"Compromise" and the Tea Party

"Compromise!"  This is the current face the Tea Party Republicans are presenting to the public.  That being said, their tactics were extremely public just days ago.  They said, in a very public way, that they were going to hold the Federal Government hostage in order to try to do what they've been trying to do for the last 3 years: remove the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) from law. 

So, what do they mean when they say that the President, and Democrats in general, aren't willing to compromise?  They mean that Democrats aren't willing to completely fold and give into the demands of the Far Right.  Yep, that's compromise.  Do it my way or you're not willing to talk about compromise.  It falls very much in line with the origin of the Tea Party where, in reaction to Obama being elected, they gathered and called forth the standard the Massachusetts residents generated originally (yes, Massachusetts, not New Hampshire) "No taxation without representation."  The Tea Party members who were asked what they meant by this stated that, since they didn't vote for Obama or some of those in Congress, they were not being represented.  The problem, of course, being that we live in a representative democracy and we elect our representatives in Congress and President by popular vote, after a fashion.  Even if you don't vote for the person elected, you had a vote, and you have someone representing your residential area, and you can lobby that person and vote for someone else in the next election and work to get that person not elected next time.  I know I joked with some friends during W. Bush's Presidency that he wasn't elected because of the issues in Florida, but that couldn't be claimed with Obama and I wouldn't have made the same joke about Reagan or Bush senior.  So, essentially, we've come to a point where we have a large group of people speaking a different language than the rest of us, and it's not Spanish, it's not French, it's English, but contorted with different definitions than those the rest of us use. 

O.k., so the Republican House finally submitted a bill that "compromised" by only delaying certain aspects of the law.  Too little too late in my opinion.  I applaud the Democrats for not taking them up on this option.  Enough is enough.  While it's horrible for many many people to be sent home without pay and with no knowledge of when they will be paid again, simply because Republicans in the House can't accept a law that they have been attempting to overturn time after time for the last 2 years, this is how you stand up and say "no! no more!" to a bunch of rebellious misfits who time and again act as the tale wagging the Republican Party, er, dog.  And maybe, just maybe this fight will prevent us from having the battle that is likely to come shortly over the debt ceiling.

2012 repeats 2008's message to Republicans

Dear Republicans,

I know you love Fox News and your Right Wing Talk Radio, but I think it's time for you to pay attention to what the electorate is saying... here's a bit of a breakdown of the glaring signs that you should take as warning messages:

Women:
In 2008 and 2012, women voted of Obama approximately 55% vs the Republican opponent 44%.  Why do women like Obama?  Probably because they like the Democratic Party, in general, more than they like the Republican Party, in general.  Why?  Perhaps it has to do with the long standing stances on issues that Democrats and Republicans have taken.  Democrats are pro-choice, Republicans are a range of sometimes-pro-choice-but-not-always to the-woman's-life-is-over-if-the-pregnancy-endangers-it.  Democrats are in favor of fair-pay for women, Republicans are in favor of women cooking dinner.  Democrats are in favor of helping children through college, Republicans are in favor of removing the tax cuts and low-rate loans that have been put in place to that end.  Get the picture?  Thought you might.

Minorities:

• African Americans voted in favor of Obama approximately 94% vs 5% for his opponent, the percentages didn't change all that much and before you dismiss this as just being that Obama is the first African American President, Kerry got 88% of the African American vote in 2004 and Gore got 90% in 2000 (and Gore and Kerry are both very very white).
• Latin Americans voted for Obama over McCain 2 to 1 and over Romney 71% to 27%.  That's right, more Latin Americans voted for Obama in 2012 than in 2008.  Why?  It might have something to do with Obama supporting immigrant rights, or perhaps it has to do with Republicans being essentially an old, white, men's club.  This is an important factor, though, because Latin Americans are the fastest growing group of voters in the country.  If Republicans continue to push them away as they have been for the last decade, they're going to encounter more and more difficulties.
• Asian Americans also increased their voting for Obama, from 62% in 2008 to 73% in 2012.  Not for nothing but I think we're seeing a trend here... 
• "Other races" meanwhile decreased their voting for Obama in 2012, from 66% to 58%, but this is still a majority vote for the Democrat and continues to indicate that Republicans have a big problem with getting minorities to vote for them.

