Climate Change Denialist and Their Denial

At this stage it should be getting hard to disagree about the impact of our treatment of the global environment. The negative changes are slowly creeping into place. Difficulties are growing. Tension slowly mounts.

But, hey...

Source

Who Cares for the American Veteran?

We in the US celebrate our Veterans this weekend and Monday. It's a tradition that we've embraced since the bloody end of World War I. It's about remembering, heralding, and supporting our military veteran.

The trouble comes in when it's more in words than in action.

We sadly don't have the best history of supporting our armed forces outside of wars. We have been slow learners.

by Henry Alexander Ogden

After the American Revolution there was a good deal of discontent in the military. Pay was getting delayed. And there were serious questions about if soldiers would get the pensions they had long been promised. The Treasury was low on cash. Congress was divided on what to do, some eager to renege on the pensions. It lead to a conflict among the army that was stationed in Newburgh, NY. Fear was growing that the Continental Army could pick up arms and go to war against the fledgling government. Some were eager to use the discontent to their ends. George Washington worked to keep things stable and then, with an official end to hostilities, disbanded the army. To an extent pensions were paid, but many were unhappy and many were left without. The focus of support was on those veterans that were disabled. It proved a continuing problem. Twenty some years later new law was made to help homeless veterans of the war, but it proved hard to actually get the aid.

Then in the years after the Civil War veterans again found themselves in need of support. Again, veterans struggled to get aid. In states like New York, there were thousands of homeless veterans. The efforts to help veterans led to the formation of groups like the Grand Army of the Republic, which advocated for veterans. And these groups were needed, as it was a fight to get support. Though Lincoln did get support to form National Asylums for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers. -- Also, Confederate veterans were not recognized by the federal government as veterans (But that's the kind of loaded issue you end up with when you have a civil war.).

Things did improve. During the later part of the 19th century some new laws went into place opening up aid to larger numbers of those veterans injured (the burden put on veterans to get help was lessened some). Also a general pension was created to act as a fund for future expansions of pension needs (i.e. future wars). In 1912 the Sherwood Act was passed. This allowed veterans of the Civil War and Mexican-American War to get pensions due to old age.

Then after World War I returning veterans found some aid in slowly expanded laws to help insure them for death. Also $60 discharge allowance was established. Other interest taken was to help rehabilitate and offer job training for veterans that were disabled.

In the years after the war, most of the national veterans service were consolidated into the Veteran's Bureau, then it became Veteran's Affairs.

Then when the Great Depression began, it hit veterans hard, a bonus was created. But it was meant to be paid slowly. Large sums of the money was paid in Certificates of Service, which would mature in 20 years. Veterans found they couldn't survive on it. So 10's of thousands began to march, and began what became known as the Bonus March, or the Bonus Army. They made their way to Washington DC, and then camped. Part of the reason they came was to rally for a bill that would have offered them bonuses to survive. This bills was defeated in Congress. After this, they decided to stay and make there presence and problems known.

There were questions of the health and safety in the camps. But in the camps a level of order was maintained. People needed to register. Those that registered needed to show that they had been honorably discharged from service. The ex-soldiers worked to keep order. And then they built sanitation facilities to try and keep things healthy.

But there was also a dislike of the fact they wouldn't leave and were creating bad publicity for the government. They weren't just dissipating as demanded. So President Hoover authorized General Douglas MacArthur to march on the camps with the 12th Infantry, the 3rd Cavalry, and 6 tanks (under the command of Major George Patton). First the cavalry charged the crowds. Then, firing tear gas into the encampment, the infantry entered, bayonets attached to their rifles. They drove out the veterans and their families (because this camp was full of women and children as well). In the process the camps were burned to the ground, and the property of the protesters was destroyed. (Dwight Eisenhower was MacArthur's aide at this time. He wrote the report on the incident for MacArthur.)

In the years that followed, Congress finally passed law to immediately authorize payment to veterans of World War I. And under the New Deal, many of the veterans found employment and support.

It was at the end of WWII that we found ourselves (as a country) a lot more interested in the futures of our wartime veterans. This is when the GI Bill came into being. This offered a wide range of support and opportunity to returning veterans. Money to buy homes. Support to get an education. Money to start businesses. One year of unemployment support. It had and has a large impact on the veterans, and the country as a whole.


But it took a long road to get to the GI Bill. During the post WWI arguing over bonuses many said, that it was insulting to think you have to pay people to go to war. Apparently, it should be an honor to die or be traumatized for your country. Insulting. But this was the attitude.

Still, it became clear that just offering a small stipend to people who you ask to go fight, kill, and die for you is unacceptable. If we are going to have a military, if we are going to be at war, then the armed services and veterans are due the means to come home, reintegrate, and take a valued part in society.


So, now let's look at ipmacts that some think are acceptable for our service people today.

As we've seen this November, SNAP (food stamp) support has been cut. And additional cuts are being pushed in Congress. Add to this the contempt thrown at SNAP users, by conservatives in the United States, that aren't disabled or dare own things like air conditioning.

The thing they are choosing to be oblivious of is that of those using SNAP, 5000 are active duty military with family. As well, up to 900,000 veterans are in need of SNAP in any given month. In discussing the impact earlier, we could see that families on SNAP were often struggling. And the new cuts are making things far rougher. In 2012, $99 million in SNAP support was used by military families and disabled veterans

These SNAP recipients, as active duty personnel with family and homes, are exactly the people that conservatives consider as scroungers and cheats. These are the people that opponents of social aid are eager to shame and ostracize.

