The Culprits

John Boehner and Eric Cantor
(Right Wing Republican and Further Right Wing Republican)

Sadly, in this Congress, Boehner is considered a moderate. 

More on the Debt Limit Crisis

Two additional points -
Boehner is attempting to pass his legislation with Republicans only.  We don't hear him talking to any of the Democratic leaders in the House.
Instead of trying to satisfy the Tea Party Republicans, why doesn't he swing to the Democratic side?  There are "Blue Dog" Democrats who might be more easily appeased than the Tea Partiers. 
Why is he so intent on passing with Republican support only? 
It seems the moderate Republicans have as much in common with Tea Partiers as they do with Blue Dog Democrats, so why not build a coalition with the Blue Dogs instead?
He would pass his bill and setup the Democrats in the Senate to be the bad guys if they don't vote for it.

I imagine I wouldn't like whatever legislation he'd put together in that scenario, but I don't much like the Reid plan either.

*****

Next point, after thinking and talking about this problem and trying to come up with the core problem, I've decided it's complicated.  HA!  Of course it is.
But, at it's heart is the problem of competing world views that can't coexist.  It's not peculiar to the United States, it's in everyone's DNA, I think.
I've talked about that before - the people who live in fear (it's mine, I want it) and the more optimistic people (I'm willing to give a little bit more to have a government that works).
I guess with that description you can tell which side I'm on.

In any event, my new thought about this is that our Congress has used compromise for the last 50 years to get things done.  The surprise in this debt limit crisis is that the kind of compromise Congress has used isn't working anymore.  In Congress, compromise means I'll vote for your amendment to this bill if you vote for my amendment in this other bill.
Right?
They don't really compromise, they trade.

In trading, votes for votes, we end up starting new programs and spending lots of money, which is part of what got us in this mess. 

What if, instead of compromise meaning shared benefits (more programs and more spending) we floated the concept of compromise meaning shared sacrifice?

We can all sacrifice a little to share in the privilege of living and working in this great country.

Okay - done for now.
Hope this makes sense 10 years down the road when I look back on the 'good old days'.

Bizarro World

Are we in bizarro world?

1.  John Boehner wanted to propose a bill today to increase the debt limit for a few months, create a commission to review additional cuts, and cut the budget by 900 billion.

He knows whatever passes the House, will be voted down by the Senate.  No question.

His party, the Republicans, are in control of the House of Representatives.

He can't get the Republican votes to pass the bill. 

The Tea Party, among others, are voting NO on the bill, no matter what.  They do NOT want the debt limit to increase.

The vote has been delayed until tomorrow again.

2.  I watched some Fox News (Greta Van Sustern) and it seems the Republican talking point right now is that the President is showing no leadership at this point. 

That seems odd since the President has been in the middle of negotiations the whole time.

Who is he supposed to show leadership over?  The Republicans?  'Cause they're the ones who can't be herded right now (unusual in itself - Republicans are usually in lockstep).

If the Tea Party hadn't bullied the more reasonable Republicans in the House, they'd have gotten a pretty good deal with the Obama-Boehner negotiated plan. 

3.  The Tea Party people don't want the debt limit to be increased under any circumstances.  They don't believe the country will go into default and they don't think a default will destry the country's fragile economy.

4.  One of the rating company's that could downgrade the US is Moody's.  Why should we listen to them anyway because they're the ones who sanctioned all those derivatives and credit default swaps and questionable practices of investment houses on Wall Street that contributed to the economic collapse of a couple years ago?  Hasn't it been proven that their opinion is worth nothing.  (Although I definitely thought of that on my own [ego], Greta Van Sustern mentioned it as well)

5.  For an example of the world as the Republicans and Tea Partiers want it - see the FAA.  The Congress could not come up with a plan that could keep the FAA running, so it's been partially shut down.  One of the areas that has been furloughed is the section that receives tax revenue from the airlines.  Since the US Government can't collect it, the airlines are not required to send the tax.  Did the airlines pass the savings on to the consumer?  No.  They increased their fares so the total ticket price stays the same.  Instead of paying the government, the ticket holders are paying it to the airline.  I think we should stop pretending that giving money to corporations and rich people will trickle down to the regular folk.  It doesn't.

