Just how out of touch is John Boehner anyway?

Last year, he nearly caused the United States to default on its debt, and this year, he’s whistling the same tune, refusing to raise the debt ceiling and calling for spending cuts.

We shouldn’t dread the debt limit. As a matter of fact, I think we should welcome it. It’s an action-forcing event in a town that has become infamous for inaction.

A town “infamous for inaction?” Doesn’t he means a party infamous for inaction?

The GOP unanimously said “no” to the health care reform bill. “No” to the $787 billion stimulus package, which, by the way, is responsible for many job-creating infrastructural improvements across the nation, and “no” to nearly everything else Obama has put on the table.

U.S. House Speaker Boehner commemorate Holocaust victims and survivors in Washington (Benjamin Myers Reuters, REUTERS / May 16, 2012)

The GOP has languished in Washington the last four years and has been little more than dead weight, unceasingly complaining about Obama, yet accomplishing next to nothing, unless pushing the party even further to the right, “symbolically” passing votes and “symbolically” reading the Constitution counts for accomplishing something.

And at a time when we can clearly witness austerity cuts in Europe failing miserably, Boehner is calling for — wait for it — more austerity cuts. Lucid as ever, Fareed Zakaria identifies the problem with spending cuts in already sagging economy:

The problem is that as these governments cut spending in very depressed economies, it has caused growth to slow even further — you see government workers who have been fired tend to buy fewer goods and services, for example — and all this means falling tax receipts and thus even bigger deficits.

Spending cuts don’t just affect government workers. That’s just one obvious example. If the government starts hacking away at services that improve people’s lives, their quality of life diminishes, thus, not only are they less happy, more apathetic and more likely to hoard what little savings they do have, but they are less likely to turn around and invigorate the economy with new consumer-side spending.

I’m reminded of two memorable lines from Tony Benn, who was interviewed for the 2007 movie, “Sicko:”

Keeping people hopeless and pessimistic – see I think there are two ways in which people are controlled — first of all frighten people and secondly demoralize them.

and

An educated, healthy and confident nation is harder to govern.

So, let’s look at the other side. What about people that make more than $250,000 per year? When government hands them tax breaks, do they help stimulate the economy? Not so much. Sure, they spend some, but I would wager that rich people are not primarily concerned with consumer spending, but with saving and investing. After all, there is a reason some people are able to accumulate mass amounts of wealth. They happen to be good with managing money and have some smart investment sense. Good for them. But that doesn’t help the national economy or the American public.

Here is a little something for those who spew that crazy Tea Party talk about neutering government to the point that it collects few, if any taxes.

100 things these folks should do if they hate paying taxes:

If You Hate Taxes . . . – StumbleUpon.

While states like North Carolina continue to futility live in the dark ages on equality issues like gay rights, Obama has become the first sitting president in history to voice his support for same-sex marriage. While the fringe right and radio hosts have continually blasted Obama over the last four years for being so progressive, yet he waited a rather long time to “come out” about his personal feelings on same-sex marriage. Of course, they’ll no doubt blast him more now.

In any case, it was a bold move with the election looming, and one that was, perhaps, catalyzed by the vice president’s recent show of strong support for equality. That said, I don’t know that I see any negatives for Obama as it relates to the presidential campaign. The gay community in this nation, who may have been hesitant prior to this admission for his persistent silence on the issue, will most likely back him now. For Obama’s base, many of whom already support same-sex marriage, his recent comments won’t make any difference and will probably only be a positive for them.

He may have lost a few moderates or undecided votes, but really, I think, or at least hope, that most people will vote this election on the economy, foreign policy and matters of more import. I seriously see very few voters’ decisions turning on this personal admission from the president.

