To the Right of Dumb

You don't really need sense to know that a lot of what you hear from the far right is pure intellectual garbage. I find statements such as Rick Santorum's about college being for snobs as amusing and ironic. Conservatives are decidedly against liberal colleges and universities, but what they fail to realize is that people coming out of college are more likely to be liberal BECAUSE they are educated. Colleges aren't indoctrination factories, they are institutions of learning, and once people learn things, they can easily see that most of what is being peddled by the Republican party is misinformation at best, and lies at worst.

With that in mind, I would like to comment on Timothy Egan's piece from the New York Times on August 23rd entitled "The Crackpot Caucus." Egan says most of the good stuff himself, but his scathing yet true commentary is only highlighted by another report today on the record low levels of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean at a time when most Republicans would have you believe that global warming and climate change are nothing but myths.

In the last week, the Republican assault on intelligence reached an ugly nadir when Todd Akin explained to the nation that in cases of "legitimate rape" a woman's body can shut down pregnancies. Grounded in nothing more than ideological fanaticism that clouds judgement, this most recent display of right-wing intellect was both nonsensical and abhorrent. As insulting as this is to both women and, more generally speaking, educated people who put their faith in science and real knowledge, it is only one example of how the Republican party is doing real damage to our country by propagating outright lies.

The new breed of science-denying Republican has moved to the right of dumb. Placing faith in faulty economic doctrine, while stupid, is far more acceptable than making outrageous and untrue claims about women's bodies and climate change. While supply-sided economics aren't going to fix our economic woes, false claims about pregnancies can do significant damage to women's rights - as has already happened in some states - and lies about global warming could potentially destroy the planet and everything on it. The stories Republicans tell are not just stupid, they are very scary.

America is the world's greatest nation, but imagine how great our country could be if we had two political parties proposing alternative ideas about how to move forward. Imagine if Republicans brought their good ideas to the table rather than their increasing visible and scarily misguided beliefs on issues that have already been proven otherwise. 

Todd Akin is Not Alone

I don't like discussing abortion. I am pro-choice and believe that a woman should have control over her body. While I don't see abortion in the same black and white terms as I view gay marriage rights, I certainly think that a woman's body and her health are realms over which the women in question and their doctors should have absolute authority.

So as startled - though not unsurprised - as I was to hear that Todd Akin refer to "legitimate rape," my anger and frustration is focused less on him than it is on his party.

Let me start by dismissing Todd Akin. His name isn't worth mentioning. What is far more worrisome is that Todd Akin's position, if not his words, is the centerpiece of the Republican party's view on abortion and women's rights.

When Akin starts talking about "legitimate rape" and how a woman's body can prevent an unwanted pregnancy he displays his own ignorance and bigotry. He is easily dismissed. When one of America's two major political parties makes it official party platform to Constitutionally ban abortion with no exceptions for rape or incest it is hard to ignore. This is what has happened.

Republican politicians and leaders have decried Akin's remarks and called for him to drop out of the race, but simultaneously were making strict anti-abortion measures part of party doctrine. While they dismissed his words, none of them took a stand against his position. This is mainstream Republican dogma.

Todd Akin is not alone, and he and his party's fanatical commitment to take over women's health issues and rights is a scary crusade.

What I Want From Ryan

Is certainly not what he is offering. I don't want a vision of America's future that is bleaker than its past, especially not as someone who would like to think he's got a lot of time ahead of him. I don't want to live in a country that worships the wealthy and enacts policies to benefit them at the expense of the many. I don't want to live in a millionaire's sand box complete with a military. I don't want economic policy that is without supporting quantitative data and that even anecdotal evidence suggests has been a failure.

Paul Ryan is offering me a lot of things that I do not want. But to Paul Ryan's credit, he is offering me something I do want, and something that is necessary for America. Paul Ryan is offering me a vision for America's future, and more importantly, Paul Ryan is talking about difficult decisions that most politicians want to avoid discussing. Recently, I blogged about wanting politicians and candidates to stop placing blame in the past and start offering solutions for the future. Paul Ryan has done just that.

Now don't get me wrong, Ryan is like many Republicans when it comes to having faith in economic theory without merit, and his deficit reduction plan would add to the deficit by decreasing revenue intake by far more than it would cut spending. I'm sure Ryan thinks that the economic growth that results from lower taxes on the super rich will offset some of that cost, but of course we all know how that fairy tale goes.