And the reality that conservatives sadly choose to ignore is that all the social programs they abhor are programs that many veterans need, as do many active duty personnel (not to mention conservative voters). Medicaid, social security, food stamps, cuts to all these and more impact and hurt American veterans. All the conservative states that are currently refusing to expand Medicaid are dealing a blow to all the veterans who struggle to get by in their states. It's shameful.

Another area in which US service personnel are being hit is in access to military benefits. This year the Department of Defense finally agreed that gay married couples should receive the same benefits as heterosexual married couples. It was a long time in coming

But conservative state governments are working to keep these benefits from gay members of the National Guard. Specifically, 6 governors are. Oklahoma. Texas. Mississippi. Georgia. West Virginia. Louisiana. These are largely federal funds. But they are attempting to block the payments from being made. At this point, the money coming directly from the federal government will have to be processed specially for gay couples. But money and people tied to the state government will be denied. The idea they are embracing is that they have a right to discriminate and deny support to families based on their sexual orientation, even if they are in the armed services. So the National Guard is being used as a political football by these Republican governors.


Suicides are a continuing issue in the  military. There were 350 suicides throughout the armed services last year. Around 8,000 veterans committed suicide last year. Those in and out of service struggle with the stress and impact of their service. There are personal issues at work, dealing with infirmity, and other stressors. And the VA struggles to stay on top of these issues, as does the Pentagon.


And I also wanted to come back to the specter of homelessness. The plight of the homeless veteran persists. This is an ongoing issue that our society is struggling with. Let's look at some of the facts:

• Veterans between 18 and 30 are twice as likely as the rest of the population to find themselves homeless. (8% of the overall population versus 17% of all veterans)
• Over half of homeless veterans are disabled.
• Half suffer from some form of mental illness.
• Two thirds deal with substance abuse.
• Veterans on average find themselves homeless longer than the rest of the population.
• At any time there are around 76,000 homeless veterans sleeping on the streets.
• 1.5 million veterans are deemed to be at-risk of homelessness.

In a country that likes to talk about exceptionalism, about being the greatest country, about supporting the troops, this is unacceptable and interminable. And too many of us just accept this, and other social troubles. We need to work to make things better.




We have improved how we treat and view our veterans and soldier. But we can still do far far better.

The Religious Exemption. It's Principle, Except When It's Not.

There have been some constant battles since the latest effort to create a more comprehensive access to health insurance began. But one has been increasingly annoying, galling, and disingenuous. The demand for a religious exemption for businesses.

The idea is that some businesses are owned by religious people, and those people may oppose abortion and/or birth control, or common sense. Comprehensive health insurance would help pay for things like those listed. So, they should not have to offer comprehensive health insurance to their workers. They should be exempt from part of the law.

And many people love the idea of a "compromise" on this. The compromise being that you just let religious institutions deny people basic preventative health care...cause [holy writing of your choice]. And you let businesses with religious owners do the same. And in exchange, nonreligious owners can actually take care of their employees. It is interesting how saying you want to deny someone something for religious reasons sound reasonable to so many people...But that's for another post.

In July two federal appeals courts decided that it was ridiculous for a business to have a religion, as opposed to it's owners. But that is not where the story ended. Last week the federal appeals court decided to agree on how unfair comprehensive health insurance is on the pious.

... 

Requiring companies to cover their employees’ contraception, the court ruled, is unduly burdensome for business owners who oppose birth control on religious grounds, even if they are not purchasing the contraception directly. 

“The burden on religious exercise does not occur at the point of contraceptive purchase; instead, it occurs when a company’s owners fill the basket of goods and services that constitute a healthcare plan,” Judge Janice Rogers Brown wrote on behalf of the court.  

...

It is an interesting point, I grant you. Is it unfair/unconscionable/unacceptable to force people of religious faith to fund and pay money into services that they feel contravene their religious tenets?

Should people be forced to pay for sinful stuff?


Well, I tried to think if there were any other good examples I could draw on for legal rulings. Then I recalled religious pacifism. For some war and fighting is unconscionable, a violation of the will of their god. And, as many point out, tax dollars go to many places in the government, including to the military.

MPR Photo/Elizabeth Stawicki

So, when a pacifist pays taxes, they pay for the ability to go to war. And during a war, they fund that war. So, should religious pacifist be exempt from taxes? Or, should special means be put in place to assure that their tax dollars cannot be used by the military? Should steps be taken to respect and maintain their religious concerns.

Lucky for us, a Quaker, Priscilla Adams, brought the question to court.

Back in 2003, you may remember it (we were at war), her fight with the government came to a head. Going back to 1996 she had been suing the government, saying that she and others had valid religious grounds to have protections against their money being used to fund the military. As part of her religious convictions. Adams for years had been refusing to pay part of her federal taxes.

The response from the government was to demand that she pay her back taxes, and a 50% penalty. She fought this, and worked to try and keep them from placing a lean on her wages to put money towards wars.

So the fight went up the judicial ladder. And, in 2003, the federal appeals courts rules against her. And then the Supreme Court chose to pass on offering an opinion. The courts had spoken.

The result, you may have religious grounds to not pay a portion of your taxes, but the courts, Congress, and the federal government don't care. Pay the taxes and pray for forgiveness.

That is quite a different view from what we are seeing now. Now when we consider should religious people be forced to fund services that may go to things like birth control, the courts say that it's wrong. (wag a finger) These people cannot be placed in this position. The law says everyone should be able to access the full array of preventative health. But, screw that...Religion. Religion trumps all...now.

Funny.

I wonder if religious pacifist should go to court again? They might have a chance now. Doesn't it follow? Shouldn't these grounds be sound enough for them to fight against tax paying? It does seem like the same strain of argument. Or, do supporters of ACA religious exemptions still hold the old opinion that if religion is getting in the way of funding the military, you should suck it up and fund the military?