6.  The President has given up on extending the Bush Tax Cuts, he's given up on tax revenues to balance the sacrifice, and he's increased the amount of spending cuts.  In fact, in his address on Monday, when he began to describe the plan, it was hard to know if he was describing a Republican or Democratic plan. 

7.  I find it strange that the Republicans are saying that the President is the one who has brought us to this place.  And, that's the supposed 'reasonable' Republicans - the ones who expect the work in government is an exercise in compromise.  Even they are saying the President brought this upon us himself.  But, that's not what happened.  The regular debt limit increase came up for a vote just like it always has.  The administration sent it to the House the same way it always is.  It was the Republicans who voted no - or at least said they wouldn't vote for it without all these other things attached to it.  So, factually speaking - it really was the Republicans in the House that put this ball in motion.  Why are they getting away with saying the President started it?

It's all part of Bizarro world.

What a disappointment

My letter to the President today

Dear Mr. President...
What the heck is going on?
Earlier this week you asked me to contact my Congressman to tell him I want a balanced approach to solve the debt crisis.  I want tax increases as well as an extension through 2012.
I did as asked.  I wrote to Dave Reichert.
I even wrote to you and let you know I'm on board.
These are key principles that can't be brushed aside.

Now, it's Thursday.  A scant day or two later.
Reid's plan (presumably endorsed by the White House) does NOT include a balanced approach.  The tax revenues have been dropped.

Huh?
What happened?
I don't get it. 
Why make a show of wanting to have a balanced approach only to drop it in a day or two?

I am very disappointed.

Vicky

United in sorrow...and hope

Flag of Norway

President Obama is eminently reasonable. 

Remarks of President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Washington, DC

For years, the government has spent more money than it takes in. The result is a lot of debt on our nation’s credit card – debt that unless we act will weaken our economy, cause higher interest rates for families, and force us to scale back things like education and Medicare.

Now, folks in Washington like to blame one another for this problem. But the truth is, neither party is blameless. And both parties have a responsibility to do something about it. Every day, families are figuring out how stretch their paychecks – struggling to cut what they can’t afford so they can pay for what’s really important. It’s time for Washington to do the same thing. But for that to happen, it means that Democrats and Republicans have to work together. It means we need to put aside our differences to do what’s right for the country. Everyone is going to have to be willing to compromise. Otherwise, we’ll never get anything done.

That’s why we need a balanced approach to cutting the deficit. We need an approach that goes after waste in the budget and gets rid of pet projects that cost billions of dollars. We need an approach that makes some serious cuts to worthy programs – cuts I wouldn’t make under normal circumstances. And we need an approach that asks everybody to do their part.

So that means, yes, we have to make serious budget cuts; but that it’s not right to ask middle class families to pay more for college before we ask the biggest corporations to pay their fair share of taxes. It means that before we stop funding clean energy, we should ask oil companies and corporate jet owners to give up the tax breaks that other companies don’t get. Before we cut medical research, we should ask hedge fund managers to stop paying taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries. Before we ask seniors to pay more for Medicare, we should ask the wealthiest taxpayers to give up tax breaks we simply cannot afford under these circumstances.

That’s the heart of this approach: serious cuts, balanced by some new revenues. And it’s been the position of every Democratic and Republican leader who has worked to reduce the deficit, from Bill Clinton to Ronald Reagan. In fact, earlier this week, one of the most conservative members of the Senate, Tom Coburn, announced his support for a balanced, bipartisan plan that shows promise. And then a funny thing happened. He received a round of applause – from a group of Republican and Democratic senators. That’s a rare event in Washington.

So there will be plenty of haggling over the details in the days ahead. But this debate boils down to a simple choice. We can come together for the good of the country and reach a compromise; we can strengthen our economy and leave for our children a more secure future. Or we can issue insults and demands and ultimatums at each another, withdraw to our partisan corners, and achieve nothing. Well, we know the right thing to do. And we know what the American people expect us to do.