But Ryan is willing to have hard talks about entitlements and we need that talk. Do I think we should make Medicare a voucher program as Ryan proposes? I don't think so, but something needs to be done to control costs that were spiraling even before the economy tanked. Would America benefit from a conversation about the nature and future of entitlement programs even if the starting point is the far right dystopia of Paul Ryan? It's probably better to start there than to simply avoid the conversation as we have been doing.

It's easy for liberals to hate Paul Ryan because he does paint a bleak, dystopian future, one in which we abandon most of the population at the expense of the wealthy few and the war machine. It is easy to hate him because he is probably smarter than most of his Republican colleagues and was able to put their ideas onto paper and introduced it as a plan for America's future. It is easy to hate Paul Ryan because his ideas are for the most part very bad.

But I can't completely hate Paul Ryan because even though I hope he loses big in November, I would like to see someone attempt to control entitlement spending. Paul Ryan is willing to have the conversation. If for nothing else I can't hate him for that.

Welcome Aboard, Paul

I've always been hot and cold about Paul Ryan. On the one had, he has two first names. Pretty legit. Also, though not quite as substantively, he is a real deficit hawk. A darling of the Tea Party, Ryan is one lawmaker who actually understands the deficit, and is passionate about reducing it. His selection as Romney's running mate brings two things to the Romney campaign of which it was previously utterly devoid: conviction and principle. Paul Ryan desperately wants to cut federal spending, and he is serious about it, he is willing to make tough decisions about entitlement spending that others aren't willing to tackle.

And that's where the good ends. While Paul Ryan certainly cares about cutting spending, it is impossible to say that he cares about deficit reduction, assuming that he can do basic arithmetic. Ryan's plan wouldn't bring in a surplus for the next three decades, and almost all of his spending cuts ($6 trillion) would be used to pay for tax cuts ($4 trillion), the vast majority of which would go to the super-rich and corporations. In short, Ryan is another demagogue for trickle-down economics, a belief system with absolutely no data to back it up.

I respect Paul Ryan's strident belief that the deficit will ruin America only to the extent that he believes it himself, but I can't determine how much he believes it. No one who actually wants to cut the deficit would propose a plan like Paul Ryan's, at least no one who is adept at the use of mathematics and data. Slashing spending in a depressed economy and giving even more money to the wealthy is neither the prescription for an economic recovery nor the blueprint for a healthy future. Paul Ryan posses conviction, but his plan is lacking in the extreme. It has been accurately termed Robin Hood in reverse as the people set to benefit the most are those who need it least, while those we should be helping climb out of poverty would be strapped with a higher burden! It is a moral travesty and a failed economic policy repackaged behind the facade of deficit reduction of which it does very little!

President Obama put it best when he described Ryan's plan as "deeply pessimistic," and said it tell us, we can’t afford the America that I believe in and I think you believe in."

The President nailed it. Basic math suggests Ryan's plan doesn't do all the much deficit reduction, but even if it does, at what cost? Ryan proposes to turn America into a millionaire's playground with a military. Is that what we want? A nation with no future, no hope, and not even a budget surplus for the next 30 years? No thank you, I'll pass. Paul Ryan's budget is impressive in it's scope and scale, but even Newt "Nuts" Gingrich had the sense to call it "right-wing social engineering." Newt Gingrich thinks the Palestinians are an invented people, so if even he had that to say, what is left to belittle? Paul Ryan has a vision for America's future that leaves behind most Americans. It is one that we should all disavow.

Finally, and most discouragingly, both Ryan and Mitt Romney sidestep attacks on this plan by touting how courageous they are, making tough decisions about America's future while the President shows no leadership. I grant them that Obama's plans do not go far enough, though I contend that the President would have us on more solid footing if he wasn't opposed by Republicans on everything. Still, in an ideal world, Obama wins a second term and does more to put the country on solid fiscal footing.

So while I'm receptive to the whole "Obama needs to do more" argument, it is nothing short of a horrible joke to suggest that Republicans are leading anyone anywhere on the issue of deficit reduction. I could point out that Bush's Medicare Prescription Plan, passed by a Republican Congress, cost more than Obamacare and did nothing to lower costs. I could point to the unnecessary war in Iraq that costs hundreds of billions for nothing. I could even mention - again - that trickle down economics is a theory with no data to support it, and that it fails to spur economic growth. And finally, I could point out that in order to reduce the deficit we need higher taxes on the super-rich.

