suggest changes to [senators from] larger states.”
By: Paul Bedard, Washington Whispers, May 31, 2011
Are Members Of Congress Engaged In Insider Trading?
When Congress isn’t sending billions in taxpayer money to bail out Wall Street firms, some of its legislators appear to be using information unavailable to the general public to personally profit on stock trades.
So says a study just published in Business and Politics. A portfolio that imitates the stock purchases of House members outperforms the market by more than 6 percent in the course of a year, its authors found. “A previous study of the stock returns of U.S. Senators in a leading finance journal indicates that their portfolios show some of the highest excess returns ever recorded over a long period of time, significantly outperforming even hedge fund managers,” they wrote. “Until now, there has been no similar study of Members of the U.S. House of Representatives.”
Now we know that from 1985 to 2001, the specific interval used to generate the data, senators do the best, House members follow, and the average American investor brings up the rear. In defense of Congress, however, most legislators weren’t exploiting their advantage: on average only 27 percent of senators and 16 percent of House members bought and sold common stock. Interestingly, in the House “by far the most successful traders were those Representatives with the least seniority.” The authors acknowledge that result is counterintuitive, and posit this explanation:
Whereas Representatives with the longest seniority (in this case more than 16 years), have no trouble raising funds for campaigns, junkets and whatever other causes they may deem desirable owed to the power they wield, the financial condition of a freshman Congressman is far more precarious. His or her position is by no means secure, financially or otherwise. House Members with the least seniority may have fewer opportunities to trade on privileged information, but they may be the most highly motivated to do so when the opportunities arise.
So what should be done?
It’s presented as a thorny problem. “To restrain Members from taking personal advantage of non-public information and using their positions for personal gain, Congress has decided that such unethical behavior is best discouraged by the public disclosure of financial investments by Representatives and the discipline of the electoral process,” the authors point out, but “to form a reasonable opinion of a Representative’s conflicts of interest, voters must familiarize themselves with their Representative’s personal asset holdings, the details of each law under consideration in the House and the voting record of the Representative. This could be difficult for any voter.”
That’s why faster disclosure would work best here. Forget filing periodic reports. Just force Members of Congress to be transparent about their stock trades in real time. Voter oversight wouldn’t even be needed — the idea is that self-interested traders would closely monitor the buying and selling of stock by legislators, who’d thereby lose a lot of their ability to get a jump on other investors.
Right?
By: Conor Friedersdorf, The Atlantic, May 27, 2011
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 