I do get a feeling that many might have this attitude. That abortion and birth control are the legit religious concerns, the respectable ones. I'd like to think that's wrong, but at a minimum, I don't see religious conservatives as bothered by the Quaker's plight. They seem like they'd be first in line to condemn the Quakers.

But this ruling may not stand. This will be going to the Supreme Court...hmm. Okay, I' not feeling better with that thought. Will the court have their 90's attitude to religious exemptions? Or, will they have the oppose President Obama attitude?

Half the court is already friendly to attacking access to education, voting rights, and the ACA as a whole. That group will most likely be happy to further establish religious prominence over law. As it is, I think there is already a case coming up that may do this in one way.

I guess we will see. Because we are stuck waiting while conservatives play their petty games. And religious exemptions are such a petty game.

Conservatism in power. The UK example.

Sang Tan - AP

When Americans talk about British politics there is one refrain I hear again and again, "The Conservative Party is like the Republican Party, but more liberal, like how Democratic Party acts." I hear that a lot. And it is amusing, as it sticks it, in some way, to Republicans about how far to the right they've gone.

The trouble is, it isn't the best representation of what's happening in the United Kingdom. Under the modern Conservative Party, lead by David Cameron, they've continued many of the agenda bullet points of the old Thatcher era.

The main one I want to bring up is the old term, privatization. (Yes, I know, the British spell it differently.) Privatization has continued to be a part of the Conservative agenda for the British Isles. What have they been going after? What has been tried, though thankfully, not always successful for Cameron?

Tearing down the public infrastructure can be fun.

• Privatizing many road.
• Privatizing parts of the police force. (All part of opening up the public services to business, To end "the state's monopoly over public services"...that is the point of being a public service. But Cameron and the Conservatives know this well.)
• Selling off forest.
• Privatizing the libraries.
• Privatizing the postal service. They said you, the average person could buy shares in the new company, but uh oh. Looks like Cameron's, and the Conservative Party's, powerful friends got most of the loot. Funny that.
• Next up on the agenda, the National Health Service. When the NHS stumbles, the Conservatives will announce that it's time to put the old girl done, and sell her for parts. Just like the rest of the infrastructure.

THIS is what British Conservatism is up to. Yes! They are more openly friendly to gay people and Muslims. Yes! They are not being guided by the likes of the Tea Party and Rush Limbaugh. (But they do have Rupert Murdoch around. -- But he's not having the best time in the UK these days.)

But we sometimes forget the other side of the grander conservative agenda. The economic side. We do see it hear in the United States. The push to prevent the ACA from coming online. The fight over the survival of the US Postal Service. And then we get to the states! See what is happening in Detroit? And across Michigan? They are selling off chunks of it. And other Republican governors are acting much the same. They are mini David Camerons...without the years at Eton. (I don't want to leave out the Democratic mayors of Chicago in all of this. The sale of the parking meters in the city was a stunning act of personal greed, bolstering the conservative viewpoint.)

The country is under pressure and threat. And ideas that go back to Margaret Thatcher, and on back to the first angry conservative opposition to the social safety net, are at the root. Conservatives foster these ideas. And they then ignore the repercussions of these ideas.

But in the UK...The Conservatives seem to be winning that economic fight. People are pissed about a lot of it. But they aren't tossing them out, yet. (It would be nice if Labour was currently more competent and could actually lead a proper revolt in debates in the Commons.) I can only hope Brits are able to preserve their nation against the grabby hands of David Cameron's friends. 

And here in the US, let's realize what comes if the GOP does get the White House, or full control of the Congress. Heck, the power they swing in the courts is damaging enough as it is. We need to push them out before they do too much damage to this country.

And it pissed me off when I see Democrats or pundits forget this reality. They often get chummy with the idea of bolstering some

____


And if you wonder, yes, the UK has it's own weird characters that look almost destined to rise to power they should never have. Meet Boris. Or, Boris Johnson, Mayor of London.

It blithers and dithers. And when he isn't doing that, he's off quoting things in Latin. Then he races off on his bicycle to his latest affair. ...And some think he could be a future leader of the Conservatives, and Prime Minister.

He's that annoying sort of affable. He looks like such an idiot, so people think he's charming and harmless. Look at him, at the London Olympics.

First they laugh at him. Then they love him. It's terrifying. Because he's a rich, privileged, highly connected, highly educated conservative. But he manages to camouflage it. (His full name is Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson. -- Not that we should judge people based on their name.) He's developed a look and style.

Let's hope Conservatives in the United States don't learn from him. But, say, does he at all remind you of Chris Christie. In Christie's case, conservatism masked under a few moderate position, and an angry "in your face" demeanor. It seems to sell somewhat in the United States. People do seem to ignore his troubling side, and troubling ideas. Perhaps in another post.

Conservatives and their cold contempt for the poor, the sick, and the young.

Should we help the hungry? Should we help the poor? Should we help the jobless? Should we help children?

For generations these were easy questions to address. Of course we should be doing all these things.

Yes, when the Great Depression hit, there was often a coldness towards those in need. But that changed as the magnitude of suffering was understood. And this ethic and lesson stayed with us. And while conservatives resisted the change in the American viewpoint, they did slowly (oh so slowly) come around.

But then came the Reagan era of Conservatism. Suddenly it became complicated. Conservatives found they could sneer more freely at the poor. They could look at the question of feeding children, and think about ways to cut corners. Even the mentally ill were an easy target.

Carolyn Kaster/AP

The complacency of poverty. How do conservatives come up with this stuff?

They couch cruelty, incivility, and avarice in weasel words. They rely on everyone to keep the civil discourse going as they push on. And, over time, it has given them success. Sequestration. What cuts they have made to the social safety net of this country.