Uhn Bee Eff Fen Lee Vah Bull

Following is the letter John Boehner wrote today after leaving talks with President Obama about increasing the Debt Ceiling.

Dear Colleague,

Our economy is not creating enough jobs, and the policies coming out of Washington are a big reason why. Because of Washington, we have a tax code that is stifling job creation. Because of Washington, we have a debt crisis that is sowing uncertainty and sapping the confidence of small businesses. Because of Washington, our children are financing a government spending binge that is jeopardizing their future.

Since the moment I became Speaker, I’ve urged President Obama to lock arms with me and seize this moment to do something significant to address these challenges. I’ve urged him to partner with congressional Republicans to do something dramatic to change the fiscal trajectory of our country . . . something that will boost confidence in our economy, renew a measure of faith in our institutions of government, and help small businesses get back to creating jobs.

The House this week passed such a plan . . . the Cut, Cap & Balance Act, which passed the House with bipartisan support.

Along with Majority Leader Cantor, I have also engaged the president in a dialogue in recent days. The purpose of this dialogue was to see if we could identify a path forward that would implement the principles of Cut, Cap, & Balance in a manner that could secure bipartisan support and be signed into law.

During these discussions — as in my earlier discussions — it became evident that the White House is simply not serious about ending the spending binge that is destroying jobs and endangering our children’s future.

A deal was never reached, and was never really close.

In the end, we couldn’t connect. Not because of different personalities, but because of different visions for our country.

The president is emphatic that taxes have to be raised. As a former small businessman, I know tax increases destroy jobs.

The president is adamant that we cannot make fundamental changes to our entitlement programs. As the father of two daughters, I know these programs won’t be there for their generation unless significant action is taken now.

For these reasons, I have decided to end discussions with the White House and begin conversations with the leaders of the Senate in an effort to find a path forward.

The Democratic leaders of the House and Senate have not been participants in the conversations I and Leader Cantor have had with the White House; nor have the Republican leaders of the Senate. But I believe there is a shared commitment on both sides of the aisle to producing legislation that will serve the best interests of our country in the days ahead — legislation that reflects the will of the American people, consistent with the principles of the Cut, Cap, & Balance Act that passed the House with bipartisan support this week.

I wanted to alert you to these developments as soon as possible. Further information will be coming as soon as it is available. It is an honor to serve with you. Together, we will do everything in our power to end the spending binge in Washington and help our economy get back to creating jobs.

Sincerely

John Boehner

Congress Continues Debate Over Whether Or Not Nation Should Be Economically Ruined

(hey - there's supposed to be the Onion logo in the picture here...?)

It's surreal when a satire piece from the Onion seems more real than satire.  I bet more than a few people couldn't tell if this is true or humor.

WASHINGTON—Members of the U.S. Congress reported Wednesday they were continuing to carefully debate the issue of whether or not they should allow the country to descend into a roiling economic meltdown of historically dire proportions. "It is a question that, I think, is worthy of serious consideration: Should we take steps to avoid a crippling, decades-long depression that would lead to disastrous consequences on a worldwide scale? Or should we not do that?" asked House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), adding that arguments could be made for both sides, and that the debate over ensuring America’s financial solvency versus allowing the nation to default on its debt—which would torpedo stock markets, cause mortgage and interests rates to skyrocket, and decimate the value of the U.S. dollar—is “certainly a conversation worth having.” "Obviously, we don't want to rush to consensus on whether it is or isn't a good idea to save the American economy and all our respective livelihoods from certain peril until we've examined this thorny dilemma from every angle. And if we’re still discussing this matter on Aug. 2, well, then, so be it.” At press time, President Obama said he personally believed the country should not be economically ruined.

Doctor Who's Christopher Eccleston

I still lament what could have been...in a world where everyone gets what they want, of course.