If Republicans truly cared about deficit reduction, they would be open to increased revenue from the uber-wealthy who have so much money that they are already giving much of it to charity. Lower tax rates from those people does nothing to spur economic growth as analyzed by the Congressional Budget Office and numerous outside policy groups. If Republicans truly cared about deficit reduction they would come up with a plan to spur economic recovery thus leading to increased revenue without higher tax rates, but instead the want to slash spending during a depressed economy. In short, Paul Ryan's plan would devastate the economy in the short-term without running a surplus for three decades and without any long-term benefits that can be backed up by data. If that is leadership, I have some beachfront property in Idaho I'd like to show you. Admittedly, the Republicans have set the leadership bar pretty low, so perhaps in today's Republican Party, the Ryan-Romney plan counts as being bold, but in reality it is nothing but sham economics wrapped up in a shiny new package and masked behind the faux issue of deficit reduction when the real problem is the economic recovery that isn't - again thanks to Republican opposition.

So welcome aboard, Paul Ryan. I am serious when I say I find you to be one of the most palatable Republicans out there, but your plan is still a disaster waiting to happen, and now all of America is going to find out about it.

Economic Uncertainty

Republicans like to talk about economic uncertainty as the main reason the US economy is still underperforming, and for once, it seems as though they may be right. Predictably however, even when they are correct, they are still culpable.

What is really holding the economy back is a lack of demand. Households took on too much debt during the good years, and then when things went wrong lost their assets, and now cannot spend enough to really spur growth. The general Republican prescription to this is both outdated and fails to address the problem. Cutting taxes for the uber-rich does nothing to spur economic growth, and even if it meant those people would invest more in their businesses (it doesn't) there still wouldn't be anyone to buy the goods and services being produced.

In the absence of any real data with which to defend supply-sided economics, Republicans have connected a skewed narrative about the economy that allows them to continue advocating failed economic policy even when there is no data to support it. The culprit: uncertainty, a notoriously hard to quantify piece of data.

But now, perhaps much to their chagrin, Republicans are right. Uncertainty is leading to slower growth, and perhaps even a recession. All of this has to do with the so called fiscal cliff over which the economy is poised to fall in January assuming the two parties cannot reach an agreement over spending, which most people assume. If no deal is reached taxes will rise and automatic government spending will go into effect.

This of course would be an economic catastrophe. Higher taxes for most people will significantly lower demand, and government spending is a big economic driver. The combination of the two would be horrible for the economy, and given that there is much uncertainty about whether we will fall over this fiscal cliff businesses are predictably tepid about making investments.

But this uncertainty isn't necessary. It is a direct result of Republican's - primarily the Tea Party's - refusal to compromise. Deficit reduction, they claim, will only be achieved through spending cuts. Higher taxes, even if they are only for the wealthiest Americans, are off the table. This is non-negotiable, and it is the primary cause for both our political and economic stagnation.

This is nonsensical. Higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans have no negative economic impact, but would go a long way towards reducing the deficit. Spending cuts are a necessity, but wantonly gutting spending as Republicans propose would do incredible damage to the economy. Cuts should be targeted and strategic, and must be coupled with higher taxes on top earners. The Tea Party either cannot or will not understand this, which shouldn't surprise anyone.

So now we are at a point where Republicans are right, uncertainty is hampering our economic recovery. That they have created this uncertainty by refusing to compromise is surely lost on them, though hopefully not lost on the public. America deserves better than to be held hostage by our own elected officials. Uncertainty is a part of life, but it does not have to be a reason for our economy slowing or regressing. We would do well to remember why this uncertainty exists come November, and we would do ourselves a favor by reminding our elected officials that we chose them to govern, not to demagogue.

How Ironic is This?

Donald Trump is proud of himself for finally coaxing Barack Obama into releasing his long form birth certificate. No one else cares. Donald Trump is a clown with a bad toupee. But he did insert himself as the ringleader of a group of lunatics who were able to turn a speck of dirt into a mountain, thus convincing the president - who has much better things to do - that it was worth it to reach out to Hawaii and get the state to release his birth certificate.

No president has ever felt compelled to release his birth certificate before, but presidential candidates do traditionally release their tax returns. Mitt Romney's father released 12 years worth of tax returns. Mitt Romney so far has only released two years worth of returns.

The "scandal" surrounding this recently has been the assertion by Senator Harry Reid that Romney hasn't paid taxes in a decade. It is a bold and dangerous claim, and one that Reid has no right making without evidence, evidence which so far, he is either unwilling or unable to produce. In fact, Reid's claim is based on nothing more than information from someone he calls a credible source.

It is possible that Reid is simply making this up, and if so, he is complicit in the ugly hyper partisan politics that plague our nation. It is also possible that he was told this by someone he believes to be credible, but he is still spreading hearsay with no evidence to back it up. Depending on the scenario, Reid's claim is tenuous at best, a lie at worst.