But back to North Carolina. Six states and D.C. now allow same-sex marriage. Even if it takes another century, I think the other states will follow suit because history shows us that even the most backward areas of the nation, which is still the South, and to a lesser extent, the Southwest (not including California) have always, however, begrudgingly, caught up with the times. This can be seen most immediately in how the South has slowly crawled into the late 20th century (I hesitate to say 21st century) on matters of race. And I say that North Carolina’s recent vote was a futile attempt to oppose gay marriage because gay marriage will happen in the South eventually; it’s just a matter of how long it takes. Older generations and their like-minded progeny will die off, while younger generations will become more accustomed to the idea of gay rights and the necessity of treating every human being, in every case and on every issue, as equal.

The problem, of course, is blind stupidity. Opponents of gay rights apparently don’t see how their opposition is analogous to previous generations’ opposition to black civil rights or women’s rights. And the issue becomes more contemptible in the cases of people like Maggie Gallagher, herself a benefactor of generations of women struggling for equal rights, who adamantly opposes gay marriage as co-founder of the National Organization for Marriage. The stupidity continues: blacks are not equal to rights. Women are not equal to men. Gays are not equal to heterosexuals. In the end, all three dichotomies will fall.

News from The Associated Press.

Romney’s basic plan for health care: give tax breaks to people so they can purchase their own individual plans and try to entice businesses away from offering coverage to their employees.

That’s a plan? First, most people, including myself, would not be able to afford health insurance without getting it through an employer. This is the only way we can actually afford it. That had better be one massive individual tax incentive because as Stephen Andrew points out, of the people who won’t be turned down for coverage because of some underlying medical condition, most of them cannot afford the going rate for insurance  in any case, especially given what they already have to pay in mortgages, car payments, eating expenses, utility bills, etc. And insurance for people with some kind of condition would be financially out of reach in this scenario. This prospect scares the shit out of Andrew, and I would have to concur.

In Andrew’s words:

This has been the goal for many corporate conservatives for a long time. Divorce healthcare from employers, throw you out there on your own, save money for the stockholders. Romney and others seem to think that can be done by offering a fat tax cut on your gads of disposable income, so that you can offset the cost of an individual policy.

What planet are these jokers living on? Putting aside the idea that a tax cut doesn’t do almost half the population a lick of good, there are no affordable health insurance policies for a fifty year-old guy like me available on the private market. None, nada, zilch. Check for yourself, go out and get a quote on an individual policy for a fifty year-old with minor preexisting conditions and an autoimmune disease with similar deducts, Rx, and copays. Go ahead, I’ll wait right here for you freedom loving libertarians to find and link a plan with a major or at least half-ass reputable company comparable to the employer based one I have now with CIGNA. …

The rest of you already know the math don’t you? Now try it for someone in their 40s who’s had breast cancer, or 58 years old with diabetes, or a young 22-year-old with a congenital heart defect. Those policies either do not exist or they are exorbitantly priced. Few people in the 99% will be to afford one, for themselves let alone their family, with or without a Tax Cut. If this is Romney’s plan, it is a fucking death sentence for millions of Americans, it will certainly cost is way more money at best, probably come with increased suffering and debt for individual and government eventually, and that all probably includes me.

Insurance, of course, isn’t the only concern: after one renders a hefty sum to Caesar for insurance, there is also potential medical bills, high drug costs and doctor visits, all of which are still egregiously high after insurance pays its share. The health care wormhole runs deep in this nation, I’m afraid, and it will only go deeper under GOP leadership.

This is what scares the hell out of me about Romney et al | The Zingularity.

It’s pretty stunning that Romney can’t throw his spontaneous support behind women receiving equal pay as men. According to this article, when asked about the Lilly Ledbetter Act, his campaign pulled the ol’ “We’ll get back to you on that line:”

Romney’s advisers held a conference call inviting reporters to ask questions. One was simple and straightforward: “Does Gov. Romney support the Lilly Ledbetter Act?”

In other words, when a woman is paid less than a man for doing the same work, does the presumptive Republican nominee support her right to fight for the equal pay she’s guaranteed under the law? That’s exactly what the bill that bears my name ensures — it simply gives workers a fair shot to make their case in court. …

Romney’s team has certainly had enough time to think about its candidate’s positions — he’s been running for president for six years — and about the law in question, which was the very first one that Barack Obama signed as president more than three years ago.

