Jon Kyl Threatens To Quit Super Committee Over Defense Cuts 8SEP11 & THE U.S. EMPLOYMENT EFFECTS OF MILITARY AND DOMESTIC SPENDING PRIORITIES: AN UPDATED ANALYSIS OKT 2009

BYE-BYE jon, bye-bye...the country doesn't need your obstructionist attitude. While you are controlled by the war pigs of the military-industrial complex we are hoping the rest of the committee will realize more jobs are created by tax dollars spent on desperately needed infrastructure projects putting people back to work repairing and building roads, bridges, schools, mass transit projects, and by funding for states to rehire teachers and employees of police and fire departments. So go jon, and sulk, and let the repiglican tea-bagger "leadership" replace you with someone who knows how to work well with others....Check this out from WarCost.com....
http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/published_study/spending_priorities_PERI.pdf
THIS from HuffPost....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/08/jon-kyl-super-committee-defense-spending-cuts_n_954590.html
WASHINGTON -- The No. 2 Republican in the Senate says he would quit the special deficit-reduction supercommittee if there is an effort to cut more from defense.
Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl made the remarks Thursday at a defense forum shortly after the first supercommittee meeting. Kyl said he is "off of the committee if we are going to talk about further defense cuts."
The debt-limit bill that Congress approved last month calls for $350 billion in military reductions over 10 years.
At the supercommittee meeting, Kyl had commented on a "sense of optimism" that the panel could succeed in cutting $1.5 trillion from the deficit.
The forum was sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation.

Senators Kyl and DeMint Exploit Faith (Christmas) for Political Means from SOJO 16DEZ10

CHURCH leaders from across the religious spectrum of Christianity condemn the comments of Senators jon kyle r AZ and jim demint r SC on START and Christmas as sacrilegious and disrespectful to American troops who are away from home, facing danger and death this Christmas. Too bad kyl and demint are too self-righteous to be ashamed of their hypocritical rants. From SOJO...
While American troops will be working through the Christmas holidays, putting their lives on the line for our safety, and while millions of Christians prepare to celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace, Senators Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Jim DeMint (R-SC) brazenly choose to distort and manipulate this most holy of days for their own political means.
Kyl and Demint, after being the driving forces in delaying a vote to pass the New START Treaty, now say it would be “disrespect[ful]” to vote on New START during Christmas, believing, instead, they should be home. I wonder what our troops, who will be working during Christmas, think of their need for a vacation?
And, they call it “sacrilegious” to vote during Christmas on New START. Hmm, is voting on a treaty that promotes peace during the holiday celebrating the birth of the Prince of Peace sacrilegious?
These latest tactics are, at best, sad. At worst, they are sacrilegious in their distortions of Christianity and disrespectful to our hard working and committed troops.
In fact, prominent Christian leaders have something to say about it. Here is what they told me when I asked them what they thought about Kyl and DeMint’s statements:

“I can think of no more appropriate time of year for the Senate to pass a treaty that promotes peace and good will. Surely that is the kind of gift that is worthy to celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace. For two senators who have steadfastly opposed this on political grounds to now use Christmas to justify their position is a cynical manipulation of religion in the worst possible way. It is this manipulation of the Christmas season that is truly sacrilegious.”
– Rev. Jim Wallis, CEO of Sojourners

“Senator Kyl’s and DeMint’s statements suggesting Christmas is a reason to delay action on a treaty aimed at reducing the threat of nuclear war is a misuse of the Christian holiday. If anything, this time of year should be an encouragement for our leaders to work harder for peace on earth in response to God who wills peace for all. Peace is a major theme of the Advent season and celebration of Christmas. The National Council of Churches looks forward to being able to celebrate ratification of this treaty to reduce nuclear stockpiles and improve verification. Any delay would be contrary to our commitment to peace on earth.”
– Rev. Dr. Michael Kinnamon, General Secretary, National Council of Churches USA

