Supreme Court Might Decide Their Second Election 29MAR12

THIS has been my fear right along about the supreme court hearings on the Affordable Care Act. This right wing court didn't hesitate to rob the American people of an election in 2000 and I am afraid they will rob us of our right to health care as provided by Obamacare. It will be a travesty of justice if the law is overturned by this court.
It was a similar crew of conservative justices on the Supreme Court that decided that their long-held beliefs on states' rights were irrelevant and made George W. Bush our next president in 2000. Now, they're back!!! And they might decide yet another presidential election.
Imagine the damage it does to President Obama to strip him of his signature accomplishment right before the election. It would also allow the Republicans to say -- "See, we told you so! It was unconstitutional all along. It was a wild, socialist over-reach of big government." It creates a permanent stain on the law -- as if there was something horribly wrong with it all along. And it takes it off the books at a moment when it is still relatively unpopular. So, before any of the popular provisions are put into effect it would go in the record books as a complete disaster.
Why don't you just hand the Republicans the election? Which is, of course, exactly what the conservatives of this court would love to do. These conservative justices are given far too much deference in the media. They are largely partisan hacks.
Antonin Scalia is a complete fraud. He will bend any so-called principle to get to the political result he wants. If it's upholding anti-gay legislation or striking down federal laws he doesn't like, he is a huge advocate for states' rights. But if it's marijuana legalization or euthanasia or Bush v. Gore, then he hates states' rights. So, which one is it? Here's how you can tell -- which side is the Republican Party on?
Remember, this is a guy who goes duck hunting with Dick Cheney and attends political fundraisers with the Koch brothers. Of course, he doesn't recuse himself from any cases that involve those people. In fact, he votes on their side nearly 100% of the time.
We've been hearing for at least thirty years about the dangers of activist judges. That it is so wrong for unelected officials, like judges, to invalidate laws made by the people's representatives. Now, all of a sudden, the Republicans love that idea! They want to interpret the Commerce Clause in a way that it has not been interpreted since 1937. They want to invalidate a sitting president's signature piece of legislation for the first time in 75 years. And their hack, partisan justices on the Supreme Court can't wait to do their bidding.
The way Scalia, Alito and Thomas are going to vote is certain. There isn't a single Republican position those guys haven't wanted to fondle. They will enthusiastically wrap their legs around the idea that the mandate is unconstitutional. And they will double down by saying it strikes down the rest of the law with it.
John Roberts plays a moderate on TV, so there is some questions about which way he'll go. But in the real world, he always votes with the conservatives because... he is deeply conservative (or more accurately, party line Republican, no matter where the so-called conservative position lies).
So, that leaves us with Justice Kennedy, who is a genuine swing vote. But remember he is the one that swung toward Bush and meddled with how Florida counts its votes despite decades of empty talk about states' rights. If he sides with the rest of the conservative justices, he will forever cement his place on the Hack Hall of Fame as one of the most deeply partisan justices we have ever had. If he helped to decide two presidential elections based on which party he likes rather than his so-called deeply held beliefs, like his oft-repeated deference to precedent, than it would be hard to find a more political and disingenuous justice.
One last thought, which is on the sad incompetence of the Democratic Party. They should be screaming "activist judges" from the rooftops. Instead they are meekly mumbling about how it's unclear which way the court is going to go and how we shouldn't pre-judge. I got news for you -- the Republicans have been pre-judging your bill for years now. You should consider fighting back.
But the primary responsibility is the president's. Why did you agree to the Republican idea of mandates in the first place?
Orrin Hatch (R-UT) was the original sponsor of the mandate in the Senate back in 1993. The Heritage Foundation championed the idea. Mitt Romney was applauded wildly by conservatives when he passed a mandate in Massachusetts. Did the president think they would like him more if he agreed to their idea? No, they have always opposed you at every turn, and they always will. They turned on their own idea the minute you agreed to it -- and now they're using it to kill your whole bill.
When is the president ever going to learn that agreeing with Republicans never helps him? It never helps the country. All it does is make it easier for them to beat you because you made the fatal mistake of agreeing with them.
The Young Turks on Current

 

Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CenkUygur

Related News On Huffington Post:

Supreme Court Justices Take Health Care Case Behind Closed Doors

WASHINGTON -- The survival of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul rests with a Supreme Court seemingly split over ideology and, more particularly, in the...

