Category: GOP Politics

by Dave Mindeman

Glen Beck's "revival" meeting reminds me of an ever present problem with our ability to debate substantive issues these days.

Religion.

I don't mind discussing the pros and cons of legislative initiative in regard to economics. How taxes affect our economic condition or what programs constitute priorities are things worthy of public discussion. I can understand the points even if I totally disagree with them.

But bringing religion into a political discussion continues to puzzle me.

Beck stated that this country needs to get back to God. A rather broad pronouncement with little explanation about what that means or when we supposedly wandered off "into the wilderness".

This seems to be a safe method for criticism and it also a safe method of hiding the subtle bigotries that we would otherwise be afraid to publicly state.

After all we have, in our past history, justified wars on shaky moral grounds. The south justified slavery via some obsure passage in one of St. Paul's letters. Women were forced into the background and their rights delayed because the Bible pronounced it. And currently, gay rights are demonized as a religious abomination.

It is easy to hide behind the broad, expansive, omnipotent shoulders of the almighty God. Disagreement with the current administration doesn't just become a political argument.....it becomes a moral imperative.

Never mind that moral arguments, like helping the poor and the "evils" of wealth, get mixed up in the interpretation of morality.... a play on morals is always the preferred method of adding credence to a dispute.

Social conservatives rally behind snake oil salesman like Glenn Beck. And although Beck doesn't usually proclaim some direct "heavenly contact" (although he did give the Lord credit for establishing the real meaning of this rally) or tout any divinity degrees, his methods are much the same as past hucksters like Jimmy Swaggart or Jim Bakker.

They distract us from solutions that matter by proclaiming our "wayward" ways and the need to listen to.....well, really, I guess we need to listen to Glenn Beck.

Hard economic times always allows such con men to gather people who are seriously looking for answers. Too often, we just wish the answers or the fixes would be simple and thus, simple, negative pronouncements meet those needs.

It happens time and again....and until the natural order of things turns our economic fortunes around, the Glenn Becks of this world will thrive.

And religion will continue to be the method used to maintain the charade.

Category: GOP Politics

by Dave Mindeman

I fully understand that people are worried about the deficit. Anybody who says that Democrats aren't concerned about it are just flat out wrong. And, despite all the lofty rhetoric, Republicans are only worried about it when they can make it an election issue. After all, wasn't it Dick Cheney that informed us that "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter"?

My complaint with the Republican approach is that they criticize with pompous derision about Federal money to the states, yet have no plan to fix it, change it, or an alternative.

Governor Pawlenty has made a ridiculous staged delay in accepting Federal funds meant to help education. He criticizes the Obama administratin for "reckless" spending, yet has offered no solutions to our long term state deficit issues.

A similar hypocrisy is promoted by Congressman John Kline. He has self-proclaimed himself a champion against pork barrel spending. He has gone so far as to unilaterally declare projects in his own district to be off limits. No requests will be made by John Kline and the 2nd District only gets Federal money when our US Senators come to the rescue.

What is particularly gauling about these public displays from our (and I use this term very loosely) "advocates", is that the mechanism by which government pays for things is NOT going to change. Not even if the GOP takes over Congress. It will still work essentially the same as it always has.

We pay Federal gas taxes. This money is collected to fund road and bridge projects requested by the states. Congressman Kline may think he is "taking a stand" by refusing to make those requests but I don't see any thing on the gas pumps that says --"Minnesota 2nd District residents are exempt from the Federal portion of gas taxes."

We still pay. The money is still collected for the Federal Treasury. John Kline changes nothing.....and we get nothing.

Governor Pawlenty rants about the pace of Federal spending. He tells us it is not sustainable. Yet, when the country is in deep recession, what are we supposed to do? If we do nothing, which seems to be the GOP solution, we plod along in the economic doldrums; people continue to lose jobs....states watch their deficits balloon....government workers get laid off.....more economic slow downs.....and the cycle spirals. Oh sure, we might at some point get back on track, but at what cost? How many lives ruined? How many years lost?

The Republicans argue that the "stimulus" did not work....which of course, is wrong, it did work to the extent it could. But the GOP stonewalling of the massive funds that would have been required to ignite a full recovery has led to a stalling out.

What is ironic about all of this is that for all the talk, Governor Pawlenty still takes the money. He has no other means of fixing the budget. He has no solution, no plan, and the reality is that if he were to become President, he would do the same exact things.

For all the criticisms that Republicans pompously put forth, they change nothing. That is the honest truth. When they were in the majority during the early part of this decade, they were rampant spenders, pork advocates, and changed a surplus into a massive deficit.

When out of power, they criticize. When in power, they exacerbate the very things they criticized.

There is no truth in the GOP talking points. None.

Category: GOP Politics

by Dave Mindeman

Listening to the 3 Governor candidates debate the state's public pension shortfall, I can't help but notice how the onus tends to be put on the public employees themselves.

Tom Emmer in particular brings us the key quotes:

"They [public employees] get the guarantee of their future, while the rest of us, if we're lucky enough to have a 401k plan, are watching it ride the rollercoaster of the market and we're either delaying retirement or we're wondering if we're ever going to be able to retire," Emmer said.

I find it a little odd that Emmer would talk about the "rollercoaster" of the market as being a detriment to retirement. If memory serves, it wasn't too long ago that the Republican mantra was to "privatize" Social Security.....some still want to do just that. Wouldn't that be special?

But why should we punish public employees? They bargained for those pensions in good faith. They bargained for health care in good faith. Now, because the state can't figure out a way to pay its obligations without increasing revenue, it's the employees who have to give back?

There was a time that corporate America cared about its employees' retirement. They offered pensions and post retirement health care. But no more. When Congress put forth the 401K option, corporations couldn't end pensions fast enough.

Emmer talks about those 401K's as if they are a gamble -- which they are. And now, he is telling us that because the public employees still have pension benefits, that it is unfair to the rest of us. Must be one of those free market anomalies.

But Emmer is not done foaming at the mouth....there's more:

"Not only do our public employees make on average 30 to 40 percent more than private sector employees in the same positions -- similar positions -- but then they have health care insurance that's gold-plated health care, while people in the private sector are lucky if they keep [it]. And then you get to the pension aspect," Emmer said.

I think we have another one of those "gluteus maximus originated" facts. I would really like Emmer to put out a fact sheet that...(1) indicates the "similar" positions in the private sector he is making comparisons with and (2) show us where that 30-40 percent better pay figure comes from.

In addition, Emmer complains that public sector employees have good health care. Well, good for them. Really, Mr. Emmer, that is a problem that could be solved by equalizing it for everybody with single payer.

But Emmer can't consider any of that. He wants to take away what is working for public employees and bring them down to the level that the rest of us have to contend with.

Always the Republican solution --everybody brought down to the lowest common denominator....except for the corporations and people with the money.