All cuts, no revenue

Now that we have a compromise, I'd like to point out once again that the whole crisis was a tempest in a Teapot, or should I say, in a Tea Party. The debt ceiling gets raised all the time and is something of a formality. Why make a big deal about it now?

The reason, of course, is the 87 freshman Tea Party House Members elected to congress in 2010. I realize that the Tea Party people were as exercised about all the spending during the Bush era, but I really wish they had gotten elected back then to cut spending, rather than trying to force it now at the time when it would actually be more helpful for the government to pump some more money into the economy.

The problem, of course, is that nobody in the Congress really wants to do something to create jobs, because it's not something that the government has a lot of control over, short of directly hiring people a la the Works Progress Administration. Or they could send new block grants to the states to keep all those teachers and police officers employed. That seemed to be helping until the stimulus money ran out.

So, Tea Party freshmen: it looks like spending cuts are in order. When do all the new jobs start?

Debt Ceiling Shenanigans

If John Boehner is a moderate, we have a problem

Dan Rodericks pretty much lays out my sense of the politics, knee-jerk liberal that I am. I get the feeling with many of these debates that the people on each side feel as though they are the ones being gamed and the other people are the ones being ridiculous and unreasonable. Otherwise, how could it be that the thing I see as being the obvious solution to the deficit problem - go back to tax rates from the Clinton days - seems to be the very thing House Republicans believe will bring the economy to a crashing halt.

The Christian response to this includes praying for your enemies. I'm doing what I can. It's hard when it looks like the stakes are about to get really high. I wonder when the conversation will turn back to jobs. Unfortunately the best way to create extra jobs short-term is with government spending. There I go again...

Over it

I know there are lots of people getting worked up about AIG bonuses, and all the money going to those bankers who made the very mistakes that got us to where we are today. And I am glad that there will be consequences for those mistakes - public opinion and politics are catching up to accountability, a few billion dollars later.

What I wonder about, though, is how much of this is really just a spotlight landing on a symbolic target? It wouldn't surprise me if there are other wealthy bankers out there who are drawing the same salary and bonuses as ever and anon, in spite of getting caught up in the flood of easy credit. Still, I agree it looks bad to be getting hundreds of thousands in bonuses when people making significantly less than $100,000 a year are losing their jobs.

So, all that being said, I'm about ready to be over the recession. People who have good credit and a 20% down payment can get a house. People with not-quite-as-good credit can, too, they just have to pay a higher interest rate. Inflation is inching up, ever so slightly. There are utility crews all over the roads, fixing things up. Stuff is working, slowly, and we're just not in the same situation as the Great Depression.

This isn't to say that people who have been laid off aren't in trouble, or that it's easy to get a job now, just that some of the trends are slowly reversing. The one thing that's very difficult, though, is health care. Hospitals are laying off nurses because their work is dropping off. Not only are people putting off surgeries, but uninsured people are leaving easily treatable conditions untreated until they become deadly. This is how it has been with our health insurance system, but with the recession, things intensify.

Maybe I shouldn't say "over it," just "ready for it to be over."

It's nice

It's nice, in this era of economic uncertainty, to have a certain amount of stability. No matter what the situation is, Republicans in Congress seem hard-pressed to have any response besides "we can't spend more money." Here's the latest article with said typical responses.

There are a few dependable exceptions, of course: tax cuts for people in the top income brackets, wars, and other times when they're in power.

In some ways, I think the Republicans are doing a very good job as a party of opposition - it's nice that the stimulus bill got some trimming. On the other hand, I'm very glad they're not the ones in charge of the basic approach. We did tax cuts and deregulation for 8 years, and here is where we ended up!

/end rant

Brain.... full.....

Unfortunately, as a non-professional blogger, I haven't been able to follow each crazy twist in the presidential election with sassy rejoinders, & etc. I have been following it, but it's really hard to know what to say. So, here are some random and unfinished possible blog thoughts in my head:

McCain Suspends Campaign: Okay, this could be McCain "showing leadership," it could be a publicity stunt (approximately the same thing), or it could be a brilliant tactical move. After the fact, of course, it mostly looks like a failed publicity stunt.

Strategy vs. Tactic: McCain comes across as condescending, and gets one of the few rises out of Obama when he suggests that Obama doesn't know the difference between a strategy and a tactic. Other debate moments to check on Wikipedia for later: Palin's McKiernen vs. McClellan (I thought it was surprising that the general in Afghanistan had the same last name as W's old press secretary!) And Bosnian vs. Bosniak. Turns out Biden was right. Of course, that didn't help Dan Quayle when everybody thought "potatoe" was a misspelling. Turns out it was an accepted spelling in the 19th century.

Sarah Palin: Still not sure what to make of her. She winked and doggone'd her way through the VP debate, and toward the end I was actually feeling annoyed at her. She lost likeability for me.

I think if you're going to pull off a "There you go again," like Reagan did, you're going to have to be as relaxed in front of the camera as he was. She was talking way too fast, and her voice was pitched way too high for the type of language she was using. It was her accent, but in that context, the way she talked seemed fake. I know they all launch into pre-rehearsed bits during these things, but it seemed like with her you could tell when the script was kicking in, and part of what was written on the script was "say it ain't so, Joe," and "there you go again," (which, incidentally, I would find to be extremely irritating to hear from someone I was debating, Ronald Reagan or no.)

Of interest, however: the accent sounds like Minnesotan because the part of Alaska where she grew up was settled by Minnesota farmers during the Great Depression. That part's authentic, anyway, don'tcha know!

And yet another article:

Why do people vote Republican?

Apologies to my many, many Republican readers for some of the more blunt passages, but I found it helpful/insightful in other ways.