But Romney’s team drew a blank. The line went silent. Crickets. When an adviser finally piped up, it wasn’t to answer the question. It was to tell the reporter, “We’ll get back to you on that.”

Of course, stunning as it is, it shouldn’t come as much surprise, since Romney doesn’t seem to have had one spontaneous thought in this campaign, unless, of course, it was a “spontaneous” gaffe about not being concerned about poor people, etc. and other unsightly miscues.

Romney's insult to women on equal pay – CNN.com.

Far right wing fringe candidates may be gaining influence in Europe, and that is good news for no one, except the crazies of course. It’s definitely bad news for poor people, women and immigrants … and blue collar workers … and sick people.

Here is an article on one of the far-right leaders, Marine Le Pen, president of France’s National Front party.

Is the far right gaining ground in Europe? – CNN.com.

In his most recent column, The New York Times’ Paul Krugman asks, “Just how stupid does Mitt Romney think we are.”

At a recent campaign stop, Romney spoke at a shuttered factory in Ohio to imply that Obama’s economic policy had something to do with its closure. As reporters on hand pointed out, the factory in question actually closed while George W. Bush was president. But inconvenient truths such as that surely won’t stop the Romney machine.

Here’s Krugman:

Does the Romney campaign expect Americans to blame President Obama for his predecessor’s policy failure?

Yes, it does. Mr. Romney constantly talks about job losses under Mr. Obama. Yet all of the net job loss took place in the first few months of 2009, that is, before any of the new administration’s policies had time to take effect. So the Ohio speech was a perfect illustration of the way the Romney campaign is banking on amnesia, on the hope that voters don’t remember that Mr. Obama inherited an economy that was already in free fall.

So the answer to the first question: yes, Romney thinks Americans are that stupid, either too stupid or too lazy to hold him accountable to his claims or to do some independent fact-checking. He’s counting on that, and he’s right. That probably does describe the large majority of Americans. The proof is in the pudding: Bush got re-elected in 2004 after leading us into a war on false pretenses, and in 2008, we came inches away from having the incompetent and anti-intellectual Sarah Palin as vice president thanks to that alarmist Tea Party nonsense. So, no, Romney doesn’t hold the intellect of many Americans in high regard. It’s insulting, but then again, we get the politicians that we deserve.

The Amnesia Candidate – NYTimes.com.

Obamas Release Tax Returns.

Here’s a handy breakdown of wages, percentage paid to taxes, etc.:

Credit: The New York Times

Here is a good Krugman piece about the real motives behind New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie axing the Hudson River Tunnel Project. All for political expediency, apparently.

It is also brings to light, yet again, the inconsistent Republican stance on the use of federal funds, that is, it’s almost always OK to pony up money and increase the deficit for military reasons or to go to war, but when it comes to services at home, like public transportation, no dice.

Kruman’s concluding paragraph hits the mark:

America used to be a country that thought big about the future. Major public projects, from the Erie Canal to the interstate highway system, used to be a well-understood component of our national greatness. Nowadays, however, the only big projects politicians are willing to undertake — with expense no object — seem to be wars. Funny how that works.

Cannibalize the Future – NYTimes.com.

Republicans bickering among themselves is always entertaining but even more so when they complain about who FOX News has favored the most in this election. The winner? Apparently not Gingrich.

He says that CNN has been more fair to him in its election coverage than FOX, claiming that Rupert Murdoch must be a fan of Romney. He seems to be wrong, of course, because Murdoch has already come out as a Santorum supporter. As for FOX’s fairness toward all candidates, I don’t think Murdoch cares much about the day-to-day “stance” that FOX takes on the election as long as the network continues making him money. Roger Ailes may very well be a Romney supporter, but the article above doesn’t have Gingrich making any claims about Ailes, oddly enough, since Gingrich must know that Ailes is really the one behind FOX’s particular brand of non-journalism.

Gingrich Says CNN is Less Biased than Fox News – NYTimes.com.