(lament: verb, to feel or express sorrow or regret for)

From Bad Wilf:

At an acting master class, at the Theatre Royal Haymarket. Christopher Eccleston was asked why he left, such a high paid job like Doctor Who. He responded:

“I left Doctor Who, because I could not get along with the senior people. I left, because of politics. I did not see eye-to-eye, with them. I didn’t agree with the way things were being run. I didn’t like the culture that had grown up, around the series. So, I left. I felt, over a principle. I thought to remain, which would have made me a lot of money and given me huge visibility, the price I would have had to pay, was to eat a lot of shit. I’m not being funny about that. I didn’t want to do that and, it comes to the art of it, in a way. I feel that if you run your career and-we are vulnerable as actors and, we are constantly humiliating ourselves auditioning. But, if you allow that to go on, on a grand scale. You will loose, whatever it is about you and, it will be present in your work. If you allow your desire to be successful and visible and financially secure. If you allow that, to make you throw shades on your parents, on your upbringing, then you’re knackered. You’ve got to keep something back, for yourself. Because, it’ll be present in your work. A purity or an idealism is essential, or, you’ll become-you’ve got to have standards, no matter how hard work that is. So, it makes it hard road, really. You know. It’s easy to find a job, when you’ve got no morals, you’ve got nothing to be compromised you can go ‘yeah, yeah. That doesn’t matter. That director can bully that prop man and, I won’t say anything about it’. But, then when that director comes to you and says ‘I think you should play it like this’. You’ve surely got to go ‘How can I respect you, when you behave like that?’

So, that’s why I left. My face didn’t fit and, I’m sure they were glad to see the back of me. The important thing is that I succeeded. It was a great part. I loved playing him. I loved connecting with that audience. Because I’ve always acted for adults and the suddenly, your acting for children. Who are far more tasteful, they will not be bullshitted. It’s either good, or it’s bad. They don’t schmooze at after show parties, with cocktails

The Murdoch Scandal

I'm confused by all the surprise surrounding Ruper Murdoch and son because anyone who owns FOXNews and allows their level of misinformation, misdirection, and fanaticism - a person/company who actually encourages deception and spinning the truth and smirks when challenged about it - that kind of person/company would do anything.

It's sad, but not surprising. 

When truth doesn't matter, I don't know how we can effectively function as a society.
At the very least, let's be honest.

Info from the BBC

I wish I knew someone on the other side that agrees with this...

I agree generally with this NYT op-ed piece, but especially emphasize and affirm my agreement to the ideas in bold below...
Paul Krugman from the NY Times on July 14, 2011 (via Hunter on Daily Kos)

Getting to Crazy by Paul Krugman

There aren’t many positive aspects to the looming possibility of a U.S. debt default. But there has been, I have to admit, an element of comic relief — of the black-humor variety — in the spectacle of so many people who have been in denial suddenly waking up and smelling the crazy.

A number of commentators seem shocked at how unreasonable Republicans are being. “Has the G.O.P. gone insane?” they ask.

Why, yes, it has. But this isn’t something that just happened, it’s the culmination of a process that has been going on for decades. Anyone surprised by the extremism and irresponsibility now on display either hasn’t been paying attention, or has been deliberately turning a blind eye.

And may I say to those suddenly agonizing over the mental health of one of our two major parties: People like you bear some responsibility for that party’s current state.

Let’s talk for a minute about what Republican leaders are rejecting.

President Obama has made it clear that he’s willing to sign on to a deficit-reduction deal that consists overwhelmingly of spending cuts, and includes draconian cuts in key social programs, up to and including a rise in the age of Medicare eligibility. These are extraordinary concessions. As The Times’s Nate Silver points out, the president has offered deals that are far to the right of what the average American voter prefers — in fact, if anything, they’re a bit to the right of what the average Republican voter prefers!

Yet Republicans are saying no. Indeed, they’re threatening to force a U.S. default, and create an economic crisis, unless they get a completely one-sided deal.
And this was entirely predictable.