“In the season when ‘peace on earth …’ was declared at the coming of the Prince of Peace, there is no better time to ratify the New START Treaty that will make peace and our national security more certain.”
– Rev. Dr. Joel C. Hunter, evangelical mega church pastor

“The American Catholic bishops have called on the Senate to ratify the New START agreement. To do so now, in this season that for many marks the birth of the Prince of Peace, would be especially poignant. Senators Kyl and DeMint insist that working on New START over the holidays would dishonor people of faith. That’s transparent. Working men and women are at their jobs in this holy season — before Christmas, after Christmas, and for some even on Christmas Day. I’m convinced the Christ child especially blesses those first responders, military personnel, health care providers, and other emergency workers who spend his birthday in service to others. Senators, truly honor Christians. Stay at your desks until this work to which you have been called is resolved.”
– Stephen Schneck, Director, Institute for Policy Research & Catholic Studies, The Catholic University of America

“Passing the New START treaty has profound moral implications for human life. As Christians, we believe that Christmas celebrates the birth of the Prince of Peace. There is no better way to honor this central moment of our faith than to pass this agreement. Any claim that the treaty has not been vetted is simple political gamesmanship. Now is the season to step back from partisanship and act together for security and peace. It is in keeping with our effort to embody the message of Jesus in this holy season, and it is good for our nation and the world.”
– Sister Simone Campbell, Executive Director of NETWORK

“Christians can disagree in good faith on the best way to apply our faith in the public arena, but the statements by Senator Kyl and DeMint are the worst examples of faith in politics. They have been working to kill START for weeks. A concern for the faithful isn’t driving their arguments or they would have mentioned faith earlier, and Senator DeMint wouldn’t be working to push the debate until Christmas. This is cynical partisan politics masquerading as piety, and our leaders should be above that.”
– Eric Sapp, Executive Director, American Values Network

“The attempt by New START opponents to use Christmas for tactical political advantage is profoundly offensive for three reasons. First, this move represents the worst mix of religion and politics. As one who ministers among a rising generation of Christians, I see countless peers walking away from their Evangelical faith because political tactics just like this have sullied the name of Christianity. Our belief motivates us to bring a moral witness to the democratic process — but the cold-blooded use of religion as a political weapon dishonors the Lord Jesus Christ and harms the evangelistic integrity of his church.

Second, the claims made by Treaty opponents are patently unbiblical. The teaching of the New Testament, from Jesus Christ (cf. Mark 2:27) to Paul (cf. Rom 14.5-6), makes clear that the work of righteousness, justice, and compassion should never be preempted by a legalistic appeal to holidays. And, it would be all the more abhorrent if the Prince of Peace’s birth were used to stop a measure to reduce nuclear weapons. Third, those of us who stand within the just war tradition believe that military service should be exercised as a vocation of peacemaking. The American servicemen and-women deployed abroad will not spend Christmas with their families, nor will they take the day off. Though we wish that all Christians could be with their loved ones this holiday, it should not be too much to ask that Congress not abdicate their duty while so many stand in harm’s way. I hope and pray that all American Christians, especially pastors, will publicly reject any attempt to use our faith for tactical political gain.”
– Tyler Wigg-Stevenson, Founder of Two Futures Project, Chairman of Global Task Force on Nuclear Weapons for World Evangelical Alliance

