Scaredycrats

I watched C-Span because I was interested in how the tax cut vote would go.

When the Democrats were in power in both houses they got very little of their agenda passed because the Republicans mostly unanimously with the help of the Blue Dogs somehow blocked most of it. They even did everything they could to stall necessary judicial appointments.

I did not believe the tax cut bill that was presented to the president, that he compromised on, would create those jobs he was led to believe. To me it was a more expensive version of the failed trickle down theory.

The vote was illuminating. On the Pomeroy amendment which dealt with the estate tax, not one Republican voted for it - again treating the president and House Democrats like dogs who are asked to beg at the table and not given any food. Then when it came to the final vote almost as many Democrats voted for passage as Republicans.

Democrats previously voted to give senior citizens $250 to help defray their medical costs, but lost that battle. The Republicans explained that the government could not afford to put that burden on future generations.

HOGWASH!

I can only hope that I am wrong and that the president and the House Democrats who were humiliated turn out to be right, especially when I was led to believe that the House Democrats were really going to fight for a better bill.

Taxes and reality

A government must protect its citizenry with an Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard but going to war is not a must.

A government must protect its borders. It must have judicial, executive, and legislative bodies. It must pay for bridges, highways, tunnels and roads. It must pay for police, firemen, sanitation people and teachers. It must pay for museums, libraries and parks. And let's not forget unemployment checks, social security, medicare, medicaid and welfare.

Governments have a lot of bills to pay and they pay these bills with revenue from our taxes.

Once in a while they even overpay for goods and services, to take care of their supporters, so that they can get elected again.

In our down economy - much of which was caused by poor legislative, judicial and executive decisions - the government still must function.

If governments can't get this money from the middle class because of the outsourcing of jobs, and loss of manufacturing jobs and refuse to get the money from the wealthy, many of whom benefited financially from the outsourcing of jobs and relocating of manufacturing, they have two alternatives:

1. They can place new fees on goods and services, or raise the fees on current services. You will pay less in "taxes" but more for mass transit, tolls, tickets, parking meters, telephone and TV bills, and anything else you use.

2. They can decrease services. They can close unemployment offices, make medical coverage more difficult, close fire houses, lessen the police force, stop fixing roads, clean the streets less, let snow pile up, and do away with bus and train routes. In short, the government can make life more miserable for you.

So when you hear a politician proclaim my opponent and his party will raise your taxes, but I won't, consider it nonsense. The politician who won't raise your taxes will either raise the fees you pay or give you less service - or both.

One way or another, regardless of your political persuasion, you pay.

What is needed of the people who represent us is to have good judgment, integrity and statesmanship. Is that too much to hope for?

Monopolies

We seem to be worrying about the wrong things in our voting and politics. What we should be worrying about is monopolistic control of our Internet, our newspapers. our radio, our television, our telephone, our insurance companies, our hospitals, our banks and our credit card companies.

When a select few extremely large corporations control our services and our elected representatives, it does not matter whether you are a Republican, a Democrat, an Independent or have no party affiliation. Everyone is powerless when a select few have the power to raise your prices and give you less service.

When they are too big to fail, they are also too big to work for the common good.

Random political thoughts

I am not a political pundit. I do not profess to have the only answer, but I find I am right more often than most political pundits, because I don't get paid to push a political agenda.

In order of interest as a guest on a political talk show here is my take.

1. Reporters who work at a newspaper.
2. Columnists who work at a newspaper.
3. Other talk show hosts, and bloggers.
4. So-called pundits.
5. People who profess to be Republican and Democratic strategists. Fortunately for them the public makes them right some of the time, especially in mid-term elections. Most of the time when they are asked a question I can guess what they are going to say. They have a ready-made agenda and mental script they adhere to.

Today I heard the latest poll for the 2012 Presidential election. I couldn't care less. In today's technological age it is possible that in two years we may be talking about someone who we do not even know. Congress is on vacation now. I don't want to hear or read about polls until they start to work on the business of laws. Hopefully they might actually try to make things better for the middle class, and for the small business community that they promise to help, but rarely do.

Punditry: Right or Wrong?

Paul Begala and many of the pundits keep saying that the Democrats lost because they were too radical in seeking too many changes. I think the opposite is true. President Obama won because he promised to make changes. His party lost in the midterms because he did not make the changes his supporters sought. To go to the middle as Begala says he should have, means keeping the status quo. That is exactly what he tried to do and failed. People wanted changes to weed out the corruption that the large corporations and lobbyists have forced on our congressional representatives. Democrats were as guilty of accepting corporate money as the Republicans.