First of all, the modern G.O.P. fundamentally does not accept the legitimacy of a Democratic presidency — any Democratic presidency. We saw that under Bill Clinton, and we saw it again as soon as Mr. Obama took office.
       
As a result, Republicans are automatically against anything the president wants, even if they have supported similar proposals in the past. Mitt Romney’s health care plan became a tyrannical assault on American freedom when put in place by that man in the White House. And the same logic applies to the proposed debt deals.

Put it this way: If a Republican president had managed to extract the kind of concessions on Medicare and Social Security that Mr. Obama is offering, it would have been considered a conservative triumph. But when those concessions come attached to minor increases in revenue, and more important, when they come from a Democratic president, the proposals become unacceptable plans to tax the life out of the U.S. economy.

Beyond that, voodoo economics has taken over the G.O.P.

Supply-side voodoo — which claims that tax cuts pay for themselves and/or that any rise in taxes would lead to economic collapse — has been a powerful force within the G.O.P. ever since Ronald Reagan embraced the concept of the Laffer curve. But the voodoo used to be contained. Reagan himself enacted significant tax increases, offsetting to a considerable extent his initial cuts.

And even the administration of former President George W. Bush refrained from making extravagant claims about tax-cut magic, at least in part for fear that making such claims would raise questions about the administration’s seriousness.

Recently, however, all restraint has vanished — indeed, it has been driven out of the party.

Last year Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, asserted that the Bush tax cuts actually increased revenue — a claim completely at odds with the evidence — and also declared that this was “the view of virtually every Republican on that subject.”

And it’s true: even Mr. Romney, widely regarded as the most sensible of the contenders for the 2012 presidential nomination, has endorsed the view that tax cuts can actually reduce the deficit.

Which brings me to the culpability of those who are only now facing up to the G.O.P.’s craziness.

Here’s the point: those within the G.O.P. who had misgivings about the embrace of tax-cut fanaticism might have made a stronger stand if there had been any indication that such fanaticism came with a price, if outsiders had been willing to condemn those who took irresponsible positions.

But there has been no such price.

Mr. Bush squandered the surplus of the late Clinton years, yet prominent pundits pretend that the two parties share equal blame for our debt problems.
Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, proposed a supposed deficit-reduction plan that included huge tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, then received an award for fiscal responsibility.
So there has been no pressure on the G.O.P. to show any kind of responsibility, or even rationality — and sure enough, it has gone off the deep end.
If you’re surprised, that means that you were part of the problem.

*****

Hunter at Daily Kos adds:

Bad: I'm not sure there's any way to express just how silly these people are. Worse: even now, most of our press is bound and determined not to point that out.

E-mail to Dave Reichert on 07/14/2011

On Thursday I wrote the following e-mail to Dave Reichert (my Republican representative; he does take a good picture, I'll give him that):

The right wing of the Republican party is holding the rest of the country hostage. 
The President has bent over backwards to find common areas of agreement for spending cuts.  All he's asking is that we not put all the pressure on the middle and lower classes.  Can't the rich afford to put in their fair share?  Do the oil companies and Wall Street banks have to make THAT much profit. 
It's ridiculous that your party would rather cut money for social welfare programs than ask the rich to stop using loopholes to avoid paying a fair share of the tax burden. 
Your party is continuing to play games rather than govern.
Since 2001 the Congress has voted to increase the debt limit 5 times.  Why, suddenly, is this a problem for you?  I can only imagine it's because you would rather ruin our country's economic standing (such as it is) than give this president any help in avoiding a catastrophe.
The Republican party said yes, yes, yes, all the way to near disaster, gave the reins to Democrats and began your choir of No, No, No.
This voter would like to see you actually propose WORKING WITH THE PRESIDENT TO SOLVE PROBLEMS.  Stop playing games.
Not just on this debt limit issue, but getting us out of this economic hole.
Your party leadership is making you look bad.

Down with the Right Wingers who I have no respect for...(for whom I have no respect.)