But Romney has done nothing to disprove it, and in fact, his actions lend belief to Reid's tale. Sure, Romney does not have to release his tax returns just as Obama didn't have to show his birth certificate. The two differences here are that no presidential candidates or sitting presidents have been compelled to show their birth certificates in the past whereas candidates and presidents routinely make their tax return public, and that even prominent Republicans are calling on Romney to put the matter to rest by releasing his tax returns.

So even though I lament the state of American politics in which a handful of crazies can compel the President into showing his birth certificate, and a Senator can accuse a presidential candidate of not paying taxes, I am amused by the situation in which Romney finds himself. Hypocritical? Perhaps. But this mess is one of Republican making after all. The irony is thick. For years they howled about Obama being Kenyan or something outrageous like that, knowing all along it was nothing but a lie believed by a small but vocal group of ignorant people. Now their candidate is called into question about something that is currently speculative, but now even Republicans are beginning to doubt that Romney is clean. And just as Obama's initial refusal to show his birth certificate fueled the fire of the fringe idiots who thought he was foreign, so is Romney's refusal to release previous tax returns making people like me believe he does have something to hide.

Everyone knew Obama was born in America. The birthed issue welled up from the racial springs of a fringe group of radicals and was embraced by more mainstream people for political benefit. Whether or not Romney is hiding something in his tax returns is much less obvious, and although I don't support Reid's unfounded accusations, I have reason enough to distrust Romney already, and his refusal to be forthcoming about his taxes makes me trust him even less if that's possible.

The Next Great Conservative Intellectual Hope

I hope you can detect the irony in the title. It's not that I think all Republicans are stupid, or that none of their ideas are worthwhile. It's simply that taken as a whole, the Republican plan for America's future does not exist, or when it does, is so rooted in the past that it fails to acknowledge the realities of the world in which we live.

So I was actually excited today when I saw this headline in the New York Times: A Tea Party Intellect From Texas, Poised to Join the Senate. Here we go I thought to myself as I clicked on the link. Finally, someone on the right who can bring a real intellectual point of view to the insanity of the Tea Party. Finally, someone who can can help lead the Republican Party back from the fringe and help them become a contributor to the future well-being of America. I'll admit that I had the same aspirations for Mitt Romney, a man I now openly despise. Mitt Romney had a chance to make the Republican Party sane again. He could have been the standard bearer for the new Republican Party, one that looks forward rather than back. He went right and is now complicit in the ongoing economic and political disaster for which conservatives are largely responsible.

Anyhow, back to this guy from Texas. I had hopes. I really did. And before I squash them completely I'll admit that I still don't know much about this next great conservative hope. I've read one article, so the jury is still out I suppose, but the early results were predictably disappointing if not surprising.

Ted Cruz is his name, and apparently he is smart. Or at least he went to good schools. There is often a correlation between intelligence and good educational institutions, but not always. The only other thing I learned about Princeton and Harvard Law graduate Ted Cruz is that he spent time at a recently rally calling Obama the nation's "most radical president" and railing against the "gay rights agenda."

Is this really how low we have sunk? To be an intellectual giant worthy of a New York Times headline, all you have to do is preach against the gay rights agenda as though there is some sort of nefarious homosexual plot to take over the world? Really? Could Ted Cruz or someone else for that matter please enlighten me on the gay rights agenda? Perhaps I'm just not on Ted Cruz's intellectual plane, but it doesn't seem to me as though most gay people want anything more than basic civil rights and perhaps bad techno music.

And how about that radical Obama. If only he were a white American Christian instead of a black Kenyan Muslim, am I right? I mean seriously, the guy wants to raise taxes on rich people! What a communist! There's more proof that he's a radical hell bent on destroying America too, like for example how he has continued to allow more exploration and drilling of offshore oil reserves in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of Alaska. The guy is so far to the left I can't stand it!

Unfortunately these views are all it takes to be anointed an intellectual in the Republican party perhaps because the party is devoid of anyone to whom the term may actually apply. Maybe Ted Cruz will surprise me. Maybe I don't know enough about him yet. Maybe he's just another politician pandering to his base. But more likely Ted Cruz represents the apex of conservative thinking, a low bar to begin with, but sadly that's the direction in which the party has chosen to go. And if Ted Cruz really is Republican's best intellectual bet, they're doomed to continue losing America's future because anyone who thinks there is such a thing as "the gay rights agenda," has a pretty low intellectual ceiling.