Our President did not change the Afghanistan and Iraq policy that he said he would. He did not fight hard to end Don't Ask, Don"t Tell, as you were led to believe he would. He did not go to bat for seniors on the COLA issue. He did not go to bat for real regulation of Wall Street. He did not even fight hard enough on his big issue, Health Reform. He caved in on single pay immediately. He tried too hard to go to the middle with Republican and Blue Dog support and failed. He even supported Blue Dogs in the primaries. His policy on Israel was ambiguous. He also kept on his economic team the Wall Streeters who were partly responsible for the Bush economic policy. In short he was elected to make sweeping changes and used a poor broom.

If you look for the middle ground as a bargaining position, the only place you can compromise is a losing position especially if your opponent's position is not to give in.

Unions have learned one lesson. If you are seeking a 10 cent wage , you do not ask for a 10 cent wage you ask for a 20 cent wage and settle on a 10 cent wage. He can change things in his favor if he really uses the power of the presidency to fight for meaningful changes. You cannot put a bandaid on a problem if it needs a tourniquet.

The pundits have it wrong

For quite some time now pundits have been predicting a Republican landslide in which they take over the Congress. While I, like many other Democrats have been disappointed in President Obama's performance up until now, when we think of the alternative we are appalled. Yes, Obama oversold what he could do because he believed that he could persuade Republicans. He couldn't even get them to say maybe. Obama's continuation of the Afghanistan war and his hiring of Wall Streeters for his economic group turned off many voters on the Left, but I think they should realize that the other party would and will do the same. And do all the things those on the Left still oppose.

I do think that the Democrats have a better grass roots organization, and Election Day will come down to who does a better job of getting out the vote. I also think that the American citizenry can see behind the Tea Party candidates.

While President Bush and his Republican party was running our country into the ground where were these Tea Party patriots. In most midterm elections people who are disappointed with their elected officials sit on their hands and do not come out to vote. This election is different. The hatred that seems to be coming out demands that people come out to vote.

So go out and vote for Jim Hall in Westchester, Barbara Boxer In California, Russ Feingold in Wisconsin, Harry Reid in Nevada, and anyone who can help get through the Obama agenda we supported with such enthusiasm only two years ago.

Mickey's Book Club

Over the past few years I have read a number of political books and have come to the following conclusions about what to expect from the authors.

Politicians are generally apologetic and write mostly about their accomplishments. They are rarely informative as to what goes on in Washington.

Pundits usually write with the slant that appeals to their existing readers. They spin. This is what they do for a living.

Talk show hosts write to their fan base and any one else they can convert. Their books tend not to be well written or informative.

Reporters fill in the fact gaps left out by all the other books.

Last year I told you to read a book by David Cay Johnston called "Free Lunch." It is still a good read. Johnston was a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter.

I just got through reading Will Bunch's book, "The Backlash," which I also highly recommend. Bunch was also a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter.

"Backlash" is the story of the Tea Party and how it developed, along with all the fringe parties, how these groups took the idea from the peaceniks of the seventies and turned their idea into a cause. The big difference is that the peaceniks believed in  love and the new radicals believe in hate. Of course not all Tea Partiers and all fringe groups are hateful but they're certainly not spreading a message of love.

Mayor Bloomberg's Report Card

Just in case he decides to run for higher office. . .

CONGESTION PRICING: F. This plan was predicated on an affordable, well run transit system that could handle more passengers. It is neither. Less trains, less clerks, higher fares.

FOOTBALL STADIUM: F. This plan would have brought congestion where it was not needed. See above for problems.

EDUCATION: D+. I think he meant well but does not have enough knowledge about the problem to fix it. The Charter school idea was and is too costly.

TOURISM: B+. He has made N.Y.C. a tourist mecca - but at the expense of its inhabitants.

TENANTS: D-. His relationship with the real estate industry led him to form a Rent Guideline Board that catered to the industry's wishes.

WALL STREET: D+. His knowledge of the business of Bloomberg News should have told him that fighting for deregulation would be hazardous, but he still fought for it. This helped fuel the collapse of Wall Street and the housing market.

The jury is still out on the Yankee Stadium deal and the Nets Basketball Stadium deal. The cost to taxpayers, however, was tremendous.

Bloomberg ran on a platform of fixing the MTA and failed. His police, fire department and sanitation decisions deserve C+.

All in all I give him a C- and wish him luck.