Senate GOP Vows To Block Tax Increase 13SEP10

IT is inconceivable to me how this has become a winning position for the republican party. Think about it people, the wealthy are going to continue getting their tax cut while the government has to cut funding for education, fire, police, highway and mass transit construction, unemployment, health care, social welfare (safety net)programs too many are already dependent on due to this recession caused by  the failed policies of the bush administration coupled with the cost of two horribly mis-managed wars. In the almost two years of this recession, while the wealthy have been receiving their tax cuts how many jobs have they created with this money? republicans criticize the Stimulus program as a waste, but at least economist of all political stripes agree the Stimulus created a few million jobs.......where are the jobs the republicans claim will be created by the tax cuts for the wealthy? I'll tell you where they are...they are overseas, in corporate America's investment in low wage countries (so go ahead and keep shopping at wal-mart, you'll shop your job away sooner or later). The few jobs the wealthy are creating here are probably going to undocumented immigrants, as their gardeners, maids, nannies, field hands, construction workers (hey, don't blame immigrants, blame the law enforcement agencies and the politicians for not going after the employers). Wake up people, especially you Democrats in Congress, find some backbone and stand up to the republicans greed and force them to proclaim their lies and deception to the American people by forcing a vote to keep the tax cuts for the middle and working classes and the poor and do away with the tax cuts for the wealthy!
 
President Obama's plan to raise taxes on wealthier people while preserving cuts for everyone else appears increasingly likely to founder before Election Day.
Senate Republicans declared on Monday they have the votes to block legislation that would extend only middle-class tax relief — which Obama has repeatedly promised to deliver — if Democrats follow through on plans to let tax rates rise for the wealthiest Americans. The GOP senators forcefully made their case one day after House Republican leader John Boehner suggested he might vote for Obama's plan if that ends up the only option.
Both Republicans and Democrats are using the looming expiration of Bush-era tax cuts as a defining battle in elections to determine control of Congress.
Democratic defectors could lead to passage of the Republicans' version — extending all the Bush tax cuts — or the issue could be left for a postelection congressional session if the current standoff can't be broken. Obama last week declined to say whether he would veto a bill that preserved the tax breaks for the wealthy.
On Sunday, House GOP leader Boehner said he would support renewing tax cuts for the middle class but not the wealthy if that was his only choice. Though Boehner was clear that he supports extending the full range of tax cuts, the White House jumped on his remarks as a possible change of heart.
But Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the GOP whip, said Monday his party won't give ground.
"Just before the recess we had a meeting and we discussed this, and every Republican was absolutely supportive of the idea that there shouldn't be any increases in taxes," Kyl said.
Congressional analysts say renewing the tax cuts for everyone would cost the government $4 trillion over the next decade. With polls showing broad public anger over spiraling federal deficits, Obama wants to exclude individuals earning over $200,000 and couples making over $250,000 — who account for $700 billion of that $4 trillion total. They represent about 3 percent of taxpayers, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.
"Only in Washington could someone propose a tax hike as an antidote to a recession," GOP leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said.
McConnell has said a bill extending the tax cuts for only low- and middle-income earners cannot pass the Senate, but he declined to reiterate that threat on Monday. Republicans control 41 seats, the minimum needed for a successful bill-killing filibuster, though McConnell spokesman Don Stewart declined to say whether all 41 Republicans would support a filibuster.
Some Democrats, like Sens. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Evan Bayh of Indiana and Ben Nelson of Nebraska, are siding with Republicans against raising taxes on anyone during a fragile economic recovery.
"I don't think it makes sense to raise any federal taxes during the uncertain economy we are struggling through," Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut independent who aligns with Democrats, said Monday. "The more money we leave in private hands, the quicker our economic recovery will be. And that means I will do everything I can to make sure Congress extends the so-called Bush tax cuts for another year."
But Lieberman said he would not vote to hold up extension of the middle class cuts to win leverage to extend those for wealthier people as well.
At issue is a year-end deadline to renew a variety of tax cuts enacted in 2001 — when the federal government was running a surplus. They include lower rates, a $1,000 per-child tax credit, relief for married couples, and lower taxes on investments and large estates.
Democrats are worried that November elections could hand the GOP control of the House and perhaps the Senate. The White House and its Democratic allies hope to use the tax-cut fight to cast themselves as defenders of the middle class and Republicans as a party eager to revive the days of a still-unpopular former president, George W. Bush.
"We're going to take the next 50-some days to convince the public that's exactly what the Republicans would do — back to the Bush policies," said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said on NBC's Today show.
"We could get (tax cuts) done this week, but we're still in this wrestling match with John Boehner and Mitch McConnell about the last 2 to 3 percent" of upper-income taxpayers, Obama said Monday during a backyard town hall in a Northern Virginia suburb.
Gibbs said the middle class should not be used as a political football by Republicans maneuvering to give tax cuts to wealthy taxpayers, who he said don't need the reductions. Republicans say paring taxes for the wealthy would encourage them and the businesses they operate to create jobs.
Republicans, for their part, say that it's not just the rich who would be hit by Obama's tax hike on upper-income people. Many small businesses — that earn about half of all small business income — would also face the tax increase.
"No American should face a tax increase in January ... not one," said Indiana Rep. Mike Pence, the No. 3 House Republican. "We will not compromise our economy to accommodate the class warfare rhetoric of this administration."

