Debt compromise ranting

The following is a rant. I just had to get it out of my system. If I got my facts wrong, please let me know. You're welcome to raise your own arguments for or against me, but it's unlikely that I'll respond. Again, this is a rant, so my tone is more aggressive and my language more hyperbolic. I guess what I'm trying to say is: Please don't take offense, just know that I'm a bit upset with the latest news from DC. Oh, and when I say GOP, I'm not referring to the whole party - just some of their elected members.

Why is raising the debt ceiling so bad? And why won't Tea Partiers vote for it, even when they're getting $900B or more in cuts? I mean, really? No revenue increases (way to fold, Dems), and you still don't like it? Would you prefer slapping Pelosi in the face and kicking Obama in the shins? Honestly, I don't know why some GOPers on Hannity and CNN were saying, "Yes, it's good, but we still don't think we'll vote for it."

Do you not understand that you can't have everything? In my perfect world, I'd tax the top bracket more, close loopholes in the tax code, try to find a way to increase revenue from multi-national corporations, cut defense by a ton, and increase funding for the EPA, public transit, the Park Service and Forest Service (and that's just off the top of my head). But in the event that I become an elected official, I have to realize that I can't get all those things done. So, as a representative, I would fight for those things, all while knowing I'll likely come up short. I fail to see that basic understanding in freshman Republicans.

I can handle losing. What I can't handle is the other side failing to realize they've won. If this were a football game, it looks to me like the GOP just ran a play for 75 yards but refuses to walk in the endzone because it's only 6 points and they want this play to be worth 9. It's almost like these lawmakers - and I use the term loosely, because they've hardly made any laws - view themselves as warriors on a crusade to reduce the deficit: Their mission is to plant their flag on the Capitol... and anything less is a failure.

You don't trust future Congresses to balance the budget? I don't blame you. But that doesn't mean we need a Balanced Budget Amendment, tying government spending to a certain level of GDP. In WWII, our spending was off the charts, but it was worth it. Furthermore, we all recognize the need to reduce deficits, but we can't do it all at once. Government moves slowly - getting angry because it's not happening fast enough is as useful as getting angry in a traffic jam.

This is the first time I've wished for a primary challenger to Obama, just to make a point. Why try compromise when the other side is out for total domination? In health care reform, in Wall Street reform and in this debt ceiling fight, Dems made changes and concessions to bold ideas, only to gain a few paltry votes. Health care allowed the current broken system to continue by forcing people to buy insurance from private companies. Wall Street reform passed by not having any teeth. And now this "compromise" may pass with absolutely nothing for progressives. N-O-T-H-I-N-G.

According to CNN this evening, liberals should be content with this new super Congress, because we'll supposedly get a break with that. Ha! I'm not satisfied for a moment with this super-Congress. First of all, why isn't the regular congress good enough? Secondly, we already had a bipartisan commission last year, also known as the Bowles-Simpson commission. Yet those ideas - which I liked - got nowhere. And somehow this new group will come up with better ideas that will also pass Congress? I doubt it. And finally, the new group will supposedly get something done because if it doesn't by a certain date, we'll have extreme cuts that both parties will hate. Why is this new deadline going to be more effective than the one on Tuesday? If working under a deadline should produce a compromise, why don't we have a compromise now?

Social issues, Wisconsin, and Rich v. Poor

"While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, the president will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation." - Michael Steel, spokesman for Speaker Boehner, referring to Obama's decision not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, which declares that at the federal level marriage is only between a man and a woman.

What's funny about this comment is that if you switch "President" with "Republicans," you could very well be talking about recent GOP bills that defund Planned Parenthood and redefine rape to restrict access to abortions. My point is this: Each side hates it when the other makes a move on social issues. The offended party claims that it's a distraction from the economy. I'm starting to think that neither side truly cares about the jobs of the middle and working class.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker claims his effort to strip unions of their collective bargaining rights is because of an urgent budget crisis... but he just gave away $67M in business tax cuts? To my conservative friends, I understand this line of thinking: businesses create jobs and that money will end up back in the state's coffers, therefore we should be business friendly. But even if that's true, you're still taking that money away from the state; there's still an initial deficit to overcome. If the crisis is as bad as Gov. Walker makes it out to be, then we should be pinching pennies, not sending them off to businesses in the hopes that they'll return soon. Any investment (including investments in business) requires investment capital, so if Wisconsin is short on capital, it should be loath to sink money into any investment.

Just as a side note on the disparity between the rich and poor: the Dow is above 12K, last night I heard plastic surgery rates are up (and therefore the economy is back), and I've even seen a magazine cover proclaiming the "return of luxury." But all that only concerns rich people - and some of those same folks are the very ones who screwed up the economy in the first place. For the rest of us schmucks, it ain't so great.

As always, I relish respectful discussion and I value correction even more. Happy debating!