In Health Care Case, The Roberts Court Comes Of Age

WASHINGTON -- "I win. Every time." So said Chief Justice John Roberts during Supreme Court argument Wednesday afternoon, stepping into the shoes of some hypothetical...

Antonin Scalia Compares Reading Affordable Care Act To Cruel And Unusual Punishment

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia joked that reading the entirety of the Affordable Care Act is akin to cruel and unusual punishment. "What happened...

Individual Mandate Rejection Would Leave White House 'No Contingency Plan,' Spokesman Says

WASHINGTON -- White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Wednesday that the administration does not have a backup plan in the event that the Supreme Court...

More News Posts:  « First   Prev  1  2  3  Next   Last » 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/supreme-court-health-care-law_b_1387080.html?ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=032912&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief

 

PATRIOTIC MILLIONAIRES FOR FISCAL STRENGTH

CLICK the header to check out these 1%ers who are calling on congress to raise their taxes. These are people who are millionaires who recognize the vast income gap is not healthy for the nation and who accept the responsibilities they have to the social contract with the nation. And be sure to read the PMFS debate with sen orrin hatch r UT about their call for raising taxes on the rich in America.....

Only 375,000 Americans have incomes of over $1,000,000
Between 1979 and 2007, incomes for the wealthiest 1% of Americans rose by 281%
During the Great Depression, millionaires had a top marginal tax rate of 68%
In 1963, millionaires had a top marginal tax rate of 91%
In 1976, millionaires had a top marginal tax rate of 70%
Today, millionaires have a top marginal tax rate of 35%
Reducing the income tax on top earners is one of the most inefficient ways to grow the economy according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office
44% of Congress people are millionaires. The tax cuts were never meant to be permanent
Letting tax cuts for the top 2% expire as scheduled would pay down the debt by $700 billion over the next 10 years

Thank you Democratic members of the Super Committee and Congress,

Thank you for making the tough decisions, for understanding that no deal was the best deal for America. Thank you for listening to the constituents you serve -- not just us millionaire members, but the 99%. While the majority of Americans are suffering, and making everyday sacrifices in these hard economic times, your Republican counterparts on the Super Committee and in Congress continue to ignore the realities of failed economic policies. They care more about their pledge to Norquist than their pledge to the United States Constitution. Thank you for being patriotic in a time when the American people need you most.

Thank you,
Patriotic Millionaires and Patriotic Americans

We are writing to ask you to do the right thing for our country and REJECT ANY Super Committee deal that does not raise tax rates on incomes over $1 million to AT LEAST 39.6%, REGARDLESS of how many deductions are eliminated.

Private jets shouldn’t have been tax deductible in the first place.

Thank you,
Patriotic Millionaires and Patriotic Americans

Read Our Original Letter

We are writing to urge you to put our country ahead of politics.
For the fiscal health of our nation and the well-being of our fellow citizens, we ask that you increase taxes on incomes over $1,000,000.
We make this request as loyal citizens who now or in the past earned an income of $1,000,000 per year or more.
Our country faces a choice – we can pay our debts and build for the future, or we can shirk our financial responsibilities and cripple our nation’s potential.
Our country has been good to us. It provided a foundation through which we could succeed. Now, we want to do our part to keep that foundation strong so that others can succeed as we have.
Please do the right thing for our country. Raise our taxes.
Thank you,