And the ease with which conservatives attack the poor and sick has only grown. They don't even need to rely on measured tones, they can let the wolves out to howl. The eager glee of the attacks is so common now. The welfare queens. The lazy. The leeches. The criminals. Conservatives have so many names that they've spent decades building up and storing for the days they could let loose their contempt.

And that contempt is astonishing...No. It's sickening. The argument is made that it is a matter of budgeting. But the actual economics tell a different story. The investment in helping the poor, the sick, and kids only strengthens the country and enriches our economy. But this is not acknowledged. Why acknowledge economic facts, when conservative ideology is giving them the answers that they desire? So, we are left with the weak gruel of their contempt as their answers to our serious problems. They find it so easy to just smirk and tell the poor to get a job already, and stop using up tax dollars. They don't even need to intellectually engage.

And that is convenient for them. The Congressional offices of the Republicans are full of men and women who have been full recipients of subsidies or medicare or medicaid or social security or food stamps at some point (or presently) and then, they turn to the country and tell us that it is best if the rest of us do without aid. They, apparently, are wise enough to not overuse it, or become complacent.

But for the rest of us?

Well, Republicans thinks it's best if they just cut it, shift the money to defense, and we'll all be fine. These Republicans sadly continue to persist in pushing their failed policies from decades past. Sometimes they do us the small dignity of renaming or rebinding their ideas. But usually they don't bother, as to many of their supporters aren't actually paying enough attention to notice what they are getting peddled. Or if they are living in a state that is relying heavily on federal support.

And inroads continue. Into Social Security. Into Medicaid. Into SNAP.

What can be worse is how many Liberals slowly begin buying into the myths. Let's make a bargain. It is a sad state when these dangerous myths are treated as truths. They should be revealed for what they are.

And they should finally be discarded.

Taking away a kid's meal, with a SNAP! *UPDATED*

November has arrived. And with it money from the 2009 stimulus, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, is being withdrawn in certain areas. In particular, money that was going to SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), or food stamps. $5 BILLION. (This is on top of the sequester cuts already in place on SNAP.) This is the equivalent amount to all the charity that goes into the Food Bank (to aid those in poverty get food) system over an entire year. What more can charities do, as they are already strained before the cuts are factored in?

This is a troubling situation. As it is, many families using SNAP struggle to afford meals past the third week in every month. Now, $36 a month will be taken from families, on average. For some of us, $36 is nothing. But when you are living in poverty, when you are stretching your budget to just sustain you and your kids, when you have to send your kids to school hungry, it's everything.

Sadly, conservatives don't see this. As it is, if you are in poverty, and have ANYTHING (a phone, a computer, a car, microwave) you are judged cruelly. You are mocked. Ir is a vain disinterest in the needs and troubles of your fellow citizens.

If you listen to these people trying to survive, you will hear about the jobs they aren't hired for, or the disabled kid they are spending their days nursing, or the fact they are working at a place like McDonald or Walmart and are expected by bosses to survive on SNAP and Medicaid support.

The end of this stimulus aid will hurt so many. And it will mean money that won't get spent on commerce. 47 million are now being affected by these cuts. And as the economic conditions in this country continue to be rough, more may needs it. But everyone is expected to do with less...Well, everyone poor (or in the middle class) is. This seems like a horrible time to cut this investment in this country's future.

We can be sure Republicans in the Congress will not be acting to help them people. Because it doesn't stop there. In the Senate they are working on ways to CUT another $4 BILLION from SNAP. And in the House, they are eager to cut $39 BILLION.

Here's a map of how the November cuts will hit states. Feel free to imagine what another $4-$39 billion will hit your state, and the whole country.

Republicans sneer and call the people using SNAP lazy. They call them leeches. They call them freeloaders. 1 in 7 Americans?

Is that what this looks like to you? I can't help but remember the condescending and low brow piece Tucker Carlson had done for his website, where he had an intern "live on" SNAP benefits. He didn't really, but it was an excuse to mock people like those above. Republicans have gotten very use to punching down at those without power.

Some Republicans even have called SNAP (funds to help people in poverty pay for food) is a cruel abuse of the poor...Imagine that? Imagine the mindset that embraces that thinking, and then goes on TV to declare it?

And they get enough votes to go to Congress.

The crassness towards the poor is not new from conservatives. It's just gotten louder and more effective at leave those in need out in the cold.


Here's Chris Hayes look at this dire problem.



I am at a lost of patience with the GOP's cold indifference to these people.


_________
UPDATE:

A reminder about the economic impact of SNAP.

Every $1 returns $1.79 to the economy. How can this not sound like a good investment to the GOP? It helps feed kids and others in poverty and funnels money right into the businesses on Main Street and around your neighborhood. Is it because it isn't going straight to the top of the largest corporations to be trickled down? (The way all is born and blessed to travel. So sayeth the Board.)

It makes economic sense AND helps those in need. The GOP response? Where's the punishment? Where's the humiliation?

Shutdowns and default, the path that the GOP wants to shove us down.

Beware of snakes...and elephants.

There are some dangerous places to tread. They offer risk to the individual that enters. Or, it has repercussions for everyone else that can be hard to estimate.

Government shutdowns are these, to an extent. But debt default are in a whole other league of intractable paths. And people don't seek that path, if they are responsible, or sensible.

Yet, in the United States we've seen ourselves facing this path twice now, in less than 5 years. Not as an act of the will of the government. Not by the will of the people. But as the machinations and plotting of a small minority in this country. And Ted Cruz has eagerly taken on the role of the drum major for this lot. He led the spectacle in the Senate and has repeatedly encouraged and met with Republicans in the House, urging no deals. On down the path! On to the brink!