Age:

Alright, here's the real kicker.  Americans of two age groups reduced their support for Obama between 2008 and 2012: 18-29 year olds reduced by 6% and 45-64 year olds reduced by 3%.  But here's the thing, the young adult vote (18-29) still voted strongly for Obama (66% in 2008, 60% in 2012).  This is a problem for the old, white, men's club that is the Republican party because young americans are starting to vote more (they made up 17% of the vote in 2004, 18% in 2008, and 19% in 2012).  30-44 year olds are also strongly in favor of Obama vs his opponent, sticking with 52% in both elections, though they represented a smaller portion of the vote in 2012 than in 2008, dropping from 29% of the vote to 27%.  This, too, is bad news for the Republicans, because today's middle-aged voters will soon enough be the older voters.  

Income:

I think it goes without saying that lower income voters are more likely to vote Democratic, but in case you doubt that:

• 2012 - Those making $50k or less voted 60% for Obama, those making more than $50k, 45%.
• 2008 - 73% of those making less than $15k voted for Obama, 60% of those making $15k-$30k, and 55% of those making $30k-$50k.  Surprisingly, the Obama got nearly half if not a slight majority within higher income ranges, including 52% of those making $200k or more
• 2004 - 63% of those making less than $15k voted for Kerry, 57% of those making $15k-$30k, and 50% of those making $30k-$50k.  Those making more than $50k voted somewhat strongly for Bush (growing from 55% for $50k-$100k, 57% for $100k-$150k, 58% for $150k-$200k and jumping up to 63% for $200+)
• 2000 - 58% of those making less than $15k voted for Gore, 54% of those making $15k-$30k, and 49% of those making $30k-$50k (Bush got 48% of that group).  Like in 2004, the percentage of voters going for Bush in 2000 increased as the income range increased, peaking at 55% for $100k+.

The first three factors indicate a growing difficulty for the Republicans... the fourth is also a growing factor but only if the economy continues to the path it's been taking: larger disparity between the lower income and upper income and a larger percentage of the nation having a lower income.  I think the trouble is that Republicans are trying to pull a wool over women's and non-whites' eyes.  They're trying to convince people that they're on their side when they hold stances and vote in the opposite way.  Democrats have trouble here too, but it's about getting the word out that they are on minorities' and women's sides.  Many people have come to believe that all politicians are the same, but this can't be further from the truth, and all you have to do is look at how the two parties vote on a variety of issues and the party platforms.

So, what do Republicans need to do?  They need to change their plan and stop lying about who they are and actually change who they are.  They need to realize that doing lip service to people's issues isn't enough, you need to actually do something productive on those issues rather than hindering them.

compromise compromise, everywhere, but no sincerity in sight

O.k., election results are in, except for Florida for the Presidential race, because they've only had over 36 hours to tally up the votes and figure it out, not like they weren't expecting to be important or anything, just the state with the most electoral votes of the battleground states.  But I digress.  This post is not about the ridiculousness that is Florida, it's about the ridiculousness that is the Republican right.

Boehner came out and announced that "we're" eager for the President to lead, that "we" want him to succeed, and that "we're" willing to negotiate within limits.  The "we" could refer to the general population of the U.S., but I think it's more likely that he's speaking for Republicans in the House.  Let's take him at his word for a minute.  He's saying that Republicans are eager for Obama to lead (which he's been doing) and that they'll consider tax increases, but only if the tax increases are not only on the most wealthy.  I'm impressed that he actually came out and said it... the Republicans are unwilling to raise taxes unless they can raise taxes on the poor (Scott Brown admitted to this and Massachusetts kicked him out of office).  That being said, fine, let's just repeal the W. Bush tax cuts.  They helped the rich more than they helped the poor, but they did help the poor somewhat, so Republicans should be fine with it.  Admittedly, Obama said he wouldn't raise taxes on those making less than $250k, but that's compromise for ya, sometimes you have to break your campaign promises to avoid the precipice.