On April 14th, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) commented that: "We hear this quite a bit from rich Democrats. 'Please tax us more,' they say. Well I know a lot who don't say that I'll tell you that. As the ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee I feel obligated to inform Mr. Plouffe that the president and all those rich, liberal democrats who are eager to pay higher taxes can do just that. They can write a check to the IRS and make an extra payment on their tax return to pay down the federal debt. The option is right there at the bottom of their tax return."
In response, the Patriotic Millionaires released a statement to the press saying: "A few of us voluntarily writing a check to the IRS will not fix the problem that Sen. Hatch and his colleagues created for our country with their fiscal irresponsibility. It will take the work of all Patriotic Americans to create a strong foundation for our continued prosperity. We are willing to do our part by paying higher taxes. It is clear Senator Hatch and many of his colleagues are not willing to do theirs. We challenge Senator Hatch and the other millionaire members of the Senate to put their country first and raise taxes on people like them – and us – who make more than a million dollars a year. In the meantime, if Senator Hatch would like to make a personal contribution to the IRS to help his country, we pledge to match his contribution."
The following week, the Millionaires received a letter from Sen. Hatch detailing the reasoning behind his statement. Click here to read his letter.
The Millionaires responded in kind. You can read their letter here.

Orrin Hatch: The 'Poor' Should Do More To Shrink Debt, Not The Rich (VIDEO) 7JUL11

MORE Mormon compassion from sen ornery hatch......is this lack of compassion, this lack of concern for those less fortunate, this support of greed and lust for more wealth and power what the Book of Mormon teaches? Is it sen ornery???? We know what Jesus Christ had to say about wealth, greed, power and what our attitude about workers, the poor, the least among us should be, but either sen ornery is giving us a new interpretation of the teachings of the Book of Mormon or he is ignoring the tenants of his faith and Christianity......From HuffPost.....

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) voted against beginning debate on a measure that would have the Senate declare the rich should share the pain of debt reduction Thursday, a day after arguing that it's the poor and middle class who need to do more.
"I hear how they're so caring for the poor and so forth," Hatch said in remarks on the Senate floor Wednesday, in reference to Democrats. "The poor need jobs! And they also need to share some of the responsibility."
Hatch's comments were aimed at a motion that passed 74 to 22 to start debating a non-binding resolution that says millionaires and billionaires should play a more meaningful role in reducing the nation's debt.
Just one Democrat, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), voted against having the debate. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who had previously called the resolution "rather pathetic," nevertheless voted to move ahead on it.
But it was Hatch whose remarks Wednesday raised the idea that the wealthy are already doing too much, even as the nation's effective tax rates are at modern lows since the Bush administration slashed rates in 2001 and 2003. In his view, it seems, the middle class and poor should be picking up the slack.
"The top 1 percent of the so-called wealthy pay 38 percent of all income tax. The top 10 percent are paying 70 percent of all income tax," Hatch said. "The top 50 percent pay somewhere near 98 percent of all income taxes. 51 percent don't pay anything," Hatch said, suggesting the payroll taxes that the poor and middle classes pay towards Social Security yields them an especially generous benefit.
"Democrats say they [the 51 percent] pay payroll taxes. Well, everybody does that because that's Social Security. They pay about one-third of what they're going to take out over the years in social security," Hatch railed. "Obamacare -- a family of four earning over $80,000 a year -- gets subsidies. Think about that. That's what we call the poor?"

Hatch hedged that the the poorest of the poor shouldn't have to pay taxes. But he was clear that people who qualify for subsidies because they can't afford things like health care should dig deeper.
"Now, we don't want the really poor people who are in poverty to have to pay income taxes," he said. "But 51% of all households. And that's going up, by the way, because of our friend down in the White House and his allies."

Mormon Prophecy Behind Glenn Beck's Message by DANA MILBANK 5OKT10

IF the Constitution is hanging by a thread I'll take my chances with how things will shake out rather than look to the likes of glenn beck and orrin hatch to save the nation. Where were they when the Constitution was really being threatened by george w bush? Mormons riding to the rescue??? NO THANK YOU....we are a republic, not a theocracy, and we certainly aren't going to live under the racist, prejudiced, anti-semitic rule of the Mormon church, especially the church that reflects the mind blowing ignorance of glenn beck! As long as the leadership of the Mormon church doesn't condemn glenn beck for the hate, lies, deception and perversion he spews daily one can only conclude they approve of his opinions  and attitudes. Rescue us? HA! I don't think so....but thanks for the warning Mr. Milbank. From HuffPost....
 