But Cruz isn't alone, Conservatives have eagerly rallied to shutdown government, they've declared it no big deal, and a debt default? Pfft! And then when the government shutdowns? They then turn and cry out, "Why has this happen?" It's so disingenuous.

And he's not the only powerful voice. Paul Ryan has jumped into this. The last Vice Presidential candidate is hip deep in this (AND do I even have to bring up what their last VP candidate has been doing the last week?) This Is The Party.

Not to worry, the party is working. Various Republicans have a plan. Impeach the president. Glad they're helping. The idea is that if they won't let government pay it's debts, the president has failed to pay the nations debts. and that means he has grievously failed. Now that may not make ANY sense to you, but if you don't think about it...It's still stupid.

But this is what we are getting from the GOP now. You have some, slowly, trying to talk sense (as the minutes to default evaporate away), but for far too many, madness reigns (or, for many, they stay silent for hear of the nutters). And through the nutters, we're being kept from financial safety, and access to basic government services. They battle on, fighting, with the solvency of the nation in the balance, for:

• Delaying Obamacare roll out.
• Making Capitol Hill workers health insurance more expensive.
• On the question of medical equipment taxation.
• NOW, cutting medicaid!
• Denying women access to preventative health.

We've gotten to the point that even Representative Peter King, of New York, is freaking out and angry at his party. That is quite a move, but he's been left sputtering to understand how they've gone so far, risking so much. Joe Scarborough is in such pain about why his party is acting in such a dysfunctional manner.

But you know why this happened? Conservative politics. This is all about the ideas conservatives have been espousing for decades now. Remember when Reagan was mocking the usefulness of the federal government, to win votes? Remember when you wanted more and more power ceded from the federal government to states and businesses? This is the reality of that rhetoric.

The Heritage Foundation has been helping lead and formulate these plans. Over at the Heritage Action group, they are bragging about how all of this still means they can kill Obamacare (and anyone or thing that gets in the way of Conservatives). They are at war with the US government. And the House Republicans, and Ted Cruz, are their allies. From Rush Limbaugh to Sean Hannity, the conservative media voices have been championing the shutdown of the government. They have goaded Republicans on.

This has been the agenda of Conservatism since President Obama won the presidency. So many candidates and representatives, dreamed of shutdowns. And they were open about this! They wanted this battleground. This is their endgame. It's not happenstance or mistake. It's an agenda

And John Boehner has been key to this agenda. The Senate Republicans have given up the ghost on these matters for now, beyond Ted Cruz and his tailcoat riders. But in the House, Boehner has tens of members who yell, and he flinches. It has been in his power since before the shutdown to end this. But he won't. He even had a plan earlier this week to move things, but he dumped it when everyone wasn't happy. (Worse he allowed the rules of the House to be changed so only he and Cantor bring in a solution.) It's such as sign of weakness, I'm shocked that the carrion eaters aren't sitting in the doors of the House licking their lips. He's not a leader. He's a puppet. While his suffering isn't going to end, he can end it for the country.


But, even then, what happens next? When the next discussion of debt or budget comes, will they try and threaten shutdown and default? YES!!! And that is the problem. This is now how Republicans govern now.

We have to put an end to it. I don't know how we do that short of voting Republicans out of power. And keeping them out where they aren't in control. And that's at the federal, state, and local levels.

In various places in the country they are feeling the impact of the Republicans efforts. In Houston, the Houston Chronicle has recalled it's endorsement of Ted Cruz. Wall Street has had it's fill of this instability being forced on their markets.

Closed for business, like much of
government.

I refrained from some of the picture of strewn carnage.

And in places like South Dakota, people are being buffeted hard by the reality of the federal government not being there to help (Take that Ronald Reagan!). Last week the west of the state was hit hard, very hard, by a nasty blizzard. It knocked out power. It trapped people. It shutdown business. And in the wake, they found the 10's of thousands of dead cattle littered across the region, in fields, in ditches, on the highways. And by the next weekend, a torrent of rain and flooding. People were hurt, financially. It is bad. And all the federal support they usually can turn to is gone. Shuttered. All for the sake of GOP gamesmanship.

The question is, what lessons will voters learn. Is all of Houston sick of Cruz? Do businesses realize how dangerous a bet the GOP is now (Is anything this last few weeks Pro-Business?)? And Red States? Is this what you wanted? Are you happy with what Republican and Tea Party agenda has given? What do you think of no dissent being allowed?

This is the face of the GOP now. It isn't moving towards any form of sanity. It's shambling into the darkness to the Right. And it's shunning reality and genuine governance. They are harmful.

So, do you have any polls open today where you are? Or soon? Would be good for you to know.

The fate of the country is in the balance.

Why are some conservatives crying about getting what they wanted?

AP Photo

Republicans continue to keep the United States government in shutdown. It means that nearly a million people are out of work. A million more are working without pay. And the dominoes continue fall from there, as business that works with government is impacted.

And this leads to a loss of services. Cut off access to health care, parks, basic nutrition, and regulation.

Republicans has tried to play angry and frustrated at what happen. They act like they haven't brought this bought. They act like they don't want this state of governance.

But they can restart government, with one vote in the House, right now. They tell us they need to do this to us, that it's bad, horrible, and needs to stop, but...

But the conservative mindset that caused this shutdown is still on display with what is being yelled out by the conservative media faces.

Stuart Varney, over at FOX News, is so excited at all the federal workers that are out of work, or not getting paid. It is a grand day to him.

He wants "them" all punished. They are living large. They are taking his money, and have a better life than people like Varney.