Pedro Espada and what's wrong with politics

New York State has an unusual situation. Some of its citizens voted for a Democrat who thinks like a bad Republican and wanted to be a Republican.  For stupid and selfish political reasons the Democrats thought they needed this scoundrel as a voting Democrat.

They bribed him by offering him a job he was not capable of doing. Now they realize their mistake and are doing all they can to get rid of him. He is being investigated for alleged wrongdoing.

Unfortunately these same Democrats - and Republicans - usually ignore their colleagues' malfeasance. The result: Poor representation.

Thanks to the laws they've passed, these  poor representatives from both parties have given us monopolistic, unregulated cable television, a greedy Wall Street, a corrupt credit  card industry, uncaring banks who stole from their customers, and, with the help of the real estate industry, stole homes from people who believed in the American Dream.

And some of these representatives are the people who voted themselves a raise while denying increases to people dependent on social security.

Bush's tax cuts

The Republicans, led by the Tea Partiers, and supported by the Blue Dog Democrats have been arguing for quite some time that continuing unemployment insurance will put a damper on those people looking for jobs.

But these same people are the ones saying that continuing the Bush Tax Cuts will stimulate the economy.

Where do they get that idea from? How do they justify that giving additional money to people who already have plenty of money to spend is better for the economy than giving money to people who will need to spend the money?

Besides, under President Bush and his tax cut, the economy - in which more people fell below the poverty line while the rich got richer - collapsed.

How much more proof do they need than what has already been shown to be wrong?

Only fools make the same mistake more than once.

As for the Tea Partiers, they have to watch what's going into their tea. The stuff they are putting in their tea seems to kill the thinking process.

Unethical or Illegal behavior by elected officials

When a thug points a gun at you, abuses you or burglarizes your home you do not ask if he or she is a Democrat, Republican or Independent. You feel violated.

Why then does it matter if the illegal or unethical behavior of an elected official is caused by a Democrat, Republican or Independent?

Too many times our officials are judged by their fellow officials and the media before all the facts are in. But too often they are also judged merely on the basis of their party affiliation. It shouldn't matter.

If the party is guilty of bad behavior a reprimand is not sufficient. In some cases even a censure is not sufficient. Sometimes jail is the only remedy. He or she should be relieved of their post and put on their pension, and only their share of the pension that they put money into.

If you voted for a candidate who behaved improperly in office you should be angry for his/her betraying your trust. To vote for the culprit again is utter foolishness. We should not be so forgiving. We will not get better representation until we demand it. Both parties have been shameful.

We need better Republicans AND better Democrats.

Immigration and Tea Partiers

I know this is not a solution, but I think it is a starting point:

Any illegal immigrant who commits a felony or a worse crime, or is convicted of  an ethnic, racial, or gender hate crime shall be deported regardless of what country they came from. I see no reason to support them in our jails.

Tea Partiers are todays' radicals. To be a radical does not necessarily mean you are a liberal. It means you have departed from the usual or traditional. The main difference between today's radicals and the radicals of the older generation  are that many of today's radicals are NRA supporters and carry guns while the radicals of the past protested for peace and were shot at.

A sensible gun policy

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court's extending of gun rights across the nation has shown that it will never seek a middle ground. Some of the Justices could care little about fairness or public safety. They are puppets of the National Rifle Association and lock-step proponents of a Constitutional amendment written before there were urban areas, before there were police departments, long before there were automatic weapons and at a time when the British enemy lived among us.

Times have changed, but the Supreme Court refuses to acknowledge it.

Being practical and pragmatic, I have come to the conclusion that to fight for gun control is a losing proposition. I  suggest we take a different approach.

I think we have to get the point across to the NRA that we do not want to take their guns away. They can have them. All we want to do is make it safer.

One way to do that is to make sure that all guns are insured. We make people insure their cars. That way in an accident the injured have redress. The insurance industry welcomed that initiative.

Why are they not fighting for guns to be insured? They are afraid of their friends in the NRA. But if we make gun owners carry gun insurance they will be more careful with their guns.

I do not understand why Mayor Bloomberg has not attempted to pass a law requiring guns to be insured. I think he could get it through the state legislature.

Obama Report Card

Am I happy with President Obama's Health Care reform stand? I give him a C+.

Am I happy with his stand on the BP oil spill? I give him a C.

Am I happy with his reform work on the banking industry? C+.

Am I happy with his work on Wall Street Reform? Another C.

What seems to be the problem?

Obama miscalculated the damage that Reagan's trickle down economics and Bush and Cheney's tax cut had done to our economic system, and promised more than he could achieve. He also underestimated the Blue Dog Democrats - they're really Dixiecrats - and the Republican ideology of "Yes we Can" destroy Obama's plans.