I don't know what to do with my anger, frustration, outrage, disappointment and disrespect toward a fellow American who would smile, applaud, and advocate for my government to shutdown.
(Note:  This picture was on Huffington Post and I don't know where it came from or if it's a file photo or whatever, but it aptly describes the current situation so I'm using it)

As of today, the negotiations to raise the debt ceiling have yielded no results.
The 'tea party' wing of the Republican party has taken over and they're acting like bullies.

Eric Cantor, Grover Norquist, John Boehner, and the rest of the bully brigade (including my congressman Dave Reichert, I bet) have said they'll only vote to raise the debt ceiling if there is an equal amount of spending cuts to offset the increase.  (Note:  Grover Norquist is not in Congress; he's a tax activist who gets elected officials to sign a no tax pledge)

Obama has agreed to up to 3 trillion in spending cuts, but he recognizes that most of the cuts the right-wing proposes will adversely affect lower and middle class Americans.

Obama would like to see the wealthy and upper classes do their part as well.  Obama (and I) would like to eliminate tax loopholes that the wealthy receive (apparently wealthy people get some kind of tax break for using corporate jets?).  And not just the wealthy - the corporate wealth should be taxed more fairly.  Is it fair that the oil companies are making billions of dollars in profit, but don't pay very much tax?

The right wing says closing loopholes in the tax code is essentially increasing tax.
And, they 'draw the line in the sand' at increasing taxes.

They say, in the middle of an economic crisis that involves so much unemployment you don't increase taxes on the wealthy because they're the job creators of the economy.

1.  If the wealthy were job creators, then we'd have jobs.  They have wealth.  Where are the jobs?
2.  Cutting spending generally affects poor people who don't know where their next meal is going to come from.  Any of the wealthy who have to pay a little more will probably still not worry about whether they'll have access to the basic necessities of life.
3.  The Republicans and Tea Party people have been unusually cruel and fearful under President Obama and it makes me wonder what they hate more...that he's a Democrat, or that he's half black.
4.  Where was all the right wing's fiscal responsibility talk during the George Bush years when he was spending left and right and starting wars?  I think it's hypocritical to be outraged at this point.

There is plenty of analysis on the Internet, in newspapers, and on television.  And there are many people who are more articulate and studied than I.  I'll leave it to them.

I just want the historical record to show which side I'm on. 
I'm on the side of Obama.  He is a wonderful president during these times.  He's holding up well.  I wish he could be more progressive, but because of the right wingers he's been forced to compromise a lot.

In compromising, though, many of his programs and plans to solve the current economic woes have not been given the oomph they should have had.  Not quite enough money and you can get near the top of the hill, but not to the peak, which means you roll back down again.

The Republicans have fought him at every turn.  Their main goal is to see Obama out of office.  The health of the United States of America makes no difference to them.  They're the type of people who would cut off their noses to spite their face.
This process has been disturbing on so many levels there will probably be a thousand books written about it.

Where is the outcry from reasonable people?
Is there a commonality we all truly believe in that we can gather round?
Speaking for me...I don't know what to do.  It's overwhelming.
It seems everywhere I turn there's a wrong that should be righted.
I want to go to the core of the problem and start working there. 
But, where is that?
Sigh.

(Sometimes I think the core is clear air and clean water because we need both of those to survive as humans.  However, even if we have clean air and clean water, if our hearts aren't filled with hope, or spirit, or love, then that's a problem too.)

Godspeed Atlantis

Heroes and Heroines.

Space - the Final Frontier

Courage

Innovation

Curiousity

Amazing Discoveries

The Future

Dedication
Sacrifice

Professionalism

Science

Cool

Space

Faith

The Best We Have to Offer

We seek the unknown
We Dare
We Hope
We Dream
We Believe
Goosebumps
Tears from me because it's too amazing for words.

Leaving the Nest - our Earth.

It's a Wonderful World

It's an Awesome Universe

I'm lucky to be alive in this era; our first steps into Space...Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Shuttles.  I support a government funded NASA.  Science and Discovery are the future.

Today was the 135th and final launch of the Space Shuttle Program.  The shuttle Atlantis is on it's way to the International Space Station.