It's really delusional, dishonest, or he knows nothing but his personal rhetoric. He does live in a bubble, where he constantly laments how bad business has it in America, victims of a bid mean government. It is so far outside the realm of reality that he belongs on FOX News...Hence his job.

Rush Limbaugh is enjoying it as well. It gives him an excuse (like he needs one) to be a foul racist. He is eager to mock the poor. Those in need help are his favorite victims, because his audience embraces the contempt.

Some representatives might want to say that these people don't represent them.

But then we have the simple truth that the people harping on how "those liberals" want and caused this shutdown, have been planning and talking about this shutdown for years now.




This has been there cause for years now.

As Robert Reich noted, this is everything the far right of the Republican party has wanted for years now. The EPA is down. OSHA is down. The SEC is down. It's like Christmas for libertarians AND the far right.

Some are saying this is just because of the Tea Party, but isn't this stuff the GOP has wanted to go after since at least the last time they did this 20 years ago?

And this is on top of sequestration. That is already slashing into support. But now government is largely on standby mode. Just the may conservatives say it should be (except when it's needed to go after women, gays, and black people).


So maybe this is all about seriously addressing budgets, from a far right perspective (as dumb and dangerous and damning as it is).

Then there's the Tea Party Republicans who think government should close, that government should stop wasting taxes, and, as they don't work, they should get their full pay checks.

Renee Ellmers of North Carolina. She just needs it.

“I need my paycheck. That’s the bottom line.”

AP PHOTO/J. SCOTT APPLEWHITE

That is so deep. It's a need she has. And she has to have that money. All the people that usually work at the Capitol who aren't now getting paid, who are now struggling in the same city as Ellmers? Screw them.

Sure things are serious and this is a battle of principles...But she has got to get paid!

Lee Terry of Nebraska. He just needs to get paid:

"Whatever gets them good press. That's all that it's going to be. God bless them. But you know what? I've got a nice house and a kid in college, and I'll tell you we cannot handle it. Giving our paycheck away when you still worked and earned it? That's just not going to fly."

He's earned it. But all those other government workers (doctors, rangers, security, accountants, secretaries, etc.)? Waste.

He's representing the Omaha area! That is one of the more liberal parts of Nebraska. Let's get rid of this guy, and get in someone better.

What is going on?

An ill-formed philosophy is at work in Washington. It's infected the GOP. And, seeing as a path to power, they fostered it. Now they fear resisting it's call to doom, for fear of loosing power. So men and women like Boehner, choose shutdown fights, theatrics, and empty rhetoric, in hope of appeasing, for just a few days, the worst aspects of their party. To stay in office, to stay in authority, they cede that authority and reasoned governance.

Like the deal with a devil or genie, they have taken a rotten deal, and just choose to ignore the horrific repercussions. After all, they were promised a cushy spot at a law firm to ride out those.

COMING SOON! Republicans Shutdown The Government...I hate tired retread sequels. *UPDATED*

UPDATED:

It is official now. The Federal Government is closed.

...Unfortunately, we do not have a clear indication that Congress will act in time for the President to sign a Continuing Resolution before the end of the day tomorrow, October 1, 2013. Therefore, agencies should now execute plans for an orderly shutdown due to the absence of appropriations....

____

Also I should note that while 800,000 are being sent home today. Another 1,000,000 will be asked to stay on the job and receive no pay (The Republican dream.).

Also the House GOP last night, in the closing minutes of government started pushing to go to a conference committee. There they would fight/"negotiate" out the House and Senate bill.

This could sound good. The trouble is that the Democrats have been pushing for this on this matter for months now (It's been on the table since April.). But Republicans wanted to push to a late night showdown. But at the end, they wanted the conference.

And Reid said no. This is because a last minute conference where Republicans will continue to push ancillary issues, like the "Conscious Clause" on to Democrats as the government sits in shut down is just unacceptable. They can't win an election on their bad ideas, so they want a budget crisis to force their ideas on the country instead.

Republicans seems eager to disable government until they get all their wants. And they aren't getting their way.

GOP needs to grow up.

____

So we quickly race to a government shutdown, and Republicans are hard at work, getting on Twitter, getting on TV, making speeches they hope will make great campaign ads...You know, the important things.

So what is some of the impact of these efforts by Republicans to kill the Obamacare, block access to birth control, etc?

• Small Business Administration stops loaning to business.
• Student loans slow down.
• Home loans slow down.
• Clinical trials by National Health Institute will stop.
• EPA and other regulators slow down or just stop.
• Slowdown in passport processing.
• National Guard will hold off in aiding in disaster relief.
• Women, Infants, and Children nutrition program stops.
• The quick service at airports via E-Verify stops. (I imagine this will be quickly restarted. As last time.)

And along this, it will impact our economy. Because, despite the Republican mantra, government/public jobs ARE REAL JOBS. They may like to pretend otherwise, but all these people not working, not getting paid, and all the services out of function will hurt the country. We will look at 800,000 people going to work tomorrow morning to be told to go home, without pay.

Shutdowns remind us how much we rely on and need government. Republican never learn this lesson. So it is up to us voters to teach it to them at the ballot box.

Be pissed. Be registered.  Be ready to vote.

If it was a Conscious Clause, the GOP would be embarrassed by themselves.

As we've seen this weekend, the House Republicans introduced a "conscious clause" into the ongoing budget debate.

This isn't a matter where they want to address a budgetary expense, to claim something, like the ACA, is a fiscal burden for the country. No. This is just an addendum on their other crazy ideas, to take away access to birth control from as many women as they can.

The idea is that if you, the business owner, decide that preventative health care for women is morally or religiously objectionable, you get to opt out. So you, as a business owner, have an out to slash your health care expenses...while taking a religious/moral stand...of course.