In one of his first appearances on Fox News, Glenn Beck sent a coded message to the nation's six million Mormons -- or at least those Mormons who believe in what the Latter-day Saints call "the White Horse Prophecy."
"We are at the place where the Constitution hangs in the balance," Beck told Bill O'Reilly on November 14, 2008, just after President Obama's election. "I feel the Constitution is hanging in the balance right now, hanging by a thread unless the good Americans wake up."
The Constitution is hanging by a thread.

Most Americans would have heard this as just another bit of overblown commentary and thought nothing more of it. But to those familiar with the White Horse Prophecy, it was an unmistakable signal.

The phrase is often attributed to the Prophet Joseph Smith, founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or Mormon Church. Smith is believed to have said in 1840 that when the Constitution hangs by a thread, elders of the Mormon Church will step in -- on the proverbial white horse -- to save the country.

"When the Constitution of the United States hangs, as it were, upon a single thread, they will have to call for the 'Mormon' Elders to save it from utter destruction; and they will step forth and do it," Brigham Young, Smith's successor as head of the church, wrote in 1855.

Was it just a coincidence in wording, or was Beck, a 1999 Mormon convert, speaking in coded language about the need to fulfill the Mormon prophecy? A conversation on Beck's radio show ten days earlier would seem to rule out coincidence. Beck was interviewing Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, also a Mormon, when he said: "I heard Barack Obama talk about the Constitution and I thought, we are at the point or we are very near the point where our Constitution is hanging by a thread."

"Well, let me tell you something," Hatch responded. "I believe the Constitution is hanging by a thread."

Days after Beck's Fox show started in January 2009, he had Hatch on, and again prompted him: "I believe our Constitution hangs by a thread."

Large numbers of Mormons watch Beck, but likely an even larger number of his viewers and radio listeners are evangelical Protestants who have no idea that Beck is preaching to them an obscure prophecy of the Latter-day Saints -- a faith many conservative Christians malign as a cult. In addition to the coded allusions to the White Horse Prophecy, he often brings Mormon theology into his broadcasts (he touts the thinking of late church president Ezra Taft Benson and he frequently promotes the work Mormon conspiracy theorist Cleon Skousen) but without identifying them with the LDS church.
Before the Mormons went west, Smith traveled to Washington seeking help for his oppressed followers and received nothing but frustration. Rather than turning on the government, however, "They considered themselves the last Real Americans, the legitimate heirs of the pilgrims and Founding Fathers," Pat Bagley wrote in the Salt Lake Tribune. "And, they believed, the very survival of the Constitution depended on the Saints. From Smith on, LDS leaders prophesied the Constitution would one day hang by a thread, only to be saved by Mormons."

A compilation of church leaders' statements over the years by the journal BYU Studies shows this strain of thinking. Though there are doubts about whether Smith actually wrote the phrase "hang by a thread," his successors left no doubt about the theology behind it. Orson Hyde, a Smith contemporary, wrote that Smith believed that "the time would come when the Constitution and the country would be in danger of an overthrow; and said [Smith]: 'If the Constitution be saved at all, it will be by the elders of this Church.'"
The church's fifth presiding bishop, Charles Nibley, believed that "the day would come when there would be so much of disorder, of secret combinations taking the law into their own hands, tramping upon Constitutional rights and the liberties of the people, that the Constitution would hang as by a thread. Yes, but it will still hang, and there will be enough of good people, many who may not belong to our Church at all, people who have respect for law and for order, and for Constitutional rights, who will rally around with us and save the Constitution."
The prophecy was renewed with each generation of church leadership. "The prophet Joseph Smith said the time will come when, through secret organizations taking the law into their own hands . . . the Constitution of the United States would be so torn and rent asunder, and life and property and peace and security would be held of so little value, that the Constitution would, as it were, hang by a thread," church apostle Melvin Ballard said in 1928. "This Constitution will be preserved, but it will be preserved very largely in consequence of what the Lord has revealed and what this people, through listening to the Lord and being obedient, will help to bring about, to stabilize and give permanency and effect to the Constitution itself. That also is our mission."
And now it is Beck's mission. Secret organizations? Tramping on liberties? Breakdown of law and order? Shredding the Constitution? Betraying the Founders? This is the core of Beck's message, in his own words: "Some people in the government seem to have a problem, you know, shredding the Constitution." And: "You're trying to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, friends. It's in trouble." And: "He" -- that would be Obama -- "is going to bring us to the verge of shredding the Constitution, of massive socialism."
But there is a Beckian twist in his version of the prophecy. Unlike the church leaders' versions, Beck's vision carries the possibility of a bloody end. On the night of Feb. 24, 2009, Beck outlined this prospect for his viewers. People who "don't trust the government," he said, would "see the government as violating the Constitution, and they will see themselves as defenders of the Constitution. Not a good mix. Then they take matters into their own hands."
It was Glenn Beck in a nutshell: White Horse Prophecy meets horsemen of the apocalypse.
Adapted from Tears of a Clown: Glenn Beck and the Tea Bagging of America, released October 5, 2010 by Doubleday.
Ed Note: This blog post originally stated that Charles Nibley was the Mormon Church's fifth leader. He is actually the church's fifth presiding bishop, and the text has been changed to reflect this.