That being said, Boehner negotiated with the President before in 2011 and couldn't deliver his end.  That's how we got here, remember?  Boehner and the President and Reed negotiated the "grand compromise", Boehner came back the next morning and said "nope, can't do it, the Republicans in the House won't accept the compromise, they insist on having it completely their way."... so, with the Tea Party backed ridiculously far right remaining in control of the House, should we really take Boehner at his word that he can negotiate for these wackos?  They've just been re-elected, they'll be feeling that their constituents have affirmed their standing firm and not negotiating.  They're probably looking at Romney's defeat and saying "he wasn't one of us, that's why he lost, if he had been a true conservative, he would have won."  Without having learned anything, with everything the same as it was a year ago, I see no reason to believe Boehner will have any more ability to pull his side to the negotiating table with him.

Election's over, bullshit keeps flowing.

Taxes - The Options We Face in Election 2012

Taxes are good, they aren't bad.  They are the way we help protect our common interests and pay for the common good.  Redistribution of wealth is another way of talking about this and is generally viewed in a negative connotation.  Redistribution of wealth, however, is how we move wealth from those that are working to those who are retired in a fashion we have benefited from since Social Security was passed into law.  Redistribution of wealth is what happens when you pay firefighters and teachers out of a common chunk of change.  Redistribution of wealth is how we pay for our military and the salaries and healthcare of those we elect to office.  Extreme redistribution of wealth may be more what you're concerned about, so let's talk about what's on the table.

Obama wants to raise taxes on the wealthy to ~gasp~ what they were before W. Bush took office.  This is not a huge increase in taxes.  It's not even close to what the taxes were 20 years before W. Bush took office.  Before Reagan took office, you have to go back to 1925 to find the last time we had the top tax bracket with a rate as low as the one Obama wants to implement.  In fact, you'd have to go back that far to find a time when the top bracket was less than 1.5 times the rate Obama is proposing.  That's right, from 1925-1981 we had the top bracket being taxed anywhere from 63% to 94% on the money within that bracket.... And there's where the tricky part is.... 63% to 94% doesn't mean that their income is taxed at 63% to 94%, it means that the money they earn over a certain amount (the amount that puts them into that bracket) is taxed at that rate.... the amount below is taxed at other rates, just like everyone.  If I make $50,000 and you make $40,000, and the tax bracket break point is at $40,000, then I'm going to pay the same taxes you do, plus $10,000 times whatever the new bracket's rate is.  This is, of course, after all deductions are taken out.  Deductions and credits are how we say "you are doing something that we want you to do and for which we feel your burden should eased a bit," such as purchasing your primary residence (morgage interest deduction), having kids (larger standard deduction), or paying for college (various options), essentially, we are making it more financially viable for those who make less to take these steps we consider to be beneficial to the greater good.

By contrast, Romney wants to reduce the tax rates of everybody and then remove deductions to pay for those tax rate changes.  As mentioned before, deductions and credits are how we help people improve their lives by lessening the financial impact of certain choices, so what Romney is saying is that he wants to reduce taxes to make the tax code simpler and increase the financial cost of certain activities.  When it comes time to name these certain activities, he's completely unwilling to do so, but the sheer cost of the reduction in tax rates essentially forces the removal of deductions and credits to be a larger burden for the lower and middle classes than to the upper class.

These are the choices we face.  Mind you, with a Republican (and very far right-wing)controlled House and a nearly even split Senate, it's hard to believe that Obama's tax increases will pass, though much easier to believe Romney's tax cuts will likely pass by with cheerful shouts of glee, deficit-hawkishness-be-damned.