Iowa GOP Embraces Plan To Strip Obama's Citizenship For Accepting Nobel Prize [UPDATE] 29JUL10 & Fourteenth Amendment Reform Prompts Strange Bedfellows In Opposition 5AUG10

MORE tea-bagger and gop insanity, they are determined to turn this country into a neo-nazi fascist state, but unfortunately can't see far enough into the future to see their fanaticism will be the downfall of the entire nation, not just progressives, liberals and anyone not white! For more on their crazy conspiracy theories see my earlier post Confessions Of A Tea Party Casualty on 5AUG10.

Last week, riders on the political crazy train stopped off in Iowa to create a whole new insane plank in the Iowa GOP's official platform -- the restoration of a never-ratified version of the 13th amendment that would, in a complicated interpretation, strip President Barack Obama of his citizenship for accepting the Nobel Peace Prize and essentially undo every act of the federal government dating back to 1819.
But that was last week! This week, everyone's moved on the the 14th amendment, which among other things, guarantees birthright citizenship.
See, the big scary issue now is "anchor babies." Infants born in the United States have the right to claim U.S. citizenship. Opponents of comprehensive immigration reform see "anchor babies" as one means by which Mexico reconquers the United States. An even more fringey take on the matter imagines that al Qaeda death cultists might come to the United States, give birth, and create the ultimate weapon: an infant sleeper agent that might one day grow up, go to school, suffer the indignities of dating, feel alienated from their high school peers, attend an expensive college that offers very little in the way of securing decent employment, and eventually decide the whole thing isn't worth it and the only recourse is to set one's crotch on fire for Osama bin Laden.
Seems like only yesterday this very minute that you could go to GOP.com, and see the enactment of the 14th amendment listed as one of the Republican party's proud achievements. But now, too many Republican lawmakers have become convinced that the aforementioned scenarios are cunning plots guaranteed to lead to straight-up tyranny, so they are calling for the amendment to be reformed.
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) says birthright citizenship is "a mistake". Senator John Kyl supports the repeal of the amendment. Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) wants the little train that takes senators between the Senate and the Russell Senate Office Building to leave before he has to answer any questions about it.
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal says...well, he hasn't said anything yet, I think. But I have to imagine that he'd probably say, "Hey, I received citizenship through birthright, so could we maybe chill with this 14th amendment talk?"
This bizarre debate is making for some strange bedfellows. For instance, when's the last time you heard Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) reading a Michael Gerson column aloud to America?

Reid (D-NV) quoted extensively from a column written by Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson on Friday. Reid read this portion from the podium of his press conference:

The authors of the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizenship to all people "born or naturalized in the United States" for a reason. They wished to directly repudiate the Dred Scott decision, which said that citizenship could be granted or denied by political caprice.

They purposely chose an objective standard of citizenship -- birth -- that was not subject to politics. Reconstruction leaders established a firm, sound principle: To be an American citizen, you don't have to please a majority, you just have to be born here.