Gibbs: Obama Will Listen To GOP Pitch On Extending Tax Cuts For Wealthy 4NOV10

NO NO NO NO NO!!!! THE WEALTHY HAVE RECEIVED THIS TAX CUT ALL THROUGH THIS RECESSION AND HAVE NOT BEEN USING IT TO CREATE JOBS (THE gop and tea-bagger ARGUMENT FOR THEM RECEIVING IT IS IT IS NEEDED TO CREATE JOBS). THE MIDDLE CLASS THE WORKING CLASS AND THE POOR DESERVE AND NEED THE TAX CUT TO BE EXTENDED, THE WEALTHY WILL SURVIVE WITHOUT IT. CONTINUING THE bush ERA TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY IS WRONG AND MUST BE TAKEN OFF THE TABLE. LET PRESIDENT OBAMA KNOW WHAT YOU THINK, E MAIL THE WHITE HOUSE AT
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
WASHINGTON -- White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs reiterated on Thursday that the president will be open to extending the upper-end Bush tax cuts for one or two years as part of a broader compromise with Republicans.
"He would be open to having that discussion and open to listening to what the debate is on both sides of that," said Gibbs, during an off-camera gaggle with reporters. "Obviously... making those tax cuts for the upper end permanent is something the president does not believe is a good idea."
The issue, Gibbs said, will be a topic of discussion when the president convenes a bipartisan meeting of lawmakers at the White House in two weeks. Included in that meeting (and working dinner) will be Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Cali.), incoming Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), incoming Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky), and Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.).
At his press conference on Wednesday, the president expressed his first openness to date with the process of negotiating on the Bush tax cuts, which are set to expire at the end of the year. Earlier, the administration had insisted that extending those cuts for the wealthy (families making more than $250,000 a year) would be off the table -- wary that extending them temporarily would simply invite lawmakers to keep extending them indefinitely.
Tuesday's elections, undoubtedly, changed the dynamics and, in turn, has given Republicans little incentive to compromise. Appearing on MSNBC, Sen. Orinn Hatch (R-Utah) said he saw no room for negotiating on the Bush tax cuts. All of them, he argued, should be extended.
"He is certainly willing to listen to both sides," said Gibbs when press specifically on a one or two-year extension for the tax cuts for the wealthy.
"It is again, November 4. We know that, when this year ends, tax rates are going to go up for the middle class... So if we don't act on the expiring tax cuts by the end of this year, we know what's going to happen... We have both houses coming back and this is an issue that must and has to be dealt with."

Orrin Hatch Supports Building Of Park51: 'I'd Be The First To Stand Up For Their Rights' 31AUG10

HERE is a very courageous stand by a man I have next to nothing in common with politically, and I admire him for speaking out on this issue. Sen Orrin Hatch (R UT), thank you. This is from HuffPost and you can also read the article from ThinkProgress and watch the video of the interview.


ThinkProgress's Alex Seitz-Wald has video of Hatch giving an interview to Salt Lake City's Fox 13 News, in which he offers up soft-spoken yet strong support for the Cordoba Initiative's Park51 project in Manhattan.