But even if you are taking some stand, call this a conscious clause or a matter of Religious Freedom, it is the same thing. This is putting women in a separate and inferior category. This is saying that the preventative health needs of women do not stack up as worthwhile or acceptable as those of men. Sexual health issues of men are clean. The sexual health issues of women aren't clean, and actually troubling. So when someone wants to boot out women's access to The Pill, or other contraception, we'll allow it. I mean, they have "moral objections". How can we not acquiesce to someone having a moral objection. Sure, contraception is medically valid...but I know a church that doesn't like it.

Their are a number of religions opposed to blood transfusions. There are people who morally object to vaccination. No one cares. No one will take access to this stuff away.


Already we've seen a ridiculous exemption given to religious institutions to not have to have any cover even allowed in their health care coverage. Many don't only hire people of their faith. They can't directly control what they do on their own time (have unacceptable relationships, dress unacceptably, say unacceptable things), but they can control this. And the government gave them that power over people.

The Koch Brothers want to be sure they have that power. So does Hobby Lobby, Chick Fil-A, and many others.

The end result that conservatives hope for in this is a stigmatization of birth control. To convince us that birth control or abortion it's all evil.  They want women to struggle. They want society to look in fear at sex.


Did I mention this was a budget battle?

Because we are currently looking at a budget battle, and the risk that the government will shut down.

And the House GOP decided to lob this into the strife we are already besot by. Unbelievable.

No. Unacceptable.

And the Right Wing clowns cheer this on, even lauding a debt default by the United States. They are fools giddily dancing their way through a raging fire.

Good News! Even if the fall does kill you, Ted Cruz will be fine.

There's a classic line from Douglas Adams:

"It's not the fall that kills you; it's the sudden stop at the end."

In the last several years, the Republican Party has proven itself eager to engage in a scientific study to see if this is true. They've cut aid and support, leaving vital funding often plummeting. And, as we seen already, Republicans are all too ready to bring the government, country, and economy to a grinding stop.

Following on the conservative experimentation of last week, the effort to take away funding from Obamacare in the House, we now move to the Senate. In the House there was a line of Republicans eager to crow and call out for ending the program and shutting down government. Those voices are far less loud or numerous in the Senate. So does the deadly game change?

In the Senate, we have Ted Cruz, of Texas. He’s been in office for 9 months. And comes from Texas, where is crazy rhetoric already won him office. So he’s been revving up for a fight for awhile.

He’s the bargain lawyer from your late night TV watching. Really he is. If you watch enough TV, you've probably seen his ads come on again and again. And like so many of these ads, he’s been selling a lousy and dubious product, the idea that Obamacare should be defunded.

"Call in the next 10 minutes and receive a free Brazilian Power Crystal."

But while he is a sort of slick TV lawyer, he shouldn't be underestimated. He is a lawyer who has argued before the Supreme Court. He isn't a small town kid new to the bright lights of the big city. He has been around. He just talks to his audience usually, angry hostile Tea Party conservatives.

To do this work and stir up his audience, he’s needed more than the president for a baddie in his pantomime play. He’s been also hitting the House Republicans. For awhile he’s been mocking the House for not putting out a serious enough effort to defund Obamacare. He’s tried to turn conservative ire on them.

So, finally, the House acted and is throwing him just what he wants. Which means he’ll either have to lead a losing fight against changing the House bill, or shut up. A possibility a number of Republicans would enjoy.

But he’s hoping to throw this back again on to House Republicans. He wants the House to respond to a blocking of the House plan with a new strategy. First, refuse to pass a complete continuing resolution to fund the government. Then, pass small parts of it, to send to the Senate. That way Republicans can just fund the parts of government they value. (You’ll remember this was their approach to the Farm Bill, where they funded corporate farms, but later cut food stamp funding.)

And what I am interested in with Cruz is that he thinks if they send the Senate just the military funding, the Senate will have to fund it, or take all the blame for the shutdown.

I know FOX News will try to sell this. I know Right Wing radio and Murdoch will peddle it. But, as history suggests, the country never buys it.

But it seems clear that Cruz is uninterested in the impact these little experiments have on his party, his country, his economy, or his fellow citizens. So what is he out for?

It boggles the mind.

John Boehner: "I'm not even supposed to be here today!"

Watching John Boehner rather sadly go through the routines of being in charge is not that much fun. He seems to know he's in a dead end job. He seems to know no one respects him. And he seems to know what he's doing doesn't matter much.

I guess what I'm saying is that he's Dante, from Clerks. Going nowhere. Doing nothing, and getting no respect.

But for this to work he'd need a Randall always around him. And the best shot at that would be someone like Eric Cantor. But that'd mean Cantor was constantly cutting Boehner down in conversations. That he was constantly slacking off and preventing anything from getting done...

...Oh my god! Eric Cantor is Randall!

Does the 113th session of congress make a lot more sense now?

The House is being run by the clerks.

So are all the wacky, ridiculous, and cartoonish plots of the last year based on the animated series then?

Does that mean bear really is driving car?!




Eh. Can't wait until Boehner and Cantor are stuck working at Mooby's then.

"I thought they said we'd have cushy jobs after Congress?"
"What? All the milkshakes you can drink isn't cushy?"

____

Another Banner Day for Cantor

JACQUELYN MARTIN/AP

Just last night I was marveling at how Eric Cantor was so eager to take a lead in going after food that ought to be in the hands of children (and the elderly and veterans and anyone in need). You might think such an endeavor would sate one for the week.

But not our Eric.

Today he lead a ridiculous event. (I know, I know. It's his specialty.) With great aplomb and revelry, the US House of Representatives voted to cut funding to Obamacare (The Affordable Care Act. But I think almost everyone has given up calling it this.). Yeah. Woo! They did it! They voted on this!