But the most remarkable news on this whole matter comes from Alex Seitz-Wald, who points out that somehow proponents of 14th amendment reform have managed to move to the right of Alan Keyes:

KEYES: The 14th Amendment is not something that one should play with lightly. I noticed, finally, that Linsey Graham, used the term -- as people have carelessly done over the years -- referring to the 14th Amendment as something that has to do with birthright citizenship, and that we should get rid of birthright citizenship. Now let me see, if birthright citizenship is not a birthright, then it must be a grant of the government. And if it is a grant of the government, then it could be curtailed in all the ways that fascists and totalitarians always want to.
I think we ought to be real careful before we adopt a view we want to say that citizenship is not a reflection of our unalienable rights. It is not a grant of government, but arises from a set of actual conditions, starting with the rule of God, that constrain government to respect the rights of the people, and therefore the rights that involve the claim of citizenship. Those are really deep, serious issues, and when the amendment was written, and when it was first referred to in the Slaughterhouse cases, the Supreme Court declared that they knew they were touching on something that was absolutely fundamental. And I think before we play games with it in any way, we need to remember that ourselves.

I think that anytime you find yourself saying, "Alan Keyes is making sense," you have truly landed in some undiscovered country.

Iowa GOP Embraces Plan To Strip Obama's Citizenship For Accepting Nobel Prize [UPDATE]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/29/iowa-gop-embraces-plan-to_n_663621.html

As we've already seen in Maine, some strange ideas are being folded into the emerging revisions of various state GOP platforms. But something truly bizarre is happening in Iowa.
Newsweek's Jerry Adler has paged through some "387 enumerated planks" of the Republican Party of Iowa's platform and, among the instances of "North American Union" paranoia and the upholding of manure as the only agricultural poop inveighed imbued by its creator with American exceptionalism, is a bizarre plan to strip President Barack Obama of his citizenship for accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. What the what?
As Adler explains, the Iowa GOP is calling for the "reintroduction and ratification of the original 13th amendment" of the Constitution. The first wrinkle here is that the current 13th Amendment is a rather important one: it bans slavery. But that's the "bad optics" side of "Thirteentherism." Here's the side that is, as they say, "cray-cray" -- this is, in part, what the original 13th amendment said:

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

That language was originally considered by the states in 1810 but, as Jason Hancock at the Iowa Independent points out, "The amendment was ratified by 12 states but never got the 13th state that it needed, and thus, never became law."
This is the part where Obama, having accepted a Nobel Prize from the Nobel Committee -- five people appointed by the Norwegian Parliament -- gets stripped of his citizenship. Presumably, this takes care of all sorts of other Nobel laureates, like former President Jimmy Carter, author Toni Morrison, Energy secretary Steven Chu, and economists Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz. Have fun in your new home in Oslo, everyone!
Oh, and also, say goodbye to every lawyer in America!

In the world of the Thirteenthers, though, it's all a conspiracy, and the leading suspects are those shady characters who put "esquire" after their names. To quote the Web site Constitutional Concepts, "This Amendment was for the specific purpose of banning participation in government operations by attorneys and bankers who claimed the Title of Nobility of 'Esquire.' These people had joined the International Bar Association or the International Bankers Association and owed their allegiance to the King of England." In other words--well, we're not sure how to explain it any better, but Constitutional Concepts CEO Jim Barrus says in an e-mail that enforcement of the 13th Amendment would strike a blow against "the elected politicians who have grand plans of ruling every facet of America," and would essentially delegitimize virtually every act of the federal government since 1819. Who wouldn't want that?
Naturally, most lawyers see it differently. "The esquire thing is ridiculous," says R. B. Bernstein, a professor at New York Law School and author of Amending America. "'Esquire' is not a title of nobility. Back then, they were worried about people accepting literal titles of aristocracy that convey land or privileges, things you can leave to your kids." Lawyers obviously command certain privileges, but they are not inherited.