HATCH: Let's be honest about it, in the First Amendment, religious freedom, religious expression, that really express matters to the Constitution. So, if the Muslims own that property, that private property, and they want to build a mosque there, they should have the right to do so. The only question is are they being insensitive to those who suffered the loss of loved ones? We know there are Muslims killed on 9/11 too and we know it's a great religion. I know a lot of Muslim people who I have a very great regard for, not the least of which is Muhammad Ali. He's a great friend of mine. But as far as their right to build that mosque, they have that right.
The question is, should they? Is it insensitive not to, in the eyes of the majority of New Yorkers? It's going to come down to New York and what New York decides to do.

Hatch went on to add that as a legal scholar, "I have the tendency, when it comes to religious liberty issues, to always uphold the rights of legitimate churches... I just think that what's made this country great is we have religious freedom. That's not the only thing, but it's one of the most important things in the Constitution."
Hatch has something of a personal stake in the matter as well, and he recalls an instance in which the late Senator Ted Kennedy lent a hand to get a Mormon temple built in Massachusetts, despite some local obstruction.
Hatch also seems to have a proper grasp of geography:

There's a question of whether it's too close to the 9/11 area, but it's a few blocks away, it isn't right there. Frankly, there are a lot of people who feel, including the mayor of New York, that they should have every right to do it, and that New Yorkers should support them...And there's a huge, I think, lack of support throughout the country for Islam to build that mosque there, but that should not make a difference if they decide to do it. I'd be the first to stand up for their rights.

It's probably worth your time to revisit Alex Pareene's compendium of the "Heroes, villains, and cowards of the so-called 'ground zero mosque,'" if only to be baffled by the people who haven't the guts to join Senator Hatch in standing up for some basic freedoms.

Story continues below

RELATED:
Sen. Orrin Hatch: 'I'd Be The First To Stand Up For Their Rights' To Build A Mosque Near Ground Zero [ThinkProgress]

Sen. Orrin Hatch: ‘I’d Be The First To Stand Up For Their Rights’ To Build A Mosque Near Ground Zero

While virtually every Republican and conservative leader has come out strongly against the construction of the proposed Park 51 Islamic community center near Ground Zero in New York City, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) strongly defended the organizers’ right to build the center today, saying, “what made this country great is we have religious freedom.” In an interview with Fox 13 News in Salt Lake City, Hatch — who has long been a proponent of religious liberty — said it shouldn’t “make a difference” that the majority of Americans don’t support the center’s construction, because religious freedom is too important, and noted that the proposed site is actually “a few blocks away” from Ground Zero.
And countering those on the right who have implicated Islam in terrorism, or who have tried to paint it as anything less than a legitimate religion, Hatch said that “there are Muslims killed on 9/11 too,” and said, “we know [Islam is] a great religion”:

HATCH: Let’s be honest about it, in the First Amendment, religious freedom, religious expression, that really express matters to the Constitution. So, if the Muslims own that property, that private property, and they want to build a mosque there, they should have the right to do so. The only question is are they being insensitive to those who suffered the loss of loved ones? We know there are Muslims killed on 9/11 too and we know it’s a great religion. … But as far as their right to build that mosque, they have that right.
I just think what’s made this country great is we have religious freedom. That’s not the only thing, but it’s one of the most important things in the Constitution. [...]
There’s a question of whether it’s too close to the 9/11 area, but it’s a few blocks away, it isn’t right there. … And there’s a huge, I think, lack of support throughout the country for Islam to build that mosque there, but that should not make a difference if they decide to do it. I’d be the first to stand up for their rights.

Watch it:



In defending Muslims’ right to build the community center, Hatch, who is Mormon, noted that his religion has faced its own opposition the building its houses of worship. Nonetheless, fellow Mormons like Fox News host Glenn Beck, and disappointingly, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) have come out against the mosque in New York. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who is also Mormon, has been “noticeably absent” from the mosque debate

POLITICIANS WANTING TO CUT THE GOVERNMENT WORKFORCE SHOULD START WITH THEIR STAFFS 6AUG10

First Punish The Unemployed, Then Declare War On The Employed

Over the past few months, Congressional Republicans and skittish Democrats who've lingered too long at the Deficit Panic Kool-Aid Stand have made life extraordinarily difficult for the most vulnerable members of society -- the nation's unemployed.
Rather than extend unemployment benefits so that the millions of Americans who are out there busting their humps to find the needle-in-a-haystack that is a job of any kind, they've demanded that those benefits be offset, essentially punishing the unemployed for the deficits they giddily ran up for years.
It's been pretty embarrassing to watch, frankly. But at least no one's out there running on an actual platform of kicking those who have managed to secure employment out of work, right?