I'll give you a moment to recover from the stirring and historic news from this morning.


Better?

Yeah, it's quite ridiculous. How many times have they voted to repeal the Obamacare law now? Is it over 50? Because I thought I'd heard that when they get to the fiftieth vote, everyone in the House gets a free lobbyist. Really at this point they've done this enough to acquire a repetitive strain injury.

AP PHOTO  - j. SCOTT APPLEWHITE

Having successfully voted on this one more time, they raced to a camera to cheer their great victory...Which at best will lead to a short filibuster in the Senate before vanishing. It may make the effort to fund the government, keep the lights on, keep millions of Americans getting their paychecks, etc, a bit harder. It may help amp up the fight over the debt ceiling. It may be just that little bit of bull crude needed to tip us into debt default later this year. But other than that, it isn't going to change the implementation of Obamacare. It is still coming later this year. That is unchanged

So in that regard, the Republican stunt today is meaningless, unless you spend your day listening to Right Wing Radio. In that case, we are marching to end the socialist blight of Islam...Or something. Is will also be made into campaign brochures, ads, and speeches, and bring in some more cash. But it is just theater.

Most of what's happen in the House these days centers around making an art out doing nothing, and getting paid handsomely for it. Time and again, they push out bills that will go nowhere, but will get them on TV, or make a good bit of red meat for the most rabid of the base. But this last week they've worked hard, to take away food and health care access from millions.

But none of this is important. What's important is the illusion...I think I may be comparing Eric Cantor to Gob Bluth...

But, actually, Gob may be a good example of Cantor and the joke of an event this morning.

That's because today was a joke. They want to try and pretend it was a success. They want to have everyone think things have changed. They want to act like they are strutting around with confidence, but really they want to sneak away and cry. I mean they had people there to cheer them on as they threw out their anemic talking points. It was just sad.

And Eric Cantor wants to make himself the center of attention in it all. The brave hero. The mastermind. But he's just a pathetic attention getter.

Sadly, when this is all done, I wonder if Eric Cantor has the temerity to even admit to himself, "I've made a huge mistake"?

I wonder if he knows what he really wants to do, and what price everyone will pay for him to achieve that?


A little tribute in honor Cantor's showmanship.

Eric Cantor vows to drink the poor's milkshake, and then take candy from a baby.

Today the US House of Representatives finally got around to addressing the funding of food stamps, or as they've been renamed, SNAP (Supplemental Nutritional…Mobile Army Strike…Surgical Hospital…Logistics Division…)…food stamps, okay?

Earlier this year the Farm Bill, dealing with the production of food on farms AND aid to those in poverty came through Congress. But in the fight that conservatives have made Congress day to day, there was contention. Already, there was a push to slash out $20 billion from aid to those in poverty, which is harsh, and I oppose. But conservatives pondered, “Is this all there is? Couldn't I do more?” Oh, well, we know they didn't ponder it. They raced to enact a doubling of the harmful cuts to food stamps.

But, alas, they faced stiff Democrat resistance on this. So, the Farm Bill got split up. And, now, food stamps are on the chopping block.

Brendan Hoffman / Getty Images

The Republican plan, giddily put forward by Eric Cantor, will cut $40 billion over the next 4 years. And by next year 3.8 million will be kicked out of the SNAP program (And more and more will be hit as the decade passes).  As well, access will be tightened to access food stamps, and many state waivers will be cancelled. Where all these people end up, how they get fed, that isn't Eric Cantors problem. You should have thought about it before you chose to be poor.

And, finally, getting to the floor, the message was clear. The vote was 217 to 210. All but 15 Republicans voted for these cuts. The Republicans are clear, food stamps aren't a priority. And, now with the economic trouble we are having in this country. Food stamps are instrumental for millions. But this is yet another investment in the country Republicans are not just unwilling to make, they are hostile to it.

And it isn't just Congressional Republicans at work. Kaisch, in Ohio, is eager to ramp up pressure on the poor as well. He wants to be sure there are stringent work requirements, if you want to eat. Trouble is that in Ohio (47^th in job creation); there isn't exactly a surplus of jobs to give these people living in such poverty (Its part of the issue.).

But the implication is clear; you have to force people that are struggling and hungry to work. To Republicans, they are lazy and dishonest. The contempt is clear.

And it is a stunningly ill-conceived plan. Even if there is some job, they have to spend money to get to the job. Then, if they have kids, pay for someone to take care of them. And, let’s face it; these jobs won’t be well playing ones. Will this just put them deeper in the hope? All just to allow conservatives to feel they've won and economic and moral victory over those in poverty? Really?

This effort will hurt so many. There is a troubling level of food insecurity in the country now. One in seven families struggle with having consistent access to enough food to be healthy. This comes to around 49 million, a fifth of them kids. These numbers are growing.

This many are already struggling. And where will they and others be when the Republicans are done? What happens to them? What happens to this country when we struggle like this, and turn our backs on millions?

For now this time wasting is meaningless. It shouldn't pass through the Senate. And it won’t be signed into law by the president. But it is dragging out the legislative process, which is par for the course with Eric Cantor. And with the fights over budgets and debts to come, those in poverty will be targeted more by House Republicans.

But this isn't the only trouble facing those relying on food stamps to get by, week by week. Since 2009, the Recovery Act has been enhancing the SNAP program. But, come November 1^st, this support will be ending. And, at that point, a family of three will see their monthly support drop by $29 a month.

The struggle for those in poverty is continuing. And Eric Cantor just toys with them. Being poor shouldn't make you an easy target for politics.