Adler confirms that Iowa GOP spokesperson Danielle Plogmann intends this platform plank as "a statement about the delegates' opinion about Mr. Obama receiving the prize." But the paranoiac Thirteenther take this unserious matter very seriously.
Per Jason Hancock:

Some, however, argue that it was ratified and have a plethora of conspiracy theories to back up their assertion. These folks, known as "Thirteenthers," believe that since the amendment would have banned lawyers and bankers from serving in government (since they joined the International Bar Association or the International Bankers Association, respectively), every act of the federal government since 1819 would be delegitimized.

Wow. Just... wow.
UPDATE: A reader points out that among the acts of the Federal government that would be delegitimized by a restoration/ratification of the unratified original 13th Amendment would be the act that gave statehood to Iowa, which happened in 1846.
RELATED:
Why Some Republicans Want to 'Restore' the 13th Amendment [Newsweek]
Iowa GOP jumps on the 'Thirteenther' bandwagon [Iowa Independent]
Iowa GOP Supports Amendment To Strip Obama's Citizenship Because He Won The Nobel Peace Prize [ThinkProgress]

Jon Kyl: Extend Bush Tax Cuts For Wealthy Even If They Add To Deficit 12JUL10

SEN jon kyl is all for adding to the deficit as long as the wealthy and their children and grandchildren never have to pay for it. His opinion and attitude on this issue is the typical republican attitude, protect and serve the wealthy and everyone else, the working class, middle class and poor, can go to Hell. The republicans have done a great job of deceiving the American public about the deficit, the chart in this post shows the greatest contributors to the deficit are the bush tax cuts for the wealthy and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not the Stimulus and Tarp programs. 
 
Top Senate Republican Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) insisted on Sunday that Congress should extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans regardless of their impact on the deficit, even as he and other Republicans are blocking unemployment insurance extensions over deficit concerns.
"[Y]ou should never raise taxes in order to cut taxes," said the Arizona Senator during an appearance on Fox News Sunday. "Surely Congress has the authority, and it would be right to -- if we decide we want to cut taxes to spur the economy, not to have to raise taxes in order to offset those costs. You do need to offset the cost of increased spending, and that's what Republicans object to. But you should never have to offset cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans."
White House aides immediately seized on the comments. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs wrote on Twitter, "Kyl says wealthy need big Bush tax cuts while middle class families are on their own to fend for themselves as a result of Bush economy."
In private, administration officials say that the framing of the argument couldn't be more advantageous: "It's cutting taxes for the wealthy and letting the unemployed to fend for themselves," said one White House ally.
"If all of this has a familiar ring to it, it's because unpaid for tax cuts for the rich at the expense of working people is the same backward policy Republicans used to put the nation in this hole, and it's the same policy they promise to return to if put in a position of power again," added Hari Sevugan, press secretary for the Democratic National Committee.




Asked to expand on his tweets, Gibbs declined comment, save to clarify that "the question [host Chris] Wallace specifically asked Kyl was [about] the upper end of the Bush tax cuts (above $250,000)."
But the politics already are fairly obvious. For the past few months, congressional Republicans have demanded that any additional spending be offset by budget cuts or revenue increases elsewhere. Also on Sunday, White House senior adviser David Axelrod blamed deficit concerns for the difficulty in finding a 60th vote in the Senate for unemployment benefits even though, as of Friday, 2.1 million people have not received checks that they were expecting in June.

And yet, Kyl is now suggesting that the same budget rules shouldn't apply with respect to tax cuts for the wealthy, which are set to expire unless Congress acts to renew them. As Steve Benen at the Washington Monthly notes:

It's quite a message to Americans: Republicans believe $30 billion for unemployment benefits don't even deserve a vote because the money would be added to the deficit, but Republicans also believe that adding the cost of $678 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy to the deficit is just fine.

Kyl is one of the most prominent members of Congress to advance the argument that jobless benefits make people not want to look for work, a position disputed by economists across the political spectrum. Unemployment insurance "doesn't create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work," Kyl said last March on the Senate floor.
The chart below shows the deficit impact of the Bush tax cuts over the next decade.