Republican gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes said Thursday he would lay off as many as 4,000 state employees if elected and force a showdown with the federal government over drilling for gas and oil.
Dan Maes told the Denver Petroleum Club he would cut at least 2,000 workers "just like that" from the state budget, with projected savings of $200 million.

Oh, hey, I stand corrected. Colorado gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes, not satisfied with eliminating the scourge of internationalist bicycle enthusiasts, has made "I will kick you or someone you love out of their job during this massive unemployment crisis" a campaign promise.
You wouldn't think that this would be a successful campaign strategy in 2010. But Maes simply represents the extreme edge of a new vanguard in GOP electioneering -- declaring war on the employed.
Take Representative Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), for example. This week, when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced that the "House will reconvene next week to vote on a state aid package designed to, among other things, save up to 140,000 teachers' jobs". Bachmann decried the move, calling it a "bailout," and vowed to "call 1,000,000 households" to complain about this -- a promise that I don't think she'll keep, seeing how she'll likely end up talking to thousands of people who won't respond well to the idea that they need to lose their livelihoods to cover the asses of their public servants.

Of course, Bachmann is still out there in the wilds of political Narnia. How does a similar stance from House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) grab you?

The American people don't want more Washington 'stimulus' spending - especially in the form of a pay-off to union bosses and liberal special interests. This stunning display of tone-deafness comes at the expense of American workers, who will be hit by another job-killing tax hike because Washington Democrats can't kick their addiction to more government 'stimulus' spending. Democrats should be listening to their constituents - who are asking 'where are the jobs?' - instead of scampering back to Washington to push through more special interest bailouts and job-killing tax hikes.

As Pat Garofalo points out, Boehner is bizarrely referring to "teachers, firefighters, and police officers" as "special interests." Mainly, those folks are "specially interested" in helping people's kids get an education and marketable skills, keeping their fellow citizens free from harm, and preventing houses and businesses from burning to the ground.
Both Boehner and Bachmann believe that this aid package would cost taxpayers "$26 billion we don't have," but did anyone tell them that the bill "actually reduces the deficit by $1.3 billion dollars", or are they just lying to people?
Still, when it comes to exacerbating the unemployment crisis, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) leads the field. He's picked this moment to call for massive cuts to the federal workforce:

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) introduced legislation today aimed at cutting the bloated federal government down to size. The Reduce and Cap the Federal Workforce Act would reduce and limit the number of civilian federal workers to February 2009 levels.
"If we are to get our deficit under control, we need to rein in the runaway growth of our federal government," Hatch said. "Simply put, the federal government is growing at breakneck speed and it is time to apply the brakes before it bankrupts the nation and the taxpayers. My bill is a commonsense approach to putting a halt to big government."
Hatch said the numbers show why his legislation is needed. From 1981 through 2008, the senator noted, civilian workers numbered between 1.1 million and 1.2 million. The Obama administration is forecasting the government's workforce this year will reach 2.15 million and serve 310 million Americans.

How idiotic is the timing here? Well, let's look at today's job numbers:

Private employers added just 1,420 jobs per state in July -- not nearly enough to make up for job losses in the government, 50,000 of which were local-government layoffs. Unemployment remains high, at 9.5 percent, and many economists expect it to track higher in the fall.

Where are the people who would lose their jobs to go, exactly, other than off into the woods to die?
Obviously, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with reducing a bloated government workforce, but to call for a scythe to be indiscriminately swung in the direction of people who are fortunate enough to have work at a time when there are already five job seekers for every single job opening is just breathlessly inane.
But here's an idea: why don't we start the culling by eliminating every single staff position serving the United States Senate? It can't possibly require that many people to be so useless.