Overall, I give his work up until now a B-. I give him points for achieving whatever he has done. The political climate is ridiculous.

In case you haven't read, some of  the Gulf residents who are looking for his help on the BP oil spill and blame the administration for not doing more, are also saying he should not have a moratorium on deep drilling oil rigs, as they need the jobs. What about the Gulf fisherman? Don't they also need jobs?

If Obama he had more Democrats helping or more Republicans cooperating and achieved the same things I would give him an F. But he needs some help and his own party needs to get a backbone. If he gets help I'd like to see what he can accomplish. I believe he can work up to a B+.

The trouble with polls

If you watch talk shows or listen to talk radio you hear some strange and confusing things.

The Democrats have a poll that shows that 67% of the people want a public option in the Health Care plan. The Republicans and the Tea Partiers have a poll that shows that 52 % of the people don't want any Health Care plan at all. How is it possible that both of them are right?

Simple. It depends on who is polled and how they are polled.

Take Jack Cafferty's poll. He editorializes before he asks the question which automatically skews the answers he gets. Take Ed Schultz's poll. His audience will come up with answers that he expects. The same goes for most of CNN's polls and the O'Reilly, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaughs polls. The same goes for Miringoff, Quinipiac, Roper, Gallop or anyone else.

They all have a list of whom to poll. After a few polls they have a pretty good idea of how a person will answer. They know who is Conservative, who is Liberal, and who is independent. So if they are being paid by someone who wants to show a  Conservative or Liberal leaning, all they have to do is call those people who will give them the answers they are seeking.

They will argue that having that list shows trends, which is somewhat true. If 10% of the people they call show that they are changing their position it is what some organizations want to know.

Unfortunately it also allows them to skew the polls.

You pay me enough to poll and I will get a poll that shows some people believe that Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh are the same guy. I will also get you a poll that says that most people do not believe any polls, because they have never been polled.

If you want to judge a poll, find out who paid for it. Think of what they are looking for, and how they benefit from the poll.

The problem with some polls is that we elect our officials sometimes because of poll numbers and they vote on legislation based on polling. Polls can be beneficial, but remember to question why they're done.

No poll can show what the American electorate really thinks. They are just samples and should be treated as samples.

That is why they are sometimes dead wrong.

Hypocrisy and the Hippocratic Oath

One last try to change at least one person's opinion an abortion and health care.

Abortion comes under health care in incidents of rape, incest, and the health of the mother. It does not come under health care when it is elective - if the mother just decides she does not want the baby. If  the Republicans and the Blue Dogs had only fought to have elective abortions uncovered, they would not have been hypocrites, that's their standard view. But to include rape, incest and health issues made their objections not about health, but about religion.

Religion should not be a basis for government decisions on health care.

Health issues are a basis for a sound economy. We cannot allow people who are sick to go without care because they cannot afford it, because ultimately the people who can afford it pay for it anyway.

Republicans and Tea Partiers denounce the so-called "Obamacare" as Socialism, but with the elimination of the public option, it's strikingly similar to the Massachusetts plan for which Mitt Romney takes credit. Why do they so vehemently stick to this cry of Socialism, when, ironically, the demographics of the aging Tea Partiers show a large percentage of them to be recipients of Social Security and Medicare, government programs much more closely related to the Socialism they claim to despise.

And what about the Republican congressmen and senators who receive government health care at the same time they lambaste the concept of government health care. If the government can administer their care why not the citizens who pay for it.

Two mad dogs are loose

Dick Cheney should be the last one to criticize anyone on how to handle terrorists.

The same goes for former Mayor Giuliani.

When you have a catastrophe most of the intelligence is to move people out of harm's way as quickly as possible.

That was done with the Tsunami. Done, though poorly, with Hurricane Katrina. Done when we have a tornado and almost any other catastrophe.

But in the 9/11 debacle Giuliani took the opposite approach. If you were stuck in the area during 9/11, Giuliani made sure you were stuck there. Buses and subways avoided the area. Traumatized New Yorkers had to go to Canal Street, which was quite a walk, to get a subway. if you were in a wheelchair or walked with a cane that became virtually impossible. You just had to stay and breathe the stale and suffocating air.

I am sure they thought there was a good reason for that approach, but it did not work out. Giuliani's plan may have been done with good intentions, but it wasn't good and he should not pretend now that it was. He should not take pride in saying he did a great job under those circumstances.